#4 HOW WE STAY TOGETHER. ARTIST’S SELF-REALIZATION IN PARTICIPATIVE PRACTICES // YURII KRUCHAK, STANISLAV TURINA, YEVHENIIA NESTEROVYCH
[00:00:04] – [00:00:27]. Anton Tkachuk: Welcome to the podcast “How We Are Together” – about participatory practices in art. In this part, Stas Turina, Yurii Kruchak and Yevheniia Nesterovych continue to think about the artist’s self-realization in participatory practices, about what can be a mistake or failure in such an activity, as well as about the realization of one’s own needs by the participants of these practices.
[00:00:33] – [00:01:11]. Ye. N: And now we are moving to the next stage when the group of artists unites with groups of viewers. Where do you draw the resource and energy of reinforcement here? After all, from the clear logic of the act of creation in its classical form, the moment of the representation of the work, its perfection, the contact of this work with the audience is probably the peak moment. And what is this resource and reinforcement here [in participatory practices] for you as artists?
[00:01:11] – [00:01:40]. Yu. K.: When it is an open-source work and other participants who may not have a specific education or experience in another field can join it, then a certain knowledge becomes a resource for me personally. And the moment of working out this knowledge together is how we can describe or outline very complex things.
[00:01:47] – [00:04:24]. S. T.: In my opinion, a good example here is a hike in the mountains. In such an adventure, of course, there is a hierarchy, but in some sense, there can be no competition. For me, perhaps a difficult topic in life is competition and how to achieve healthy competition when it revolves around the problem you are researching. Perhaps my source of inspiration is the fact that in working with co-authors – these are not necessarily non-professional artists, but can also be my colleagues, in general, co-authorship of various types in participatory practices or projects – the issue of competition is somewhat different. And in my experience, if a collective or a situational circle that has been built decides to do something, it has a completely different degree of openness (why I mentioned competition) than usual, even for me. Because they gather for a common result, even for an hour, let it be short-term work. Yura talked about our colleague Vira Ibriamova-Syvoraksha: if our goal is really to sing for an hour and a half and you can see the horizon, then within this collective there is a completely different level of openness, openness to new experiences. How to build these frameworks, so that it is not too much, so that there is no “exhibitionism” of the soul, is another question. The fact that cooperation in collectives gives a completely different level of openness in everyone, to dialogue, in different dimensions, amazes me! If we talk about the effects of this openness, then it turns out that there are very interesting people around you, that life is very interesting – when you listen to someone and when they listen to you. When a real conversation takes place, the understanding of many things, life itself, and the problems you are investigating simply reaches a new level.
[00:04:25] – [00:04:28]. Ye. N: Then we can say that this contact is not “artist to spectator”, but “person to person”?
[00:04:29] – [00:04:29]. S. T.: Yes.
[00:04:30] – [00:05:01]. Yu. K.: Yes, to a certain extent. Such practices are precisely one of the opportunities to exit the state of “tool” and become a person. Maybe not even doing anything. It seems to me that this is the main task or rather the opportunity that creates the resource when you are taken from the state of the mechanism to “being a human being”.
[00:05:01] – [00:08:35]. ST: I would also add a comparison because for me there is already a pattern when I hear “artist” or “viewer”. That is, I have heard these concepts many times – and it is difficult to explain them to myself: there were a million viewers, a million artists, a million views of the viewers, a million views of the artists. But I will try to explain. You know: we live in Ukraine and we have traditional food, conventionally “Puzata Khata”, a set or assortment of “Puzata Khata” – be it buckwheat, borscht… And when we come abroad, for example, to the Mediterranean, or not abroad, in Odessa, there is a lot of fish, and there can be a conversation about buckwheat, borscht and the difference in fish – how different it is, that is the difference in cultures. Buckwheat and borscht and fish are like a spectator and an artist. These are just words, names of things. But when we eat, we understand that we are facing a different culture; and the details are another. When we in participatory practices work together with a trained public, certified or uncertified artists, or with artists from other fields, with the audience, at some point, perhaps, a dialogue “person to person” emerges, but this does not negate the fact that we can later to return, let’s say, to professional issues, for example, what is the recipe for this fish or how to cook that borscht. And then there are some details.
Artistic activity in participatory practices in my understanding is if I have more or the most experience in society, then based on it, I will talk to people about how it can be shown. And the participant, if you imagine that he has no professional artistic experience, why is it interesting and perhaps important to work? Being an artist is such a job (although maybe not in my case) that requires time. A person is constantly engaged in the production of something: he sits, arranges, ties it, etc. Participatory art may have been born from there as a result. An untrained viewer, just a viewer, as we conventionally say, a person from the street — her life experience can be much brighter, not just bigger [than that of an artist]. If we are specialists in finding images, etc. (artists have many narrow specialties), then our co-authors or those we meet are to some extent or can be life specialists, in “how to live”, they can share with us what we do not have access to in our lives. And if we talk about the fact that “person to person”, on the one hand, on the other hand, is a forum for sharing experiences, which is impossible under other conditions.
[00:08:36] – [00:08:39]. Ye. N: Does such a concept as “error” even exist in this situation?
[00:08:40] – [00:10:07]. S. T.: I understand what you mean. This is a big question and a problem for me personally. After all, it’s one thing when you work with paper (although from the point of view of various religions or religious practices, even a mistake on paper is a big mistake for the universe, as Bradbury wrote about “the wingbeat”). But when you work with another person, it’s not exactly dangerous, but sometimes it’s very difficult. As my father once told me when I was a child: the work of a teacher (he meant a teacher of junior classes) should be paid the most, because it is the most responsible work, because you work with a person, with his worldview, with his universe. Participatory practices are not about teaching, but this collaboration is sometimes very difficult. The cornerstone of such practice, criticism and all problems is just relationships with people and mistakes. Without them, it is impossible to take a step, but these mistakes are sometimes very difficult and critical for the participants in the process, etc. In this context, there are many films, particularly about the homeless, which in some sense are related to the problems of communicating with vulnerable groups, where questions arise about what friendship, relationships, love, attachment, and indifference are. What does Yura think about it?
[00:10:07] – [00:11:59]. Y. K.: My mistakes, as I have analyzed, arise when such a parallel-reality is formed in my mind when I think that another person will think the exact way I think. And the following situation arises: I have built a parallel reality that is not connected with reality. This problem can grow like a snowball – and it can lead to misunderstanding and conflict. And this is actually not so bad, as we just said [in the first part of the conversation]: thanks to conflicts, we can find a more or less successful way. So, if we talk about mistakes, it is mostly about when, under various circumstances, you lose contact with the circle of people with whom you work and cooperate. How can these errors be prevented? To be as open as possible, to try: feelings of empathy are important in today’s world; as much as you can understand, accept the goals, desires, certain intentions of a person who may be acting inexplicably, but somehow you have to look for these entrances to understanding why he acts in this way. And on the other hand, it seems to me that it is very important not to build virtual worlds that actually destroy – and they can destroy me and another person.
[00:12:24] – [00:12:31]. Ye. N: Can we then say that the key to successful mediation of participatory practices is being present in the moment?
[00:12:32] – [00:13:14]. Yu. K.: I think so. It is important to feel it. Participation, involvement are not possible without immersion in context, without immersion in connections. That is, if you are not here and not now, I am not sure that you should do this then. My experience of work and cooperation with colleagues shows that if a person is not here and now, but somewhere else and takes care of other processes, he simply cannot physically participate. You really need to be present.
[00:13:14] – [00:16:00]. S. T: I think that when we talk about the here and now, there is also the issue of consequences, predicting consequences, etc. It comes with experience, not in terms of participatory practices, but in general with life. In childhood or youth, we do not know what will lead to what. And here, probably, it is not even about balance, but rather thinking and searching, how, on the one hand, to take into account the possible consequences, and on the other hand, not to take them into account constantly, because then you imagine how it will be or take into account the mistakes that have already been, and this is also not good, because constantly relying on previous experience, it is very difficult to be in the current situation, to understand what is happening. Our experience shapes us negatively, creates cautions or fears – and closes us down. That is, if we are talking about openness, the possibility of openness in groups, then here precisely the more experience, the more closedness appears, a certain professional deformation occurs. Once my friends told me about the IRWIN group (I’m not very familiar with their artistic practice, but I’ve heard a lot about them) – they just work together. I don’t know if they started out as friends. They live in separate hotel rooms, do not communicate as families. They have been working creatively together for many years. And I remembered them, because I recently listened to an interview of a musical group and its members (they have been singing together for 20 years) were asked: “Are you more friends or colleagues?”. And they: “We are colleagues. We have very friendly relations, but we are colleagues.” I thought about it as well, remembering my work in the “Open Group”. I didn’t think much about it, but today’s conversation led me to the fact that any activity has, let’s say, its own professional deformation. Those who are engaged in participatory practices also have it, in different directions, that is, it is not necessarily about the perception of work purely, it can be the other way around, that there is no work there anymore… Or, let’s say, it breaks down or quickly transforms into participatory practices of understanding work and activity in general, not in terms of procedurality, etc., but as artistic work: what is work in the modern world, what do you do, why, what is it.
[00:16:02] – [00:16:51]. Ye. N: And how important it is that all participants in this process are aware of their own needs. Because, when we talk about some creative collective, which consists of artists with or without professional education, then this is more or less conscious participation. The people who joined the residency at the Jam Factory, for the most part, apparently had no previous experience of participatory practices, and the key for them was probably the opportunities to spend their free time interestingly. And the motivations were definitely different from those that drive people with an artistic background. How, in your opinion, does the motivation to participate in such a project affect the project itself and the work in the group?
[00:16:51] – [00:18:12]. S. T.: I don’t remember the applications of the participants. It seems to me that when it comes to cooperation, specific goals, and aspirations, they are different in all groups that gather from everywhere; everybody comes with their own vision. For some, they may coincide, as in the lottery or lotto, by chance, for some – not. Probably the most significant difference is that, when talking about the Jam Factory, I was at work, and I had some responsibilities. And if he worked with the same team as a self-employed person, this difference would simply disappear. And yes, it seems to me that the motivation for participation is not the same for everyone – there is a lot in common based on the search for something new for oneself. Probably, the vast majority of people who participate in such practices, and dialogue platforms, come there so that something new happens for themselves or others or everyone at once. And this is more than differences. Even later, of course, contradictions or incompatible visions arise, but the initial intention, I think, is the search for something new.
[00:18:19] – [00:20:05]. Yu. K.: If all the participants in the process realize what they are striving for or what they can get, then this truly is a certain respect, a certain distance and understanding at the beginning. The process can have difficult vicissitudes and misunderstandings, but at the beginning, it is very important to enter it with one understanding… So, I think, awareness of the process is very important, and therefore the quality of work and results. What seems to me to be significant in the process of work is that we had several such experiences when the identity was clearly defined and described — and there was a request to get exactly such a person. And then it harmed the work: the distance with people was built precisely on this identity, through which they were involved in the process. Again, when we understand the identity of a person as more complex and finely tuned and do not divide or segregate people according to some characteristics, then the work is done much better – and the results are more interesting, and the atmosphere in the team is [excellent]. As Stas said, the level of openness is completely different. And this moment is important for today — trust, trust…
[00:20:21] – [00:20:41]. Ye. N: At the end of our conversation, I will ask you to try to formulate important terms for participatory artistic practices. And this time, please define what is inclusivity in participatory art practices.
[00:20:41] – [00:22:08]. S. T: Since I work with artists with Down syndrome, for me inclusivity is a constant process of understanding where my help is needed and where it isn’t. And it changes from person to person. These Google tables, where and what I need to help with, whatnot… And it changes over time in relationships, in understanding or just walking somewhere together. This is such a constant clarification and understanding. Inclusivity mainly refers to people who cannot do something or, let’s say, can do it differently. It can also apply to, for example, people of retirement age or children. These people simply have different experiences, a different levels of perception of different skills. And such clarification in inclusion takes place regarding what you can do to help a person, whether he needs this help, and where he doesn’t. After all, it is very personal and very different. For me, inclusivity is this process. And then, when this clarification is already taking place, there is a step forward, joint activity, work, and pastime. And again with a constant effort to understand what to do together next.
[00:22:08] – [00:22:09]. E. N.: Yurii, please.
[00:22:10] – [00:24:28]. Yu. K.: For me, inclusivity is very valuable, closely related to openness. And this is also one of the signs of participatory art. Indeed, we can talk in this situation about helping a person who has certain needs. But sometimes, especially last [2022] year at the end of the summer, when I was invited to participate in some open events of this [2023] residency, there were people with different understandings of what art is, how we can create art… When we build the processes on equal terms, then we cannot call artists as [not] needing help. It was very interesting to see how open these people were and how closed or semi-closed the artists (and me in particular at some points) were. And even then I needed help to join the process. That is, inclusivity for me is not only about some physical or mental disabilities, it is really when we can be open to each other and perceive the other as an equal among equals. It’s about inclusion. If we talk about terms or other important elements of participatory art, it is true openness, immersion in the process of coexistence, coexistence and inclusion. What we might call co-creation, anything related to “open source programming,” how we can customize that process. Something like that.
[00:24:29] – [00:24:40]. E. N.: Thank you. Yurii Kruchak and Stanislav Turina were with us today in this conversation. My name is Yevheniia Nesterovych. And this is “How We Stay Together” – conversations about participatory artistic practices.