#5 HOW WE STAY TOGETHER. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES // YULIIA KOSTERIEVA, ANNA GAIDAI, YEVHENIIA NESTEROVYCH

[00:00:03] – [00:01:08]. Anton Tkachuk: Welcome to the “How We Stay Together” podcast. Here we talk about participatory practices in art. Today, they have acquired a new meaning — and help build modern civil society. In a series of episodes, moderator and host Yevheniia Nesterovych, together with artists and artists, understand what participatory practices are and the challenges facing those who want to work with the involvement of communities and also define the terminology used by practitioners in this field. The Jam Factory Art Center team shares knowledge that will help encourage artists to use the direction of participatory practices.
In this episode, we will consider why participatory art needs an institution, and what is the difference between a solo artist-community interaction and an institution-community interaction. And let’s talk about community building. The interlocutors are Yulia Kosterieva, Anna Gaidai and Yevheniia Nesterovych.
[00:01:25] – [00:01:37]. Ye. N: Good day. Today, we are talking with artist and curator Yulia Kosterieva and curator Anna Gaidai. Welcome!
[00:01:38] – [00:01:38]. Yu. K.: Hello everyone.
[00:01:38] – [00:01:39]. A. G: Hello.
[00:01:40] – [00:01:58]. Ye. N: And we will start, as always, with an introduction. I invite our interlocutors to say a few words about themselves and how participatory art appeared in their lives and in their creative and curatorial practices. Yulia, please.
[00:01:59] – [00:03:43]. Yu. K.: My name is Yulia Kosterieva, an artist-curator and co-organizer of the interdisciplinary platform Open Place. How did participatory practices appear in my life? I think it was natural — first of all, from my reflection on myself as an artist, and then because of the lack of an appropriate institution. And for these practices, Yurii Kruchak and I began to develop Open Place — as such an institution, which, in our opinion, should be to work with participating practices. That is, we began to create a context for ourselves. This is how a certain split of personality took place — between the artist and the organizer of the institution. In principle, participatory practices absorb everything that I like and that inspires me. It is collaboration and direct interaction with people, thinking about how you can create a safe space for many people and yourself, and developing in yourself the qualities that I think are important, such as empathy, feeling the other, and at the same time feeling yourself. Participatory practices are something very natural for me both as a person and as an artist.
[00:03:44] – [00:03:47]. Ye. N.: Thank you. Ania, the mike is yours.
[00:03:48] – [00:05:07]. A. G.: I would like to apply Yulia’s thoughts to myself. My name is Anna Gaidai, and since 2020 I have been working at the Jam Factory Art Center as a curator of projects aimed at community interaction. I have previous experience working with groups of people, but it was related to the development of the photography community in Kyiv and Ukraine. When I started working at the Jam Factory, interaction with people and my own transformations became very tangible and important for me. And when I saw how I felt, how it was possible to be together and do something interesting, useful, just to be, for me it became the direction in which I wanted to stay and develop. A lot of things come to me from artists who work and collaborate in such projects with the Jam Factory, but also from people who participate in these practices, from the community.
[00:05:07] – [00:05:38]. Ye. N: In this podcast, for the first time, both of our interlocutors have a long-term tangent, affiliation with specific institutions. Both Open Place and Jam Factory are aimed at community-oriented interactions. And I would like to start, probably, with the topic of institutionality. Yulia spoke about the fact that there was no institution – and therefore it had to be created. And why does participatory art need an institution?
[00:05:39] – [00:09:26]. Yu. K.: In our case, first of all, it seems to me, that the institution is important as a place of certain accumulation of knowledge and processes, as a point of assertion that such practices exist and that they are important for more than one person. That is, to confirm the existence of such practices, to remember them. As I said, developing a certain context, because context is very important: one cannot exist in a vacuum, they need to understand that they have like-minded people, and the institution helps to build connections. And, let’s say, it contributes to the legitimization of what you do and gives understanding to other people with whom you communicate that it is important to you and that you plan to do it for a long time. After all, by declaring that you are building an institution, you are taking responsibility — actually, to answer for your words with actions. And so, on the one hand, it strengthens trust in a group of people who call themselves an institution or perform or test it. On the other hand, it is a responsibility that leads to a certain set of actions, such as formulating one’s goals, tasks and program activities. That is, you must understand what you are doing and why.
Also, in program activity (at least in our case) it cannot be that everything is smooth and error-free right away, so you have to be flexible — and change program activity or think about methodologies, how to improve them, modify them so that they achieve the set goals.
And in the case of Open Place, we started with research. Part of our platform is researching similar institutions around the world. After all, again, you cannot act in a vacuum, you need to understand – not to trace, but to mark for yourself the points around which or about which you can think, with which you can agree or disagree. And also to study certain theoretical texts to, at least, be able to answer critical questions from the outside, to be prepared. All this gives you the opportunity not only on an emotional but also on an intellectual level to meet the status of the institution.
[00:09:34] – [00:11:38]. A. G: I would like to add. Everything Yulia said also concerns the work of the institution. And about trust. It can be better formed thanks to people who cooperate with the institution on a professional level or join projects, interactions when there is a certain durability, permanent presence either in the region, in the district, or in general in the space, when this knowledge is collected and these practices are accumulated, there is already some feedback for the previous period. Trust is crucial and can apply not only to one person, say, an artist, even if they work permanently but to a group of people and a team. After all, in institutions it is rather teamwork, and not only one or two people who work in a certain direction bear responsibility and trust – it is about the trust in the institution. There is another aspect — sustainability of activity: it is possible when the institution becomes more capable from year to year or constantly takes steps together with artists and communities. Then there is an understanding: “Yeah, you did it like this last year with such and such people, then, of course, you and I want to do it next year as well.” That is, it is a process that can be repeated. For the institution itself, it is, as Yulia outlined, the accumulation of knowledge and certain professional growth. Therefore, it is about strengthening sustainability.
[00:11:39] – [00:12:14]. Ye. N: Now we are talking about the institution as a group of people united by the framework of program activities, and understanding of goals, needs, and purpose. But we also understand that a certain audience and community are formed around the institution, group of artists, and curators. How do you see this community? And, in fact, what is the difference between the interaction between the solo artist and the community and the institution and the community? Are connections built differently here?
[00:12:15] – [00:15:13]. A. G.: I can tell you about what I observed at the Jam Factory Art Center and how it is changing here. As I already said, I have been there since 2020, but the institution itself started working with artists and podzamchans [locals] in the area where it was located earlier, for two years. And I think that from year to year, we have more people involved from the team: the team grows and, for example, someone from the communication department, someone from the events or our photographers or videographers become part of this process. Thus, the wave of participatory practices aimed at the participation of the community captivates other people who find themselves in the space. It is impossible to avoid this, otherwise, the process will be uneven and a little torn; attention will escape if in these practices someone is not a participant, but an observer, say, sitting and just watching – we try to avoid such situations. And we warn the participants and colleagues: “We will have such and such a process – if possible, please join in!”. It has been working very well for several years now. We see that everyone who joins also feels changes in themselves. Work remains work for them, but there is also recharging from the common energy field, which is very valuable. So, I think when there is an institution, more people get involved. This, of course, must be considered because it can affect the dynamics of the process. So, when we, for example, work with groups, we determine an acceptable number of people so that everyone is comfortable. And since we are already a larger organization, we have a larger team, we correlate how many people can be invited so that everyone is well and everyone has enough attention and expression. Although these are engagement practices and we do a lot together, at the same time there are foci of attention when people show up on their own. To truly have enough time and space, we need to be attentive to how many of us are there and who we are.
[00:15:14] – [00:15:21]. Ye. N: Yulia, how is the community formed around Open Рlace? How did you shape it, and how does it look now?
[00:15:22] – [00:19:38]. Yu. K.: It must be mentioned that Open Рlace was (and to some extent continues to be) an institution without physical premises. That is, our space is our website, where we collect information and social networks. Therefore, for a long time, our strategy was to cooperate with other institutions in Ukraine around jointly defined topics and on the participatory strategies that we proposed. So if we talk about the community, we can say that the existence of this resource – the organization’s website – helped to inform those interested about our existence, the program. We very often use open calls – so people can participate in the projects we implement. There is also a volume of information related to research. So it is mainly a resource for a more or less professional audience, that is, for artists and cultural figures, who are interested in such strategies and activities. By the way, we know that for some time our site was also a resource for foreign researchers who studied participatory practices, that is, we have confirmation that it works in this way.
And when it comes to the community as people included in the processes, it is always community building… That is, it is an institution that is formed not around a place, but around a certain idea. And she always, one might say, rearranges herself. It is such a traveling, non-physical structure that gathers every time in a new place and gathers people or a community around it. In this regard, we also worked on strategies for how this could happen. It started with interventions in public space, where an institution manifests itself through some performative action in a space that provides a platform for other people to be there and join. And then, as I said, we re-planned or re-imagined that we can cooperate with institutions in Ukraine, finding common interests, and agreeing on joint strategies. Then we become partners with these institutions in different cities and agree on the program. And so we start working with local communities.
[00:19:45] – [00:25:08]. AG: I would like to tell you how the work with the community operates at the Jam Factory. When I started working, we also did not have cooperation with a permanent group. And to those residencies where artists came to us, we gathered groups of people, who became a closer community during the period of this interaction, just like Yulia said. I cannot say for sure that this process continued for them: we did not monitor how much these people can then gather or communicate, whether they have certain interests with which they [together] go further (we are a young institution, we just started a movement in this direction, we still do not have the appropriate experience, resource, and capacity; we still have a small team working on this). But that’s where we want to go, to build longer, deeper connections and stay in touch [with communities]. Therefore, we also have this community formation when we unite around a certain concept or idea that we are dealing with.
We often worked with Piszamche residents – groups of people living in the area of ​​the Jam Factory. And since very rapid changes are happening there now, perhaps processes related to gentrification will appear, it was important for our institution to be more open and understandable, to be one that is in contact and where we can talk about things that are important to each other. This is how the ideas with which we work have been built up from year to year. When we interacted, for example, with teenagers, we talked about certain transformations within ourselves: how can you be someone who first realizes himself, then himself in a group, and then can manifest himself in his neighborhood; what they can do in the area, how they can use certain infrastructure facilities there and not be afraid that someone will say that it is not possible. This [2023] year, we worked with people from 18, it was a mixed group – those who have been living in the Pidzamcha district for a long time and who came here because of the war. It was important that people who have lived in the area for a long time, and all of us, saw that there are certain changes and that we accept these changes: how we work with it, what we manifest in a new group, how we build new contacts. So I think that now, after several years of working in the direction of artistic practices with communities, the Jam Factory art center has a certain vision of how it is possible to establish more permanent connections little by little — not to move only from project to project, but still, having certain contacts, not to interrupt them, but to support them. And less effort must be needed to create contacts: as an institution, as a team, you already have certain previous experiences and shared stories, and then healthier neighborly ties are formed.
So far, we have worked more in Lviv, with people who live in Lviv or directly in Pidzamche. But we cooperate with various institutions in other cities, so, probably, there might be trips, visits or exchanges with them. And since Magic Carpets is a platform that already unites 15 European and non-European organizations, our cooperation goes beyond the borders of Ukraine. So, for example, this [2023] year, Yurii and Yulia – Open Place – visited the residence in Innsbruck, and were nominated by the Jam Factory. In fact, interaction grows to exchange of experience, knowledge, and values ​​spreads further. This is very important, because what we have been experiencing in recent years, how artists and institutions work with participatory practices in Ukraine, is very valuable and unique to share.
[00:25:09] – [00:25:58]. Ye. N: I want to talk more about community building because I feel like within the framework of each of the projects, it happens every time as if anew. Through open sessions, an open invitation to the audience, the team in a certain way designs the community that it invites to participate in the project.
Tell us about your logic when the process of modeling the community takes place because, in fact, it largely depends on how the process will flow. And share a little bit of your thoughts within the team as you design the community you’ll be interacting with.
[00:25:59] – [00:26:00]. A. G: Yulia, would you like to start?
[00:26:01] – [00:31:13]. Yu. K.: I am still trying to make a coherent picture. But the most important thing, one way or another (I think, is that a good word?) is the formation of the offer. That is, our strategy is such that we try to formulate an offer that would sound clear (when we formulate something, it very often appears as a question, not as an answer). That is, at the stage of formulating an offer to the community, to people, the main goal is to make them understand that there is a place for them in this offer. And for this, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the local (if we are talking about work in different places) features and, to a certain extent, the important values there. After all, the proposal is usually formulated halfway — from the fact that you do not understand what people can expect, from your wishes. That is, everyone has to take half a step forward and enter this open space, which for the community looks like there is a certain expectation of an event or a series of events. But there is also, let’s say, a certain active action concerning leaving the comfort zone, that is, they must understand that they are ready for something unusual, new. And we, as an institution or as those who form this offer, also proceed from the awareness that we have certain expectations, ideas, goals, but they are always ready for change. What does it mean to be ready for change? Anticipate the time and opportunity when these changes will be adopted. Let’s say, if it is a long-term cooperation, [should] plan a time and place for statements that will result in a change of plan, or strategy. That is, not just to be mentally ready, but to plan the space where these changes can take place, to allow all parties to express themselves and to decide how we move forward. But this understanding was not immediate but appeared gradually. Because at first, it seems that you need to plan everything as best as possible, come up with and follow the plan – and this will lead to a guaranteed result. But this may be the suitable result for one party, not for all.
And one more of the tasks we set before ourselves is that, according to the results of the event or cycle of events, not everyone is satisfied, but there is a feeling of full realization, advancement, a feeling that everyone could add something, get involved and express themselves. Therefore, this might sound cliche, but the connection between participative practices and communicative strategy, communication is critical… In the horizontal organization of relations, this is easy to say and difficult to do. Therefore, you constantly move in such a dynamic: awareness — changes — reflection. This is a rather flexible process, part of which is recorded as something successful and transferred to future practices, projects, programs, and something is rejected.
[00:31:20] – [00:35:52]. A. G.: As soon as I joined the Magic Carpets projects, where a certain terminology and a description of values ​​had already been developed, I carefully studied all of this. It was important to me to learn in the Magic Carpets values ​​statement that the needs of the community come first. And that is why we as an institution must understand these needs, and take certain steps to explore them. Actually, at the Jam Factory, we also followed this path – understanding the needs of the people we want to invite. But also, I think, at the beginning, we need to set the institutional tasks as such, which should be manifested. For example, it is important for us in the Pidzamche district to be clear, open and have good neighborliness, so we would like to work with a group of people. And when we invite them, what are their needs that we would like to satisfy or listen to, or how to try to make such cooperation with them, in which something would change for the better for them in the end? These needs are our starting point every time. And when I think about an idea or a concept of what we will work with, I have to combine [with these needs] what will appeal to the institution. For example, the stories of the inhabitants of Podzamche, recorded earlier, are interesting for residents, and we [the Jam Factory], who are in this geographical space, want to know more about the area; for it to be documented, talked about. And, on the other hand, we want the people who live there to know more about this place and be proud of that complex history. Actually, further on these projects, on which I think, pre-formulate a certain idea or theme, a lot of work is done with the involved artists. And here it is important to leave space for working together as we go in the appropriate direction. If, for example, my part is to formulate certain goals (what would like to change, what might be the needs?), then together with the artists we think about the design of the program for the period for which we can interact – so that it is adequate, open for people to join. We usually hold open calls to talk about projects that people can participate in. But I am interested in moving in that direction, so that together with the community we design proposals that could already be at the stage of creating an idea or researching needs, and so that not only we as institutions, artists, and those who have a certain experience, formulate what, with how we go to people or what they agree to come to us for. When there is already constant and long-term work with a group of people, then, in my opinion, it would be very useful and healthy for everyone to develop programs together with community representatives. We have never worked like this before. I know that some colleagues from Magic Carpets do this, and I find this experience interesting for our institution.
[00:35:53] – [00:35:55]. Ye. N: And what does it look like in practice?
[00:35:56] – [00:42:17]. AG: When an institution works for a longer period, then, as we said earlier, trust and presence in a certain place (whether it is a traveling institution or a fixed one) is developed – and people understand that they can get involved again. There is a moment when we come again and say: “Let’s do it together.” And they answer us: “We know you. Yes, let’s do it. We’re interested in such and such.” And then we start to have a dialogue… That is, this is the next level, and to get there, it takes time and, in my opinion, extra-project meetings, spending time together, shared time and a place where we can just, say, talk about the weather, drink tea. It’s not done within a certain concept or idea, like in a project, but it’s just meetings.
I would like to add that during the years I was at the Jam Factory, we worked both in the institution and the public space – and there is room for development here too. If we talk about the fact that people feel comfortable interacting, then the institution must go beyond its boundaries. We can think of certain common places nearby where we can spend time. Yes, it seems to me that equality is better achieved between us, and there is not only a proposal, but also how we together as neighbors develop or certain areas in the city, or an abandoned park, or make a certain place public, public through our attention, our presence.
I observe how my approach to the development of [participatory] projects and art-oriented residences has changed since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. If earlier, as I already mentioned, it was mainly a combination of the interest of the institution and the needs of the community, now [2023] and last year [2022], in my opinion, there is more attention to myself and more burning from that state, in where I or my colleagues, curators, interlocutors or artists are. Living the experience of war within the borders of one country as a common one, we think about what needs arise in us as people. Last year [2022], we worked with the theme of restoring ties within the family, but also between groups of people. We understand that due to a change of residence, and loss of permanent connections, people need this. This year [2023] we also continued to work with this approach. When I understood, for example, that there are certain unspoken things (I do not invent and observe such things, but rather feel them), I asked: “Is it the same for you?”. And people: “Yes. It’s the same. We want to work with it.” I am not sure that this will continue to be the case, but now, over the last two years, there has been more contemplation of one’s inner states.
And also last year [2022] there were changes in that now it is even more noticeable a process-oriented collaboration, when there is no prediction at the beginning that we will create something together and it will be an art object, that we will make an exhibition at the end. We pay more attention to the daily moments when we meet and do something together. And the fact that we have gathered, we are here, we feel something, we have it is an already achieved result.
And about what people join for. Yulia’s words resonated with me, and it seems that it started to speak a little in our previous conversations with Yurii [Kruchak] and Stas [Turina]: people come to such practices for new knowledge. But it is not about training, because these practices are not formed as trainings or programs. Still, what we are doing now is more about certain self-help practices, accessible through artistic actions and such that can be done by every person. And we simply show how it is possible through movement, drawing, and speaking. This new knowledge is precisely because we probably did not have such experiences before – neither in school nor in the family. But now we create space for them, to try new things. And they lead to certain changes — primarily within themselves and in groups and collectives. So, I think, people come for changes, for new knowledge, which is equal to changes.
[00:42:24] – [00:45:25]. Yu.K.: I want to answer the question of what programming together with the community might look like. We at Open Place had to (because, as I said, we were working in new contexts) at a certain point we realized that people who live in a certain city are experts. This, first of all, helped to change the hierarchical system, when it seems that an artist or an organization speaks from the position of knowledge that is broadcast to the audience. And in this case, the carriers of knowledge are local communities and organizations. At a certain stage, we developed a methodology that looks like a workshop and at the same time like an informal meeting. We try to create such an atmosphere over tea, coffee, cookies, but we also offer a specific tool. At first, it was questionnaires, and by discussing and working with this methodology, the result was a draft or draft of a project that could be implemented by [present] people together with others. That is, this methodology helped to combine the problems of the place and people, to understand what strategies can be applied, and where one would like to move – purely artistically or towards direct actions, activism, for example. And then you start thinking about what strategies to involve so that the process develops in one direction or another. So at a certain stage, we developed this methodology in a workshop format. Recently, it has transformed into a workshop “Common Landscape”, which has the same idea, but a slightly different form: we added visuality, which, as Ania noted, can give a person more opportunity and time to work with himself, when you can use not only writing and speaking, but also a certain visual and emotional component. I don’t know if I made it clear…
[00:45:25] – [00:46:59]. A. G: It is to me. I just want to add about this visualization of practices – and how you did it with the poncho… The poncho story continues. This practice was embodied last [2022] year at the Jam Factory when we collaborated with Yura [Kruchak] and Yulia, and they dealt with the “Common Landscape” through the drawing of ponchos [with the participants of the How We Stay Together residency]. And then these ponchos went to the exhibition at the Art Arsenal. This is how these practices, as Yulia said, become legitimate in the artistic field. And it seems to me that it is very important to find formats, how to talk about participatory practices in art institutions, how to talk about the process and leave it also in the artistic plane. We are not only engaged in a certain social work but also enter into the interaction of self-knowledge through art. This is an important function of art that remains in these practices. And she works to unite, understand herself, cooperate, have dialogue, and [form] long-term relationships.