[00:00:05] – [00:00:22]. Anton Tkachuk: Welcome to the podcast “How We Stay Together” – about participatory practices in art. In this part, Yuliia Kosterieva, Anna Gaidai and Yevheniia Nesterovych reflect on the communication design in participatory art and identify markers of successful processes.
\n[00:00:31] – [00:01:30]. Ye. N: How and does designing communication through workshops, work, research, and long-term interaction with the community affect the formulation of expected results? Because the design of the process assumes some final goal by default. And in participatory art, we mostly talk about “how” and not about “what.” And what is there – or is there not – a guide to the result when you design? After all, the community that comes, I suspect, still has certain expectations. And, obviously, you will learn about them when you get to know the community involved in a particular project.
\n[00:01:30] – [00:07:25]. Yu. K.: I wouldn’t say that only “how” is important – “what” is also important. In our practice, the main “what” is awareness. And understanding that an active position is about how you understand yourself in the community and society. For example, when a person speaks in public, such as describing the place where they live or talking about their favorite place or their city, but in such a way that the other person understands: this is not only a process that happens in your head; this time, a person discovers certain nuances for themself – and, by telling about it, seems to get to know this place anew, because they need to formulate their thoughts aloud. In the same way, when a person visualizes his inner state, it is still a process of activity that must take place inside for something to appear outside. And this main “what” is the awareness through speaking, drawing and understanding that there is another person nearby. Also, “what” is hearing the other, being able to understand or realize that there is a person with a different story, different experience, different verbal and visual set, and all this has the right to exist. When there are many such personal expressions, then, firstly, there is an inner awareness, as I say, through the process of letting out anything in the form of words or pictures. But there is also a vision of how many of us there are, how many other opinions, possibilities and ways of saying and accepting it or simply understanding that it is so. And the community-building process is also important when a community or a person somehow associates itself or sees certain commonalities or differences and accepts them.
\nI would like to emphasize (because I already touched on it a little), that when we talk about “what”, it means participatory practices, their understanding is developing. I will not say that this is the opening of Open \u0420lace, but rather a general movement regarding such practices: if earlier artists worked with a separate community, now there is an effort to create a situation where different communities, people with different opinions can meet. It’s about creating a safe space to meet the other. And in this case, the task of the artist or the institution is to make this meeting as successful as possible so that it is established as a successful experience. Conflicts may occur, but it should still be perceived as a safe experience of meeting another. This is how society is created, there is disclosure and exit from local bubbles, from a comfortable state that each person tries to create for himself. A slightly broader topic, but also, for example, when we try to create a comfortable environment for ourselves in social media – and delete everyone who thinks differently. But life is unpredictable, and meeting another can happen at any time. If a person is not ready for this, it will be a more traumatic experience than when he is somewhat ready. In short, participatory practices move towards meeting or offering a platform for meeting different people, with different opinions, i.e. creating a safe space where differenses can meet.
\n[00:07:47] – [00:08:10]. Ye. N: The question was about the result that the design of the participatory practice process is aimed at. But about “what” and “how” is also very interesting. Ania, I encourage you to add, what is this result in your case? We talked a lot about this in previous conversations.
\n[00:08:11] – [00:15:26]. A. G: Actually, even during our work in the first Magic Carpets projects in 2020, I began to notice that it was more of an offer from artists. And what they proposed to do, for example, in a meeting with teenagers, was documented or visualized in a certain way, for example, through drawing or modeling clay houses, or something else. But learning to paint or sculpt from the clay was not the main goal; we did not study techniques, but worked more with the utterances of some internal “mutants”. We worked with these internal transformations and gave them certain characteristics and signs, and voiced them. That is, it was important to speak playfully and record how a person sees it in a picture or in other forms of visualization. It seems to me, that even if we don’t set out to create something tangible from the beginning, we still end up with it – and it’s evidence of a certain movement of each person who finds himself in the process. That is, an emphasis on the process, on how we will do it, how we will feel it, how we will communicate about it, voice it. But, in the end, a certain materialization of this helps to see and tell others that now I may be like this, and others to understand what you are. It seems to me that from year to year, every time we work, this is what happens: we aim for certain changes in states, in abilities, in fact, to be with others and establish new connections, but through certain artistic forms we can visualize that, what path we have come together or how a person can now better convey his condition\u2026
\nSo you asked about how we can understand whether we have achieved any results, whether we have moved somewhere, whether we have some chaotic path, or, after all, a logical, consistent one? In my opinion, it’s useful to have certain mechanics or methodologies developed at the beginning of how we would like to move. And, as Yulia said, to leave a large conscious space for the fact that we can change it. Last [2022] year, I personally worked very methodologically for the first time – thanks to the fact that Yura [Kruchak] and Yulia joined me. It was precisely the “How We Stay Together” program. Yes, we had goals, we had a starting document that we all agreed on, and we wanted to achieve certain changes within the framework of this program and through these practices in the group that would join us. That, for example, it will be easier to create new connections in new uncertain conditions. And other goals that we have fixed for ourselves. It was very useful to have this because we could walk through these points at the end. We did this and tried to record it in a document – in the book “How We Stay Together”. Actually, this is our path: how we developed it, how we compared it later, where we got to, applying different practices. We paid attention not to quantitative indicators, but to qualitative ones. We had to be very careful, let’s say, whether the father of these children then joined the joint activities with them or stayed away… Or this [2023] year in our programs, for example, whether a person because of certain family circumstances when her daughter came to her, refuses to participate in the class or shows openness, courage, trust in us – and brings her with her, and the group accepts. That is, we pay more attention to such things and understand: whether or not we have created a space of trust that is safe at the moment we meet; can we think that people, after repeating this own courage or strength to express themselves in certain circumstances within the program, will be with it for a long time or forever. When we, for example, worked with teenagers, it was very important that they had the experience of courage to be in the city, to express themselves in it. And, for example, such practices as creating posters and hanging them anywhere in the city; we went and just looked “Yeah, I want to tell the city this. And I’ll hang it here.” I think when we do this, it’s not about learning to “make a poster”, but about being visible in your city and having your voice there, being ready that someone will respond to your actions: for example, your poster may be torn down tomorrow or someone will do something because it is a public space. It is also about understanding that we are not the only ones who can have a voice and an opinion in a public place, but still, we remain in some dialogue and connection where we live. And therefore, in such participatory projects, it is crucial not to be only within certain walls, within the boundaries of institutions, but still to change [them]… For example, if an institution proposes a project, it conducts it not only inside [its territory], but maybe unite or be in partnership with other institutions, public libraries or other places, but also together with communities to explore public space.
\nI would like to add that we recorded this experience of working with the methodology, how to move and observe the processes and whether we succeeded or not, in the format of a book. Also, in such projects, it is imperative to record the experience gained in various forms. So, involving people from different professions is a very good indicator of how they can then retell this story that happened in the group. For example, Zhenia joined our practices this [2023] year and can also tell what she saw and how she felt, in particular from the point of view of a person who works with media, with oral or textual materials. It is important. For example, when we talk about Magic Carpets projects, there is one feature that we have to create films about how they happened: the idea, the process and the result. And we are trying to do it in this form, that is, to transfer the stories that happened into a video format. In addition, there are curatorial texts that we also need to record: what we saw, what we passed, and what the goals are. And when there is a place where it all gathers (for example, Yulia spoke about their page, which is already a knowledge base), it seems to me that this is also a certain result for which we are working. It is good to realize this at the beginning of projects: you record everything, document it and then share it in certain forms. This helps track changes over the years or even from last year to this year. And therefore, not to start from scratch every year, not to start each new cooperation with the community from a new page, but to have certain points of support both for yourself and for others: we observed it this way, we worked on it, we will try to do it again. Of course, every time new people bring their own. And what succeeded yesterday in such conditions may not succeed tomorrow, but flexibility, which we have already talked about a lot, is necessary and to reflect, openly and sincerely discuss what is not succeeding and how we can change it.
\n[00:18:20] – [00:18:45]. Ye. N: You were talking about what moments are important to you in the process, what you focus on \u2014 and it was more about successful practices when you understand that everything is going as it should be. Is failure possible in participatory art? What would be the failure of a participatory project for you?
\n[00:18:46] – [00:22:30]. A. G.: I would like to tell how I would observe what succeeds and what fails from different aspects. As curators of participatory projects involving art, I presume that in recent years we at the institution have been trying to create such multidisciplinary approaches, where the interaction between artists and curators is such that the project can be successful. That is, we agreed on how we move together, which practices of some artists are well demonstrated by others, and which sequence. I think, when there is such an understanding and acceptance of each other’s practices (that is, even if you don’t know about them, but are open and want to try), then it works better. If one of the artists or others involved in the process feels like: “I don’t really accept what he or she is doing”, then it is as if he does not agree to this happening with him and wants to separate. And then it is not very possible to build this interweaving and multidisciplinarity in the process. Backtracking can be, as it were, parallel paths that we follow within the program; certain artistic practices from one person are offered in one format with a certain time and place, and from another in another. How to judge whether it is luck or not, what do we do with it? Perhaps, the failure is that we cannot work together. But then we find another format to reach the goals of the programs that we have set for ourselves.
\nTo me a failure can also be if we fail to create a space of trust, that is, if there is no sincerity in the one who leads certain practices… I am more theorizing now; it seems to me that in our processes this did not occur. But if it happened, I would say that there is a constraint – people do not want to talk about themselves or do not feel that there is a place for them now. And then, too, there would probably be some mistakes in the way we construct such meetings. We pay a lot of attention to the design of each meeting. Sometimes it happens, for example, the day before, with an understanding of what happened yesterday; and so there remains a lot of flexibility. But there must be a certain resource to develop an adequate sequence or structure for the next meeting. We faced this year [2023] when, due to certain circumstances, one of the artists could not be present others had to readjust what they were doing, given the lack of that practice, and we moved forward with what could be done. That is, we cannot replace this person, their approach, their way of thinking, worldview, but we can adjust.
\n[00:22:30] – [00:22:32]. Ye. N.: Yulia, tell us.
\n[00:22:32] – [00:24:16]. Y. K.: I agree with Ania. And I would like to formulate it a little differently. Now, when I was listening to Ania, there was a moment, when I realized what participatory practices are for me. This is testing coexistence in a safe situation. That is, we test certain processes… After all, during participatory practices, we seem to strengthen certain things that we consider important for society, for coexistence, and which, we think, will then be scaled to society in a certain way. I think failure is when someone is dissatisfied with something and doesn’t have a chance to say it. It can be about mistrust or thoughtlessness when people just don’t have time to express something… If something goes wrong, you have to have the time and the opportunity and the desire [to point it out]. And desires come from how comfortable a person feels to express themselves in this team \u2014 their reservations, dissatisfaction, and so on.
\n[00:24:17] – [00:28:38]. A. G.: Yulia said that it is as if we are constructing these better worlds, testing how we can be safe, and then replicating it further (if I understood this idea correctly). In my opinion, when we did something wrong in the research or preparation stages (for example, knowing that people in the group had a traumatic experience, did not prepare and did not understand that there could be an obvious trigger), then the responsibility is on us as those who invite you to your space. Therefore, in our projects, we concentrated on working with psychologists before meeting with the group. To understand, for example, if it is a certain age group, what are the developmental characteristics of these people, what we can do or what not to do, so that the dynamics are preserved, how to respond to its change or how to work with a certain condition, if it appeared, \u2014 what does the group do, and what does a specific person do, what are our roles. That is, it is important to distribute these roles and know who is watching and involved in such moments, who is supporting, who is calling somewhere. That is, it is very important to understand which group you will work with – and to prepare for it in a certain way. Or, if we are talking about different things, then we understand how to moderate such a conversation and not lead it to a dead end, or even if different, quite critical of each other opinions are expressed, how do we still leave everyone the right, moderate this situation so that everyone has their opinion and it is valuable, and we move forward together. It is imperative to work on such moments. They do not appear from the first such project but are acquired with experience. But also with the help of other specialists. I think this is very important for those who start this work: I realized that with each project I learn a lot thanks to those who join it. As Yulia said, from the community there is knowledge about the local, about the place, because its representatives are carriers of knowledge of this region or simply of their experience at a certain age or profession. And from artists or organizations – long-term work that they conduct, and we can also enrich ourselves by exchanging this knowledge. Therefore, we as an organization, on the one hand, in Magic Carpets projects aim (and this is a value) to develop developing artists and developing curators but also to strengthen, illuminate and manifest their practices. On the other hand, for us as an organization that has recently gone down this path [participatory practices], it is important to build up this knowledge and skills. And, obviously, we have to combine inviting people who have longer, deeper experience and knowledge, with those who don’t have it yet. We can go together on a certain project and be transformed, [become] a better version compared to what we started with, and gain more knowledge.
\n[00:28:53] – [00:29:26]. Ye. N: I think we can move on to summarizing – the terminological, vocabulary part. We have covered many important concepts today, but I think it would be most interesting to try to briefly outline two concepts. What is a community in participatory art practices? And what is an institution in participatory art practices? I suggest that Yulia define what an institution is, and Anna define what a community is.
\n[[00:29:27] – [00:33:42]. Y. K. An institution is a unit that is engaged in the development, collection and development of a certain field of knowledge, which is understood on the topic both at the local and international levels, it is a unit that has a charter and conducts program activities. And even if something changes, she still consciously moves in that direction. Why is this important? To understand professionalization. It is good when many different institutions are professionalized, and then the cultural field becomes more healthy and capable. Of course, regardless of scale, it is a unit with certain capabilities that it could share and provide to others: it could be either knowledge, methodologies, support, or opportunities. That is, it is also a resource for other people.
\nAnd I would like to add something – not about institutions, but about what appeared important to me when we talked about knowledge and related things. To me, participatory practices – and of course the institution as an idea, also tangential to them – respond to or even have to program things that are either ahead of, or at least according to the trends that are manifesting in the world. The trend I would like to mention is the changing understanding of how knowledge is produced. Participatory practices play a critical role here. Thus, there was an understanding that there is no one carrier of knowledge who shares it, but that knowledge is developed and everyone is a carrier of knowledge. It is participatory approaches that practice the development of knowledge in a group. And I would also quote Yurii [Kruchak], why participatory practices and memorizing them are valuable. Because Ukraine is now in a situation unlike any other. That is, to a certain extent, we can focus on world trends, but also on what is happening in Ukraine, we have to develop knowledge right here and remember it and understand how to work with it. It is a situation that is not usual or one where we can learn something from another. Unfortunately, we have to learn ourselves, but also to develop this knowledge, which would give us the prospect of a fairer future.
\n[00:33:43] – [00:34:05]. Ye. N: And in this sense, Ukrainian institutions can actually become a resource for researchers and practitioners from outside. This is truly an experience that can now only be gained here, working with our communities. And I invite Anna to tell us about what the community is.
\n[00:34:05] – [00:35:54]. A. G: Community, in my opinion, is a group that can be united by certain needs or interests. Also, the association can be based on the criterion of territory or place, virtual or physical. And I would say that the community can feel like that thanks to participatory practices even a little later, for example, when the practices are over, and the feeling of belonging to something remains. It seems to me that this is also an important process because a community can start simply as a group and go to the point where it already realizes itself as a community. But I’ll also point out why I don’t use the word “people” in this sentence. Because, in fact, the community can be “non-human beings” \u2014 that is, not people when in the process of participatory practices we communicate with the environment: with trees, with microbes, with mushrooms, with animals; when we understand that we are not the only ones manifested in this world and how we can build our practices and our lives, taking into account the fact that we are all interdependent and that the knowledge we receive may not go at the level of “person to person”, but and also from the completely different forms manifested in this universe.
\n[00:35:55] – [00:36:38]. Ye. N.: Thank you, Ania. This, it seems to me, is a perfect summary of the entire cycle of three conversations about how we are together in this difficult time. And here indeed “we” is a broad concept. “Together” is also not as simple as it is briefly formulated. Thank you very much for this conversation. I hope that these three conversations will be a colorful puzzle that will allow us to map a little bit such an interesting and actually an open field for development and interpretation as participative artistic practices.
\nA. G.: Thank you very much for the conversation.
\nY. K.: Thank you.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[00:00:05] – [00:00:22]. Anton Tkachuk: Welcome to the podcast “How We Stay Together” – about participatory practices in art. In this part, Yuliia Kosterieva, Anna Gaidai and Yevheniia Nesterovych reflect on the communication design in participatory art and identify markers of successful processes. [00:00:31] – [00:01:30]. Ye. N: How and does designing communication through workshops, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"yoast_head":"\n