blurred lines
Acryl on Canvas​, participatory artwork made by various participants
Are participants of artworks actually creative or thinking critically?
​
I decided to create an artwork that mocks most existing participatory artworks and criticise the way some artists view spectators and participants, I disagree with the standard way of creating participatory artwork. Similar to what Jaques Ranciére states in his book “The Emancipated Spectator”, in my opinion viewing the spectator as a passive person who is barely looking at artwork but not actually thinking critically about it, is not the right approach. However, I don’t think making the audience participate in the art is the solution. This approach will not necessarily make the participants think more critically about the artwork or the topics it tries to address. Like Ranciére evaluated it is quite arrogant to think that the spectator is ignorant, just because in a traditional sense spectators are looking at art from some distance does not mean they are not thinking critically. With this in mind a lot of artists created participatory artwork, trying to involve the viewer and make the spectator into an active participant, who has the ability to create, changes or reinterpret the artwork and therefore encourage critical thinking in the active audience.
​
One of the artists with the finished work
In my opinion thinking by simply participating, the audience must be actively thinking, is as naive as thinking the traditional spectator does not think critically was arrogant. Therefore I created an artwork to criticise and also mock this way of thinking and at the same time thinking critically about the actual intelligent or critical thinking that is involved in participating in or making an artwork. This is why I choose common monkeys, who usually eat the trash from the sides of the streets of Hong Kong that are close to the forest, as the participants for the artwork. The monkeys represent the audience that is participating voluntarily in making art, but it is very clear that their participation involves little to none critical thinking about the artwork, but we can not know for sure just by watching them interact with the artwork, nor by looking at the finished art piece. I put some empty plastic bag as well as some small snacks, like grapes between the lines on the canvas to motivate the monkeys to participate in my artwork, similarly to how human participants are being motivated to participate in artworks in different ways, either with money, a great chance to take a selfie (like in a lot of emerging art experiences), or when they are approached in public by the artist, just to be polite or make the artist go away by reluctantly participating. Of course, similar to the monkeys, there are also spectators that participate because they are interested in participation even when they are not gaining anything else from it.​
Overall it is not clear however, whether human participants get the greater picture of the artwork they are collectively creating or whether they just take part in the production of the artwork, similar how workers in capitalist systems are viewed by Marx, for some other reason on smaller more personal level. The collective artwork shows that even when there is an active participation, the monkeys are not necessarily artist, they do not feel self fulfilment even though they are interacting with paint on canvas.​
CONCEPT
​
-
Use a white A1 canvas (paper or wooden)
-
Use skin friendly paint and add thick, clear and straight black lines to the white canvas
-
Place some objects on the canvas between the lines for the participants to interact with
-
While the paint is still wet put in in a place where participants can interact with the objects on the canvas and change the lines of the artwork in any way they wish, either with the objects or with their fingers or any other way they can think of
