Searching, stretching, sharing. Participatory art practices between theory and Arts Decree

Two questions are central to this longread:

• How are participatory arts practices interpreted in the Arts Decree?
• And how should you interpret the Arts Decree starting from these practices?

This text offers you some tools for your own informed thinking. It makes suggestions for identifying and valuing participatory art practices as professional art practices. It does so by pointing out the similarities with what we usually recognize as art and art experience. At the same time, the text points out the (valuable) ways in which participatory art practices can deviate from those frameworks of recognition and appreciation. However, do not expect bite-sized or definitive answers to the question of what constitutes a participatory art practice or how exactly to assess it. There are good reasons for this, and we will first lead you through the debate that surrounds this.

1. Brief journey through the debate

“There is now an imposing number of definitions to bring order to [participatory] art practice,” says cultural sociologist Sandra Trienekens (2020, 37). These are accompanied by an equally imposing number of terms to name these practices. A selection from home and abroad: community art, participatory art, social-artistic art, art education practices, meeting art, socially engaged arts, community-based art, collaborative art, relational aesthetics, social design, dialogical art and social theater (see also Trienekens 2020, 143). How to get a handle on the multiplicity of practices?

Elements of participatory art practices

You can start with a broad definition. A participatory art practice engages in a very particular way with audiences and other people who are not traditionally thought of as “artists” or “art workers” (or more precisely, as “professional” artists or art workers). They are involved as active partners in processes of creation and of meaning production (Bishop 2012, 275; Jans 2014, 7; Matarasso 2019, 48). They (help) make art possible and (help) shape the interpretation and experience of art.

Some cultural theorists go a step further. They make another distinction within this broad definition according to the degree to which the “non-professionals” are involved in the artistic processes and the intentions behind that involvement (Matarasso 2019 40-59; Trienekens 2020, 37-39).

On the one hand, one finds artistic practices with a participatory element. Nonprofessionals are actively involved in making or giving meaning to art. But the authorship lies primarily with the professional artist or art worker. The artist/artworker maintains control. As a result, the work is mainly interpreted as an extension of their intentions or oeuvre. The work can critically challenge the functioning of the arts sector. But, these theorists argue, ultimately it does inscribe itself in existing relationships.

On the other side are artistic practices in which the participatory aspect has more far-reaching implications. The directing role is not unequivocally in the hands of the artist or art worker. Processes of creation and meaning production acquire shared authorship. The boundaries between “public” and “artist”/”art worker” become even more blurred. Suddenly it is not just the professionals who have a say in how you produce, cure, present, interpret or reflect on art.

The outcomes of artistic processes can become unpredictable. And to assess artistic quality, you have to broaden your view to things other than the (alleged) outcome. For example, to the processes or visions that precede or follow it. However, an unpredictable outcome does not mean that everything happens haphazardly. The processes and visions may be cleverly worked out or underpinned by specific (professional) expertise.

This is often necessary, and not only to deal meaningfully with unpredictability. Indeed, it is also important to set up a caring context that allows for the involvement of non-professionals in creation and meaning production in the first place. All of this means that these participatory arts practices do not fit easily into the traditional value chains of the arts.

Here you can already read a tighter definition of participatory art practices. But the delineations are porous and conditional. You notice this in the descriptions of the characteristics of participatory art practices. These again use quite broad terms (see, e.g., Trienekens 2020, 140-141). And that makes sense. If the outcome of a participatory artistic process is largely unpredictable, one is already going back and forth on the boundaries of involvement (Matarasso 2019, 59). [2]

The boundaries of (professional) art itself are also crossed. Participatory art practices often venture into other domains, for example, education, youth work, care or socio-cultural work. Goals other than purely artistic ones sometimes may come into play.

These crossovers, together with the characteristics mentioned above, form a gateway through which innovative and challenging ideas, visions, values and people can enter the arts field. But it is always important to guard the balance with the artistic purpose (Bishop 2012, 250; Craenen 2016; Wellens et al. 2016; Matarasso 2019; Trienekens 2020, 45-50). Indeed, the risk is to judge participatory art practices primarily on how they achieve these other, non-artistic goals. The scholarly discussion does not unequivocally indicate that (participatory) art and culture do this (Gielen et al. 2014, 29-92).

Moreover, experience from the United Kingdom suggests that participatory arts practices do not simply benefit from justification in the language of other domains (Bishop 2012, 187-190; Matarasso 2019, 153-158). Therefore, several authors argue that artistic arguments are always necessary when describing, justifying or evaluating participatory art practices. Not exclusive, but necessary.

Four elements emerge from the international debate. Certainly do not consider them definitive. However, they do help us understand why certain contemporary and historical art practices are seen as participatory. They also describe the field of tension in which these art practices move: they often deviate from current frames of reference in the professional arts, while always meaningfully identifying themselves as fully-fledged artistic and professional practices.

Looking at the Flemish arts field, these elements are found in practices under a variety of headings. [3] Social-artistic initiatives or art education practices are obvious examples. But it goes broader than that.

Searching for clarity

In contrast to these open approaches, there are sometimes echoes of calls to nevertheless define the “core” of participatory art practices. Or to arrive at a pure, unambiguous approach (see, e.g., van Erven 2010; Hoet 2016; De Pourcq et al. 2017; Vermeersch and Havermans 2021, 59).

This call for a “core” is not incomprehensible. Many attempts to define participatory art practices relate explicitly to policy in a given country (Trienekens 2020, 8). Those policies make decisions about recognizing and subsidizing participatory (art) practices.

Given its multiformity, the defiantly varied discourse about it, and the fact that this art does not easily allow itself to be captured by customary value frameworks and chains, it is not surprising that the relationship between policy and practice sometimes falters. The promise of an unambiguous definition is that policymakers know exactly who or what to subsidize. And that applicants should worry less about potential competition for those subsidies (see also Wellens et al. 2016; Kunstenpunt 2019, 104).

One might question, however, whether unambiguity (or necessary and sufficient conditions to delineate participatory art practices) is not a vain hope (Trienekens 2020, 37). A report by The Arts Council of Great Britain illustrates this. It aimed to get a picture of community arts in that country. [5]

“The Working Party appointed by the Arts Council to study this was offered many definitions of ‘community arts’, but found none of them completely satisfactory. We believe, however, that while the search for definition is probably futile, it is possible to pick out certain features which together add up to a distinctive picture.”

The Arts Council of Great Britain (1974, 7)

A good fifty years ago, the report already established this.

So an unambiguous definition is not obvious. And if you want to leave room for the multiplicity of practices, it may not even be desirable. [6] But you don’t want to throw clarity overboard. You need it when you have to make important decisions – for example, about the allocation of resources.

One possible approach then is to treat “participation” and “participatory art practices” as “traveling concepts“. The idea is borrowed from Mieke Bal (2002, 17-65). For several people, a concept like ‘participation’ sounds familiar. And in this sense, concepts are collective: they act as a common language. But different people attach different meanings to the same concept; they are subtly polysemous. In that sense, concepts are also elastic and dynamic. Moreover, that dynamic extends over time: a given concept used to have different meanings for people than it does today.

Bal suggests using the collective and elastic nature of concepts. Together with others, you explore what a concept can mean by making and comparing provisional and incomplete definitions, as well as looking at the consequences in practice. What do you include or exclude when you define something in a certain way? What values and judgments does this bring? Do you thereby relate to a particular tradition of definitions and values? You strive for consensus, but you know that this consensus is conditional and up for trial. This is how you achieve a certain clarity. Without having to dogmatically look for an unambiguous definition or a tightly delineated framework.

2. Policy and practice

So what is the link to deciding on the allocation of funds? Working with traveling concepts is perfectly applicable to the procedures for subsidizing professional arts in Flanders. These even explicitly reserve a place for participatory art practices that stretch the boundaries of art and the arts sector. Let’s briefly discuss the Arts Decree.

Participatory arts practices according to the Arts Decree

The Arts Decree regulates subsidies for artists and organizations that are professionally active in the arts sector. When you apply for operating or project subsidies, you can identify your organization or project with one or more functions. ‘Participation’ is one of those functions. The current Arts Decree defines this function as follows:

“develop and apply visions, concepts and processes that contribute, through active engagement, to the creation of art or a deeper experience of it, with attention to social and cultural diversity.”

Arts Decree [7]

The ”function-specific sub-criteria” from the Executive Order further finetune this passage from the decree. [8] They define what committees should look for when assessing quality of an application file. Applications that check off the function participation are evaluated according to:

• “the quality of the participatory concepts and methodologies with, if relevant, attention to social and cultural diversity;”
• “the quality of the process and, if relevant, the way participants are sought, selected and followed up;”
• “the quality of the intended end goal or result.”

In the Arts Decree and Executive Order one recognizes the elements of participatory art practices that various authors cite in the (international) debate, and which we discussed above.

• Artistic arguments: creating and experiencing art, through collaborations with professional artists
• Beyond results, dealing with uncertainty, processes and methods
• Links to other domains, cross-sectoral collaborations or purposes
• Active engagement of participants, creating meaning and art together

Interestingly, the Arts Decree and Executive Order add “attention to social and cultural diversity” (…) “if relevant.” [13] In light of the active involvement of participants, this is not surprising. Participatory processes, visions, methods, outcomes can meaningfully engage the backgrounds of those participants. For evaluators, the background of participants can then be an aspect to consider when evaluating those processes, methods and so on.

The binding texts of the latest Arts Decree and Executive Order do not refer anymore to the “Participation Framework” launched by the Flemish government in 2019. That framework was based on a study (De Pourcq et al. 2017). It provided guidance on what does and does not qualify as participation. Again, one can ask whether a strict framework is really desirable. Did it leave enough room for what moves in practice? (See also Joye and Wellens 2018.) The advantage was that the Participation Framework is not binding, but “merely guiding.” [14] Only manuals for applicants and older roadmaps for evaluators mention it.

The Arts Decree and Executive Order primarily provide some useful guidance. They guide the interpretation of what participatory art practices can be. The function of participation remains elastic. Enough, for applicants, evaluators and all those who read and follow these binding texts, to be invited to engage with that elasticity and probe different characteristics of participatory art practices.

With that comes responsibility: what are the consequences of emphasizing a particular feature or aspect? What values, judgments or assumptions do you relate to? What do you include or exclude? Expertise on participatory art practices can help with these processes of evaluation. It is often a measure of the delicacy with which you do this. But an open attitude is just as important. Even for those with little to no expertise, it is crucial to be open to art practices that challenge assumptions in the arts sector.

The Arts Decree according to participatory arts practices

The Arts Decree, to a certain extent, confirms a traditional artistic value chain of development, production, presentation and reflection. But participatory arts practices challenge this traditional value chain. How can you then read other concepts and provisions in the Arts Decree (which often relate to these value chains) through their lens?

Take the disciplines. Active involvement of participants and unpredictability can mean that you don’t define in advance which (sub)discipline you are going to work in. You then determine the translation to a specific discipline during the participatory process with the participants. This explains why application files in participation during the period 2017-2022 do more often identify themselves as trans- or multidisciplinary (Wellens et al. 2016; Kunstenpunt 2019, 100-107).

When the participatory process produces a particular outcome or end goal, it does not always fit neatly into the discipline-specific production or presentation circuit of the professional arts. For example, the actively involved participants may not want or be able to produce a tour or exhibition. And when the boundary with other domains is crossed, an institution from the arts circuit is not necessarily a meaningful venue for that result or end goal.

Then take functions (development, production, presentation and reflection). Those who compare the sub-criteria of participation with those of other functions notice the difference in expectations. [15] But there are no severe boundaries between them. The work in a participatory art practice is not necessarily that different from what others perform under the function of development or production. In some practices, the “participants” – those who are not traditionally thought of as professional artists or art workers – are guided equally intensively in their processes of development or production. Therefore, for some, “participatory art practices” are simply their way of “producing”. This is where legal terminology rubs with ways of speaking in practice.

Furthermore, (a vision on) audience development and recruitment is, according to the Arts Decree, an aspect of the function of presentation. But keeping in mind the porous boundaries between consumption and participation, the distinction between these is not always absolute. Depending on how you look at it, a communicative strategy for audience acquisition is relevant or not.

Finally, because participatory art practices challenge artistic value frameworks and chains, the step is quickly made to reflection on what art is, what an artist is or what the role of art in society is. As such, the function of “participation” rubs shoulders with the function of “reflection” in the Arts Decree.

The comparison with the other functions further points out that the active involvement of participants can take different forms. They show up as artists, curators, dramatists, producers, critics, art philosophers, and in other roles related to creation and meaning production of art. Participation as a practice touches upon all aspects of the functions in the Arts Decree.

To make things even more complicated, this all encompassing reach of a participatory arts practice can affect the business aspects of an arts practice. Fair practices, proper compensation and integrity in the workplace are concerns in the Arts Decree that become increasingly complex in participatory practices. [16] In the function of participation, the participants (and their entourage, if any) come into focus of these concerns as well. That can mean taking care of everyone involved in creation and meaning production (including the care-giving supervisor himself): creating safe contexts, scheduling time to deal with situations that are difficult to predict, aftercare, dealing with specific legal and organizational requirements, etc. Measures from the rest of the professional circuit cannot simply be applied here, as you are not necessarily working with professionals. For example, a participatory process may require proportionately more time and resources than a production process in which the care of artists is done in a completely different way. Fair remuneration has to be interpreted completely differently if your participants cannot legally receive any remuneration. And acquiring one’s own income – given the need for care and limited fit into the usual production and presentation circuit – becomes even less evident. Incidentally, the Arts Decree takes this into account. A lower threshold of own revenues is imposed on the participation function than on production or presentation. [17]

If you start from participants, your participatory art practice can be very local. Finally, that puts the evaluation criterion of “national or international appeal” in a different perspective. [18] (Inter)national presentations and production agreements are not always an issue.Here, too, the Arts Decree offers the necessary elasticity. The (inter)national appearance or effect can, for example, take the form of knowledge sharing (of participatory visions, methodologies, concepts, etc.), of flow of participants into other artistic practices (which are not necessarily participatory) or of other meaningful relationships within and beyond the national borders.

3. Conclusion

The Arts Decree provides useful tools for the interpretation and assessment of artistic initiatives that identify as participatory. These are in line with the (international) literature on participatory art practices. The binding policy texts take into account the active involvement of participants, the unpredictability of these practices and their possible departures to other domains. Arguments and objectives other than purely artistic purposes may also be discussed. But within the Arts Decree you always have to relate to artistic arguments. Decree and Executive Order add the potential attention to social and cultural diversity as a possible characteristic.

The elasticity of the descriptions in the decree and implementing decree gives this multiform practice a chance of support. Without lapsing into dogmatic frameworks! This does entail responsibility for those who have to work with those tools, as there is no fixed final destination of what participatory art practices exactly are or what the function of participation specifically entails. Experience with such practices provides expertise to assess quality. In addition, an open attitude is required. Participatory art practices also stretch our understanding of other elements in the Arts Decree and in the arts sector.

4. Footnotes

[1] Look at Flemish civil society organizations and the diversity of domains in which they work participatively becomes clear. There are, for example, those engaged in participatory work in the culture, youth work and sports sectors (Demos), policy participation (De Wakkere Burger), participation in the fight against poverty (Netwerk tegen Armoede), social participation of ethnic-cultural minorities (Minderhedenforum/LEVL) or citizen science (Scivil).

[2] Note that this is a different approach than the classic “Ladder of Participation” and derivatives (Matarasso 2019, 105-107). This influential model distinguishes gradations of civic participation. It has been applied several times to simply measure the value of a work of art based on the degree of participation. However, one may raise the caveat that the model falls short of capturing the complexity of artistic practices and experiences (Bishop 2012, 279).

[3] Throughout the first chapter of Landscape Sketch of the Arts (Kunstenpunt 2019, 19-107), you will find examples of participatory art practices in various disciplines. This listing is obviously not exhaustive.

[4] Flanders Arts Institute’s track on “deep urban initiaves” discusses artistic initiatives that engage in dialogue with the urban environment around them. This artistic dialogue can be participatory: urban residents are actively involved, the boundary with other domains is sometimes flourescent and the dialogue can be very unpredictable. Often these initiatives operate around or averse to the institutions in the arts field (Keulemans et al. 2020).

[5] “Community arts” is a good example of how varied discourse can be. The community arts studied by The Arts Council were art practices that developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s and 1970s. François Matarasso considers community arts as a form of participatory art, but uses the term exclusively for practices from this period (2019, 51-54). For him, historical community arts exhibit some (general) characteristics that he does not necessarily see in later forms of participatory art. Arie Altena (2016) in turn uses the term as a starting point to describe socially engaged art in the Netherlands of the 21st century. Pascal Gielen (2013) uses an even more inclusive definition, in which community art is also made without effectively working with a specific community. In addition to theory, artists and organizations in different countries also self-identify their practices with the concept of community arts.

[6] In the report (in Dutch) of the Day of Participation (Vaerman 2016) you can read clear language regarding this. The first recommendation reads “Fuck definition.” The second reads “Focus on elasticity and commonality.” This 2016 event brought together arts organizations from Flanders and Brussels to reflect on what participation means (in practice).

[7] See article 3, part 8 of the Arts Decree of 23 April 2021.

[8] See article 18, part 4 of the Executive Order of 16 July 2021

[9] See article 10, paragraph 4 of the Arts Decree of 23 April 2021. Part 9 and 10 of article 3 clarify that it is about professionals.

[10] Compare this to a sub-criterion of the function production: “quality of the intended artistic result.” (see article 18, part 2 of the Executive Order of 16 July 2021).

[11] See p. 29 of the version of 10 October 2021. Note that the recent Roadmap to Quality Assessment in Operating Grants (in Dutch) does not mention anything about this (see the Nov. 1, 2021 version).

[12] This statement has been around in cultural policy for some time (see, for example, the 2013 Explanatory Memorandum to the Arts Decree, p. 21).

[13] The Explanatory Memorandum to the Arts Decree, p. 23). explains that it can be about “all forms of diversity,” “including social diversity”.

[14] The Participation Framework can be found online (in Dutch). Terlaeken 2019 (31-33) notes that certain arts organizations – which do receive operating grants in 2017-2022 – would no longer be eligible if the framework is strictly applied. On the “guiding” nature of the Participation Framework, see the November 8, 2018 Question of Explanation (in Dutch) in the Culture, Youth, Sports and Media Committee of the Flemish Parliament.

[15] See article 18 of the Executive Order of 16 July 2021 (in Dutch) for all function-specific sub-criteria.

[16] See articles 15, 33, 56 and 59 of the Arts Decree of 23 april 2021.

[17] See article 76 of the Executive Orderof 16 July 2021. If the function participation is combined with production or presentation, the minimum percentages of own revenues of the latter functions apply.

[18] See article 33 and 56 of the Arts Decree of 23 April 2021.

5. References

Altena, Arie. 2016. Wat is community art? De sociale wending in de hedendaagse kunst. Rotterdam: V2_publishing.

Bal, Mieke. 2002. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities. A Rough guide. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bischop, Claire. 2012. Artificial Hells. Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Londen/New York: Verso.

Craenen, Paul. 2016. ‘Van kunstparticipatie naar participatiekunst?’ Paul Craenen Website (blog). 5 september 2016.

De Pourcq, Lynn, Veerle Matthijs, Marijke Van Eeckhaut, en Inge Van Reeth. 2017. ‘Onderzoek naar de functie participatie in het Kunstendecreet’. Antwerpen: Karel de Grote Hogeschool.

Gielen, Pascal. 2013. ‘Mapping Community Art’. In Community Art. The Politics of Trespassing, 15–34. Amsterdam: Valiz.

Gielen, Pascal, Sophie Elkhuizen, Quirijn Van den Hoogen, Thijs Lijster, en Hanka Otte. 2014. ‘De waarde van cultuur’. Brussel: Onderzoekscentrum Arts in Society (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen).

Hoet, Ciska. 2016. ‘Participatie 4: naar een bloeiend landschap’. Rekto:Verso. 20 juli 2016.

Jans, Erwin. 2014. ‘Visietekst Participatie’. Brussel: Kunstenpunt.

Joye, Sofie, en Nikol Wellens. 2018. ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Esthetica voor beleidsverantwoordelijken’. kunsten.be. juni 2018.

Keulemans, Chris, Quinsy Gario, Lara Staal, en Sofie Joye. 2020. Ruimte (maken) voor stedelijke creatie. Brussel – Gent – Antwerpen. Kunstenpunt.

Kunstenpunt, red. 2019. Landschapstekening Kunsten: Ontwikkelingsperspectieven voor de kunsten anno 2019. Brussel: Kunstenpunt.

Matarasso, Françcois. 2019. A Restless Art. How participation won, and why it matters.

Terlaeken, Josef. 2019. ‘Participatie: een artificiële constructie. Het ontstaan, het heden en de nabije toekomst van de participatiefunctie in het Kunstendecreet’. KU Leuven.

The Arts Council of Great Britain. 1974. ‘Community Arts. The Report of the Community Arts Working Party’. The Arts Council of Great Britain.

Trienekens, Sandra. 2020. Participatieve kunst. Gewoon kunst in moeilijke omstandigheden. Rotterdam: V2_Publishing.

Vaerman, Mia. 2016. ‘Verslag Dag van de Participatie’. het TheaterFestival (blog). 4 september 2016.

Van Erven, Eugène. 2010. ‘Op zoek naar de kern’. Boekman, voorjaar 2010.

Vermeersch, Lode, en Nele Havermans. 2021. ‘Cultuureducatie in de vrije tijd. Een tweede veldtekening’. Brussel: HIVA/Departement Cultuur, Jeugd en Media van de Vlaamse Overheid.

Wellens, Nikol, Sofie Joye, Joris Janssens, en Simon Leenknegt. 2016. ‘Pleidooi voor onzuiverheid. Naar een brede visie op participatieve kunstenpraktijken’. Kunstenpunt.