The Arts Research Center at UC Berkeley is participating in the ongoing campus initiative Global Urban Humanities: Engaging the Humanities and Environmental Design, which aims to bring the humanities into closer connection with disciplines that study the built environment to help address the complex problems facing today's urban areas. To jump-start conversation for an upcoming working session, participants have been asked to "reflect upon a keyword that provokes, confuses, inspires, and/or annoys you in current thinking about urban and/or urban arts engagement." This posting is by Julia Bryan-Wilson, Associate Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art at UC Berkeley.
Keyword: "Arts"
I’ve started to note what happens when “art” goes
plural to become “arts,” as it has in the title “City, Arts, and Public Spaces”:
how, and in what contexts, does this
multiplicity matter? Art historians often
assume that the definition of art in its singular form defaults to the realm of
the visual, as if the concerns of, say, painting, photography, and sculpture
are distinct from those of literature, music, or dance. “The arts” is a convenient way to signal a
more inclusive or multidisciplinary approach, one that widens out from a narrow
understanding to include a host of creative practices—this is particularly important
and timely given that so many artists themselves move between and beyond these
categories.
Because I am immersed in a research project on contemporary
textiles, when I hear the word “arts” I also immediately think of its formerly
common companion phrase, “and crafts.” Historically, “arts and crafts” has been
connected to specific aesthetic and political movements; yet recently it has
also become a short-hand for children’s after-school activities or summer-camp
playtime. I am intrigued by how the
ghostly presence of craft techniques is often excised from current understandings
of “the arts,” especially hobby or amateur formations. When cultural creation intersects with contested
notions of public spaces, how can we responsibly account for many modes of production
along the high/low continuum? What
boundaries might we productively place around our definition of “the arts,” and
which limits are unnecessarily constrictive?
No comments:
Post a Comment