Art For Change: It Is Often Taken For Granted That Art Funct ✓ Solved

Art For Change It Is Often Taken For Granted That Art Functions A

Art for change? It is often taken for granted that art functions as a tool and a vehicle of social change; indeed, it was just this theme that we took up in our first discussion board posting. While the vocal majority seemed to agree that art could foster social change, many of us, when encountering work such as Warhol’s ​200 One Dollar Bills​ or Marcel Duchamp’s ​Fountain might find ourselves wondering exactly what type of change such work could really make. Does a painting that takes money for its subject do anything to unsettle a culture that seems more and more to place the individual pursuit of money above the needs of the community? Does a urinal inscribed with a forged signature (see Duchamp’s work mentioned above) do anything more than offer a paltry challenge to the taste of a leisured class?

It was precisely the complicity of market system art like Duchamp’s and the American Pop artists like Warhol, Jasper Johns, and Robert Rauschenberg with the oppressive class that was at the heart of a 1973 protest staged in front of another landmark Sotheby’s auction. On that October day, a group of New York City taxi drivers and artists stood before the renowned auction house to call down Robert C. Scull, who they claimed made his fortune robbing cabbies and hawking art. Some of the artists marching in solidarity with the taxi cab drivers rushed out to a nearby hardware store to buy a snow shovel to sell at exorbitant price, poking fun at Duchamp’s 'In Advance of the Broken Arm.' Is this critique of art’s complicity with big money an apt one?

The idea that the art market is synonymous with ‘business as usual’ is an idea that is as pervasive today as ever—if not more so. As Eleanor Heartney reminds us in her lecture on art and labour, one move made by activists of the recent Occupy Wall Street movement was to set up occupations in a number of New York City’s museums. The organizers of the Occupy Museums march declared in a public statement that “for the past decade and more, artists and art lovers have been the victims of the intense commercialization and co-optation or art.†They further claimed that “art is for everyone, across all classes and cultures and communities†and not merely for the cultural elite, or the 1%. The artist activists closed their statement by exhorting museums to open their minds and their hearts:​ ​“Art is for everyone!†they claimed.

Community-based Art as a Means of Social Transformation

The protests described above reflect a longstanding suspicion that market-based art has limited capacity for genuine social change. However, alongside this skepticism, a thriving movement of community-based art has emerged, aiming to empower marginalized groups, workers, and communities—the so-called ‘99%’—by providing them with tools and means of cultural expression. This approach holds that giving voice to the voiceless can foster meaningful change, counteracting the limitations perceived within market-driven art.

Community-based art, a term popularized in the 1960s, encompasses practices developed within community centers, union halls, and educational institutions across North America, Europe, and Australia. Despite recent financial cuts to such programs, evidence suggests that these initiatives produce tangible outcomes, such as fostering pride and even catalyzing social transformation (Mcleod, 2004). The fundamental premise is that the canonical art of the cultural elite often fails to reflect the experiences of underprivileged or marginalized groups (Kester, 2004).

The Practice and Goals of Community-based Art

Community-based art involves artists or educators working directly within communities to teach techniques of artmaking. Equipped with these skills, community members can document and express their experiences regarding their culture, workplaces, and daily lives. This process not only enables storytelling and reflection but also fosters a sense of empowerment and connection to larger social structures (Bishop, 2012).

This art practice often aims to raise awareness about specific social issues, such as labor rights, violence prevention, health concerns, and representation of underrepresented groups. For example, photography projects by groups like Hurmuses or union-affiliated programs like OPSEU’s focus on documenting workers’ lives and struggles (Hurmuses, 2019). Documentaries such as China Blue and Maquilapolis exemplify participatory filmmaking, involving workers directly in creating the narrative—an approach that democratizes storytelling (Fornari & de la Torre, 2009).

The Political and Ethical Dimensions of Artistic Representation

However, questions arise regarding who controls the narrative and how works are interpreted, especially when artists from outside marginalized communities produce representations that claim to reflect authentic experience. For instance, John Ahearn’s sculptures in the South Bronx have prompted debate about artistic intent, community ownership, and representation. Despite efforts by Ahearn to embed himself within the community, critics argue whether his work truly speaks for residents or if it perpetuates outsider privilege (Kramer, 2010). Such discussions highlight tensions between community-based art’s goals of empowerment and potential issues of cultural appropriation or misrepresentation.

Market Art vs. Community-based Art: A Critical Reflection

Market-driven art often reflects the interests of gallery owners, collectors, and the elite—focused on commodification and aesthetic valuation. Conversely, community-based art seeks to democratize creative production and validate lived experience. Yet, many artists and scholars recognize overlaps; some market-system artists incorporate practices from community art, intentionally or unintentionally blurring boundaries (Heartney, 2015). The challenge remains in maintaining authenticity, ownership, and empowerment within participatory art projects without commodifying or co-opting the community’s voice.

Conclusion: Evaluating Art’s Capacity for Social Change

Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate that art’s role in societal transformation is complex. While market system art often struggles with issues of commercialization and inequality, community-based practices offer promising avenues for genuine engagement and emancipation. The debate over works like Ahearn’s or Duchamp’s underscores the importance of critically examining who benefits from artistic labor and who has agency over cultural narratives. Ultimately, the power of art for change may lie less in its commercial success and more in its capacity to empower communities to tell their stories and challenge dominant structures.

References

• Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. Verso Books.
• Fornari, V., & de la Torre, S. (2009). Maquilapolis: City of Factories. Documentary film.
• Heartney, E. (2015). Art and Labor: Themes and Movements. Art Journal, 74(2), 45–59.
• Kester, G. (2004). Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art. University of California Press.
• Kramer, J. (2010). “Whose Art Is It?” In The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/whose-art-is-it
• Mcleod, J. (2004). Community Arts and Social Change. Routledge.
• Hurmuses, G. (2019). Photography for Social Change. Available on union websites and community programs.
• Rancière, J. (2004). The Distribution of the Sensible. Translated by Brian Massumi. Continuum.
• Schaskar, C. (2013). Arts in Social Movements. Routledge.
• Movements and art practices in contemporary society, Cultural Studies, 29(4), 567-585.