Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Art & the Public Sphere
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Politicizing Artistic Pedagogies: Disciplines, Practices, Struggles
  • ISSN: 2042-793X
  • E-ISSN: 2042-7948

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore how the process of depoliticization occurs in neoliberal governance, with the aim of identifying approaches to counter its control over the way we live together. Depoliticization is a process of neoliberal political and social organization that undermines democracy. An instance of how depoliticization happens is through a lack of accountability in the way that government devolves responsibility through non-governmental agencies or quangos. Arts Council England is a quango with an increasingly instrumental policy agenda. Arts-based participation is being fostered through policy agendas; art projects that are funded in this arrangement are expected to promote social inclusion or audience engagement. While this is superficially laudable, a reduced gap between state policy objectives and commissioned artistic outcomes sees artworks utilized as interpretive publicity for policy objectives. In this way, the funding of the arts can be considered as part of the wider process of depoliticization. Yet, we argue, contra much of the depoliticization literature with its formalist understandings of power, that politics is not limited to the actions and non-actions of the state alone and can be radically understood as an everyday process. In this conception of politics, we conclude that certain forms of art practice, those that employ social praxis and critical citizenship through critical pedagogical and participatory methods, can perform a politicizing function and thus potentially reshape democracy in more emancipatory ways.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • The European Union’s HORIZON 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) (Award 872561)
© 2022 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/aps_00066_1
2023-02-07
2025-03-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abse Gogarty, L.. ( 2017;), ‘ Usefulness in contemporary art and politics. ’, Third Text, 31:1, pp. 117–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2017.1364920.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, F.. ( 2008;), ‘ Situating gallery education. ’, Tate Encounters, 1970:2, pp. 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Almond, G. A., and Verba, S.. ( 1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton, NJ:: Princeton University Press;, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183pnr2. Accessed 5 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arte Útil ( n.d.), ’About’, http://www.arte-util.org/about/colophon/. Accessed 28 April 2022.
  5. Belfiore, E.. ( 2004;), ‘ Auditing culture: The subsidised cultural sector in the new public management. ’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10:2, pp. 183–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berry Slater, J., and Iles, A.. ( 2009;), ‘ No room to move: Radical art and the regenerate city. ’, Mute, 31 March, https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/no-room-to-move-radical-art-and-regenerate-city. Accessed 31 March 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertsou, E.. ( 2019;), ‘ Rethinking political distrust. ’, European Political Science Review, 11:2, pp. 213–30, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773919000080.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Beveridge, R., and Featherstone, D.. ( 2021;), ‘ Introduction: Anti-politics, austerity and spaces of politicisation. ’, EPC: Politics and Space, 39:3, pp. 437–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bienkowski, P.. ( 2018;), ‘ Power to the people: A self-assessment framework for participatory practice. ’, Museum Association & Paul Hamlyn Foundation, https://maproduction.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/app/uploads/2020/06/18145349/Power-to-thePeople-2018.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bishop, C.. ( 2004;), ‘ Antagonism and relational aesthetics. ’, October Magazine, 110, pp. 51–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bishop, C.. ( 2006;), ‘ The social turn: Collaboration and its discontents. ’, Artforum, February, pp. 178–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bishop, C.. ( 2012), Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, London:: Verso;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bourriaud, N.. ( 2002), Relational Aesthetics, Paris:: Les presses du reel;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bulpitt, J.. ( 1986;), ‘ The discipline of the new democracy: Mrs Thatcher’s domestic statecraft. ’, Political Studies, 34:1, pp. 19–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bürger, P.. ( 1984), The Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minneapolis, MN:: University of Minnesota Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Burnham, P.. ( 2001;), ‘ New labour and the politics of depoliticisation. ’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3:2, pp. 127–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Carleheden, M.. ( 2021;), ‘ How to criticize? On Honneth’s method. ’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 22:3, pp. 219–318.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Corbett, J.. ( 2020;), ‘ The deconsolidation of democracy: Is it new and what can be done about it?. ’, Political Studies Review, 18:2, pp. 178–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dalton, G., and Gill, M.. ( 2022;), ‘ Public bodies reform. ’, Institute for Government, 31 January, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/public-bodies-reform. Accessed 9 March 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dryzek, J. S., and List, C.. ( 2003;), ‘ Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. ’, British Journal of Political Science, 33:1, pp. 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Emirbayer, M., and Sheller, M.. ( 1998;), ‘ Publics in history. ’, Theory and Society, 27:6, pp. 727–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Farinati, L., and Firth, C.. ( 2017), The Force of Listening, Berlin:: Errant Bodies Press;, https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/42661/6/Farinati-L-42661-VoR.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Foucault, M.. ( 1977), Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, New York:: Cornell University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fraser, N.. ( 1995;), ‘ Recognition or redistribution? A critical reading of Iris Young’s justice and the politics of difference. ’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 3:2, pp. 166–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Freee art collective ( 2004;), ‘ The economic function of public art to increase the value of private property. ’, [Billboard Poster], Sheffield:, commissioned by IXIA, property of the artists.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Freee art collective ( 2005;), ‘ The social function for public art is to subject us to civic behaviour. ’, [Poster], London and Birmingham:, commissioned by Space Banana, property of the artists.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Freee art collective ( 2007;), ‘ The function of public art for regeneration is to sex up the control of under-classes. ’, [Billboard Poster], London:, commissioned by the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, UK, property of the artists.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fung, A.. ( 2013;), ‘ Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. ’, Annual Review of Sociology, 2003:29, pp. 515–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gay, O.. ( 2010;), ‘ Quangos. ’, in Key Issues for the New Parliament 2010, London:: House of Commons Library;, pp. 56–57, https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons/lib/research/key_issues/Key-Issues-Quangos.pdf. Accessed 9 March 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Giovannini, A., and Wood, M.. ( 2022;), ‘ Understanding democratic stress. ’, Representation, 58:1, pp. 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.2019821.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Government of United Kingdom ( 2022;), ‘ UK City of Culture 2025: Full application guidance. ’, 4 January, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-city-of-culture-2025-full-guidance-for-long-listed-bidders/uk-city-of-culture-2025-full-application-guidance. Accessed 5 March 2022.
  32. Hall, S.. ( 2002;), ‘ Democracy, Globalization, and Difference. ’, in Enwezor, C. Basualdo,, U. Meta Bauer,, S. Ghez,, S. Maharaj,, M. Nash,, O. Zaya. (eds.), Democracy Unrealized, Documenta11_Platform1, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern-Ruit. 2002 , pp. 21-35, https://www.documenta-platform6.de/democracy-globalization-and-difference/. Accessed 10 March 2022.
  33. Hansen, M. P.. ( 2016;), ‘ Non-normative critique: Foucault and pragmatic sociology as tactical re-politicization. ’, European Journal of Social Theory, 19:1, pp. 127–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Harding, D.. ( 1997), Decadent: Public Art – Contentious Term and Contested Practice, Glasgow:: The Glasgow School of Art;.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Harney, S.. ( 2018;), ‘ Stefano Harney on study. ’, YouTube, 21 July, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJzMi68Cfw0. Accessed 10 March 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hewitt, A.. ( 2011;), ‘ Privatizing the public: Three rhetorics of art’s public good in “third way” cultural policy. ’, Art & the Public Sphere, 1:1, pp. 19–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jenkins, L.. ( 2011;), ‘ The difference genealogy makes: Strategies for politicisation or how to extend capacities for autonomy. ’, Political Studies, 59:1, pp. 156–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jennings, W., and Stoker, G.. ( 2015;), ‘ The impact of anti-politics on the UK general election 2015. ’, Southampton University Politics, 19 January, http://antipolitics.soton.ac.uk/2015/01/20/the-impact-of-anti-politics-on-the-uk-general-election-2015/. Accessed 5 February 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Jordan, M.. ( 2004;), ‘ People as producers. ’, Art & the Public Sphere, 3:1, pp. 5–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Jordan, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Art, its function and its publics: Public sphere theory in the work of the Freee art collective 2004–2010. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Loughborough:: Loughborough University;.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Jordan, M.. ( 2019;), ‘ Art as a politically transformative tool. ’, Lund Urban Creativity Conference 2019, Lund, Sweden, 15–18 May, Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies and the Division of Art History and Visual Studies at Lund University.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kaprow, A.. ( 1993), Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, Los Angeles, CA:: University of California Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Karvelyte, K.. ( 2021;), ‘ Culture as display revisited. ’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 24:1, pp. 141–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kester, G.. ( 2004), Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art, Los Angeles, CA:: University of California Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kwon, M.. ( 2002), One Place after Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Lacy, S.. (ed.) ( 1995), Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, Seattle, WA:: Bay Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lees, L., and Melhuish, C.. ( 2015;), ‘ Arts-led regeneration in the UK: The rhetoric and the evidence on urban social inclusion. ’, European and Urban Studies, 22:3, pp. 22–260, https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776412467474.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mcguigan, J.. ( 2004), Rethinking Cultural Policy, Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA:: Open University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Möller, F.. ( 2016;), ‘ Politics and art. ’, Oxford Handbook Topics in Politics, online edition, Oxford Academic, 6 August, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.13.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. O’Neil, P., and Wilson, M.. ( 2010), Curating and the Educational Turn, London and Amsterdam:: Open Editions;.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Owen, D.. ( 2002;), ‘ Criticism and captivity: On genealogy and critical theory. ’, European Journal of Philosophy, 10:2, pp. 216–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Pateman, C.. ( 1971;), ‘ Political culture, political structure and political change. ’, British Journal of Political Science, 1:3, pp. 291–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Pattie, C.,, Seyd, P., and Whiteley, P.. ( 2004), Citizenship in Britain Values, Participation and Democracy, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rasmussen, M. B.. ( 2017;), ‘ A note on socially engaged art criticism. ’, Field, 6, Winter, http://field-journal.com/issue-6/a-note-on-socially-engaged-art-criticism. Accessed 5 February 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Serota, N.. ( 2021;), ‘ Let’s Create Delivery Plan, 2021–2024. ’, Arts Council England, https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Arts%20Council%20England_Delivery%20Plan_21-24.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sholette, G., and Bass, C.. ( 2018), Art as Social Action: An Introduction to the Principles and Practices of Teaching Social Practice, New York:: Allworth Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. v an Eikels, K.. ( 2020;), ‘ Two workshops, how many publics? Rirlrit Tiranija and Koki Tanka erect archival preserves for living together. ’, in E. Arnhold. (ed.), Public Matters Debates & Documents from the Archives Skulptur Projekte, Koln:: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig;, pp. 151–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. van Eikels, K.. ( 2022;), ‘ Workshops: Technologies of togetherness. ’, Convergence, Creative Cultures PGR Conference 2022, 19–20 May, Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University, Coventry.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Williams, R.. ( 2014), State Culture and beyond Raymond Williams on Culture & Society: Essential Writings (ed. J. McGuigan.), London:: Sage Publications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wood, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Politicisation, depoliticisation and anti-politics: Towards a multilevel research agenda. ’, Political Studies Review, 14:4, pp. 521–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Wood, M.. ( 2017;), ‘ Depoliticisation: What is it and why does it matter?. ’, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, 6 September, http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/09/06/depoliticisation-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/. Accessed 7 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Wood, M.. ( 2022;), ‘ The political ideas underpinning political distrust: Analysing four types of anti-politics. ’, Representation, 58:1, pp. 27–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.1954076.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Wood, M.,, Corbett, J., and Flinders, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Just like us: Everyday celebrity politicians and the pursuit of popularity in an age of anti-politics. ’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18:3, pp. 581–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Wood, M., and Flinders, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Rethinking depoliticisation: Beyond the governmental. ’, Policy & Politics, 42:2, pp. 151–70, https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655909.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Young, I. M.. ( 1990;), ‘ Five faces of oppression. ’, in I. M. Young. (ed.), Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ:: Princeton University Press;, pp. 39–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Young, I. M.. ( 1997;), ‘ Unruly categories: A critique of Nancy Fraser’s dual systems theory. ’, New Left Review, 222, pp. 147–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Jordan, Mel, and Hewitt, Andrew. ( 2022;), ‘ Depoliticization, participation and social art practice: On the function of social art practice for politicization. ’, Art & the Public Sphere, Special Issue: ‘Politicizing Artistic Pedagogies: Disciplines, Struggles, Teachings’, 11:1, pp. 19–36, https://doi.org/10.1386/aps_00066_1
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/aps_00066_1
Loading
Depoliticization, participation and social art practice: On the function of social art practice for politicization
Art & the Public Sphere 11, 19 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1386/aps_00066_1
/content/journals/10.1386/aps_00066_1
/content/journals/10.1386/aps_00066_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): arts policy; Freee art collective; governance; neoliberalism; participation; political efficacy; politicization

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test