Collaborative Art

One aspect I found to be characteristic of collaborative artwork was its utility. While individualistic artwork has the ability to serve a function or use in society, it seems that it more often is created simply for aesthetics. For example, when you visit a museum and view great Renaissance art, you are merely viewing a series of paintings. Of course, one can argue that these pieces of artwork serve the function of educating the public about another time period or cultivating the public's artistic sensibilities. These functions, however, seem rather trivial in comparison with the functions that most collaborative artwork tends to serve. As Lind states in "The Collaborative Turn," the purpose of individualistic art is often to show the world as it is, while the purpose of collaborative artwork is often to create new situations in which people can interact.

As Lind describes, for example, people often use collaborative artwork as a form of activism. Technology has aided the potential for collective activism by allowing a greater volume of opinions to be assembled in a shorter window of time. Furthermore, by working collectively, it is easier for artists to gain "collective autonomy," separating themselves from other spheres of society. I was especially interested, however, in Homles' explanation Foucaut's "Panopticon" and Guattari's concept of the "anti-asylum." (We recently read "Panopticon" in my sociology class.) Based on the panopticon model, people internalize discipline because they fear they are always being watched. As a result, without using direct punishment, society can lead individuals to obey social norms and laws. However, this model can apply to any institution, even the world of art: People adhere to certain norms because they fear being observed deviating from society's prescribed standards. Collaborative art, however, often breaks this model by parting from prescribed standards and creating art that envelops an entire community.

Collaborative art often blurs the line between creators and receivers of art, often creating a more broad category of "participation." JacksonPollack exemplifies the blurring of this distinction: Who is the creator of this piece of art? Is it the team who constructed the website, or is it the thousands of visitors who use the site to make their own creations? Or is it, in fact, that this particular piece of art can be attributed to both sets of people, for it would not exist without the webmasters but would serve no purpose without the visitors? Additionally, to whom can we attribute the art present on Miranda July's "Learning to Love You More"? Is it the creators of the website for developing the concept and the "assignments," or is it the visitors to the website who submit their own creative answers to assignments? Surely, both groups harbor some level of participation in this creative process; however, it is more difficult to tell who, in a sense, "owns" the artwork. In this way, collaborative art often takes away the idea of ownership and instead creates art that is open to the public.