This text seemed to explore the optimum ability of the arts
to be involved in redefining the story and identity of local cultures and to
incite positive social change. I sought
to create a universal template for the process of involving the community in telling
a new story, informed from the inside, about their shared experience, identity,
and potential. I was repeatedly reminded
of the Interview with David Gauntlett[1]
and its emphasis on the empowering aspect of the process of creating, as well
as Peter Forbes’ essay[2]
discussing the power of story to create social change. Both of these seemed to inform my reading as
I contemplated the potential for these programs to create lasting change and to
actually redefine the personal identity of those who participate.
Largely the text seemed to argue that individuals and their
communities need to resist the top-down identity and branding that tend to
permeate societies via mass media. It
repeatedly expressed a distrust of the business-model of the press, and seemed
to focus its entire energy on the business of telling the untold stories of
ethnic minorities, and those socially marginalized for economic or criminal
reasons. I do feel that these stories
need to be told, but I also felt that by choosing the entirety of the social
issues addressed in this text to be at that end of the spectrum of social
change, that the text perhaps alienated those of us who are also interested in
telling or facilitating untold stories that might not seem quite so dire or
politicized. I feel that there is still
great value in giving voice to the voiceless, even when the weightiest of
social issues are not hanging in the balance.
The format of the text centered around its acronym for the
proscribed creative process: CRAFT for Contact (Forming connections with the
people you hope to collaborate with), Research (Gathering information about the
people and issues you will work with), Action (Producing a new work of art that
“benefits the community”), Feedback (providing opportunities for reflection,
dialogue, and social action), and Teaching (passing on skills to others to make
the impact self-sustaining.) Each of
these points was explicitly illustrated in the 9 examples illustrated in the
text.
I appreciated that the text acknowledged the existence and
potency of digital communities. It seems
that a lot of groups that would share interest in such a project would be
difficult to find in a concise geographic area.
Most of the projects presented could only work in a densely populated city
where enough people of similar backgrounds or concerns could feasibly be
gathered in one location.
As I tried to identify a working model of this type of
project that would resonate with me, I consistently encountered that online
communities have a much trickier job of that first step – Contact. Locating and creating relationships with the
people you hope to involve is much trickier to do when your shared interest
involves a negative (a need for change) rather than a positive. On top of this complication is the existence
of communities that do the exact opposite of what this text suggests and
aggressively promote harmful or hateful communities. The existence of support communities for
those who wish to pursue extreme eating disorders, sites that teach youth how
to be anorexic, rather than support them in rehabilitation, is a troubling
example of this.
Another issue that online community building faces is
dealing with search-engine optimization.
This can be difficult, or expensive for a small organization and is
pretty much requisite for finding like-minded individuals. Cause-related Social networking is difficult,
potentially expensive, or slow-going if word-of-mouth is the only means of
growing the community. (Unless you stumble into an existing community.)
I tried to find an online community action tool for sharing
or empowering stories for those affected by depression or mental illness, but
the sites I was able to find were rather larger in scale than the projects
described in Beginner’s Guide to Community Based Arts. I found one that had a platform for sharing
and discussing stories in an attempt to negate negative assumptions and
stereotypes, but it was a small part of the larger website for the Anxiety and
Depression Association of America. [3] The scope of the entire site was so large
and, frankly, corporate, that it ultimately did not feel to me like it met the
criteria. Several of the CRAFT steps
were notably missing, (Research! Feedback! Teaching!) and I felt like it was
more of a venting message board than an agent for actually changing
paradigms. I suspect that if I had time
to dig deeper I could find a smaller, more effective platform somewhere, but
the fact that it requires deeper digging is indicative of a potential problem.
But, outside of trying to align this idea with my own
digital experiences, I did see some potential for applying these ideas to
real-life instances around me. I was
already aware of some concern over the preservation of historic buildings in
Provo,[4]
and I managed to walk by a well-preserved building just off of Center Street in
Provo with a placard outside stating that it had been restored in 2005 by ARCH,
the Association for the Retention of Cultural Heritage. I attempted to find some information on this
“Association” online and had no luck. My
search was overwhelmed by ARCH the (international) Alliance for the Restoration
of Cultural Heritage – a fundraising site for saving historic sites threatened
by war in the Middle East. This sort of
search-engine-optimization problem seems like a huge stumbling block for
advancing these types of small, community-scale projects with online resources.
I’m not certain that I have a solution for that problem, other than that many
of them may need to spend some time carefully deliberating the naming of their
projects and the choosing of domain names, and involve social media experts (in
their Contact phase) to help them maximize search engine optimization at
minimal cost.
[1] Henry Jenkins
Interview with David Gauntlett, “Studying Creativity in the age of Web 2.0” http://henryjenkins.org/2011/08/studying_creativity_in_the_age.html#sthash.ipn5vuoZ.dpuff
http://www.wholecommunities.org/pdf/publications/Power%20of%20Story%202008.pdf
[3]
http://www.adaa.org/living-with-anxiety/personal-stories/all-stories/7
[4]
http://abouttownutah.org/2013/10/01/the-lds-church-wants-to-replace-provos-oldest-home-with-a-parking-lot/
No comments:
Post a Comment