THE SOCIAL TURN: COLLABORATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS CLAIRE BISHOP SSUPERFLEX'S INTERNET TV STATION for ekery residents of Livepol housing project (Tenants +999}; Annika Eriksson's inviting groups and individuals to communicate their eas and skills atthe Facze Art Far (Do you tant a audience” 2003); Jeremy Dell's Socal Parade for more than twenty socal organizations in San Sebastin (2004) Lincoln Tobier’s taining local residents in Aubervilies, northeast Pais, to produce half-hour radio programs (Radio Ld’A, 2093); Atcier Van Lieshout « A-Portahle floating abortion clinic (200); Jeane van Heeswijk’s project o ulna condemned shopping ‘mal int a cultural center forthe residents of Vlaardingen, Rotterdam (De Snip, (Oras workshops in Johannesburg (and elsewhere) to teach unemployed people new fashion skills and discuss collective solidarity (News Architect, 1995-); Temporary Services improvised neighborhood environment in an empty lot in Echo Park, Los Angeles (Constrcton Site 2003); Pawel Althamer’s Seniinga group of *lificul” eenagcrs rom Warsaw's working-class Brédno district inlading his 0 Sons) 1 hang ou at his etrospective in Maastricht (Bad Kids, 2004) Jens Haain’sprodacng a ean dae hat features blackeandwhite photographic port of eefugees in Finland awaiting the out their aylumn applications (The Refigee Calendar, 2002) “This catalogue of project ius a sample ofthe recent sutge of ars interes in collectivity, collabora tion, and direct engagement with specifie social constituencies. Although these practices have had, for the most part a relay weak profilin the commercial art world—collecie projects are move dficalt to market than works by indivial artists, and they're als es likey to be “works” than social events, publications, workshops, orpetformances—they nevertheless occupy an increasingly conspicuous presence In the publicsecioe. The unprecedented expansion ofthe biennial sone factor that hss certainly conti. uted this shi (chiy-¢hree new biennial have been established in the past ren years alone, che major it in counties uni recently considered peripheral to the international art world), ass the new mode! ofthe commissioning agency dedicated ro the production of experimental engaged atin the public els Arangelin London, seo in the Nethesands, Nowven Comtmatabitiresin France are jst few that cometomind).n her crea history One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Idetity (2003), Miwon Koon anges that community specific work takes critiques of heavy metal” public art sit point ‘of departge to addres the site a a octal rather than fru or phenomendlagical framework. The iter subjective space created rough these projects becomes the foeus—and medium —of artistic investigation. ‘This expanded field of relational prasces curently goes by a variety of names: socally engaged ar, ‘community-based at, experimental communities dalogic an, litocal at participatory, interventionist, researc: based, o collaborative ar. These practices ae less interested in feltionalaethetiethan nthe creative rewards of collaborative atvty—-whether inthe fom of working with preexisting communis ‘ot establishing one's own iterdisciplinary network. I tempting vo date the ie in visblty of these practices tothe easy royos, when the fall of Communism deprived the Left ofthe las vestiges ofthe revoluron that had once inked political and aesthetic adam, Many att now make no distinction between their work inside and outside the gallery, and even highly established and commercially suc- cessful figures ke Francs Als, Pieee Huyghe, Matthew Barney, and Thomas Hirschhorn have all ‘med to social collaboration as an extension oftheir conceptual a seulptual practice. Although the objectives and ouput ofthese atious artist td groups vary enormously ll ate inked bya bei nthe ‘empowering cestity of collective action and shared ess, ‘This mixed panorama of socal collaborative work arguably forms what avant-garde we have today arcs using social situations to produce dematerilized,antimarke, politically engaged project that acy onthe modernist alt bhirart and lie For Nicolas Beurriud in Relatonol Aesthetics (198), the defining ext of elational entice, aes the place chat produces a specific sociability,” precisely became tighten the space of relations unlike TV." For Grant H. Kester, in another key text, Conversation Poces: Comtamity and Communication in Moder Art (2004), aris niquely pled to counter world in which “we are reduced to an atomized psendocommunity of consumers, our sensiblites dulled by spectacle and rection.” For thew and other supportes of socaly engaged art the creative energy of npr aaaparticipatory practices rebumanizes—or atleast de-alienates~a society ren dered numb and fagmented by the repressive insteumentaity of capitals. But the urgency of this pla ask as Ted ta situation in which such collabora tive practices are automaticaly perceived to be equally important artsc ges tures of resistance: There can be no aed, nsuecesf xnresolved, o boring swarks of collaborative are because all are equally essential to the task of strengthening the socal bond, While Iam broadly sympathetic to that ambi- tion, I ould argue that iti also crucial co discuss, analye, and compare such ‘work erically a a. This etl tak is pardculaly pressing in Britain, where [New Labout ses a shtorie almost ulentical to that of socially engaged at to steer altre toward polices of cia incasion. Reducing ato staal infor ‘mation about target audiences and "performance indicators,” the government rionitacs socal effec over considerations of arisie quality. “Te emergence of criteria by which to judge soc practices isnot asisted by the present-day standoff beowwen the nonbelevers(esthetes who reject this wos as marginal, misguided, ad lacking artistic interest of any kind) and the The social tum in contemporary art has prompted an ethical tum in art criticism. Artists are increasingly judged by their working process—the degree to which they supply good or bad models of collaboration—and criti cized for any hint of potential exploitation. bievers (activists who reject acsthtic quescions as synonynous with cultural hierarchy and the market) The former, a thei most extreme, would condemn tis to. world of relevant painting and seupture, while the later have ate ‘dency co sel-marginalize tothe point of inadvertently enforcing ar’ auton- ‘om, hereby preventing any proictive rapprochement between ar and ie. s ‘there ground on which the ro sides can met? WHAT SERIOUS CRITICISM has arisen in elation to socially collaborsive att has bee framed ina particular way: The socal run in contemporary art has prompted an ethical en i ar criti, This fs manifest ina heightened aten- tion to bow given collaboration i undertaken. In ather words, artists are increasingly judged by thei working process—the degree wo which they supply 0d or bad model of eollaboration-—and criticize for any hint of potential exploitation that seo “ally” represent thie subjects, asf sucha thing were possible. This emphasis on process over produc ie, means over ends just fed as oppositional eo capitalis’s predilection faethe contrary. The indignant ‘outrage directed at Santiago Sierra is a prominent example of this tendency, but ‘thas been disheartening to read the critisism of other aris that also arises in the name ofthis equation: Accusations of mastery and egocentriem are leveled st artists who work with participants to realize a project instead of allowing teemezge through consensual collaboration, ‘The wetingsround the Turkish artists collective OdsProjesi provides clear example ofthe way in which aesthetic judgments have been overtaken by ethical itera. Ode Projsi isa group of thee artists who, since 1997, have based their activities ound a three-room apartment inthe Galata district of Istanbul (oda projets Tukish for “oom projec”). The apartment provides a platform fr projects generated bythe eolecive in cooperation with its neigh bors, such as a chlden’s workshop with the Turkish paiter Kom, 2 commu: nity picnic withthe sulptr Erik Gingrich, anda parade for children organized bythe Tem Vapi theate group. Oda Projes argue that hey wish to open up 2 «context forthe possibly of interchange and dialogue, motivated by adeste to integrate with thie surroundings. They insist that they ae not setting Out to improve ot heal a stuation—one oftheir project lealets contains the slogan “exchange not change”—though they leaty se their work ax genty oppo sional. By working directly with thei neighbors to organize workshops and ‘events, they evidently want to produce a more creative and partiiptoey social fabric, They talk of creating “blank spaces” ancl “holes” inthe face ofan over organized and bureaucratic society, and of being “mediators” between groups ‘of people who normally don’t have contact with one another. Because much of Oda Pojes’s work exist onthe lve of art education and ‘community events, we ean sce them as dynamic members ofthe community bringing at 10 a wider audience eis important that they are opening up the space fr non-object based practice in Turkey, a cointey whose art scadernies and art mackct ares largely oriented toward painting and sculpture. And one may also be pleased, as lam, that itis three women who have undertaken this task. But their conceptual gestae of reducing the authoral status to 2 mini- ‘mum ultimately becomes inseparable from the community arts wadition. Even when transposed to Sweden, Germany, and the other countries where Oda Projesi have exhibited, theee is litle to distinguish thei projects feom other soil engages practices that revolve around the proditable formulas of work shops, discussions, meals, film screenings, and walks. Perhaps this is because the question of aesthetic vale snot valid for Oda Proje. When interviewed the collective for Untied magazine (Spring 2005) and asked whar rteria they base thei on work on, they replied tht hey judge it by the decisions they make about where and with whom they collaborate: Dynamic and sustained relationships provide their markers of sccest, not aesthetic considerations Indeed, because thee practice is based on collaboration, Oda Projsi consider sstheicto be “a dangerous word” that should not be brought into discussion. ‘This seemed to me tobe a curious responses Ifthe aeshetc x dangerous, sae that all the more reson should be interrogated? ‘Oda Projen's ethical approach i adopted bythe Swedish curator Maria Lind ina recent essay on thei work Lind sone ofthe most articulate supporters of political and relational practices, nd she undertakes her curatorial work with a twenchant commitment tothe social. In her essay on Od Proje published in (Clare Dohery’s From Studi to Situations: Contemporary Arta the Quston of Comtest (2004), she notes thatthe group is not interested in shoving or