Maybe having a message is not enough.. the question is who is the interlocutor of the message? What is it that message forcing to change? The message should come through a struggle, i believe, otherwise it is just a personal statement not a message that meant to be transmitted. Also any struggle counted as "activism" has to do with power inequity at the end. The activists per se can have personal connection with the message (as Christine mentioned usually artivists who are coming from marginalised communities) but the message should indicate a societal change/development in favour of the ones who have less power. Anyways mind opening conversation, i just wanted to make a point, no gate-keeping intended:))great question btw what do we do with that much awareness?? Self-referanced artivism is a strange concept too, for example my art tacles with cultural otherness, cultural colonialism etc. but extracting practical direction from my works is very difficult. i mean maybe art can have influence people then those people or institutions who got influenced might activate themselves to take actions.. but instead of art, working on policy making gathering communities maybe more efficient just like traditional activism and using propaganda tools. Artivism for the sake of artivism is way too indirect. However artists following their passion as artistic discourse and as a result, their works align with certain messages is a natural process. Apparently i am confused too:))
I'm sitting in a small conference at school while writing this. The title of the conference is 'Narrativas Audiovisuales Prosociales Inmersivas.' They're discussing what's 'prosocial' in audiovisual productions. I can borrow this concept to distinguish between personal statements and messages. I think a message should intend to provoke positive social change, not negative ones. For example, you can't be protesting for the right to smoke indoors as your activist message. Maybe finally, your message was interpreted incorrectly or incompletely, but at least you tried. You mentioned working on policymaking is more like traditional activism, which I think agree with. They are activists first and artists second. Some artists are more artists than traditional activists. That's the complexity of this non-binary artist-activist dynamic. I think someone should totally write a research paper on it! It's a blue ocean! I kept finding those great subjects to venture into, but I haven't found the time to write about them. 😿
Yes, artivists must offer a practical solution via their art. Not just expose the issue or problem. Of course, it has to be very personal, not just a theoretical gossiping or pondering. No. It must be very REAL and personal. Not just imagined ВS.
Great interview. You two have great chemistry together.
Maybe having a message is not enough.. the question is who is the interlocutor of the message? What is it that message forcing to change? The message should come through a struggle, i believe, otherwise it is just a personal statement not a message that meant to be transmitted. Also any struggle counted as "activism" has to do with power inequity at the end. The activists per se can have personal connection with the message (as Christine mentioned usually artivists who are coming from marginalised communities) but the message should indicate a societal change/development in favour of the ones who have less power. Anyways mind opening conversation, i just wanted to make a point, no gate-keeping intended:))great question btw what do we do with that much awareness?? Self-referanced artivism is a strange concept too, for example my art tacles with cultural otherness, cultural colonialism etc. but extracting practical direction from my works is very difficult. i mean maybe art can have influence people then those people or institutions who got influenced might activate themselves to take actions.. but instead of art, working on policy making gathering communities maybe more efficient just like traditional activism and using propaganda tools. Artivism for the sake of artivism is way too indirect. However artists following their passion as artistic discourse and as a result, their works align with certain messages is a natural process. Apparently i am confused too:))
I'm sitting in a small conference at school while writing this. The title of the conference is 'Narrativas Audiovisuales Prosociales Inmersivas.' They're discussing what's 'prosocial' in audiovisual productions. I can borrow this concept to distinguish between personal statements and messages. I think a message should intend to provoke positive social change, not negative ones. For example, you can't be protesting for the right to smoke indoors as your activist message. Maybe finally, your message was interpreted incorrectly or incompletely, but at least you tried.
You mentioned working on policymaking is more like traditional activism, which I think agree with. They are activists first and artists second. Some artists are more artists than traditional activists. That's the complexity of this non-binary artist-activist dynamic. I think someone should totally write a research paper on it! It's a blue ocean! I kept finding those great subjects to venture into, but I haven't found the time to write about them. 😿
Yes, artivists must offer a practical solution via their art. Not just expose the issue or problem. Of course, it has to be very personal, not just a theoretical gossiping or pondering. No. It must be very REAL and personal. Not just imagined ВS.
Art- is open to interpretation