Rethinking co-creation

Community art or co-creation?

Last Friday, Arlene Goldbard and I recorded an episode of our podcast. Mostly, we have guests but about a third of the podcasts are just conversations between us, and this is one of those. It should be available next week, on 20 March.

We talked about co-creation, and why I have recently begun to use it. For many years I doggedly described my work as community art, partly because that term came out of a body of grounded theory and practice in the 1960s and 1970s that I still believe to be valid, and partly because the phrase is understood by the people I work with. If I invite someone to be part of a community art project, they usually have a good idea of what I mean, even if it’s not exactly the same as mine.

So why start using the term co-creation? One reason is that it’s more meaningful in other cultures and languages: in fact, so untranslatable is it that community art is used directly in the Netherlands and Sweden. Another reason is that co-creation describes what actually happens when I’m working on an arts project with other people: it’s more precise than community art, which can mean almost anything.

But perhaps the most important is that reading and thinking about co-creation has helped me challenge my own ideas and practices. The change in language is part of a recognition that my understanding of my own field of work, as set out in A Restless Art, was inadequate and in some senses naive. I want to address those gaps and limitations in A Selfless Art. I stand by what I’ve written in the past, especially in terms of its values, processes and outcomes. The definition of community art I gave in A Restless Art is the same as the one I now use to describe co-creation:

‘The creation of art as a human right, by professional and non-professional artists, co-operating as equals, for purposes and to standards they set together, and whose processes, products and outcomes cannot be known in advance.’

François Matarasso, 2019, A Restless Art

I stand by it, but it’s not enough. I need to enlarge and balance what I wrote in 10 or 20 years ago with other ideas and new interpretations. That is the project I’m calling A Selfless Art.

2 responses to “Community art or co-creation?”

  1. maximumstrangere79cca86e9 Avatar
    maximumstrangere79cca86e9

    I do like co-creation Francois but I think that community art is more specific. Co-creation is often used in my environment here in New Zealand/Aotearoa to describe people working together to codesign new ways of thinking about or doing things that may have nothing to do with the arts. We cocreate new practice, policy, approaches etc….

    Like

    1. François Matarasso Avatar
      François Matarasso

      You’re quite right – co-creation is certainly a problematic term. Because of its origins in neoliberal consumer economics, it can be exploitative and extractive. But lots of words have complex meanings and interpretations that are shaped by a person’s perspective: family can feel warm to one person and dangerous to another. One of the tasks I want to fulfil in the book is to outline the complexities of the term and make it possible to use it in a constructive way. And I will never stop using the term community art

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment