It has become clear, if not before then certainly since this year’s jointly curated documenta and the Istanbul Biennale, that a trend towards the collective is emerging, particularly in the cultural landscape.
Exhibitions and numerous other projects that are the product of creative work are increasingly notable for the fact that they no longer originate from the work of individuals, but are conceived, designed and realised by groups. This inevitably raises the question: has the long-held myth of the individual artistic genius become obsolete?
We find groups engaged in creative work not only in the arts – there are architectural collectives, theatre collectives, collectives of film directors, and even pub collectives – the list is long. Furthermore, new ideas regarding alternative, low-hierarchy forms of corporate governance, such as self-organisation and a co-operative approach, are attracting increasing attention.
What actually characterises collective practice? And what does this mean in the context of art and cultural production? What can a collective do that an individual cannot? What challenges does creative work in a group present, and how does this actually affect our conception of artistic and creative authorship?
Would you like to be informed about the next edition?
Subscribe to our invitation list or follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn.
Project Team
Gewerkdesign
Stefan Rothert
Birgit Schlegel
Jens Imig
Christina Storch
Antoine Laurent
Summary
The art critic and cultural journalist Ingo Arend examined collective creativity and practice from an art-historical perspective. Starting with groups of artists in the 19th and 20th centuries – the forerunners of artistic collectives – he traced the development of the phenomenon in his lecture, referring to the respective socio-political contexts of the time to which these groups sought to respond. For example, artistic associations such as the Dutch group De Stijl or the German Bauhaus made a significant contribution to the concept of collectively developed artistic values and a corresponding aesthetic that recognises the social dimensions of art and cultural production and understands artistic creation, at least in part, as a social mission.
From this and similar case studies from modern and contemporary art, which the speaker cited in his lecture, it is already possible to identify a number of trends that characterise the phenomenon of artistic collectives today. On the one hand, for instance, a shift in focus away from the artists and towards the art itself can be observed. The emphasis is thus on the product of creative labour rather than on the artistic creative process and its protagonists. Artistic works are often credited solely with the name of the collective. The individuals therefore take a back seat in favour of the group, thereby eschewing the mystical, aura-laden connotations still implied by the long-dominant notion of the artist as a singular genius. Elsewhere, the physical artwork itself also takes a back seat. Instead, processes and discourses come to the fore. This is particularly common in practice-based, artistic-social group projects, such as those on display at documenta fifteen.
Following on from this, Ezra Dilger introduced us to the Plus X collective, whose projects operate at the intersection of art, urban planning, design and social work. The Plus X collective is based in Halle and Leipzig. The collective’s work consists of urban interventions that treat public space as a stage and champion a vibrant urban culture.
The core team consists of four permanent members, but also regards the individuals or groups participating in a particular project as part of the collective. ‘Plus X’ refers to the new members joining the group for each specific project. The members, who come from a variety of design disciplines, have worked since the collective’s foundation within a group structure in which all creative and administrative decisions are made on a grassroots democratic basis and financial resources – generated mainly through funding for individual projects by cultural foundations – are distributed according to actual need. Furthermore, the specific contribution made by a member of the group within a project is not highlighted individually or attributed to a specific person, but is understood as an equal contribution to the realisation of the overall concept.
In his talk, the speaker presented a number of projects from the last five years. These included the ‘Bella Grünau’ project, which used temporary structures in a prefabricated housing estate in Leipzig’s Grünau district to create a low-threshold meeting place for local residents. In collaboration with the local cultural centre, the collective devised a concept for an interactive cultural programme. The creative starting point for the installation was a participatory pizzeria, where local residents could bake pizzas together and engage in dialogue with one another. The aim of facilitating cultural and political participation for marginalised and disadvantaged groups runs through all of the collective’s projects.
Do these developments now herald a paradigm shift? Is a collectivist approach to art, culture and their audiences becoming increasingly established? Against the backdrop of these theoretical and practical insights into the subject matter, and following a stimulating discussion, it can at least be concluded that collective practices – whether historical or contemporary – seek to respond collectively to social injustices through creative means, whilst in doing so testing out a model form of a social ‘we’.