Maybe it could be interesting to check out the expressiv arts movement. there is existing a master program in switzerland in expressiv art in conflict transformation, think in peru too.
The question of course is very very broad.
What constitutes 'positive change'? it is contingent on context and for whom?
I am working on a project that considers 'impact' (though the term is used regularly and has mechanistic overtones--not quite right for arts practice) from the perspective of participants (those who are directly engaged by projects; arts workers; community; and funders. Unsurprisingly what constitutes 'impact' varies both by perspective (who is looking) and by site--an indigenous population v's an urban affluent population.
so, another question flowing is; Who decides?
If art does not contribute to “positive change,” that is change in the direction of truth and greater freedom, why do all the tyrants try to suppress it?
Who decides what? Everyone decides..by paying attention to some trends and not others. By being part of a 'trend' and not others. No one group always decides. This works like fashion.
Art (some variety of image making) is something that we see in the design of everyday objects, houses, clothing, the layouts of towns and cities, the arrangement of farmers' fields, gardens..many such things. Movies, videos, advertising, apps, anything that is created by human beings could be considered in this category. This has had an impact on all of us. Some imagery carries very significant meanings. One example would be the indication of certain social statuses by the requirement to wear certain forms dress and not others. One can learn from looking at the exterior of houses, which social groups may have originally built them. Although this iconography has changed in form and content throughout the centuries and from social group to social group, it indicates that art and design impact everyone in different ways.
Tyrants do suppress the arts..there is no doubt. They destroy art, museums, buildings shrines. I think that they believe that by doing this they are attacking the inner beings of the people to whom these things belong. They also suppress written arts as well, as well as libraries and schools. Persuasive Art is inherent in many aspects of our daily lives. I don't think that it is a 'select' group or a 'select' movement.
Ah - a question close to my heart! Yes, I absolutely believe art can contribute to positive change. I have seen, for myself, the impact of sharing lived experience through the medium of art.
As a mental health carer I could see the difficulty practitioners had in understanding what families were experiencing. There were enormous problems in communicating that no words seemed to conquer.
So, in my "spare time" I created a website called the Caring Together Art Journal Project - you can check it out at https://caringtogetherproject.com It specifically uses a combination of art journaling and storytelling to share the experience of mental health carers, so that can be understood by practitioners working in the field. The artwork explains strong emotions in a way that is not too confronting - and it can also, through the use of colour and design, offer hope and positivity. It shares a message much quicker than writing can.
It DOES work, because I receive feedback all the time from ,mental health carers, consumers and practitioners who say that they now "get it", and can relate to the experiences in some way. My artwork is being used extensively in clinician training - particularly with Australia's new focus on including families and carers in the support of their loved ones with a mental illness.
The artwork is making partnerships much more possible, and also helping carers feel less isolated because they can see they are not the only ones going through those experiences. I put my artwork into slideshows and videos (which you can see on the site) and they have been widely used in public mental health services in Australia. I have been asked over and over to present my artwork at mental health conferences. If no-one thought they would have any impact on improving the situation, this just wouldn't be happening.
Ok - off my soapbox now :) I just hope you can drop by the website and see what I'm talking about. I'd love to hear what you think, and to see if it convinces you that art can indeed contribute to positive change.
Art is a part of social life.Сhanging itself, art promotes thereby changing in a society. Power in totalitarian regimes always closely watching the changing in art..
Art is completely part of all our lives and it changes and confirms who we are and who we can be.
There is a very successful and interesting technique that has been used to teach children and adults to read by using each person's art work as a basis for learning.
It works like this.
Each person creates a drawing. The teacher then asks that person what his/her drawing is about. Then the teacher writes a sentence that describes or labels the drawing. The idea is that the person who has created the drawing has also authored a sentence. This newly created sentence, using the person's own words about his/her own drawing is then used to teach that person to read. That person makes a clear association between the content of the drawing and the personalised description of that content. This establishes a meaningful connection between imagery and writing, and word shapes. Since they are so very personal, it is easier to remember and to learn to recognize patterns and shapes. This immediately demonstrates the potential of shapes to carry meanings.
Clearly after one has created a number of drawings, one has also created a reading book. This works because each person identifies with their own work..
I have been trying to suggest in my other comments that art is for everyone, not just an educated few that use art as status symbols.
I agree with peter Wright The differnce is contingent on context and for whom?
For example in cartography there are not a clear demarcation line between science and art . For example in cartography by definition, cartography is 'the art and science of making maps'" (1989 p. 91), Merriam-Webster defines cartography as "the science or art of making maps.".Cartographers have access to geographic depictions and other forms of information from satellite imagery, aerial photography, GPS surveys, GIS coverages, CAD drawings, and hand-drawn maps. This gives cartographers a perspective to view and ponder the world in which he lives. In ultimate instance he wishes to make accesible, share and compare with others how he sees and experience the world. The tool Geographic information system (GIS) is a tool of our time that produces a sense of our time and place. Cartography as an art form reflects the interaction and relationship of art and science within cartography. There are links between cartography as an art and cartography as a science that show that methods are similar and perhaps goals. Also, there are also significant links between art and maps. This relationship between art and maps reflects the historic interplay of the "creative" products of artists and the "scientific" products of cartographers. Reviewing these relationships in some detail creates a better understanding about why cartography is a distinctive art form. (http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/proceed/papers/pap413/p413.htm David Endelman)
The relevant question is :Where is the boundary I think that it depends of the interest and sensibility of the peopleMaybe should be start Reading Eric Kandels Book The age of insight: the unconsiensous in art mind and brain from Vienna 1900 to present day.
Interesting what Hugo said above. Sometimes it is hard to express and contextualise why you like a particular piece of art. Even as artists we struggle to communicate our thoughts in words and that is why we do it visually. So, I do not feel that someone has to completely 'understand' my art to appreciate its value or gain something rewarding from it and I certainly do not feel that they have to be 'educated' as Hugo mentioned. 'Positive change' can sometimes be unconscious. When we made our online artwork realsnailmail.net - originally we thought people may think it is too quirky. But here we are 6 years later and the project is still going strong and has effected and had an impact on so many different individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures.
Art has not moved away from being decorative - what galleries call artists these days have - but the people who make it and the curators are not really artists or at least they maybe but are playing a game to make money - art and creativity are eternal and the idea that decorative art cannot affect social change is also wrong. I disagree with Hugo - you do not need to be educated to understand art - really powerful art can communicate to all sections of society , its not as if the poor of yesteryear were unable to appreciate the Sistine Chapel or the pyramids - and those that stroke their beards in galleries believing they are part of some artistic elite would not know what true creativity is if it punched them in the face. This idea of high brow art only being appreciated by an select few is a recent invention and has more to do with politics and economics that art. These people are pseudo intellectuals and bureaucrats who have done great damage to the world of art and its time for them to go, and its time for everyone else to stop following them because they think they will look stupid if they admit they don't really have a clue what they are talking about. The emperor is wearing no clothes. To answer your question though (; art can change the way people look at the world and therefore the way they think. This can change their behaviour in a positive way - but we are not social workers - we are here to excite peoples imaginations and inspire them - and not just in galleries.
Speaking of popular art that moves the world: Waltz Disney have moved a lot of kids.
Aren't we really talking about that unique quality of humankind which has brought us to where we are today (for good and bad)...'creativity'? It is all around us, every day, influencing us consciously and unconsciously. It is influential beyond our current comprehension, isn't it? I invite anyone who feels confident that they have a rational and complete explanation about what art (or creativity), is to offer it up here. We think we can 'put it in a box' with limitations and boundaries, as if we own it.
As Auguste Rodin (1911) said "Art is the most sublime mission of man since it is the exertion of the mind trying to understand the world and to make the world understood. "Rodin also claims that “beautiful works of art, which are the highest testimonies of intelligence and of human sincerity, say everything that one can say about man and about the world. Besides, they make us understand that there is something else that one cannot know.”
I suggest that all disciplines require creativity of mind (if not hand) in order to be of usefulness to humankind, otherwise we would not have survived and evolved this far. Surely, our future survival is also going to depend upon our creative abilities and outputs, isn't it?
Within or without of constraint, ART may attribute for the people, by the people and to the people. As Rilke wrote, Beauty is nothing but the beginning of a terror we're only just able to bear. And why we love it is because it serenely disdains to destroy us. Every angel is terrifying.
Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Monash University (Australia)
Susan Mary Michael
University of South Australia
Fazli Durrani Sattar
Universidad de las Americas Puebla
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar (UASB)
Trinity College Dublin
Paula Fayos Perez
University of Cambridge
Peter R. Wright