Socially Engaged Art Education: Defining and Defending the Practice

Abstract

Community Arts have a long history within art and education, yet its practices continue to evolve. The issue of nomenclature when discussing such socially engaged practices raises the deeper questions of whether work in this area suggests the formalization of yet another new genre of art, or does it entail a more profound re-ordering of the discursive system that underlies most existing modes of artistic production? This chapter attends to individual differences and similarities in perception and practice through a careful consideration for how the field of art education might nurture new and diverse articulations of community-based practices that emphasize relational aesthetics, participatory pedagogy, and socially engaged artistic practices. This chapter will (re)frame the discourse as Socially Engaged Art Education (SEAE) to emphasize a new terrain of consciousness that is socially responsible and ethically sound,
and goes beyond mere promotion of aesthetic quality to contribute to improved quality of life.

Full text

1
Chapter 1
Socially Engaged Art Education:
Dening and Defending the Practice
Ross H. Schlemmer
Southern Connecticut State University, USA
ABSTRACT
Community Arts have a long history within art and education, yet its practices continue to evolve. The
issue of nomenclature when discussing such socially engaged practices raises the deeper questions of
whether work in this area suggests the formalization of yet another new genre of art, or does it entail a
more profound re-ordering of the discursive system that underlies most existing modes of artistic produc-
tion? This chapter attends to individual differences and similarities in perception and practice through
a careful consideration for how the field of art education might nurture new and diverse articulations of
community-based practices that emphasize relational aesthetics, participatory pedagogy, and socially
engaged artistic practices. This chapter will (re)frame the discourse as Socially Engaged Art Education
(SEAE) to emphasize a new terrain of consciousness that is socially responsible and ethically sound,
and goes beyond mere promotion of aesthetic quality to contribute to improved quality of life.
INTRODUCTION
Community Arts have a long and distinguished history within the field of art education. At various times
and places, such community-based practices have been referred to as: Community-Based Art Education,
Service-Learning, Place-Making or Placed-Based Artmaking, Civic Engagement, Art for Social Change,
Socially-Engaged Art, Art as Social Practice, Activist Art, Participatory Art, Community Cultural
Development, Arts-Based Community Development—and the list goes on. These discourses continue
to shape the kinds of practices artists and art educators engage in with their students and members of
the community, yet at the same time, the implementation of practices continues to evolve. The issue
of nomenclature when discussing such socially engaged practices, art historian Grant Kester (2014)
suggested, raises the deeper questions of whether work in this area suggests the formalization of yet
another new ‘genre’ of art, or whether it entails a more profound (re)framing of the discursive systems
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1727-6.ch001

2
Socially Engaged Art Education
that underlie most existing modes of artistic production. This, amongst others, is one of the questions
this chapter will attempt to address.
This chapter begins with a brief exploration of the history of civic engagement in the arts, and
then moves to a more in-depth discussion regarding the evolution of its terms and characterization of
its practices. It will attempt to clarify and distinguish between different community-based practices,
particularly as they continue to evolve and diverge. This chapter will then provide examples of socially
engaged artistic practices and considers their pedagogical implications. Through an analysis of practices
associated with ‘Community Art’ and ‘Community-Based Art Education,’ this chapter will distinguish
and (re)frame the role of the arts in engaging the public through civic engagement, and then provide a
framework for Socially Engaged Art Education (SEAE) as a means to discriminate and synthesize ele-
ments of these discourses.
SEAE does not refer to a ‘new’ genre of community-based art practices; rather, it is being used here
to distinguish between different types of ‘community practices’ (i.e. art skills and media taught in a
community setting vs. art as a transformative action). It further leverages distinct community arts prac-
tices that consider art’s function as social action. Such a (re)framing of community-based practices has
connections to participatory pedagogy and socially engaged artistic practices that focus on our emerging
understanding of the intertwining aesthetic, social and political implications of community arts practices.
The pedagogical implications of such socially engaged practices involve creating greater critical
awareness of the artist’s role that is not the result of an autonomous, self-contained individual focus on
self-expression, but rather upon a dialogical structure that results from collaborative and interdependent
processes. This more socially oriented framework seeks to connect art and pedagogy through practices
that create a critical consciousness that provides ideas, solutions, and structures for change that establish
political, social, as well as artistic validity. Yet, the more one engages in community-based practices, the
more one comes “up against an unacknowledged split between our ethical and our aesthetic standpoints”
(Gablik, 2004, pp. 90-91). Subsequently, these socially engaged practices demand a profound alteration
of “aesthetic canons” to include pedagogical, political, and other values through a stylization of social
forms that extend and redefine interpersonal relationships (Bourriaud, 2002). This chapter will then of-
fer a ‘defense’ of such practices through an articulated sense of relational aesthetics (Bourriaud, 2002)
and the consideration of community civic engagement as a postmodern artistic practice (Taylor, 2002).
Finally, the purpose of this chapter is to (re)consider the role of the arts within the community setting.
BACKGROUND
Recently, the Community Arts Caucus was recognized as a special issues group within the National Art
Education Association (NAEA). Yet there was some confusion as the NAEA still maintained a Commu-
nity Arts Division. Initially, members were unsure as to which category to submit conference proposals,
but significantly, distinct differences in philosophies and practices began to emerge. The subsequent
conversations between the caucus’ executive committee and the NAEA underscored the differences and
similarities amongst community-based practices within the field. In its broadest context, Community Art
includes all ‘outside of school’ or ‘outside of museum’ art education. It serves as a category to include
all who work in settings defined as ‘the community’ (i.e.: a class teaching watercolor painting at a com-
munity center). Community Arts, as represented by the caucus, emphasize a deeper understanding of the
purposes of art within the community, and how it can be utilized as an effective tool to catalyze social

3
Socially Engaged Art Education
change. Whereas distinct differences in philosophy and practice became evident, the issue of nomen-
clature persisted, quite possibly due to the similarities in language. As demonstrated by this example,
divergent practices have been given similar names in very different contexts, but since these terms are
often used interchangeably, this chapter explores the differences and similarities between ‘Community
Arts’ and ‘Community-Based Art Education’. This chapter explores how are these terms used, what are
the differences, and why does it matter?
What Is Community Arts and Community-Based Art Education?
As such open categories, the field of art education has allowed for a wide range of artistic practices
that take place in the community, consequently distinct differences in these practices have emerged.
Art educator Christopher Adejumo (2000) utilized the term ‘community-based art’ to describe “works
of art produced by people living within the same locality, and defined by common interests such as
shared concerns, cultural heritage, traditions, and language patterns” (p. 12). Similarly, in Histories of
Community-Based Art Education, Doug Blandy (2001) described the practices as providing spaces for
children, youth, and adults to come together for public discourse about art and other issues of mutual
concern (in Congdon, Blandy & Bolin, p. 5). Art educator Kristin Congdon’s (2004) view is that a
community consists of people living within a particular location, who also share a personal or group
identification, as well as a common purpose or belief. The terms have most often been used to describe
arts-based learning and activities in the community, in both formal and informal settings. Broadly, the
terms encompass a diverse range of art education theories used to describe practices “that are attentive
to possible relationships between the arts and communities” (Bastos, 2002, p. 70). While this articulates
a common perception of community, many diverse perceptions as to how art can be part of, or integrated
into the ‘community,’ have arisen.
Community-Based Art Education is often described as something that takes place outside of K-12
schools. Many art programs in the community continue to provide classes that emphasize traditional
art materials and skills geared toward personal self-expression (Ulbricht, 2005). The value of these
programs lie in providing art classes to those who might not otherwise have such opportunities—par-
ticularly as art programs are cut or marginalized in schools. Equally, from an advocacy perspective, such
community-based programs are able to raise the profile and significance of the arts as an integral part of
one’s education. Yet in this context, such programs do not differ significantly from the art that is taught
in schools and do not fully leverage the potential of being in the community. They do not go far enough
in that they, at least on the surface, seem to emphasize place without including the ‘place’s’ impact on
content, interaction, and pedagogy.
To steal a phrase from MacArthur fellowship winner Rick Lowe (2015), “justice is the crown of vir-
tues.” Many strategies of community and civic engagement are often missing this explicit social justice
mission, and community-based practices that merely invite public participation without keeping this as
the focus do not fully embody socially engaged practices. Consequently, this chapter considers how to
strategically frame the conversation surrounding contemporary conceptions of art and pedagogy within
the community through a more nuanced and critical understanding of context, social relations, and power.
Whereas some community-based programs continue to align with more “traditional and modernist art
perspectives,” many others, as art educator J. Ulbricht (2005) pointed out, have attempted to “distance
themselves from the canon and focus on the needs of the [community]” (p. 7). Beyond merely taking
place in the community, Community Arts and Community-Based Art Education have often come to

4
Socially Engaged Art Education
focus on helping community members think “through issues needed to sustain a viable and healthy com-
munity” and embrace their potential to generate individual and collective action (Congdon, 2004, p. 2).
This shift is significant in that the community begins to assume a role in providing context as well as
content. From this distinct perspective, community-based art and education practices are characterized
more by their ability to elicit the participation from the members of the community where the project
or activity will take place (Hutzel & Cerulean, 2003).
While describing a diverse range of practices that include both the traditional and popular arts,
Congdon, Blandy and Bolin (2001) point to a similar point of divergence. Community practices in this
sense have the potential to empower people; they have the capacity to serve “as catalysts for dialog about
individual and group identity, local and national concerns, and ultimately the pursuit of democracy” (p.
3). Stemming from this viewpoint, such efforts have often taken the form of outreach programs designed
specifically for “at-risk youth, homeless individuals, older adults, handicapped people, gifted and tal-
ented individuals, the incarcerated, and others not always included in mainstream K-12 art classrooms”
(Ulbricht, 2005, p. 8). Here, the emphasis on traditional skills and materials are diminished as the focus
shifts towards learning through art as opposed to about art.
The evolution of such community practices, particularly as they relate to contemporary art and par-
ticipatory pedagogy, has led to a more significant role for members of the community. In this context,
art becomes less an object and more of an action; more socially engaged practices have the potential
to assert “that there are significant and tangible community benefits, beyond aesthetic, that naturally
accrue from certain kinds of community art endeavors” (Cleveland, 2001, p. 21). As its history dem-
onstrates, community-based programs have a continuum of purposes; “at one extreme of the spectrum
reside programs that teach traditional art skills and knowledge. Others are about learning to appreciate
local cultures with no intent of social reconstruction” (Ulbricht, 2005, p. 10). Taking such practice a
step further, art educator Flavia Bastos (2002) embraced the emancipatory potential of a more socially
engaged practice when she proposed a “change-oriented” framework that demonstrates “how local cul-
ture, art, and heritage can empower teachers and students to revitalize their cultural identity and examine
their possibilities in society” (pp. 70-71). But, through what Ulbricht (2005) described as a multitude
of “pluralistic postmodern perspectives,” how does one begin to distinguish between a set of divergent
practices that seemingly use the same names interchangeably? How might art educators further distin-
guish more socially engaged practices?
TOWARDS A NEW UNDERSTANDING
What characterizes socially engaged artistic practices, according to artist and educator Pablo Helguera
(2011) “is its dependence on social intercourse as a factor of its existence” (p. 2). This emphasizes
practices that are participatory, collaborative, and relational, constituting new forms of performance,
interaction, exchange, or even confrontation that lie beyond conventional materiality (Kester, 2004).
Such practices seek to relocate meaning from within the art object to the contingencies of its context
(Kwon, 2002). This draws attention to what a work ‘does,’ and focuses on the “beliefs it embodies, the
social roles it assumes, and its interactions with its audience” (Van Laar & Diepeveen, 1998, p. 10). As
a social activity or a space of interaction, socially engaged artistic practices find their meaning in the
complicated dynamics of relationships through which social relations can be challenged or preserved.
In this context, socially engaged artistic practices embrace a heightened awareness of art’s social func-

5
Socially Engaged Art Education
tion, thereby expanding the dialog to include critical perspectives in an effort to revitalize them beyond
their basic or elemental physical actions (Kwon, 2002). This revitalization of artistic practices expands
notions of art to include events, conceptual art, performance practice, and social sculpture.
Emphasizing a social and ethical aesthetic, art historian and critic Suzi Gablik (2004) suggested that
the socially engaged artist is an example of an artist who has resisted the values of the marketplace and
used his or her skills in the service of the community, arguing “any artist in contemporary society who
sets out to create values must engage actively with the outside world” (p. 63). In an effort to emphasize
the distinct socially engaged artistic practices that are meaningful and relevant to this framework, the
following section offers an analysis of the work of such artists whose work draws from this discourse.
These examples demonstrate how socially engaged art can attain value, purpose, and meaning from the
personal, social, and cultural dimensions of life, while simultaneously raising philosophical issues and
questions that are derived from and informed by community.
Michael Rakowitz
Michael Rakowitz is an artist whose socially oriented installations and interventions embody many of
the distinct characteristics of socially engaged artistic practices and principles. His artworks demonstrate
consistently practical and creative ways of encouraging dialog through public art projects that involve
people directly (Sherwin, 2010). One of his most well known projects, paraSITES (1997–) are custom-
built inflatable shelters designed for homeless people (Architecture for Humanity, 2006). These works
attach to the exterior vents of a building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system.
The warm air expelled from the exterior vents inflates these single-person shelters while simultaneously
heating them; “temporarily exploiting, like parasites, the energy of their hosts” (Christov-Bakargiev,
2005, p. 147). Rakowitz’s paraSITES are tactical responses to the issue of homelessness. At the time of
their inception, the city of Cambridge, MA tilted the metal grates on a series of vents in Harvard Square
in an effort to discourage homeless residents from sleeping on them. Rakowitz has since distributed
similar structures to homeless residents in Boston, New York City, and Baltimore (Rakowitz, 2015).
The first impression of these silvery, space-age tents is generally one of curiosity, rather than an ap-
preciation of beauty as the artist’s intent transcends formal aesthetics. The strength of his work lies beyond
having created a shelter for the homeless; far more significantly, one sees “Rakowitz’s use of publicity
itself as something of a medium through which to create the aporias and invisibilities that often preclude
real conversations about homelessness and urban poverty” (Feldman, 2008, p. 637). In his exploration
of both homelessness and redefining public space, his first step was to find a way to emphasize the vis-
ibility of separation. The inflatable membrane of the paraSITE is translucent, allowing the viewer to
see through it, “and you’d see there was a person inside, someone you’d never talk to because of social
boundaries” (Rakowitz, in Tiven, para. 10).
Rakowitz constructed these shelters in collaboration with the eventual users, taking into account their
needs, means of mobility, and the areas they frequent. The structures were then given to them free of
charge. More importantly, these tents were understood by their inhabitants to be more than a temporary
shelter; they also became a form of dissent and empowerment as many of the homeless users regarded
their shelters as a protest device (Purves & Selzer, 2005). Rakowitz’s artworks are political, activist,
and critical in nature and focus on reclaiming both public space and cultural space by forging direct
intersections with social issues that persist locally and globally.

6
Socially Engaged Art Education
Kester (2004) argued socially engaged artistic practices resonate “with attempts by avant-garde art-
ists earlier in the century to challenge the deadening representational conventions of academic art and
to reveal instead the experiential specificity of the world around them” (p. 6). Further, artistic practices
of this kind expand the depth of social relationships and thereby promote global concerns such as em-
powerment, criticality, and sustainability (Helguera, 2011). In a relational sense, these exchanges take
place between people. These artworks function as exchanges that create encounters through dialog,
discussion, and inter-human negotiation. They involve perceptive, experimental, critical and participa-
tory forms of interaction.
Suzanne Lacy
When one considers the theatre or a play, they often focus on the performance and not an ‘object,’ yet the
performance tends to be singular and directional in the sense that the emphasis is on the performer and
the audience’s role tends to be passive. Yet, as American artist, educator, and activist Suzanne Lacy’s
Roof Is on Fire (1994) and Code 33: Emergency Clear the Air! (1997-1999) demonstrate, socially en-
gaged performances require more active participation; in fact, these public dialogs and conversations
depend on it.
For example, Roof Is on Fire (1994), created collaboratively with Annice Jacoby and Chris Johnson,
was a series of improvisational dialogs involving over 200 hundred teenagers staged on a rooftop parking
garage in downtown Oakland, CA. Seated in parked cars, Latino and African American teenagers engaged
in conversations that addressed the problems facing young people of color in California including media
stereotypes, racial profiling, underfunded public schools, etc. Local residents and members of the media
were invited to ‘listen in’ on the conversations (Lacy, n.d.). Parting from the traditions of object making,
such performances involve “the creative orchestration of collaborative encounters and conversations,
well beyond the institutional confines of the gallery or museum” (Kester, 2004, p. 1). Significantly, the
‘place’ provides a distinct context that equally becomes part of the work.
Prior to this performance, local news coverage had been dominated by the footage of a teenager
kicking in a plate glass window during a riot, which served to fuel the stereotypes that have often been
used to portray them (Lacy, n.d.). As a result of this performance, “Latino and African American teenag-
ers were able to take control of their image and to transcend the one-dimensional clichés promulgated
by mainstream news and entertainment media (e.g., the young person of color as a sullen, inarticulate
gang-banger or violence-prone troublemaker)” (Kester, 2004, pp. 4-5). Lacy and the participants were
able to portray a very different perspective by reclaiming their own narrative, and effectively challenge
the perceptions placed upon them.
As part of the larger series of the Oakland Projects (1991-2001), Lacy’s performances involved work-
ing collaboratively with the community through socially engaged art and education. Her engagements
included “unscripted and unedited conversations on family, sexuality, drugs, culture, education, and the
future” (Lacy, n.d.). These social engagements were designed to provide a voice for the members of the
community as a means to address their needs and concerns. One of the prominent themes that emerged
was the frequent conflict with police, which resulted in Code 33: Emergency Clear the Air! (1997-1999).
Created together with Unique Holland and Julio Morales, Lacy’s Code 33 was named after the police
radio code to ‘clear the radio waves.’ This three-year long project was orchestrated to create a dialog
between the police and the community in an effort to “reduce police hostility toward youth, provide

7
Socially Engaged Art Education
youth with a set of skills to participate in their communities, and generate a broader understanding of
youth needs” (Lacy, n.d.).
Similarly staged on the rooftop of an Oakland city garage, this performance brought together police
officers and area teenagers in small group discussions over urgent issues such as crime, authority, power
and safety. Amidst the glow of the headlights, members of the community roamed freely between cars,
“witnessing the spontaneous but carefully moderated dialogue between youth and police” (Lacy, n.d.).
Although the exchanges are ‘moderated,’ Lacy surrenders much of the control and the outcome of the
performance, but the works serve to bring together constituencies that are often opposed. In this way
the works serve to create a sense of ‘community’ that didn’t exist before.
After an hour of often heated discussion, the exchanges where interrupted by the spotlight of a police
helicopter and loud music as teenage dancers “leapt from their groups and danced down three stories to
a massive balcony where loud music and their dance performance drew the audience, the police, and the
youth into the final act of the performance” (Lacy, n.d.). Suddenly, the roles were reversed as members
of the audience were drawn into the performance. In small groups, the members of the community began
to discuss what they had heard and experienced, while the initial performers “listened to community
residents discuss their roles in the confrontational relationship between police and youth” (Lacy, n.d.).
Quite literally, the audience became active participants in the performance. One of the strengths of Lacy
works lie in her ability to involve people; particularly the ones that are most affected by the problems
and issues that her works are designed to address. As Taylor (2002) described, “the postmodern practice
of collaboration extends beyond the artists themselves and to the viewers who become directly active
in the art through participation” (p.125). Similarly, the participatory nature of Lacy’s works engage and
challenge her audiences much as a teacher would with his or her students in a manner that values the
life experiences of the students through co-construction rather than passive consumption of knowledge.
The emancipated spectator, as French philosopher Jacques Rancière (2009) suggested, blurs the
boundary between those who act and those who look. Foregoing any distance, the spectator must put
their body into action, abdicating the very position of the viewer to overcome the gulf separating activity
from passivity. Emancipation begins when one challenges “the opposition between viewing and acting …
It begins when we understand that viewing is also an action that confirms or transforms this distribution
of positions” (Rancière, 2009, p. 13). Depending on the degree of participation required by the artist, a
work of art “will give rise to a specific ‘arena of exchange,’” which is thus analyzed on its coherence of
form and the symbolic value of the world it suggests. Further, “the image of human relations reflected
by it” (Bourriaud, 2002, pp. 17-18), and thus, the audience’s role and responsibility are redefined.
Rick Lowe
Rick Lowe is another artist who demonstrates the potential for socially engaged art and civic engage-
ment as a catalyst for transforming community. He is also the Founding Director of Project Row Houses
in Houston, Texas. Project Row Houses (PRH) is a non-profit community arts and culture organization
located in the city’s northern Third Ward. Emphasizing art’s social role, PRH “shifts the view of art from
traditional studio practice to a more conceptual base of transforming the social environment” through
neighborhood revitalization, historic preservation, community service, and youth education (http://pro-
jectrowhouses.org/about-us/). This shift from traditional studio practice to interaction within the social
environment is indicative of this chapter’s reconsidered framework for community-based practices.

8
Socially Engaged Art Education
As the most prominent feature of PRH, this community-based project incorporates rows of shotgun
houses that have been renovated to maintain the historical architecture while incorporating the needs of
the community. A shotgun house is a narrow building generally situated in rows. Typically, these houses
have one room situated directly behind the other without hallways, and often have porches in the front with
gabled entrances and shuttered windows. This architectural style first came to New Orleans with roots
from West Africa and Haiti (see: http://www.datacenterresearch.org/pre-katrina/tertiary/shotgun.html).
These revitalized spaces host educational and social programs, and provide mentorship opportunities
for developing economically sustainable projects within the community. Through artist residencies and
artistic programs, they also function as artist studios and gallery spaces whose works both engage and
reflect the community (see: http://projectrowhouses.org/). Newer structures have also been constructed
which serve as safe and affordable housing for low-income residents and single mothers who would
otherwise not have access to such accommodations or programs to gain employment and to improve the
economic, educational, and familial situations in their lives. While the focus of PRH is upon establish-
ing a positive creative presence within the community, the project equally addresses global issues such
as inequity, unemployment, and poverty. Through its emphasis on education, PRH demonstrates the
pedagogical implications of socially engaged practices.
The socially engaged artworks described above embody educational experiences by emphasizing
the work’s ability to ironize, problematize, and even enhance tensions around these subjects in order
to provoke reflection (Helguera, 2011). These individual and collaborative artworks served as a means
of interacting with local communities and provided insight into how they conceptualized each other’s
circumstances through personal and collective narratives. Within a change-oriented framework, socially
engaged works of art often function as subversive and reconstructive catalysts. The political, activist,
and critical elements of socially engaged art provide rich territory for examination from an educational
perspective. When leveraging socially engaged artistic practices, the planning, construction, enactment,
and reflective interpretation of these works opens possibilities for a more socially oriented framework
for Art Education.
The Role of the Artist
The role of the artist has continually been shaped by societal discourse, and has evolved over time in
different countries to meet the needs of both culture and context. Henry Giroux (1995), a contempo-
rary critical theorist suggested, “changing historical conditions often redefine and produce discourses
articulating how multiple constructions of agency are figured within new forms of self-representation
and collective struggle” (p. 5). Within the modern era, the role of the artist was defined by “autonomy
and self-sufficiency, and by its isolation from the rest of society” (Gablik, 1995, p. 74). Critic Hilton
Kramer argued, the artist “is incapable of solving any problems but aesthetic ones,” and suggested
“art is at its best when it serves only itself and not some other purpose” (cited in Gablik, 1995, p. 84).
Formalists believe that “art exists solely for aesthetic satisfaction and its claim that any social, cultural,
or even representational message is a distraction from art’s higher purpose” (Anderson, 2004, p. 324).
Consequently, prevailing modes of thinking reflect the concerns of modernism, particularly as it relates
to classroom practice.
It was literary critic Roland Barthes (1977) who suggested that such a concept of the artist was no
longer viable “because artists were not and had never been solely responsible for the production, the lives,
or the significance of their work” (cited in Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2008, p. 249). Similarly, French art

9
Socially Engaged Art Education
critic and curator Nicolas Bourriaud’s (2002) theory of relational aesthetics speaks to the social environ-
ment in which people come together to participate in a shared activity. As demonstrated by Rakowitz’s,
Lacy’s, and Lowe’s public artworks, this marked a dramatic shift in attention away from the role of the
artist to the role that the audience played in creating—or completing—a work of art. Such practices cre-
ate an encounter between subjects through which meaning is elaborated collectively, rather than through
passive or individual consumption. The position of the audience within Lacy’s Oakland perfomances, for
example, was reconfigured around the concept of conversation rather than one of display. Consequently,
“when the position of the artist is shifted from the sole creator to collaborator, changes occur in the
practice of artwork that not only impact the reception of these specific works, but also have implica-
tions about the status and nature of all aesthetic practice” (Purves, 2005) p. xi). Yet, as Gablik (1995)
warned, “there is no denying that the art world subtly disapproves of artists who choose interaction as
their medium, rather than the disembodied eye” (p. 85). Such contemporary perspectives on the role of
the artist are built upon expectations of challenging the public to think about art in very different ways.
Rather than embrace the aesthetic practices of the isolated artist, Lacy argued that artists should re-
position themselves as citizen-activists to effect social change (cited in Baker, Ng-He, & Lopez-Bosch,
2008, p. 292). As with Michael Rakowitz’s paraSITES, socially engaged artists actively engage in civic
discourse in public spaces. While perhaps not a practical solution to the issue of homelessness, the
function of Rakowitz’s focuses upon its ability to raise consciousness and encourage conversation. Con-
sequently, the socially-engaged artist develops practices that are “diametrically opposed to the aesthetic
practices of the isolated artist” (Lacy, 1995, p. 177). Such redefinition of the role of the artist calls for
contemporary practices that are communal, collaborative, and interdisciplinary. As artists engage more
with the public, they assume role of sociologist, journalist, or philosopher, which “position artists as
contributors to intellectual endeavor and shift our aesthetic attention toward the shape or meaning of
their theoretical constructs” (Lacy, 1995, p. 176). And as Gablik (2004) added, the momentum of social
change has not only altered the nature of art but also “the psychological drives and motivations of those
who shape it” (p. 25). Subsequently, this perspective includes an exploration of art’s ethical, as well as
aesthetic function. The socially engaged artist embodies the ability “to develop the critical capacity to
challenge and to transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them” (Giroux
cited in Hickman, 2005, p. 104). This shift in perception moves away from attempting to understand
oneself towards developing an understanding of the world. Yet, as Hickman (2005) described, this
shift necessitates “a radical reappraisal of the whole concept of art and its contexts” (pp. 45-46). This
perspective refers to the intent of the artist shifting beyond a narrow focus on creative self-expression
to emphasize the greater needs of others within a social context that gives such art its meaning beyond
formal aesthetics. What matters more with contemporary views of the role of the artist is to be critical
rather than to be ideological.
Socially engaged artists have assumed a variety of roles in society and have directed their work to-
wards divergent purposes by demonstrating a greater critical awareness of his or her social role that is
not the result of an autonomous, self-contained individual focused on self-expression. It is based upon
a dialogical structure that is the result of collaborative and interdependent processes. In this context,
as art critic Hal Foster suggested, the role of the artist is also re-formed, as “the values that heretofore
authenticated art” are called into question and “aesthetic signification opened up” (in Wallis, 1984, p.
191). Particularly in the context of the classroom, art educators should look at “the social roles that
characterize how artists function in society” (Van Laar & Diepeveen, 1998, p. vi). For example, one of
the goals of the artist as social critic is to transform society, while others may choose to investigate the

10
Socially Engaged Art Education
formal properties of color. Once one has examined the underlying motivation, one can begin to understand
the social function of the work and formulate criteria for evaluation. As artist and educators Timothy
Van Laar and Leonard Diepeveen argued, all artists are engaged in social actions, yet, “as a consequence
of the dominance of formalist concepts in art theory, artists have directed their specifics about art to
materials and not towards art’s function” (p. 6). These divergent views of the artist are shaped different
cultural and institutional discourses that mediate the role of the artist. Different views of the artist also
presume distinct roles and expectations as to what the artist contributes to society, and in turn, shape
the discourse that legitimate their work.
The Role of the Audience
As part of his theory of relational aesthetics, Bourriaud’s co-existence criterion suggests that all works
of art produce a model of sociability that allows the viewer to become part of the artist’s dialog. So-
cially engaged artistic practices seek to generate new forms of relations in the space of everyday life
by replacing mimetic mediations with the immediate ethical performance of the collective “that knows
no separation between performing actors and passive spectators” (Rancière, 2009, p. 62). Kwon (2002)
described contemporary artistic practices as being characterized by communication and interaction, and
genuine gestures toward public engagement. Or as Bourriaud suggested, they are designed to “stimulate
‘a culture of activity to counter-act market-induced passivity’” (Fowle & Larsen, 2005, p. 20). In this
contemporary context, the artist’s role shifts from a sole producer towards a vantage point as a narra-
tor as spectator participation becomes another feature of Socially Engaged Art Education. Similarly,
the teacher is no longer the only one who teaches, but rather he or she is the one who is taught through
interaction with the students and with the community.
One of the problems with the traditional emphasis on the artist, as Jacob (2005) described it, is “the
tendency to split the artist from the audience and then try to send a message from one to the other” that
inevitably result in becoming clumsy and aggressive towards each other (p. 6). Rather, a collaborative or
reciprocal practice exists in exchanges “like conversations, and within temporal experiences shared by
a social or communal body, which are conceived of as art, crafted by artists, though these generous acts
might not look like art, or in fact be art but become art-like moments” (Jacob, p. 6). Socially engaged
artists encourage an experience of their art that is more open, allowing others entry and equally appre-
ciating their experiences as the position of the audience shifts from passive viewer to active receiver
(Purves, 2005). Rather than to maintain a hierarchical structure between a giver and a recipient, Bour-
riaud argued for socially engaged artistic practices that consider inter-subjectivity and interaction that
creates a space of openness as a place for dialog.
Socially engaged artistic practices centering on exchange “challenge the premises of the institutional
mindset about ‘audience’ in ways that can shift our perception of the public’s relationship to contemporary
art” that has effectively decreased the distance between art and its audience (Jacob, 2005, p. 5). And, as
art historian and curator Bill Arning (2005) defended, “communication between or among equals is the
most significant, purest, and most meaningful form of communication” (p. 11). Thus, the relationship
between the artist and the viewer is dramatically altered; “as soon as you start to have an interaction
with someone, they are no longer employing an optic gaze, they are inside of it, and they are involved”
(Selzer, 2005, p. 77). The relationship becomes dialectical rather than oppositional, and consequently,
as Swedish artist Jörgen Svensson (2005) argued, “it is impossible to participate and stand outside at the

11
Socially Engaged Art Education
same time” (in Purves & Selzer, p. 53). Thus, a collective and collaborative exchange fosters a lasting
and productive relationship between the socially engaged artist, the teacher, and the community.
THE PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIALLY
ENGAGED ARTISTIC PRACTICES
Art educator Pam Taylor (2002) emphasized the potential of Service-Learning integrated with postmodern
art pedagogy to not only extend the purposes of art education, but also to provide “opportunities that
transform and give us meaning in our lives” (p.124). Similarly, a more socially engaged art education
is designed to create an effective suturing of art and pedagogy that “transcends the distanced formal-
ity of aesthetics and dares to respond to the cries of the world” (Gablik, 1991, p.100). This framework
attempts to bring the role of the socially engaged artist together with an educational perspective that
extends beyond more formal and structured instruction, through a hybridized space that has the poten-
tial to lead dynamic social and cultural change. Consequently, the pedagogical implications of socially
engaged artistic practices center around the notion of intentionally leveraging the artistic encounter as
an educational experience. From a pedagogical perspective, socially engaged artist practices concern
themselves with situations that lead to a mode of social exchange (Helguera, 2011), thus allowing one
to consider whether the artwork makes an effective contribution to a changing production of knowledge.
Socially engaged art and community engagement share an interactive set of principles and practices
that are equally valuable and accessible to the teacher. As a critical tool, they embrace an active vocabu-
lary designed to engage, to interact, to exchange, to connect, to communicate, to interrogate, to resist, to
question, to provoke, to instigate, to enable, to negotiate, to participate, to collaborate, to reciprocate …
to transform. Consequently, this framework combines the participatory nature of the artistic encounter
together with critical, reflective, and social actions that are pedagogically oriented. This perspective
ultimately evokes an examination of one’s own values and belief systems in an experiential manner
that cannot be achieved by traditional academic learning. Learning about others, while at the same
time reflecting upon one’s own identity, enhances the opportunity for both the teacher and the student
to understand social issues from the perspective of others. The goal of creating a dialog within cultural
or community settings is to “investigate the dialectics of local and global influences within a particular
context … [which] creates opportunities to recognize and transcend our familiar boundaries” (Bastos,
2006, p. 20).
Together, socially engaged art and education can become transformative in nature and develop engaged
citizens working for social change by integrating elements of critical consciousness development (Ci-
polle, 2010). These critical elements include developing a deeper awareness of self, developing a deeper
awareness and broader perspective of others, developing a deeper awareness and broader perspective of
social issues, and seeing one’s potential to make change (Alexander & Schlemmer, 2016). If educators
are intentional in the mission and design of course content, and if they create opportunities, students will
grow in each of these areas. Educators must also maintain critical awareness as facilitators of students’
understanding. This critical positionality challenges students to develop a more complex understanding
of the current circumstances of communities and provides spaces in which students might learn how
their perspectives position them in the larger world.
Such socially engaged educational strategies include situated learning, dialogic discourse, teachers as
problem posers, and activist learning (Shor, 1992). Situated learning is based on the lives and interests of

12
Socially Engaged Art Education
students who become co-creators of the curriculum by raising issues that concern them. The curriculum
continuously evolves between student and teacher through negotiation rather than teacher-driven tradi-
tional curriculum. Dialogical discourse is respectful and participatory where construction of knowledge
is facilitated by educators. Educators as problem posers generate questions that induce students to ana-
lyze the world. Activist learning challenges students not only to investigate the past and the present but
also to envision a more just world and work to create it. Such practices, both visual and relational, are
characterized by interacting with the other as well as with the world (Alexander & Schlemmer, 2016).
As a result, there is an opportunity to increase the significance of art education in a democratic society if
one embraces socially engaged practices that empower teachers and students to analyze how art making
practices shape their own sensibilities and those of the communities in which they live.
In this context, modes of production, performance, and interpretation overlap, creating socially en-
gaged artistic and educational practices “that are often collaborative and encourage cross-disciplinary
dialogue and citizen engagement” (Rochielle & Carpenter, 2015, p. 131). Such socially engaged prac-
tices are generated within the community, and thus have the capacity to instill integrity, personal pride,
and community identity. They create an opportunity to rebuild a negative environment into a positive
and nurturing place. As a pedagogical tool, socially engaged artistic practices have the ability to build
community wellness, self-esteem, and positive interaction among at-risk and underserved populations.
Extending beyond the classroom, art education in this context can help teachers and students develop
relationships through which one comes to understand ourselves and others (Anderson & Milbrandt,
2005). Consequently, working in a community context allows artists and educators to critically examine
how art educators define and enact sites of learning. Equally, it allows them to explore diverse spaces
where significant learning takes place.
This framework draws from Community Arts and Community-Based Art Education practices that
focus on utilizing the assets and resources of the community. It builds upon everyday conversations
that recognize “the wealth of knowledge and experiences [students and members of the community]
bring into classrooms” (Hutzel, Bastos & Cosier, 2012, p. 40). Collaboratively socially engaged art and
pedagogical practices function “to create ownership, empowerment, and responsibility among diverse
individuals and groups for arts exhibitions and programming” (Keys, 1998, p. 7). Such communally
created content draws attention to the lives and stories of the community and involves interdisciplinary
approaches to art and life.
SOCIALLY ENGAGED ART EDUCATION
Socially Engaged Art Education (SEAE) emphasizes a new terrain of consciousness that is both socially
responsible and ethically sound, and it goes beyond merely promoting aesthetic quality to contribute to
the quality of life. It allows for new ways of seeing, expressing, and representing oneself through artistic
production, critical reflection, and social dialog by allowing students to respond experientially, kineti-
cally, intellectually, as well as aesthetically.
Contemporary views of art are no longer limited to the places where art is exhibited, the methods by
which it is created, or the materials used in its creation but rather focuses “more on the way art affects,
provokes, and challenges both artist and viewer” (Taylor, 2002, p. 125). SEAE comes with the recogni-
tion that art functions in many different contexts, and as a result, it requires different spaces that push
the boundaries of learning even further, constituting new forms of engagement and interaction. SEAE

13
Socially Engaged Art Education
does not simply occupy a physical space, but rather a metaphorical space in which a conscious attempt
is made to reach out to the community. These exchanges extend art and education beyond formal institu-
tions to include the community as part of the learning environment.
Borrowing practices and principles from socially engaged art and relational aesthetics, it becomes
essential to consider art’s function as social action. By emphasizing socially engaged artmaking practices,
SEAE can be utilized to engage youth, to develop an active citizenry, and to promote the connections
between art and life through interactions in public spaces. The goal becomes one of breaking beyond the
traditional confines of art and art education to forge direct intersections with the community and social
issues. SEAE speaks to the social environment in which people come together to participate in a shared
activity. It refers to “a particular form of public art that derives its meaning from community involve-
ment and participation” that can engender a meaningful dialog among its participants (Bastos & Hutzel,
2004, p. 14). As a social activity or a space of interaction, SEAE finds its meaning in the complicated
dynamics of relationships through which social relations can be challenged or preserved. By integrating
the tenets of socially engaged artistic practices, it collectively positions artistic encounters as triggers
for experience that serve as catalysts for social change.
SEAE emphasizes formations rather than form, and it demonstrates that form only exists in the
encounter and in the dynamic relationships it creates. It embraces community-based practices that are
cast in a distinctly social role that have the potential to revitalize the relevance of the arts beyond their
elemental or physical actions. They are no longer bound by specificity of media; rather they constitute an
attempt to think beyond formulaic prescriptions in an attempt to forge more complex and fluid possibili-
ties. They create a new visual language designed to challenge traditional social and aesthetic conventions
through gestures that both form and inform (Schlemmer, 2016).
A fundamental difference between making art in the community and making art with the community
involves a greater awareness of the context that “allows us to better influence and orchestrate desired
outcomes” (Helguera, 2011, p. xv). Similarly, through its emphasis on social relevance, SEAE often
runs counter to values embedded in traditional methods, thus significantly, it is more likely to serve a
purpose “beyond its aesthetic value” (Bastos & Hutzel, 2004, p. 14). Like the community practices that
came before it, the purpose is generally to encourage people to act collectively on matters of mutual
concern, and these interactions serve, in part, “as catalysts for dialogue about individual and group
identity, local and national concerns, and ultimately the pursuit of democracy” (Congdon, et al., 2001,
p. 3). Consequently, this requires a contemporary sense of ethical as well as aesthetic values through
a stylization of social forms by extending our relationships with things and with each other beyond “a
constant quest for simplicity and formal harmony” (Bourriaud, 2002, p. 63).
As this evolving characterization suggests, SEAE involves activities that are “rooted in a specific
community in which participants decide, organize and practice the arts in response to their own ideas
and lives” (Fegan, 2003, p. 14). Through its cooperative and participatory nature, SEAE extends beyond
standardized practices to include the experience of others by using art and art education to “gain insights
into multiple aspects of life surrounding them, including economics, politics, education, and culture”
(Bastos, 2002, p. 71). By forging direct intersections between the community and social issues, “these
events or exchanges form collaborative practices that constitute a relationship of shared time, space, and
voice that contributes to a negotiation of shared narrative unity (Schlemmer, 2016). SEAE can also be
effectively utilized to challenge or reclaim existing narratives that serve to isolate or marginalize both
the individual and a community. Thus, it becomes an effective way to understand the social networks
that define a community’s particular situation.

14
Socially Engaged Art Education
SEAE’s practices can be described as actions set in motion that are more directly integrated into
the social realm. For example, these include to give and to help, as well as to provoke, to enable, to be
of service, to be responsible, to better and to improve, to contribute, and to give ‘voice’ (Jacob, 2005).
This dialogical relationship acknowledges the “possibility of different voices with coherent positions
to uphold … not just using the authoritative discourse to legitimize one’s position but drawing on it in
flexible ways to enrich one’s understanding” (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2005, p. 109). In this sense, SEAE be-
comes a way of understanding that reflects the human need to experience an imagined, poetic version of
life that transcends the facts of ordinary existence (Graham, 2009). It provides a more fluid integration
of perspectives that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries that resonate with the participants’
experiences. SEAE provides a sensibility for creating a pedagogy that involves putting ideas into action
and picking up new skills that are learned as a result of the encounter.
Defending the Practice
The socially engaged artistic practices discussed in this chapter fall distinctly into the postmodern para-
digm, and demonstrate that postmodern conceptions of art are “inclusive of much more than simply
making things called art” (Taylor, 2002, p. 137).
Dominant modes of thinking, Gablik (1995) argued, “have conditioned us to characterize art primarily
as specialized objects, created not for moral or practical or social reasons, but rather to be contemplated
and enjoyed” (Gablik, 1995, p. 74). Conversely, socially engaged artistic practices extend beyond the
object to embrace relationships and interactions between people, and are thus “liberated from the strict
constraints of Formalist theory” (Barrett, 2012, p. 176). Similarly, as a postmodern work of art, SEAE
functions socially and politically, while drawing attention to cultural identity; it effectively “expands
the definition of what is as well as who can make art to involve collaboration and viewer participation”
(Taylor, 2002, p.126). The defense, or the justification of socially engaged practices, therefore, lies in
opposition to modernism’s more formal sense of aesthetics. Postmodern conceptions of art suggest that
aesthetics should not be considered on their own apart from the social, ethical, and political contexts
(Schusterman, 2003). Consequently, socially engaged practices are predicated upon broader conceptions
of both art and education that allow us to consider art in terms of social purpose rather than visual style.
The familiar refrain, ‘Why is that art?’ is often raised, particularly in contrast to more traditional
‘studio’ practices. Yet, at its essence, a studio is merely a place where art is made, and as with the socially
engaged artists represented here, postmodern practices have redefined where art can be made. Making
art within the community draws attention towards the larger context of a work, and in an educational
context, socially engaged art and education reject the “separation and isolation of art and aesthetics from
other domains of knowledge and types of experience” (Barrett, 2012, p. 176). This also challenges the
distinctions between high art and popular visual culture, and demonstrates that “art no longer needs to
be beautiful, representational, or realistic; have subject matter; or bear evidence of the artist’s touch”
(Barrett, p. 176). Rather through a sense of social realism, such art can often be harsh and provocative,
and through its collaborative nature lacks a singular sense of authorship. Other distinctly postmodern
characteristics evident in these works include the use of the narrative, and the construction of identity.
Socially engaged artistic and pedagogical practices involve exchanges that take place between people;
the artwork opens up the encounter through dialog, discussion, and inter-human negotiation; and it in-
volves coming up with perceptive, experimental, critical and participatory forms of interaction. Rather
than being evaluated through a more formal sense, such encounters are evaluated upon the relationships

15
Socially Engaged Art Education
they create. Relational aesthetics is a theory that judges artworks “on the basis of the inter-human rela-
tions which they represent, produce or prompt” (Bourriaud, 2002, p. 112). It describes forms of art that
take as their “theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the
assertion of an independent and private symbolic space” (Bourriaud, p. 14). Such encounters alter both
the role of the artist as well as his or her relationship with the audience.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Why should art programs focus on community? Through this more socially oriented framework, Socially
Engaged Art Education allows art educators to embrace practices that empower students to analyze how
art making practices shape their own sensibilities and those of the communities in which they live. The
implications of this more socially-engaged framework emphasize the need for artists, teachers, adminis-
trators, and community organizations to suspend, reconsider, and rethink the traditional roles associated
with the artist and their relationship to their audience. By leveraging such practices within an educa-
tional context, the art educator is thus able to create opportunities for children and adults, learners and
educators, to participate as co-producers of knowledge though socially engaged artistic and educational
practices that revitalize the connections between schools and the community. Consequently, “learning
experiences should be created for students so that they experience arts education not only as the creating
of art, but also as an inclusive experience creating collaboration between people” (Schroeder-Yu, 2006,
p. 163). This entails socially engaged artistic and pedagogical practices that emphasize personal stories
and social issues that utilize art as a unifying experience (Hutzel, 2006). Such practices are transforma-
tive through their critical nature
… because its goal is achieving awareness of the social, economic, and political forces shaping society
in order to change society. This requires questioning our formerly unexamined beliefs and assumptions,
thinking critically about reality, and challenging the policies and practices that reproduce inequality
and injustice. (Cipolle, 2010, p. 6)
Much as the role of the artist has evolved, teaching and learning are subject to change as a function
of time and space, as well as cultural and social circumstances. SEAE involves producing new works of
art that impact the community by interacting positively within the community. Through its cooperative
and participatory nature, SEAE extends beyond standardized practices to include the experience of others
by using art and art education to “gain insights into multiple aspects of life surrounding them, including
economics, politics, education, and culture” (Bastos, 2002, p. 71). Such practices provide the means
through which to better understand, celebrate, and build on what matters to a particular community.
It serves to broaden our perspectives of art by representing the values, the interests, and the traditions
within the community that promote the connections between art and life (Congdon, 2004).
Art is about different things, at different times, and in different contexts. For both the artist and the
teacher, SEAE provides the means to challenge existing narratives and to (re)contextualize the narrative
of teaching and learning. In a community context, teaching and learning focuses on local manifestations
rather than on predetermined conditions (Schlemmer, 2016). One of the characteristics of SEAE is to
place a work of art within an appropriate social context. Such practices, both visual and relational, are
characterized by interacting with the other as well as with the community. And, as a reciprocal practice,

16
Socially Engaged Art Education
SEAE can have a positive and transformational effect. Thus, the teaching of art becomes both contextual
and situational. Consequently, learning experiences should be created for students so that they experi-
ence arts education not only as the creating of art, but also provoke a deeper understanding of the role
of the artist and the teacher that are no longer bound by history and tradition.
SEAE incorporates contemporary theories and socially engaged practices that advocate the integration
of broader perspectives such as multiculturalism, visual culture, service-learning, as well as from past
community art and community-based art education practices. It embraces an active public dimension as
well as an intellectual one. This framework captures essential qualities of both the artist and the teacher,
while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situated nature of knowledge through a socially oriented
pedagogy that is grounded in problem-solving and critical reflection. It provides the means for students
to become engaged in discovery as active participants in their own learning. SEAE is uniquely suited
for this encounter, not from a position of power or authority, but rather by creating multiple perspectives
and reference points from which to make meaning of our experiences.
CONCLUSION
Socially Engaged Art Education emphasizes the significance of imagining and envisioning alternative
possibilities for teaching and learning by including the community as part of the learning environment.
Beyond developing a heightened sense of awareness, it builds social connections by provoking students
to engage their community through active participation that challenges them to make a difference (Sch-
lemmer, 2016). SEAE is a way to engage members of the community by promoting interaction in public
spaces and by building connections through art and culture (Borrup, 2006). It provides a focus based
upon an emerging understanding of the intertwining aesthetic and social implications of arts practices
that remind us of the importance of respecting the characteristics of a place in order to have a place in
it. Such socially engaged practices serve as an effective catalyst in promoting “meaningful relationships
that result in creating a sense of place” (Hutzel, Bastos & Cosier, 2012, p. 14). SEAE recognizes the
community’s ability to provide both context and content for learning.
This framework is uniquely suited for this encounter, not from a position of power or authority, but
rather by creating multiple perspectives and reference points from which to make meaning of our experi-
ences. It presents the opportunity to develop socially relevant programs for use in the teaching of art that
include community, social justice, democracy, collective responsibility, activism, and equity—amongst
others—that confront established perceptions of both art and education. Through its historical analysis
of civic engagement and the arts, and the examination of the evolution of its practices, this chapter dis-
tinguished the divergent discourses that have come to characterize Community Arts. What this chapter
suggests is that distinct practices have evolved under the more general heading of ‘Community Arts,’
thus teachers and researchers should actively align their practices within distinct practices. At the same
time, it does not suggest the formalization of a new genre of art, but rather realigns distinct artistic and
pedagogical practices within a socially oriented framework. Community Arts and Community-Based
Art Education have come to mean different things to different people. Consequently, what this chap-
ter offers is a (re)consideration of the role of the arts within the community through a more socially
oriented framework that leverages distinct artistic as well as pedagogical practices. It is only when we
challenge the constitutive nature of discourse through a critical perspective that we can propel the dis-
course forward, and consider more open and fluid conceptions of community arts. This chapter provides

17
Socially Engaged Art Education
an overview of alternative discourses—generated from within the field—that will play a role in how it
might be reconsidered.
REFERENCES
Adejumo, C. O. (2000). Community-based art. School Arts, 99(6), 12–13.
Alexander, A., & Schlemmer, R. H. (2016in press). The convergence of critical perspectives with civic
engagement. In R. Shin (Ed.), Convergence of Contemporary Art, Visual Culture, and Global Civic
Engagement. IGI Global.
Anderson, R. (2004). Calliope’s sisters: A comparative study of philosophies of art (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Anderson, T., & Milbrandt, M. K. (2005). Art for life: Authentic instruction in art. New York, NY:
MacGraw Hill Companies, Inc.
Aprill, A., & Schroeder-Yu, G. (2006). Letter from Seoul: Correspondence From the International Arts
Education Symposium and the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference. Teaching Artist Journal, 4(3), 158–166.
doi:10.1207/s1541180xtaj0403_3
Arning, B. (2005). Sure, everyone might be an artist…. In What we want is free: Generosity and exchange
in recent art (pp. 11–16). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Baker, M. H., Ng-He, C., & Lopez-Bosch, M. A. (2008). Reflection on the role of artists: A case study
on the hidden visual curriculum of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Teaching Artist Journal,
6(4), 290–297. doi:10.1080/15411790802134376
Barrett, T. (2012). Why is that art? Aesthetics and criticism of contemporary art. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image, Music, Text (S. Heath, Trans.). London: Fontana.
Bastos, F. (2002). Making the familiar strange: A community-based art education framework. In Y.
Gaudelius & P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 70–83). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bastos, F., & Hutzel, K. (2004). “Art in the Market” project: Addressing racial issues through community
art. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 22, 86–98.
Borrup, T. (2006). Creative community builder’s handbook: How to transform communities using local
assets, art, and culture. Saint Paul, MN: Field Alliance Publishing Center.
Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics [Esthétique relationnelle]. Dijon: Les Presses du réel.
Christov-Bakargiev, C. (2005). First Takes: Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev on Michael Rakowitz. Artforum
International, 5(43), 142–148.

18
Socially Engaged Art Education
Cipolle, S. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cleveland, W. (2001). Trials and triumphs: Arts-based community development. Public Art Review,
13(1), 17–23.
Congdon, K. (2004). Community art in action. Worcester, MA: Davis.
Congdon, K., Blandy, D., & Bolin, P. (2001). Histories of community-based art education. Reston, VA:
National Art Education Association.
Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2005). Teachers’ voices: Storytelling and possibility. Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Fegan, T. (2003). Learning and Community Arts. Leicester, UK: NIACE.
Feldman, H. (2008, Winter). Michael Rakowitz and the tactics of being in-between and everywhere else.
Art and Australia, 4(45), 632–639.
Fowle, K., & Larsen, L. B. (2005). Lunch hour. In What we want is free: Generosity and exchange in
recent art (pp. 17–26). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gablik, S. (1991). The reenchantment of art. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson.
Gablik, S. (1995). Connective aesthetic: Art after individualism. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping the terrain:
New genre public art (pp. 74–87). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
Gablik, S. (2004). Has modernism failed? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Thames & Hudson.
Gaztambide-Fernandez, R. A. (2008). The artist in society: Understandings, expectations, and curriculum
implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(3), 233–265. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00408.x
Giroux, H. A. (1995). Borderline artists, cultural workers, and the crisis of democracy. In C. Becker &
A. Wiens (Eds.), The artist in society: Roles, rights, and responsibilities. Chicago: New Art Examiner.
Helguera, P. (2011). Education for socially engaged art: A materials and techniques handbook. New
York: Jorge Pinto Books.
Hickman, R. (2005). Why we make art and why it is taught. Bristol: Intellect Books.
Hutzel, K. (2006). Challenging our students’ place through collaborative art: A service-learning approach.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach & Engagement, 11(4), 125–134.
Hutzel, K., & Cerulean, S. (2003). Taking art education to the streets: “The Procession of the Species”
as community art. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 21, 36–43.
Jacob, M. J. (2005). Reciprocal generosity. In What we want is free: Generosity and exchange in recent
art (pp. 3–9). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kester, G. H. (2004). Conversation pieces: Community and communication in modern art. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.

19
Socially Engaged Art Education
Kester, G. H. (2014). What is at stake when we use the term “social practice”? Is “social practice” the
best name? Retrieved from http://openengagement.info/24-grant-kester/
Keys, K. (1998). Community voices on participation, attitude & expectations, art education, role &
mission and, community-based practices: A case study of The Ohio State University-Newark Art Gallery
(Unpublished master’s thesis). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Keys, K. & Ballangee-Morris. (2001). Car art & cruise in: A tour through community culture. In Histories
of community-based art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Kwon, M. (2002). One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Lacy, S. (1995). Debated territory: Toward a critical language for public art. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping
the terrain: New genre public art (pp. 171–188). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
Lacy, S. (n.d.). The Oakland projects. Retrieved from http://www.suzannelacy.com/the-oakland-projects/
Lowe, R. (2015). Place and revolution. Keynote lecture presented at the 2015 Open Engagement Con-
ference, Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from http://openengagement.info/archive/
Purves, T. (Ed.). (2005). What we want is free: Generosity and exchange in recent art. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Purves, T., & Selzer, S. A. (2005). Project histories. In What we want is free: Generosity and exchange
in recent art (pp. 47–59). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rakowitz, M. (2015, October 28). Michael Rakowitz. Retrieved from http://michaelrakowitz.com
Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible. Translated with an intro-
duction by Gabriel Rockhill. New York: Continuum.
Rancière, J. (2009). The emancipated spectator. London: Verso.
Rochielle, J., & Carpenter, B. S. II. (2015). Navigating the third space. Journal of Curriculum and
Pedagogy, 12(2), 131–133. doi:10.1080/15505170.2015.1055412
Schlemmer, R. H. (2016). (Re)contextualizing the narrative of teaching and learning. Arts Education
Policy Review, 18(1), 1-10.
Sherwin, S. (2010). Artist of the week 73: Michael Rakowitz. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/
artanddesign/2010/feb/03/artist-michael-rakowitz
Shusterman, R. (2003). Aesthetics and postmodernism. In The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. New
York: Oxford.
Taylor, P. G. (2002). Service-learning as postmodern art pedagogy. Studies in Art Education, 43(2),
124. doi:10.2307/1321000
Tiven, B. (2007). Art Matters. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/art-matters
Ulbricht, J. (2005). What is community-based art education? Art Education, 58(2), 6–12.

20
Socially Engaged Art Education
Van Laar, T., & Diepeveen, L. (1998). Active sights: Art as social interaction. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Pub. Co.
Wallis, B. (1984). Art after modernism: Rethinking representation. New York: New Museum of Con-
temporary Art.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Community Arts: Includes all ‘outside of school’ or ‘outside of museum’ art education. It serves
as a general category to include all who work in settings defined as ‘the community.’
Relational Aesthetics: A theory that emphasizes actions rather than objects, and focuses on the
relationship between the artist and the viewer in creating a shared sense of meaning through dialog,
discussion, and inter-human negotiation.
Socially-Engaged Art Education: A term used to distinguish between different community-based
practices. It leverages distinct critical, artistic, and educational practices designed to forge direct inter-
sections with the community and social issues. By focusing on the relationships and interactions created
through communal, collaborative, and interdisciplinary actions, it serves as a catalyst for social change.