Listening to the Shapes of Collaborative Artmaking & Gowin's Vee

This week, my reading was looking at an action research* project carried out by Rita Irwin (UBC – EDCP) and five other artist-teachers.

Their purpose was to examine gender issues in art education as well as the collaborative processes and their sense of community as artist-teachers, through the creation of an installation quilt. The collaboration changed the focus of art creation to a listener-centered process rather than the traditional mode of creating a visual-centered product.

            Simply put, these artist-teachers used the physical act of collaboratively creating an installation quilt to create a space and environment where, through dialogue and reflection, they could gain insight on their pedagogy and the principles of connective aesthetics and feminism within an art-education context. I see this creative process as a kind of workshop wherein these art educators created for themselves a space of learning and sharing where their philosophies of education and their formative experiences could be given physical artistic form.  As this was a collaborative and democratic process, dialogue, a sense of community and mutual respect, trust, and an openness to others was central to the learning. The artists verbally shared that which was central to their profession and their sense of self and gave this symbolic form in the installation quilt. This reflection, however, is rooted in the present as their pedagogy and philosophies stress seeking “social action through community building and collaboration”.  

In some ways, I see similarities in this approach to that of the Men’s Sheds groups around the world which offer a space for men to get together, promoting social interaction, wellness, mentoring, and the exploration of men’s health and social needs. This is accomplished by viewing the collaborative creation of an object as a focal point from which these issues can be explored. This listener-centered process has been invaluable in getting men, who might have otherwise been reluctant to engage with such issues, to be more open to feeling valued and accepted in their community.

I see these collaborative processes as being of great value to the people involved. What I question is how the “research” element is applied to this. As these collaborations are rooted in dialogue and physical creation, I feel it might devalue the process somehow by applying methodologies and making knowledge/value claims. For me, these processes are intensely personal, almost sacred, as they contain so much vulnerability and subjectivity. As a poem, for example, might speak to us individually and awaken something in us, when it is deconstructed and analyzed it runs the risk of becoming spoiled somehow. I wonder then if research can sometimes take something away from our understanding rather than add to it.

* “Action research engages individuals in the act of researching their own practice”