This article was downloaded by: [Hogeschool Gent], [Riet Steel]On: 23 May 2012, At: 07:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of LifelongEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tled20

Positioning community art practices inurban cracksGriet Verschelden a , Elly Van Eeghem a , Riet Steel a , Sven DeVisscher a & Carlos Dekeyrel aa University College of Ghent, Belgium

Available online: 23 May 2012

To cite this article: Griet Verschelden, Elly Van Eeghem, Riet Steel, Sven De Visscher & CarlosDekeyrel (2012): Positioning community art practices in urban cracks, International Journal ofLifelong Education, 31:3, 277-291

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.683607

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Positioning community art practices inurban cracks

GRIET VERSCHELDEN, ELLY VAN EEGHEM, RIETSTEEL, SVEN DE VISSCHER and CARLOS DEKEYRELUniversity College of Ghent, Belgium

This article addresses the position of community art practices and the role ofpractitioners in urban cracks. Community art practices raise possibilities for a reconceptu-alisation of the concept of community and an extension of the concept of art in publicspace. Urban cracks are conceptualised as spatial, temporal and relational manifestationsof changing dynamics in the city, in which different logics and needs conflict. Urbancracks can be seen as tempting urban spaces for adult educators and artists because theyhave the possibility to challenge the consensus over living together in the city, to fuel col-lective learning processes and democratic moments and to make urban spaces more ‘pub-lic’. Therefore practitioners in community art need to make an investment in readingand analysing the social and spatial context of their work. In this view, community artpractices position themselves as a contextualised praxis in the community: not only work-ing in but also working with this context.

In Flanders, Belgium, community art practices originated within the context ofpoverty alleviation. From there they have evolved to be seen as a vital part ofurban development and act as a means of gaining cultural participation andcommunity development (De Bisschop 2009). International scholars credit com-munity art practices with several gains and outcomes. Firstly, they emphasise theeducational processes and the emancipatory potential of community art prac-tices, especially for different target groups and participants, for instance peopleliving in poverty or people with disabilities. Secondly, they draw attention to

Griet Verschelden is a researcher and lecturer at the University College of Ghent, Faculty of Health,Education and Social Work. She is also associated with Ghent University Department of Social Wel-fare Studies. Her areas of research and teaching are adult education, community development, andvolunteering from a social pedagogical perspective. Correspondence: Faculty of Education,Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Voskenslaan 362, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.Email: griet.verschelden@hogent.beElly Van Eeghem is researcher at the School of Arts, University College of Ghent. Her main focus isartistic creation as video and installations in the urban space. She works with her colleagues toresearch artistic practice in the urban environments of Flanders. Correspondence: University Collegeof Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. Email: elly.vaneeghem@hogent.be

Riet Steel is a researcher at the University College Ghent, Faculty of Health, Education and SocialWork, and associated to Ghent University. Her interests are related to community development,urbanism and participatory research methodologies. Correspondence: Faculty of Education,Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Voskenslaan 362, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.Email: riet.steel@hogent.beSven De Visscher is a researcher at the School of Arts, University College Ghent, Faculty of Social Workand Social Welfare Studies. He is also associated with the Ghent University Department of SocialWelfare Studies. Correspondence: University College of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. Email:sven.devisscher@hogent.beCarlos Dekeyrel is an Artistic Professor of the teacher-training programme at the School of Arts,University College of Ghent, Belgium. His areas of teaching and research include art educationand digital media. Correspondence: University College of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.Email: carlos.dekeyrel@hogent.be

INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, VOL. 31, NO. 3 (MAY–JUNE 2012), 277–291

International Journal of Lifelong Education ISSN 0260-1370 print/ISSN 1464-519X online � 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.683607

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

community art practices’ possibilities in enabling users to express their questionsand needs with regard to services and society (Newman et al. 2003, Clover 2006).Thirdly, scholars suggest that community art practices offer the possibility toreassess and revalue neighbourhoods and districts (Kay 2000, Carey and Sutton2004, Phillips 2004). Finally, they argue that community art practices raiseopportunities for an extension of the concept of art through enquiries directedto the institutional framework of art and culture on the one hand, and possibili-ties for an extension of the social basis of art on the other (Kerremans and DeBisschop 2010). Yet, similar to countries such as Canada and South Africa, inFlanders less attention has been placed on the importance of these practices asdemocratic platforms, i.e. fora for discussion about standards and values, worldviews and society, that help people in their struggles with equality and justice(Clover and Stalker 2007, Von Kotze 2009).

Community art practices are relational and articulated as collaborationamongst adult educators, artists and community organisations (Clover 2006).Using this platform, we suggest that community arts practices in urban crackscan either illuminate or camouflage issues in public life and local interactions inthe city. They have the possibility to make connections with past, present andfuture because they can interact directly with their locality, their history andfuture discourses. Therefore, community art practices in urban cracks are ana-lysed in terms of the collective learning processes and democratic moments theyfacilitate rather than in terms of their learning or artistic outcomes or their pos-sibilities for enhancing encounters. The question is not in what way these prac-tices beautify or regenerate the city, but why and how practitioners positionthemselves in the practices by working not only in but also with the context. Wedraw from Shaw and Martin (2005) and Martin (2009) when we ask: How canpractitioners in community art cultivate the democratic disposition and nurturethe capacity for democratic dissidence and dissent in the city?

We begin this article by analysing the ambiguous concept of community incommunity art practices, followed by a discussion of the ambiguous concept ofart in public space. We argue that community art practices raise possibilities fora reconceptualisation of the concept of community and for an extension of theconcept of art in public space. Next we discuss our concept of urban cracks,conceptualising these as spatial, temporal and relational manifestations of socialand political struggle in the city, based within the metaphor of a palimpsest. Fol-lowing this, we present and discuss Gent Noord in Multivisie & 3D, a project bythe community art practice Assurance Ambiance, which is situated in an ethnicallyand socially diverse neighbourhood in Ghent. We then explore the work of prac-titioners in community art practices in urban cracks from a socio-spatialapproach and as a contextualised praxis. We conclude with challenges and ques-tions for arts-based practices of adult education practice and theory.

A reconceptualisation of the concept of community

Scholars’, policy makers’ and practitioners’ interest in community is drivenpartly by common agendas that start from different problem definitions and dif-ferent views on plurality and diversity (Biesta and Cowell 2009). Predominantly,the focus is on questions of social cohesion and integration, in which commu-

278 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

nity is conceived in terms of active participation——mostly at the local level——to-wards developing sustainable relations. Through this lens plurality or diversity isconsidered a potential threat to the cohesion of social life and thus somethingthat needs to be overcome or at least addressed. Due to the concern that thereis a lack of community and solidarity, community development becomes an idealto strive for (Shaw 2008). According to Shaw (2008), the idea is that a cohesivesociety needs strong communities, based on common values and beliefs. Thisgreat belief in community is often based on a mythologised concept of commu-nity: the assumption of homogeneity of values and standards and a shared andcommon sense of identity in which singularity of identity is reinforced and inter-actions are pre-arranged. This belief in the beneficial effects of a tight-knit com-munity is translated into the promotion of active participation and sustainablesocial relations, due to the perception that strong communities should be betterable to counter social problems. In this approach, the most significant feature ofliving together in community is denied: (learning) to negotiate difference andto deal with pluralism and diversity, conflict and dissent, all of which are inevita-ble in a democracy (Mouffe 2000).

Soenen (2003) challenges this predominant concept of sustainable relationsand the idea of a tight-knit community by highlighting the value of what shecalls ‘small groupings’ as a more humble contribution to community. She arguesthat our lives are essentially a process of convergence and divergence in whichtemporary communities and conflicts alternate. Rather than a normative ideal,she views community as a relational and dynamic concept of connections, inter-actions and nexus between people. In this conceptualisation, she includes weakbindings, such as Facebook friendships or brief encounters, and potential rela-tionships that can be activated when needed. Soenen’s thinking broadens theconcept of community into a more plural and ambivalent concept includingephemeral relationships, small talk and anonymous interactions.

We take this approach because it allows us to focus on questions of demo-cratic participation and legitimation, in which community is conceived in termsof active support for and participation in a democratic society. A democraticcommunity is by definition characterised by plurality and diversity. In thisapproach, plurality is viewed as a reality, an actual form of democracy, and thussomething that needs to be protected and cultivated (Biesta and Cowell 2009).Community art practices using this lens defy neoliberal social order agendas butare involved in social change towards greater democracy (Lynn 2006). Below, wegive some illustrations of this idea. Deutsche (1996: 270) argues the dangers ofpresuming ‘that the task of democracy is to settle, rather than sustain, conflict’.In their turn, Hall and Robertson (2001: 19) react against the idea of a homoge-neous community with their statement that public art should encourage thesound of contradictory voices, representing the diversity of people using thespace. Furthermore, the artist Thomas Hirschhorn (2010) is aware of this plural-ity of community and participation, accepting what he calls the ‘phenomenon ofthe second row’. By this we mean that he has witnessed through the majority ofhis artistic interventions in public space how most people prefer to observe hisprojects from a certain distance. Eventually, some will actively participate in theproject, but others will stay in this ‘second-row’ sphere. Hirschhorn explainshow he learned to respect this choice, not forcing people to join in. He statesthat in a way, the ‘second row’ is as much part of the projects as the people who

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

actively participate, as it shows the differing impacts of the project within onepublic context.

In our work we see community art practices as relational practices that are co-constructed in human interactions and situated in a social, cultural, politicaland historical context. Community art practices are active, not natural ororganic, processes (Brent 2004, Clover 2006, Arvanitakis 2009) that refer toboundaries: meaningful boundaries are set up in these interrelations, interac-tions and dialogues and in the development of social identities. Inclusion andexclusion are strongly related in community art practices. They are thereforeconnected with equality and equal opportunities for processes of identity forma-tion and appropriation. As meaningful individual and collective learning pro-cesses, community art practices involve ambivalence, conflict and dissent. Thequestion is in what ways and to what extent community art practices can help usto understand existing and new processes of community. Community isdone——that is, community-as-enacted (Biesta and Cowell 2009)——rather thanbeing based on ideal (re)constructions and representations. This means movingaway from a deficit model for the individual and the community, with the beliefthere is a ‘lack’ that must be ‘filled’ (Rose 1997), towards community art prac-tices that build upon the rich local everyday practices of all people involved. It isnot about preaching or analysing what was wrong and what could improve, notabout organising a community based on assumptions, and not about changingneighbourhood reputations or lifestyles. Rather, it is about appropriate ‘reading’of lived experiences, which is often the opposite of pre-designed artistic inter-ventions. Therefore community art practices need to reconnect to realities inthe neighbourhood, referring to the world as it is, but at the same time provid-ing a perspective on the world as it could be by critically analysing these realitiesin terms of injustices and disempowering relations (Shaw 2011).

An extension of the concept of art in public space

Similar to the concept of community, the concept of art in public space can beunderstood in different ways. Art placed in public space differs from art localisedin public space. Art placed in public space means that the artist might make thiswork in his private studio, and might not see the public site in question untilthe point at which the artwork is being installed and inaugurated with a selectgroup of invited people. Alternatively, the artist could make the work at the sitebecause it is too large for an indoor studio or because of the site-specific fea-tures of the work. The work could also be a concept chosen by the inhabitantsof an area by artistic referendum (thus involving the work in community). Thesescenarios all unfold from a dominant conception of public art as a monumentallandmark in public space. Minty (2006: 424) argues that art placed in publicspace could create new opportunities for interaction and operate as a driver forsocial change ‘due to its perceived ability to reach broader groupings than isdone by established arts institutions’. However, this restricted notion leaves littlespace for a broader sense of the arts, leaning towards a sterile art world inhab-ited by the ‘happy few’ rather than towards public life.

In our work we start from the concept of art localised in public space as areflecting mirror of public life in the city: a city that ‘no longer occupies a

280 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

clearly delimited space, but has become a bewildering and dynamic terrainvague consisting of shifting neighbourhood coexistences’ (Kung and Vander-marliere 1997: 9). Today’s cities thus ask for artworks that try to re-explore andre-define the dominant gaze on, and interpretation of, the contemporary urbancontext——a context that bears more resemblance to an influx of grown place-ments and shifting practices than to a homogeneous creation of planned struc-tures. Instead of a fixed monumental sculpture, art localised in public space isconceptualised as a dynamic paradigm of thought, closely following the urbancondition by continuously moving along. In this regard, art in public space isnot necessarily of a permanent nature, and could include temporary interven-tions and symbolic gestures. The city functions as a starting point, the artwork asa trigger for a focus on things which are already present, rather than newlyadded values.

La ville ne devrait pas server de galerie a un monument supplementaireconcu en dehors d’elle. Si la ville est oeuvre d’art, c’est dans ses pierres,dans sa maniere d’etre. (Cauquelin 1999)1

The localised aspect of art in public space lies not simply in its site-specific fea-tures or goals of community development and participation, but in the artist’sengagement in profoundly embedding his or her project into the existing con-text. In a way, this is at odds with both implanted monuments in public spaceand the participative projects that engage every-one but offend no-one. Instead,localised art in public space is conceptualised as an anchored, non-interchange-able, site-responsive practice.

A case in point is Barry Flanagan’s steel sculpture Untitled (sculpture), which,after 13 years of absence, was offered a new location on a vacant lot at Ghent’sSouth Dock in 2005. This vacant lot lies alongside the old docks, where a dis-trict near the waterfront was planned. Art critics told lyrical stories about thegeometric poetry of the work. But these authors could not stop wondering whyit was placed there. What was the relation of Flanagan’s work to the site and itsfuture destination? What did Flanagan wish to express with this? How did itrelate to the people who pass by daily, parking their cars before taking theirdogs for a walk? What will happen to the monument when a new district growsup at the old docks? Will it stay behind, bearing a new meaning; move else-where; or again find itself spending years in a dark warehouse until a new des-tination is found?

We argue that art localised in public space provides the possibility to stepout of dominant paradigms by suspending assumed understandings and facili-tating different perspectives. Clover (2006, 2007) sees imagination as a powerfultool within arts-based work to encourage creative forms of civic dialogue, learn-ing and engagement, arguing that ‘the ability to imagine things being differentmay be the first step towards taking action to change them’ (Clover 2007: 518)and uncover often hidden social issues (Clover 2010). Art localised in publicspace offers this different and more imaginative way of knowing and under-standing, and opens up a stage for both personal experiences and those of oth-ers.

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

An important question for us is: How can art localised in public space makethe familiar strange (Mannay 2010), and also make the strange more familiar?Or, in other words:

Can an artistic intervention truly bring about an unforeseen way of think-ing or is it more a matter of creating a sensation of meaninglessness thatshows the absurdity of the situation? Can an absurd act provoke a trans-gression that makes you abandon the standard assumptions about thesources of conflict? Can an artistic intervention translate social tensionsinto narratives that in turn intervene in the imaginary landscape of aplace? Can an absurd act provoke a transgression that makes you abandonthe standard assumptions about the sources of conflict? (Alys, cited inGodfrey and Biesenbach 2010: 39)

We believe it is precisely the palimpsestuous, interstitial and complex characterof urban cracks that can influence the dominant conception of art in publicspace, as well as the dominant view of the city.

Urban cracks as arenas for social and political struggle

The construction of public space in the city was and is strongly influenced byboth socio-political considerations and socio-economic processes. Socio-economic developments cause our cities to continually transform, both sociallyand physically. Urban sociologist Manuel Castells documents a shift from anindustrial society to a post-industrial information-based network society (Castells1983, 1998) wherein knowledge, innovation and creativity fuel the economy.This involves physical, spatial changes: for example, urban areas, such as indus-trial sites near the city’s centre, become vacant (De Smet 2009). These sites aretraditionally referred to as urban interspace, playing fields, transit zones, waste-land, intermediate areas, pause-landscapes, non-lieu, brownfield, shadow cities,terrain vague, remnant spaces, refuge, indeterminate spaces or ignored spaces.In brief, these sites are evidence of a colourful past and will serve another pur-pose in the future, although they remain ignored in the present and have noclear-cut public use. These sites invite and indubitably hold opportunities forcommunity art practices. They can combine the history and former characteris-tics of the area with a temporal and future interpretation of the space and offeropportunities for reflection, encounter and action.

This idea was at the core of artist Kelly Schacht’s work Acacia Park (2006), inGhent. Schacht chalked lines on a vacant lot where a sports park was planned. Itwas indeed a stark reminder of the past, as well as a message to the future andthe present. We would suggest that in this way, the artist summarised theessence of public space and its temporality.

In his turn, artist Koen Broucke started digging into the past of Gentbrugge,a borough of the city of Ghent, and discovered a history of numerous ‘pepinie-res’ (seed nurseries) and horticulture in greenhouses. The flora encountered inthe neighbourhood led him to examine whether they were remnants of that col-ourful past. This was the start of a series of interventions, such as gatheringblackberries on wasteland where an urban renewal project was planned and

282 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

offering fresh juice to passers-by. His project reflected on two taboos surround-ing public space: the rough city, with its neglected spots and wasteland dirt, onthe one hand; the consumption of what can be found between the paving ofthe city on the other. At the same time, Broucke highlighted the green charac-ter of a neighbourhood that is presented by policy makers as a sad district inneed of change, in the shape of large-scale infrastructural plans such as elegantlandscaped parks.

Urban cracks confront us with the city’s fulfilment failures in some areas.Oppressed practices are often disclosed in these places, where the dominant log-ics of economy and consumption, which preside over most historical city centres,openly conflict with the ignored. Therefore, urban cracks are held up as exam-ples for revealing existing frictions within urban life and culture. Groth andCorijn (2005: 506) describe them as ‘sites where clashes in urban meaning mani-fest themselves’. They contain tensions that are often impeded or absent inmore defined and delimited sites. Urban cracks fall outside the familiar bound-aries of urban planning and seem to have grown rather than having beenplanned (Van Eeghem et al. 2011). Hamers (2006) describes these sites as ‘shift-ing spaces’: when they appear in one place, they disappear in another. They arethe missing piece in a shifting puzzle, each time enabling a preconceived orderto be established elsewhere. Without these in-between spaces the city would becompletely stuck.

As an image, urban cracks can be seen as palimpsests. Figuratively, a palimpsestis ‘a means to analyse the way in which built spaces embody social, cultural andhistorical narratives of place and identity … making visible what was previouslyunseen’ (Powell 2008: 6–7). Urban cracks demonstrate that destruction is partof construction. A palimpsest is not simply a multi-layered piece of parchment,but rather a fragment with a destroyed base. A palimpsestuous reading of urbancracks can reveal more about the precarious nature of urban planning and citylife. Precisely because of this, architects and urban planners often use thepalimpsest as a metaphorical concept in urban development.

As an architectural concept, these interstitial spaces refer to places that accom-modate the mechanics of a building, that expose the (dys)functioning of theirmechanisms. In case of malfunction, the problem is to be searched for here. How-ever, if the entire building is leaking, does not the structure of the entire con-struction need attention? Urban cracks could be ideal ground for practitionersfor interstitial practices or crossovers that fall between the familiar boundaries ofaccepted logics of urban policies and genres of art. As many elements are leftundefined and open to future interpretation, urban cracks are tempting spacesfor artists, adult educators and residents. Groth and Corijn (2005), for example,showed how informal actors——those from outside the official, institutionaliseddomain of urban planning and urban politics or representatives of citizens’ initia-tives——may contribute to the democratisation of urban development and influ-ence the agenda of urban politics by means of temporary re-appropriation andanimation of indeterminate spaces. In these temporary non-appropriated spaces,a plurality of actors can act to counterbalance the largely non-democratic develop-ment of public space. Making use of urban cracks resembles an unnoticed play-ground for unconstrained initiatives.

Artist Benjamin Verdonck has repeatedly challenged policy logic in his inter-ventions in public space. In 2009, he asked the mayor of Antwerp for the keys to

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 283

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

the city, within the context of a year-long sucession of site-specific performancesand interventions. The city was willing to cooperate, but sought to minimise theinconvenience to its inhabitants and maximise their entertainment. As a conse-quence, for each intervention Verdonck had to address several city services: inte-grated security, crowd management, public policy, etc. However, when he wasconfronted with an urgent issue at 4.45 pm, his calls were not answered.

Mostly, Verdonck’s actions dismantle the dominant logics within public space.Around Christmas time, himself disguised as St Nicholas, he welcomed SantaClaus arriving at Antwerp Central Station. He was immediately noticed by thecity director who had him removed by the police. Verdonck then tried to joinSanta Claus at the Grand Market Place, but the city director made it clear thatthis was not favourable for the children’s fantasy. The artist replied: ‘Isn’t thatbillboard of a naked woman recommending a fridge unconducive to their imagi-nation?’ (www.kalender09.be). At the end of the year, he handed the city keysback to the mayor and informed citizens: ‘Hereby, anyone who feels the urge toengage in a public space project of which he/she feels he/she thereby takeshis/her responsibility towards society, is invited. A bird doesn’t sing because he’sgot an answer, but because he’s got a song’ (Verdonck 2010).

Assurance Ambiance’s work in urban cracks

Assurance Ambiance (AA) is the community art practice arm of a small non-profit organisation, rocsa, funded by the city of Ghent. Three practitioners areinvolved. Their project Gent Noord in Multivisie & 3D is an interesting case, firstlybecause it is situated in an urban crack, and secondly because the urban crack isnot seen as a background for traditional socialising interventions, but as a social-ising and educating force in and of itself (De Visscher and Bouverne-De Bie2008). The project Gent Noord in Multivisie & 3D is situated in Oude Dokken,

Figure 1. Wannes Nimmegeers

284 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

Figure 2. Riet Steel

Figure 3. Sarah Oyserman

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

(figure 1), a brownfield in the northern dockland area of the city of Ghent thathouses remnants of a concrete factory and a harbour warehouse. The area isflanked by industrial companies and low-cost housing blocks that provide shelterto more than 800 people from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In thecontext of a large-scale urban renewal project, the area is to become a new dis-trict by the water, accommodating over 1500 new homes. Part of the Interbetonconcrete factory building will be kept for heritage purposes, functioning as asocio-cultural space in the new district by the water.

As part of the project Gent Noord in Multivisie & 3D (figure 2), AA studied thedifferent meanings of this specific building and its surrounding area throughinterviews with local residents, former factory employees, policy makers andurban planners. In this collaborative research, four kinds of stories about thesite were collected: memories, present image and use, future dreams and futureurban development. These four layers of stories were——in collaboration with anumber of artists——united in a multimedia installation featuring audio interviewexcerpts, soundscapes and historical, present and imaginary images of the sitecombined in a portable box containing a viewmaster and mp3 player. The instal-lation was presented in the former Interbeton building during a summer exhibi-tion (figure 3) by Assurance Ambiance. A short version of these materials hasbeen published on the Internet, for non-participants to consult and react to(http://www.rocsa.be/gentnoordinmultivisie).

By conducting, documenting and presenting their context analysis in thisway, AA succeeded at least partially in enhancing the public function of thisspace, by engaging and supporting tacit knowledge and different layers of mean-ings (before intervening in or programming the space). By carefully unravellingtraces of past and present uses of the site and imaging possible future opportu-nities for the space, that space itself becomes subject of a collective interest. Inthis way, the existing blueprints for the spatial planning can be ‘made public’ ina creative and experimental way and the organisation of urban public life is dis-cussed together with residents and other stakeholders. The ‘research’ materialof the Interbeton site will function as an inspiration and starting point for otheractivities and projects, and AA will apply the material to explorations of otherwastelands in the neighbourhood.

Although community art practices seem to have lost their strong tradition oftargeting issues of social injustice and challenging inequalities in the city, thisproject, ‘functioning as a collective practice that opens further democraticpossibilities’ (Von Kotze 2009: 1), challenges the consensus over the city’sdevelopment and fuels democratic moments (Biesta 2011).

A socio-spatial approach of community art practices in urban cracks

The project also shows that space matters——not only as a background orstage for community art practices, but as a co-educator that influences collec-tive learning processes and democratic moments (De Visscher and Bouverne-De Bie 2008). Therefore, community practices in urban cracks need to beanalysed from a socio-spatial approach. This approach is rooted in the workof German social pedagogues such as Richard Munchmeier and others (Boh-nish and Munchmeier 1987, 1990, Dienet and Kirsch 2006, Spatscheck 2011),

286 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

who conceptualise the theory of a Sozialraumlichen Padagogik and perceivecommunity art practices as infrastructural work, highlighting the necessity oflocating all pedagogical work in the everyday arena. Their work is situated inthe ‘lifeworld orientation’ (Grunwald and Thiersch 2009) in social pedagogyand social work, and in the ‘spatial turn’ in social theories (Spatscheck2011). A socio-spatial approach brings into focus the everyday living environ-ment with which, through pedagogical work, societal, political and structuraldemands interact. Firstly, professionally founded, specialised and institutionalservices and supply-related and functional thinking are abandoned. Thisapproach brings a specific perspective on social problems and certain princi-ples for the organisation of professional practice. In this view, community artpractices help to re-politicise social problems through artistic interventions. AsClover (2007) suggests, art, creativity and the aesthetic dimension are impor-tant elements in this politically oriented pedagogical practice. Within this,practitioners strive to enable structured yet open-ended pedagogical processesin practice. Grunwald and Thiersch (2009: 141) describe this as ‘pedagogicaltact’: discretion on the part of the practitioner, and the ability to look awayor to not get involved.

Community art practices in urban cracks as contextualised praxis

As such, a socio-spatial approach challenges practitioners in community artpractices not only to work in a given context but also to work with that con-text. Working in context refers to the need for contextual awareness beforeorganising an artistic intervention: contexts can be more or less convenientfor particular interventions. Context analyses are performed in order to orga-nise interventions that are adjusted to a number of context characteristics.But in the end, the context remains the spatial and social background againstwhich practitioners develop their work. The underlying agenda of these inter-ventions is developed outside that context and follows the organisation’s goalsor those of the funding government. Working with a context requires anapproach to this context as the reflection of the history of an area and as acreator and carrier of social change. Context is not only something to takeinto account when planning an artistic intervention, but is the very startingpoint and focus of the intervention. Practitioners have the task of exploringpast and present meanings of a particular context and its current use by dif-ferent individuals and groups, in order to generate perspectives on its futuredevelopment.

Based on Freire’s (1972: 60) concept of praxis, we position community art asa contextualised praxis: ‘the action and reflection of men and women upon theirworld in order to transform it’. Praxis refers to practice that emerges fromreflection on action to improve such action (see also Narayan 2000, Ledwith2001, Mayo 2008). This approach encourages practitioners to understand thesocio-political context of their interventions, enables them to position them-selves within the social and spatial context of their work, and emphasises ‘theimportance of radically democratising both educational sites and larger socialtransformations’ (Fischman and McLaren 2005: 425).

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

This requires a reflexive position by practitioners towards their own practiceand the underlying assumptions made. Problematising, or problem-posing(Freire 1972), helps practitioners to understand the meaning of their work inrelation to the social, historical and spatial context in which it is placed. Thedegree of community or learning outcomes are not the most important indica-tors. Instead it is about being accountable for their own practices in relation tothe social, historical and spatial context in which they intervene.

Questioning the social and spatial position of community art practices alsoimplies considering the long-term consequences of a temporary intervention.Von Kotze argues that community art practices must be historically rooted andclearly contextualised within their locality. ‘Ignoring historical connotationsmeant not only missing opportunities for new, imaginative “calls” for new com-mon spaces, it meant that participants and audience alike missed the point’(2009: 5).

Challenges for adult education practice and theory

An important challenge for community art practices, as a form of adult educa-tion, in this approach is to make urban spaces more ‘public’. Social life in thecity and the urban fabric is very much characterised by ambivalence. Ambiva-lence refers to different, sometimes conflicting layers of meaning that existsimultaneously within urban space. Community art practices are situated in thisambivalence and should create spaces in which these ambivalent patterns canfurther develop. They are an integrated part of the social fabric and thereforenever neutral or representatives of either the street or the state. They are politi-cal practices (Duyvendak and Uitermark 2005) that can unravel specific ideologi-cal views and socio-political choices on the origin or solution of social problems.This insight connects community art practices with broader socio-political ques-tions and links with topics from other fields, which gives the opportunity to com-bine different perspectives on social reality (Bradt 2009). This re-politicised viewembodies the questions of why, in what situations, on whose initiative, for whomand on what grounds community art practices are being provided, and on whichunderlying problem definitions interventions are based (Vranken 1990,Bouverne-De Bie 2006).

Community art practices can dismantle existing realities, referring to ‘culturalaction’(Freire 1972, 1995): questioning and changing dehumanising processesby unveiling realities and taking a critical position in realising human dignity ina social context. Mollenhauer discusses the social, political and cultural projectunderpinning educational interventions and entailing critical reflection on therole of pedagogical institutions in society (Mollenhauer 1983).

This perspective encloses a critical approach to social problems, including therole of community art practice as an actor in social problem construction. Com-munity art practices cannot keep themselves apart from asymmetrical social rela-tions, poverty and socio-economic fragmentation in the city. We expectcommunity art practices to help formulate radical recommendations in the pur-suit of changing historically developed processes of economic, political, socialand cultural marginalisation.

288 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

Community art practices turn processes of urban confusion for residents andpolicy makers into experiences of urbanity through integrating differ-ent——sometimes conflicting——perspectives. This means that community artpractices connect policy logic with social and spatial contexts, and initiate struc-tural social change. Practitioners appear as co-constructors of social problemsand urban agendas. They are ‘agitators’ (Ferguson 2008) in questioning societyand supporters of democratic processes. Urban cracks are therefore co-educa-tors, since they are spaces with dynamic fabrics of social and material practiceswhich are (re-)produced continually through different levels of interaction(Spatscheck 2011).

Note

1. ‘The city should not be used as an art gallery for an additional monument designed out of thecity. If the city is a work of art, it is in its stones, in its way of being’ (Cauquelin 1999).

References

ARVANITAKIS, J. (2009) Staging Maralinga and desiring community (Or why there is no such thing as a‘natural’ community). Community Development Journal, 44(4), 448–459.

BIESTA, G. and COWELL, G. (2009) How is Community Done? Understanding civic learning through psychogeo-graphic mapping (Scotland: Stirling Institute of Education, University of Stirling).

BIESTA, G. J. J. (2011) Learning in Public Places: Civic Learning for the 21st Century. Inaugural lec-ture on the occasion of the award of the International Francqui Professorship to Prof. Dr GertBiesta (Ghent University, 17 February).

BOHNISCH, L. and MUNCHMEIER, R. (1987) Wozu Jugendarbeit? Orientierugnen fur Ausbildung, Fortbildungand Praxis (Weinheim/Munchen: Juventa Verlag).

BOHNISCH, L. and MUNCHMEIER, R. (1990) Padagogik des Jugendraums. Zur Begrundung und Praxis einersozialraumlichen Jugendpadagogik (Wienheim: Juventa).

BOUVERNE-DE BIE, M. (2006) Participatie: van opvoedingsdoel tot samenlevingsopbouw. Welzijnsgids -Welzijnszorg. Samenlevingsopbouw, 61, 135–154.

BRADT, L. (2009) Victim-offender mediation as social work practice. A comparison between mediationfor young and adult offenders in Flanders, PhD thesis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

BRENT, J. (2004) The desire for community: illusion, confusion and paradox. Community DevelopmentJournal, 39(3), 213–223.

CAREY, P. and SUTTON, S. (2004) Community development through participatory arts: lessons learnedfrom a community arts and regeneration project in South Liverpool. Community DevelopmentJournal, 39(2), 123–134.

CASTELLS, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements (Berkeley,CA: University of California Press).

CASTELLS, M. (1998) The Information Age: Economy, society and culture. Volume II. The power of identity(Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).

CAUQUELIN, A. (1999) Interview d’Anne Cauquelin par Thierry Paquot, Paris, 19 October 1999. Availableonline at: http://urbanisme.u-pec.fr/documentation/paroles/anne-cauquelin-64781.kjsp(accessed 4 May 2012).

CLOVER, D. E. (2006) Culture and antiracism in adult education: an exploration of the contributionsof arts-based learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 46–61.

CLOVER, D. E. (2007) Feminist aesthetic practice of community development: the case of Myths andMirrors Community Arts. Community Development Journal, 42(4), 512–522.

CLOVER, D. E. and STALKER, J. (eds.) (2007) The Arts and Social Justice. Re-crafting adult education andcommunity cultural leadership (Leicester: Niace).

CLOVER, D. (2010) A contemporary review of feminist aesthetic practices in selective adult educationjournals and conference proceedings. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(3), 233–248.

COOPER, C. T. and MELE, C. (2002) Urban redevelopment as contingent process: implicating everydaypractices in Berlin’s renewal. City & Community, 1(3), 291–311.

COWELL, G. (2009) Community Walks: making connections in space and time (Bonnybridge,Scotland), The Stirling Institute of Education, University of Stirling.

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

DE BISSCHOP, A. (2009). Community art as a discursive construction. PhD thesis, Ghent University,Ghent, Belgium.

DE SMET, A. (2009) Tijdelijk gebruik van ‘pauzelandschappen’ als een eerste stap naar herwaarderingen revitalisatie. In P. DE DECKER, K. DOEVENDANS, A. KUHK, J. MAENHOUT, J. KLOKOCKA, K. WUYTACK

and S. MARTENS (eds.) Reflections 10 (Gent-Brussel: Sint-Lucas), pp. 171–186.DEUTSCHE, R. (1996) Evictions: Art and spatial politics (Cambridge: MIT Press).DUYVENDAK, J. W. and UITERMARK, J. (2005) De opbouwwerker als architect van de publieke sfeer. Beleid

en Maatschappij, 32, 76–89.FERGUSON, I. (2008) Reclaiming Social Work. Challenging Neo-liberalism and promoting social justice (Lon-

don: Sage).FISCHMAN, G. E. and MCLAREN, P. (2005) Rethinking critical pedagogy and the Gramscian and Freire-

an legacies: from organic to committed intellectuals or critical pedagogy, commitment andpraxis. Cultural Studies & Critical Methodologies, 5(4), 425–446.

FREIRE, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Harmondsworth: Penguin).FREIRE, P. (1995) Pedagogy of Hope. Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed (New York: Continuum Publishing

Company).GODFREY, M. and BIESENBACH, K. (2010) Francis Alys: A story of deception (London: Tate Publishing).GROTH, J. and CORIJN, E. (2005) Reclaiming urbanity: indeterminate spaces, informal actors and

urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42(3), 503–526.GRUNWALD, K. and THIERSCH, H. (2009) The concept of the ‘lifeworld orientation’ for social work and

social care. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(2), 131–146.HALL, T. and ROBERTSON, I. (2001) Public art and urban regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical

debates. Landscape Research, 26(1), 5–26.HAMERS, D. (2006) Niemandsland (Rotterdam: Lemniscaat).HIRSCHHORN, T. (2010). De cultuur van kunst in de openbare ruimte. Lecture (Sint-Lucas Beeldende

Kunst, Gent, 19 April).KAY, A. (2000) Art and community development: the role the arts have in regenerating communities.

Community Development Journal, 35(4), 414–424.KERREMANS, J. and DE BISSCHOP, A. (2010) Visietekst sociaal-artistiek werk (Brussel: Demos vzw).LEDWITH, M. (2001) Community work as critical pedagogy: re-envisioning Freire and Gramsci. Commu-

nity Development Journal, 36(3), 171–182.LYNN, M. (2006) Discourses of community: challenges for social work. International Journal of Social

Welfare, 15, 110–120.MANNAY, D. (2010) Making the familiar strange: can visual research methods render the familiar set-

ting more perceptible?. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 91–111.MARTIN, I. (2009) Whither adult education in the learning paradigm? Some personal reflections. Rhi-

zome Freirian International Online Review, 3.MAYO, P. (2008) Liberating Praxis. Paulo Freire’s Legacy for Radical Education and Politics (Boston:

SensePublishers).MINTY, Z. (2006) Post-apartheid public art in Cape Town: symbolic reparations and public space.

Urban Studies, 43(2), 421–440.MOLLENHAUER, K. (1983) Vergessene Zusammenhange. Uber Kultur und Erziehung (Munchen: Juventa).MOUFFE, C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso).NARAYAN, L. (2000) Freire and Gandhi. International Social Work, 43(2), 193–204.NEWMAN, T., CURTIS, K. and STEPHENS, J. (2003) Do community-based arts projects result in social

gains? A review of the literature. Community Development Journal, 38(4), 310–322.PHILLIPS, R. (2004) Artful business: using the arts for community economic development. Community

Development Journal, 39(2), 112–122.POWELL, K. (2008) Remapping the city: palimpsest, place and identity in art education research. Studies

in Art Education, 50(1), 6–21.ROSE, G. (1997) Spatialities of ‘community’, power and change: the imagined geographies of commu-

nity arts projects. Cultural Studies, 11(1), 1–16.SHAW, M. (2008) Community development and the politics of community. Community Development Jour-

nal, 43(1), 24–36.SHAW, M. (2011) Stuck in the middle? Community development, community engagement and the

dangerous business of learning for democracy. Community Development Journal, 46(suppl. 2), ii128–ii 146.

SHAW, M. and MARTIN, I. (2005) Translating the art of citizenship. Convergence, XXXVIII(4).SIMON, G. (2010) The evolution of public policies for youth work in the French-speaking Community

of Belgium. In F. COUSSEE, G. VERSCHELDEN, T. VAN DE WALLE, M. MEDLINSKA and H. WILLIAMSON

(eds.) The History of Youth Work in Europe and its Relevance for Youth Policy Today (Vol. 2) (Stras-bourg: Council of Europe Publishing), pp. 25–40.

SOENEN, R. (2003) Ethnography of actualised social relationship. The ambivalence in the everyday lifeof city dwellers. Kolor. Journal on Moving Communities, 3(2), 55–71.

SPATSCHECK, C. (Forthcoming) The socio-spatial approach to social work. Social Work & Society.

290 GRIET VERSCHELDEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012

VERDONCK, B. (2010) Over KALENDER Lecture (University College Ghent, Faculty of Fine Arts,Ghent, 23 November).

VRANKEN, J. (1990) Welzijn: voorwerp van maatschappelijke tegenstellingen en historische dynamiek.In H. BAERT (ed.) De welzijnszorg in de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Facetten en standpunten (Leuven:Garant), pp. 99–115.

VON KOTZE, A. (2009) Zebra-crossing: public participation to remake the city? Rhizome FreirianInternational Online Review, 3.

COMMUNITY ART PRACTICES IN URBAN CRACKS 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hog

esch

ool G

ent]

, [R

iet S

teel

] at

07:

57 2

3 M

ay 2

012