'Who gets to paint the bird?' is a provocation intended to generate debate on the issue of ownership in the field of participatory arts. It is the first in a series of provocations distributed under the Project 20 banner.

Work+Play is an arts project based in Telford supporting learning disabled adults. Salamanda Tandem has been a key partner delivering evaluation and training to the project. In a recent series of workshops project participants were given the task of designing their own 'bird'. This original design was then made up with the support of other artists and craftspeople. For some participants the prospect and/or reality of working alone to produce a design was too demanding or else didn't interest them. For these individuals, those least inclined or able to take up the original offer, the lead artist devised a way into the project which was more collaborative. She delivered a 3-d 'skeleton' of a bird made of timber and chicken wire: a raw form waiting to be covered and developed into a finished piece.

Over a number of weeks the bird skeleton was covered with paper mache and then white emulsion by at least 5 participants from the group, many of whom spent hours on the task.

Given the collaborative nature of the project a question presented itself towards the end of the work:

Who gets to make the all important finishing touches to the bird, applying the final painted finish?

The best painter in the group?

The person who spent most time on the construction of the bird?

The person to whom it means the most?

The person who is least capable of producing anything else?

If a painted finish is to be achieved collaboratively, how could, how should this be done, bearing in mind the involvement of a number of competing but 'entitled' individuals?

We are interested in hearing possible solutions to the above problem and in hearing from colleagues who have experienced similarly difficult questions to do with ownership in this field.

Modified twice, last modified by kevin hodgetts on Tue 2nd November, 2010 @ 11:00am

hi Fiona,

There speaks somebody who's carved up plenty of birds in her time! Thanks for this suggestion. A good idea definitely although i guess it raises the danger of the bird looking a mess if the contributions are not co-ordinated - if the individuals are determined to go their own way with their apportioned bit. That phrase "work by committee" comes to mind. A necessary compromise in the process leading to possibly compromised final outcome?

By the way, I think we know each don't we? Didn't you do some work in Telford a few years ago for Arty Party ? i used to manage the project there. If it is you good to know you're out there!

This is a blog we are running on the Empaf site but we are running a corresponding discussion on http://salamandatandem.wordpress.com/the-1st-provocation/

dear Julie.

how nice to hear from you! I trust you are well. Loved your response...really got me thinking.

You are right of course. Some parts of the bird are intrinsically more valuable than others. Depending on how the bird is exhibited - standing on a post at eye level or suspended from a ceiling say - some sections of the bird will obviously be more prominent and therefore sought after than others. There is no perfect equality in dividing up the bird as even if we could apportion an exactly equal amount of surface area for each participant to paint, some surface areas are clearly worth more than others. If we were stuck with the bird as the final moment or opportunity for participation we would be a bit stuck as all solutions seem to involve imperfect compromises. The idea of leaving the bird un-altered and then using it as a focus to create new work - moving through the art forms - is a very imaginative and inventive solution and if we had the opportunity to do this i would also favour this approach. Once we think about how photography and projections can help us it opens up the possibility of many and various birds being generated out of the first. The bird gives birth to new birds....hallelujah!

I was also very taken by you admitting that you would be drawn towards the participant who found it most difficult to contribute and I'm sure many individuals working in this field would share your empathy. Indeed, in the case study we are using here, the ownership claims of one individual (who was previously the most alienated participant in the project) ended up being priviledged over others as it was clearly more important to him. So maybe ownership shouldn't be about establishing who did what. It's more a matter of who cares most?

Modified once, last modified by kevin hodgetts on Tue 2nd November, 2010 @ 11:02am