François Matarasso

Computers have changed our lives in so many ways that it’s hard to find the right terms to describe what has happened. Digital is an easy shorthand, but that seems to refers to how the technology works. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is a mouthful, but helpful in focusing on how the technology is used – to manage and exploit information, and to communicate. I’ve been an early adopter of the digital technology, swapping my typewriter for a computer in 1986, but much more wary where ICT is concerned. I blog – ugly neologism – but don’t use social media, except for intermittent engagement with Twitter because it was such a useful source of information about my field. Nonetheless, like most people, I’m now easily found on the Internet. 

What is community art?

Some of that wariness comes from my limited knowledge of the technology and what it does. I’ve been reminded of that in the debates around Artificial Intelligence following the appearance of ChatGPT. So, warily again, I decided to begin learning what it is and whether it is useful. The best way to do that was to ask it some questions about an area where I have enough knowledge to be able to assess its answers. So I asked it about community art – what it is, what has been its history, what should I read to learn more and so on. 

And, to be fair, the answers weren’t bad:

Community art, also known as participatory or collaborative art, is a form of artistic expression that involves active participation and engagement from members of a specific community or group, rather than being created solely by a single artist or a small group of artists. This type of art aims to empower and involve the community in the artistic process, fostering a sense of ownership and connection to the artwork and its themes.

That compares well with TATE’s definition of community art, presumably written by a curator, which is considerably less informative and insightful:

Community art is artistic activity that is based in a community setting, characterised by interaction or dialogue with the community and often involving a professional artist collaborating with people who may not otherwise engage in the arts

The rest of TATE’s short entry is not much better and contains obvious biases towards its own artworld perspective. It mentions only two names: the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and Assemble, neither of which would come to mind if I was writing about community art.  

On the other hand, ChatGPT told me that community art’s key characteristics are:

1. Collaboration: Community art often involves collaboration between artists and community members, who may have varying levels of artistic experience. The collective effort is essential to the creation of the artwork.

2. Inclusivity: Community art is typically open to anyone within a specific community or group, regardless of their age, background, or artistic skills. Inclusivity is a fundamental principle of this art form.

3. Social and Cultural Themes: Many community art projects focus on themes that are relevant to the community’s social, cultural, or historical context. These themes can address issues, celebrate heritage, or promote positive change within the community.

4. Public Spaces: Community art projects are often displayed in public spaces, such as parks, community centers, or public buildings, to maximize their accessibility and impact within the community.

5. Community Engagement: The process of creating community art often involves workshops, discussions, and community meetings to ensure that the artwork reflects the shared values and aspirations of the community.

6. Empowerment and Ownership: Through their active participation in the artistic process, community members gain a sense of ownership and pride in the artwork, fostering a deeper connection to their community and its culture.

7. Education and Advocacy: Community art projects can serve as a platform for education and advocacy on various issues, from social justice and environmental concerns to cultural preservation and neighborhood revitalization.

Honestly, that’s not a bad outline. If I was reading a student essay on the subject – or the website of a major cultural institution – I’d be quite satisfied. It’s basic, but it’s sound. 

What is the history of community art?

When I asked about community art’s history, things were more confusing, as the tool began with Prehistoric and Indigenous Art, passing through an odd range of periods including the Arts and Crafts Movement and Mexican Muralism, before reaching what I recognise as community art. Some have a place in this story, but without an explanation of why, the list is not helpful, especially when it omits other parts of the story with an equally good claim. 

When it comes to leading figures and useful books, ChatGPT’s limitations become clearer. Joseph Beuys may be an important artist, but not for his community art work. There was an almost total reliance on US artists and writers, many of which I would see as – or writing about – fine artists who involve people in their work (the key test of that being who is named as its author). So I asked for European names. It was encouraging to see mine but since it was among others with little or no connection with community art, the answer is not really very helpful (or flattering).

What is ‘A Restless Art’?

So I asked a couple of precise and obscure questions. ChatGPT knew of A Restless Art and provided a detailed account of its themes, concluding that:

Overall, “A Restless Art” provides a comprehensive and insightful exploration of the world of participatory arts and its potential to create positive change at both the individual and community levels. It draws on extensive research and case studies to highlight the significance of community-based cultural initiatives and their ability to empower and transform those who engage in them. 

I was surprised by the thoroughness of its report on a single book. And I was even more surprised that it could give me such a clear and full description of Regular Marvels:

“Regular Marvels” is a series of books by François Matarasso, a writer and researcher known for his work in the field of participatory arts and community-based cultural initiatives. The “Regular Marvels” series explores the extraordinary aspects of everyday life and the often overlooked stories of ordinary people. Each book in the series focuses on a specific topic or theme and is based on extensive research and engagement with communities. Matarasso’s writing in the “Regular Marvels” series aims to uncover and celebrate the remarkable stories, experiences, and achievements of individuals and groups within various communities. The series reflects Matarasso’s commitment to participatory and inclusive approaches to art and culture, as well as his belief in the transformative power of the arts in people’s lives. “Regular Marvels” books often combine personal narratives, interviews, and historical research to create a deeper understanding of the subjects explored. While each book in the series has its own unique focus, they all share a common thread of highlighting the extraordinary within the ordinary, shedding light on hidden stories, and celebrating the resilience, creativity, and spirit of individuals and communities. 

There can’t be anyone alive who could give such a clear account of this obscure project except me.  I was seriously impressed, until I read the last sentence:

Some of the books in the “Regular Marvels” series include “A Tale of Five Cities,” “The Dark Would,” and “The Holborn Cenotaph,” among others.

I’ve never even heard of these books. Clearly a misconnection in ChatGPT’s algorithms sent it down the wrong road. Well, everyone makes mistakes. 

What is the good of ChatGPT?

So what do I conclude from this little experiment?

First, and contrary to a lot of the voices I’ve read protesting that it’s rubbish and can’t do what people can do, Artificial Intelligence is clearly capable of finding, organising and presenting information in a new and useful way. When I put the same questions into a search engine, I was simply directed to a range of more or less useful websites. The standard of ChatGPT’s information is comparable to an average Wikipedia entry – and that’s a compliment. I think Wikipedia is one of the best and most hopeful things to have come out of the internet age. 

Secondly, like all software, ChatGPT reflects the biases of its inputs, from its code to its sources. It is US-centric and unable to distinguish dominant ideological narratives (such as those of the artworld) from alternative and dissenting ones, presumably because its sources, which I suppose include books and the internet, are also controlled by the US and powerful institutions. 

Thirdly, it can make egregious, ridiculous mistakes. It’s unaware of them, and so is the reader who doesn’t already have relevant knowledge. 

And finally, a subtle doubt. Reading ChatGPT is a bit like reading your horoscope. There is a tendency to rely on generalisations and abstraction, so that the reader supplies the experience that makes it seem credible. It might be true that A Restless Art ‘draws on extensive research and case studies to highlight the significance of community-based cultural initiatives and their ability to empower and transform those who engage in them’ but do you actually know much about the book as a result? If you replace ‘community-based cultural initiatives’ with ‘adult education programmes’ or ‘environmental campaigns’, you could write the same words about books on those subjects. 

I’ve no idea where this leaves us except that ChatGPT is already a powerful information and communication technology and we must expect it to get better, probably very fast. Will I use it again? Probably, but warily, especially if I’m asking about something I know less about than community art.

And that’s part of the problem. Who asks questions to which they already know the answer (except lawyers)? So our ability to test AI is a bid challenge. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, everyone needs to take on some responsibility for checking  the subjects that they do know about. Information is never neutral.

---

Postscript – ChatGPT, privacy and exploitation

If you’ve ever written a blog post, submitted an online review of a product, or posted on sites like Reddit and Stack Overflow, you likely inadvertently contributed your data to help train an AI model. And if these companies collected the data of anyone living in Europe, they’re likely guilty of violating the GDPR: ChatGPT has already been blocked, albeit temporarily, over privacy concerns.

These words are from an article by Richie Koch on the Proton blog in which the question of Chat GPT and privacy are discussed. Given that I have published hundreds of thousands of words on my websites, ChatGPT’s ability to tell me what I have already written about A Restless Art and Regular Marvels doesn’t look so intelligent.

Artificial Intelligence is only the latest challenge to our established ideas about privacy presented by new information and communication technology. The EU is at least trying, but there is the risk that Internet services are withdrawn from some countries, creating de facto a two-tier form of use. It’s probably too late to redress the balance given that democratic governments are so reluctant to challenge the money and power of transnational corporations.

Perhaps if the debate were not framed only in terms of privacy but also as a struggle against the exploitation of our lives and choices by unfettered capitalism with a smiley face, we might stand a chance.