Critique of OurHK Foundation’s Report on Art 評《藝術創共融 世界顯大同》 (2/2)
Originally published and translated in Artomity Autumn 2018
中文版請往下閱讀
References at the end
(Continuing…)
… is no rational reason that a report from an organisation that claims to unite Hong Kong through art should ignore the comprehensive framework that it has built. It suggests the report believes that all six areas can be reduced to Health and Wellbeing, or that art has no impact in other areas.
The rationale behind this argument emerges in chapter 2 of the report, Arts Therapy, and its Efficacy on Persons with Dementia, in Rehabilitation, and with SEN, which represents a misplaced dependence on measurable impact. The difficulties and misuses of quantifying the impact of the arts, long studied by scholars, was underlined in the 2016 UK report Understanding the Value of the Arts and Culture, a meta-analysis of existing studies. However, governments and societies all around the world, Hong Kong included, continue to apply the scientific mode of understanding indiscriminately to the arts and culture.
In Hong Kong, either because the arts continue to be misunderstood, or because of the government’s need to be bureaucratically accountable, there is a dependency on certifications that promise standardised quality and methods. In the field of arts, the group that comes nearest to being trained to wield scientific language and having a certificate to prove it is arts therapists — hence the decision to limit the scope of the report to Health and Wellbeing, and the “top-ranked scientific journals and literature” drawn upon being limited to arts therapy.
But arts therapy is not a suitable tool to spearhead Hong Kong and its communities towards inclusiveness; the report’s definition of inclusiveness is incomplete. The task of building an inclusive society through art requires the full range of artistic practices, of which arts therapy is just one among many contributors.
The report’s recommendation that arts therapists train social workers and counsellors is unrealistic. It underestimates how overworked social workers are, and the dedication and training required to work as arts therapists, art educators or artists.
Moreover, studies of arts and social impact rarely mention arts therapists, but instead emphasise the freedom of artists to shape projects that achieve integrated artistic and social goals. As the profession of arts therapy has matured over the past decades, there has been no significant turn towards the social, unlike contemporary artists and art educators in various media, who increasingly work with communities.
The report leaves many causes of social exclusion and sources of social inclusion unaddressed. The vision of the arts in Celebrating seems to be what critic Claire Bishop describes as “to mop up wherever the government wishes to absolve itself of responsibility” (Bishop, 2012).
The unspoken goal of the report could be to propose a kind of art that can be measured, predicted and controlled. Even setting aside political implications, such an agenda is simply poor practice, as the Art for Health report says:
“With many of the best projects being based on intuition, opportunism and personal drive, it is important for the field not to become over-professionalised” (Health Development Agency, 2000).
If not arts therapists, then who? The answer is implied in chapter 3, where diverse examples of art projects actually undermine the report by demonstrating that there are more artists than arts therapists committed to this work. Studies (Crossick & Kaszynska 2016, Lally 2009, Mulligan & Smith 2010 ) have shown the effectiveness of art as hobby, art education and art facilitation, and the important role of non-professionals such as family, friends, teachers and artists.
Over the last few decades artistic collaborations have become increasingly important, to draw on a wider range of skills but also, more importantly, to draw on a range of perspectives that can see beyond neat, compartmentalised problems and solutions. That is the inclusive power of art, already in practice in Hong Kong thanks to an increasing number of artists and organisations.
(續…)
報告指出了六個藝術可以為社會帶來影響的領域，但它只著重講述身心健康一環，而忽略了個人發展、社會凝聚力、社會充權和自我認同、本地形象和身份，以及想像力和願景。一份聲稱要透過藝術凝聚香港的報告沒理由會忽視其全面的框架，這暗示了報告認為六個領域都可以簡化成身心健康一環，又或說藝術在其他領域根本沒有影響。
此論點背後的理據源於報告的第二章 — — 「藝術治療對認知障礙症患者、復康人士及有特殊學習需要人士復康的功效」，章節反映了人們經常會錯誤依賴可衡量影響的事實。學者一直以來都有對量化藝術影響的困難和誤用作研究，2016年英國一份對現有研究的綜合報告《Understanding the Value of the Arts and Culture（理解藝術與文化的價值）》就強調了此議題。然而，包括香港在內的世界各國政府和社會至今仍然會將科學的理解模式應用於藝術和文化上。
在香港，或是因為藝術繼續被誤解，又或是因為政府需要問責，所以人們才會繼續依賴那些保證質量和方法標準的證明。在藝術領域，最能使用科學語言並擁有證明的人就是藝術治療師， 因此報告的範圍只限於身心健康，而那些「排名第一的科學期刊和文獻」也只限於藝術治療的議題上。
但藝術治療並不適合引領香港社會走向共融，而報告對共融的定義亦不完整。透過藝術建立共融社會需要全方位的藝術實踐，而藝術治療只是其中之一。
報告建議藝術治療師訓練社工和輔導員是不切實際的。此項建議完全低估了社工的工作量，以及要成為藝術治療師、藝術教育家或藝術家所需的投入和訓練。
此外，對藝術和社會影響的研究很少會提及藝術治療師，反而通常會強調藝術家實現融合藝術和社會目標的創作自由。不同媒體的當代藝術家和藝術教育家越來越多與社會合作，但隨著藝術治療專業在過去幾十年間逐漸成熟，他們反而沒有面向社會的跡象。
許多社會矛盾的原因和共融的方法報告都未有提及。報告中的藝術願景似乎就是藝評家Claire Bishop口中的「在任何政府希望推卸責任的地方進行肅清」（Bishop，2012）。
報告未宣於言表的目的或許是想提出一種可以測量、預測和控制的藝術。即使撇開政治含義不說，這也不是一個好的做法，正如報告《Art for Health》所說：
「很多最好的作品都是基於直覺、機會主義和個人驅動創作而成，因此在這個領域中，避免過度專業化是非常重要的一點。」（Health Development Agency，2000）
如果藝術治療師不能共融社會，那麼誰可以呢？答案就在第3章中。章節中各種藝術項目的例子其實破壞了報告的論點，說明了藝術家比藝術治療師更投入這項工作。研究（Crossick & Kaszynska 2016，Lally 2009，Mulligan & Smith 2010）展示了藝術作為興趣、藝術教育和藝術促進的成效，以及家庭、朋友、教師和藝術家等非專業人士的重要作用。
過去幾十年，藝術合作變得越趨重要。在合作中藝術家除了可以獲得更多技巧，更重要的是發掘到一些觀點，讓人看到不止是簡單、分門別類的問題和答案的角度。全賴香港越來越多藝術家和組織的努力，這才是現今藝術的共融力量。
The Report:
Our Hong Kong Foundation (2018). Celebrating the Inclusive Power of Arts. Arts Innovation Research Series II. Retrieved from https://www.ourhkfoundation.org.hk/en/report/34/arts-innovation/arts-innovation-policy-research-series
Key References:
Crossick & Kaszynska (2016) Understanding the value of arts and culture. Arts and Humanities Research Council. Retrieved from https://ahrc.ukri.org/research/fundedthemesandprogrammes/culturalvalueproject/
Health Development Agency. (2000). Art for Health: A review of good practice in community-based arts projects and initiatives which impact on health and wellbeing. Retrieved from http://www.artshealthresources.org.ukdocsart-for-health-a-review-ofgood-practice-in-community-based-arts-projects-and-initiatives-which-impact-on-health-and-wellbeing
Additional References:
Belfiore , Eleonora . (2002) Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8 (1). 91–106.
Belfiore, E., Bennett, O. (2008). The social impact of the arts: An intellectual history. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clements, P. (2007). The evaluation of community arts projects and the problems with social impact methodology. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(3), 325–335.
Guetzkow, J. (2002). How the arts impact communities. Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP20%20-%20Guetzkow.pdf
Merli, P. (2002). Evaluating the social impact of participation in arts activities. International journal of cultural policy, 8(1), pp. 107–118.
