Commentary: Community Arts in Rural Settings

In May 2007 John Brotman delivered a paper on “Community Arts in Rural Settings” as part of the Canadian Cultural Observatory’s “In Focus Speaker Series” on Rural Arts. Brotman’s premise, upon which he elaborates with many inspiring examples, is that there is such a phenomenon as ‘rural arts’ and that this art form is well-suited to the needs of rural areas because of its capacity to build, bind, enrich and, most importantly, transform communities.

We might ask what is signified by the term ‘rural’ and what it is that would require transformation in an area designated as such. Brotman’s underlying assertion is that if a community ‘feels’ isolated and unable to benefit from existing professional networks in larger centres, then what it has in common with other ‘remote’ areas is a lack of information at its disposal that thereby limits its production and its critical reception of culture. He outlines successful examples of contradicting rural isolation and ‘nourishing’ local activity based on the intervention of professional local and visiting artists.

Any designation of the ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ requires recognition that there exists a continuum between the two and that numerous kinds of rural locales exist. Some rural environs provide greater access to the amenities and markets of cities. Some, due to their natural or cultivated landscapes, enjoy promotion as tourist settings with their own cultural capital (1). In some rural areas cultural production may benefit from the role played by aboriginal communities, local cultural organizations, festival committees or even universities. There are also those less accessible locations in which artists may live precisely because of their remote location that may nevertheless have a scarcity of resources for cultural production (2). Common to all of these is that these areas lie some distance from larger cities, have some degree of settlement and limited infrastructure. Their economies are diverse but usually there has been insufficient social capital to sustain cultural capital. Hence the importance of the transformation Brotman speaks of, namely, developing the capacity of people and organizations to consciously manifest their culture.

A second question evoked by Brotman’s paper and related to deliberations on ‘transformation’, pertains to what the components are of this rural art. According to Brotman, rural art is associated with capacity building, empowerment, collaboration and expanded networking opportunities. Brotman’s notion of transformation that is elicited by the production and consumption of rural arts pertains to an interrelated transformation of a community’s resources and its individuals. What we glean from this is that it is important to foster local talent and resources so as to enable creative endeavour and creative decision making that is beneficial to social organization. This is a welcome challenge to polarized views of cultural production as oriented toward either the realm of the professional arts practice or ‘community arts’. Brotman insists on the idea of a synthesis of community and professional effort that ensures ‘renewable transformation’ of a community that is thus never in stasis. Inclusive practices and methods broaden the base of practitioners through increased opportunity, training, collaboration and distribution.

Before proceeding, it might be useful to remind ourselves that this is not the only type of cultural production that exists in rural areas and nor ought it to be the only kind that is promoted, but why ‘rural arts’ is a particularly fertile model is that increasing the base of practitioners induces greater exchange of ideas and creative output. Brotman’s notion of transformation through rural arts relates to improving the social and economic life of rural communities, thus enabling these communities to attract and retain citizens. To this end Brotman dares to affirm an often maligned concept of ‘outreach’ as that which entails a reciprocal learning experience between skilled facilitators of artistic activity and ‘the community’. For Brotman, ‘outreach’ is premised on the idea of facilitators of learning going out to communities to impart skills and to promote social cohesion as well as individual ‘emotional ‘and ‘spiritual’ realization. Such practice has its attendant history of challenges and flaws but Brotman says little of these or of the challenges of ‘building’ community. Nor does he address participatory production of art within the context of social and cultural divides that are often present in rural and smaller communities. I would suggest an addition to the objectives enumerated by Brotman, namely reflection on the politics of culture. Even if this were to be reserved to working toward equal access to representation in cultural organizations and to advocating that cultural policy not institutionalize inequality, the achievement of such effects on the institutionalization of culture would be considerable for ‘rural arts’.