Negative value and potential for harm

In both co-creation and research-evaluation practices, there are often unintended consequences of well-intended empowerment goals and the concerns of the community may not always be vocalised. Forms of art and social practice can duplicate or further entrench the very inequities we seek to address. Addressing instead of avoiding tensions may in fact be productive. These complex issues within the largely unexamined ethics between institution, artists, researchers and communities including assumptions and little understanding of cultural complexities, short term thinking and relationships, and the expectation that an arts project is more important than other local priorities. This is not only related to the problem of overly affirmative reporting, but also the ongoing potential for instrumentalisation of the arts as well as the potential for artists to lose autonomy through co-option for government ends.

Collaborative practices, processes, and outcomes will surface concern regarding moral rights, representation issues, and duty of care – particularly within vulnerable communities. Representation of communities in art or any form of media can be generalising and attempts for inclusivity may further disenfranchise or patronise the group it hopes to empower. More specifically, issues of representation can be understood in terms of ownership or sharing of intellectual property and copyright in terms of stories, experiences and knowledge. When artists collaborate with vulnerable communities or perform social interventions in public space, questions regarding ‘duty of care’ must also be raised. These concerns can include physical and emotional harm, but we must also ask what is the risk to creativity? There is often a lack of compatibility of public planning and assessment processes with creative processes that value spontaneity and risk. Finally, is the issue of consent. Even when participants grant consent to artists or researchers, ethically we need to understand this as temporary consent that needs to be renegotiated. People involved in co-creative practices might be unaware of the implications of the work or may feel differently later if their circumstances change. This consideration is particularly apt when consent is provided during an early stage of indeterminacy.