On the key question of ‘Whose play is it anyway?’ or ‘who is the owner of community art’?

“These questions relating to intellectual property rights are increasingly problematized within frameworks of collaboration. But I still believe that there is room for negotiating and acknowledging authorship. This contradiction became very clear to me during the Cluster project in Australia where the Australian photographer William Yang staged a wonderful workshop with the workshop participants in which he asked them to respond to the subject of ‘death’. He put forth the questions and participated in the workshop which was shot on camera. What emerged was a stirring film ‘A matter of life and death’, which he edited. On seeing the film for the first time, some of the participants felt strongly that William could be not identified as the director of the film. It was as much their film as his. I had to point out that the idea of the film and the actual structure of the film were unequivocally his creations. He was also an actor in the film, as they were. And, of course, they had to be acknowledged in the credits as collaborators. Nonetheless, the authorship issue continued to cause tension, though I believe it has now been resolved.”

On the issue of funding for ‘Community arts and the powers that be’:

So long as the funding is used meaningfully and with accountability to the participants of the festival and the public at large, I wouldn’t demonize the ‘powers that be’. More to the point is whether the money for community arts, ostensibly within the framework of particular nations, is coming from the State, corporations, or independent donors. In this context, I would broadly endorse Matarasso’s position: that ‘Public cultural funding is a necessary part of the structure of contemporary democratic societies’. However, I should also point out that some of the most ‘radical’, ‘risky’ and ‘innovative’ community projects that I’ve encountered have been funded by the most marginalized communities. In other words, the so-called ‘community’ is the primary catalyst of the funding. The very struggle to collect the funds becomes part of the cultural action. Whenever we rely on the State to come up with the funds, there is a kind of involuntary submission to paternalism. Whatever the source of the fund, it’s vital that it should not prevent community artists from critiquing the State or other benevolent agencies. In other words, I’m suggesting the extremely unpopular (and perhaps dangerous) strategy of asserting the right to bite the hand that feeds you. This is not a ‘nice’ attitude and definitely not in accordance with liberal norms.”