Socially engaged art practices are now an inherent part of art history. Their evolution has been accompanied by a theoretical reflection on the role of the artists and their engagement led by researchers representing different branches of the humanities such as Claire Bishop, Jacques Rancière, Chantal Mouffe, Ariella Azoulay. Today, the link between socially engaged art practice, research, and art theory seems to become even stronger and more visible. The artist’s desire to engage goes hand in hand with a deep need to collaborate with knowledge producers and thus contribute to a more complete depiction of the world. As a result, artists collaborate with researchers or become researchers themselves, often by joining research institutions directly. At the same time, many researchers in the social sciences and humanities are working on the elaboration of new interdisciplinary perspectives and methods of analysis to make their research less theoretical and more engaged with society. A growing number of researchers are engaging in artistic projects beyond the theoretical contribution or critical commentary that usually accompanies a work. They make art, conduct research through art, or openly support the defenders of great common causes because they feel an urgency to act. This very natural and fluid process results in, among other things, the emergence of new statuses such as ‘artist-researcher’ or ‘researcher-artist,’ as well as in the gradual blurring of the boundaries between scientific work, art, and social or political engagement.

While this type of engagement is not particularly new to sociology or political sciences—where the participation of researchers in public or even political life has a longer tradition (Sapiro et al., 2020)—it is only starting to be formulated and discussed in the field of art history and related disciplines. A very recent example of this type of initiative is the idea of conceptualizing socially engaged art history, put forward by a group of American researchers in “Socially Engaged Art History and Beyond: Alternative Approaches to the Theory and Practice of Art History” (Persinger & Rejaie, 2021).

This stream proposes to prompt a critical debate on forms of engagement in the humanities. We welcome contributions in a variety of forms (including papers, artworks, performances, and artistic presentations) which explore the complex relationship between academic research and artistic practice, interdisciplinarity and its methodological or ethical challenges, and the researcher’s professional ethics and personal engagement. The question of the ethical responsibility of an artist and/or a researcher is today at the heart of the debate about engagement and will also be discussed in this stream.

Contributions which bring together multiple perspectives or alternative methodologies are particularly encouraged. We invite participants from a broad range of disciplines not necessarily related to art, but who are working on the social engagement of academics or willing to share/theorize their own experience or thoughts on it.

Topics for discussion may include, but are not limited to:

- Forms of collaboration between researchers and artists, as well as art-based methods of academic research
- Socially engaged art and socially engaged research practice
- The ethics of engagement
- Academic neutrality and social/political engagement
- Interdisciplinary research and engagement
- Professional ethics vs/and personal engagement
- The ongoing crisis in academia and scholarly engagement
- Tools and methodologies for socially engaged art and research

Stream Organiser: Ewelina Chwiejda, École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), Paris

Please send abstracts for proposed presentations to paper-subslondoncritical.org with the stream title indicated in the subject line. Abstracts should be no more than 250 words and must be received by Friday, 18 March 2022.

The LCCT welcomes both abstracts for traditional paper presentations as well as alternative forms of presentation.

Proposing an Alternative Form of Presentation:
Where an abstract directly proposes an alternative form of presentation, such as an art installation, a workshop, an activity, a performance, etc., we ask that in addition to an abstract you provide details of the ‘mechanics’ of your proposal. This could include (but is not limited to) details concerning:

- The general ‘form’ (eg. art installation; workshop; performance, activity, etc.)
- The number of people involved in delivery
- Space and/or logistical requirements
- Time requirements (we are generally limited to 1 – 1.5 hrs per ‘session’, but an alternative form of presentation could also be something shorter that is integrated into a larger session.)
- If it is interactive, how it is interactive and an indication of the rationale or purpose of the interaction.
- If it involves a particular method, some details of what that is and an indication of the reasons for proposing it.

We also ask that alternative proposals consider how space is provide for (critical) reflection and discussion as part of the participation of the audience members/participants. With conventional paper presentations this occurs as part of the panel session where time is given for general questions and discussion, and we consider this space for discussion and reflection a central feature of the LCCT ethos.

For any queries, please get in touch with us at: accesslondoncritical.org.
For full details, visit: http://londoncritical.org/