Case Study - The Art of Conversation (Digital)

This case study examines how an interactive digital artwork’s collaborative and joint authorship dynamics support young artists in building artistic agency and status. It specifically references the 2017 version of The Art of Conversation (Digital).

The Art of Conversation (Digital) is an interactive electronic artwork. It engages the general public in conversation with tbC artists via digital technology. Anyone can scan the artwork with a free app and engage in a creative conversation. Conversation starters come from tbC's social and studio spaces. The wider public adds to these conversations by interacting with the artwork. This case study begins by historically contextualising the field of digital and interactive art. This contextualisation is followed by a brief account of the artwork's foundation story, which includes examining an authorship tension found within the making of the work and an analysis of the authorship rights the work extends to the spectator. A discussion around the collaborative and joint authorship dynamics that are mainly responsible for the building of artistic agency and status, in this case, completes the study.

Digital art is a product of the digital age, emerging in the 1970s and flourishing during the 1990s. The digital age emerged from precursor mechanical, technological and scientific inventions developed during and after the first and second world wars. These inventions included the development of aeroplanes, submarines, chemical warfare, field telephones, sound equipment, machine guns, digital computing and radar. This period of innovation gave rise to other inventions like the internet, cybernetics, mobile phones, information theory, and general systems theory.[1] Academic Charlie Gere notes that early in the digital age, "the internet was hardly used outside science departments, and interactive multimedia was only just becoming possible… CDs were a novelty, mobile phones unwieldy luxuries, and the World Wide Web non-existent."[2] Today, these technological developments impact nearly every aspect of daily life. Artistic responses to the possibilities these mechanical, technical and scientific innovations offer have also abounded.

tbC's interest in and engagement with digital devices and interfaces is not simply a response to young members being digital natives[3] but more an acknowledgement that the digital world is upon us and cannot be ignored. At tbC, artists often discuss the tensions surrounding an ever-developing digital world. These tensions have emerged from the experience of digital technology as both a social and antisocial phenomenon.[4] On the one hand, digital technologies are lauded for their ability to connect us across time and space and extend and enrich human interaction. On the other hand, they are often censured for their tendency to isolate us from traditional, in-person, physical and 'real' relationships. Digital devices and interfaces are also often criticised for their invasive and addictive qualities, arguably stemming from what scientific writer Mark Fischetti refers to as "an always-on, always on you technological presence."[5] Despite this combined enthusiasm and apprehension, digital devices are becoming unavoidable parts of social, political, commercial and academic life.[6] Even though regular studio discussions counter-balance this enthusiasm and apprehension, the potential digital technology offers creative practitioners is essentially a positive concept at tbC.

Digital art is often a catchall term that describes aesthetic practices that use technology to make and present art. Other terms used within this genre include new media art, interactive art, art and technology, computer art and systems art.[7] These terms characterise artworks and practices, including hypertext, hypermedia, computer graphics, virtual reality, computer animation, video game art, computer robotics, and 3D printing. Some of the genre's early pioneers include the Futurists, the Surrealists, Dada, Naum Gabo, Marcel Duchamp, Alexander Calder and László Moholy-Nagy. These avant-garde art movements and artists experimented with new techniques and apparatus, including photomontage, assemblage, ready-mades, kinetics, multimedia, mechanical and scientific art.

Interactive art is a creative practice that involves the spectator in the fulfilment of an artwork's purpose.[8] Interactive artworks often involve digital technologies in their interaction. The art form also supports the contemporary artists' desire to create less alienating and exclusive environments to show art.[9] This desire has led to the making of artworks that can be touched and played with.[10] While there are formative examples of interactive art before its contemporary emergence in the late 1950s, this mid-twentieth century foundational period (onwards) is most relevant to this case study. However, one of the most significant early twentieth century examples of interactive art is conceptual artist Marcel Duchamp's 1920 Rotary Glass Plates, an artwork that required the viewer to turn on a machine that revealed an optical illusion from a metre's distance.[11]

A significant mid-twentieth century example is the radical interactive artwork 4'33" (pronounced, four minutes and thirty-three seconds) by experimental composer John Cage. Although not a digital interactive artwork, the way the spectator fulfils the artwork's purpose directly relates to how the spectator fulfils The Art of Conversation (Digital)’s purpose. Although performed many times, the numeric title of the work represents the total length of its first public performance, occurring in 1952 at the Maverick Concert Hall in Woodstock, New York. Cage’s score instructs the musicians not to play their instruments for the entire duration of the piece. The piece is, therefore, performed without deliberate sound. Musicians who present the work do nothing aside from being present on stage for the time specified by the title. The composition is composed of ambient sounds made by the performers and the audience during the four-minute and thirty-three-second silence. These ambient sounds include chance noises mingled with shifting seats, whispered comments amongst the audience, breezes and even the sound of crickets in one instance.[12] The composition's content comes from the audience, as much as if not more, from the performers on stage. Cage's intention was the depersonalisation of an artwork, opening it up to the free agency of others.[13] This depersonalisation and free agency allows the spectator to contribute to the performance of the work. 4'33" has inspired other artists interested in process, interaction and performance; for example, Alan Kaprow[14] and those involved in the Fluxus group.[15] Academic Shreya Garg notes that by experimenting with time, duration and space through interactivity, these artists and their artworks have opened up new techniques and possibilities for spectators to engage in and with art.[16] The Art of Conversation (Digital) uses dialogue and technology to engage the spectator in conversation with young artists.

The Art of Conversation (Digital) is electronic, dialogical and interactive. It exists in multiple states, times and spaces. It is exhibited on gallery, public and private walls and presented within tbC's website and via Hoodie Mag's print and online publications. It can be engaged with at will, from anywhere in the world, and at any time. It has had several iterations, and there are key back stories connected to its making and meaning. One of these backstories describes an authorship tension found within the making of the work. These backstories are summarised ahead of a deeper discussion around the impact this artwork has on developing artistic agency and status in tbC's young artists.

A particularly creative studio session inspired The Art of Conversation (Digital). During this session, Damien mentioned that he sees numbers in colour. Everyone was impressed with this synesthetic ability and talked about it for days. Amongst the toing and froing of ideas and discussion Tiffaney used a die to direct an experimental drawing exercise – what the group now refers to as Dice Drawing. tbC has since produced several Dice Drawings and exhibited them in the studio, online and in gallery settings. During studio experimentation with Dice Drawing, the musicians and sound artists in the group started to suggest ideas for a sound artwork that followed a similar random methodology. Sound artist and mentor Rod led several creative experiments that resulted in a series of collaborative sound artworks called Random Methodologies. This time, instead of dice, pens and paper, artists played around with keyboards, sound-making, recording and playback devices. This story highlights the collaborative and cumulative processes that support art-making at tbC and how one idea or project builds on and flows through to another. It also reflects the key role mentors play in the development of artistic practices and outcomes at tbC.

During the making of Random Methodologies, the concept of creating an app came up. This thinking centred around the idea of making studio conversations part of an interactive artwork. What transpired was the creation of The Art of Conversation (Digital). App designer Simon Braunstein from Catlard Studios supported tbC in making this app. The Art of Conversation (Digital) engages with tbC's studio conversations in a similar way to Random Methodologies' engagement with audio and sound. The Art of Conversation (Digital) uses QR code technology.[17] The work's first iteration took the form of a large printed two-dimensional barcode that a participant scanned to play. The second iteration took the form of a large digital portrait. The invitation to scan and engage with the artwork is an intrinsic part of its creation and presentation. Once engaged, the participant slips into conversation mode, and the digital apparatus gives way to the social dynamics of two-way dialogue. Computational design, idiomatic expression and two-way response mechanisms combine to form a hybrid human/computer experience. The conversational dynamics of the artwork means that the participant isn't simply answering a question but is engaged in a looped dialogue where responses are given and received, connecting the participant to the artwork and tbC artists in a visceral way. The experience of engaging in conversation via this playful, digital interface often causes the participant to smile or laugh out loud. Colloquial dialogue characterises this conversational experience. Conversation starters are drawn from in-studio discussions, mainly about the life of the young artist. Theorist Grant Kester argues that a conversation can be an artwork in and of itself and that aesthetic value can be found within the character of a conversation's performative interaction.[18] The Art of Conversation (Digital) would arguably appeal to Kester as the aesthetic primarily "resides in the condition and character of dialogical exchange itself,"[19] as opposed to a physical object. The 2D image one scans is merely the gateway to the real substance and purpose of the work. The Art of Conversation (Digital) is also reminiscent of Joseph Beuys' concept of social sculpture. This concept sees the dialogical artwork as "an interdisciplinary and participatory process in which thought, speech and discussion are core materials."[20]

As signposted earlier, an authorship tension arose during the making of The Art of Conversation (Digital). The story behind this tension is central to the arguments tbC makes about its collective and joint modus operandi and is briefly recounted here.

In 2013, Tiffaney submitted the earlier version of The Art of Conversation (Digital) to Washington DC's (e)merge Art Fair call out. It was selected! Tiffaney had submitted it as a solo work because she was confused about its authorship status at the time of its making. Furthermore, the exhibition conditions stipulated that the artist be present and available to the public during the three-day presentation. As tbC could not fund a group of artists to accompany the work, Tiffaney went to Washington DC alone. While the inspiration for this earlier iteration came from studio conversations and experiments around Damien's synesthesia, Tiffaney suggested using studio conversations to make an interactive digital artwork – just as Rod had suggested using sounds, audio, music and technology to make Random Methodologies. At the time, Tiffaney wondered whether both artworks were more artist/mentor-led than collaborative as she and Rod had guided the group through the making of both. She also wondered whether the works were examples of individual authorship in the collective space and questioned whether or not tbC artists were collaborators or participants in their making. However, while presenting the artwork at the Art Fair in Washington DC, Tiffaney became even more conflicted about submitting it as a solo work. On reflection, she felt that the collaborative space it had emerged from and the ideas and practices that inspired it made it much more than a solo effort. She remembers wishing other members were with her and being troubled by the fact they weren't. During the Art Fair, she found herself repeatedly qualifying the work's authorship status, telling the audience she was a joint author of the work and representing a group of artists from an artist-run initiative in Australia called tbC. Fortunately, the collective input was evident in the rich dialogical content of the work, which art fair attendees discovered upon interacting with it. In retrospect, had the exhibition been in Melbourne, this authorship tension may never have arisen as tbC artists would have attended the show and shared in its presentation, thereby qualifying its collaborative and joint authorship qualities. For Tiffaney, this experience and the critical reflection it triggered clarified the work's collaborative and joint authorship status. She came home with a very different view of tbC's group practice and authorship model.

Soon after returning home, Tiffaney noticed that tbC's practice had started to gain momentum. New young artists were joining the group, and several collaborative art projects were underway, many of which are documented throughout this website. This growing membership and collective production reinforced the collaborative arts and joint authorship principles behind the group’s practice. tbC’s mentoring culture had also started to flatten out, with many young artist members taking on peer mentoring roles, often conceiving and leading experimental processes. For example, one day, Shelley and Justine began drawing and writing on the same canvas in the studio. This led to further experimentation, with two or more artists often working on the one canvas in the studio. This ongoing practice was often inspired by or in response to studio conversations and artistic provocations. tbC has even been commissioned to ‘perform’ this creative process at a series of community and corporate events. It has also become an important studio brainstorming practice. Another example can be found in the way Damien invited the group to creatively engage with photocopies of one of his drawn portraits. Many members participated, producing a suite of re-rendered collaborative works. This website also houses many in-practice testimonies that attest to this egalitarian and empowering peer mentoring. What was also becoming very clear was that the artworks being made at tbC wouldn't have resulted outside of the collaborative space. tbC artworks exist because they are conceived and completed within a group environment, coming to life through an entanglement of artists, ideas, dialogue and creative activity.[21]

To complicate this authorial dynamic further, The Art of Conversation (Digital) invites spectators to step out of their habitual roles as observers and become participants,[22] collaborators even, in the ongoing making of the work. Spectators aren't just interacting with The Art of Conversation (Digital)’s quirky digital interface; their engagement creatively and constructively alters and enhances the work. This engagement arguably leads to the work becoming more jointly authored. While not part of the conception of the artwork in the tbC studio, the spectator becomes part of its ongoing making and authoring. Interactive artworks are contingent on the interaction between the spectator and the artwork/artist. This exchange redefines the creative behaviour of an artwork and, in the case of The Art of Conversation (Digital), its authorship status.[23]

The Art of Conversation (Digital) arguably transforms the spectator into what Pablo Helguera refers to as a collaborative participant.[24] Helguera theorises the spectrum of participation found within interactive art projects. The first type describes nominal participation, where the participant contemplates the work with reflective and passive detachment.[25] The second describes directed participation, where the participant completes a simple task to contribute to the work; for example, Yoko Ono's Wish Tree 1996, where participants were encouraged to write a wish on a piece of paper and hang it on a sculpture of a tree.[26] The third describes creative participation, where the participant provides content for a component of the work within an already established structure. For example, Allison Smith's work The Muster (2005), in which fifty volunteers in civil war uniforms engage in a conflict re-enactment, declaring the causes for which they were personally fighting.[27] The fourth describes collaborative participation, where the participant shares the responsibility for collaboratively developing the structure and content of the work.[28] The Art of Conversation (Digital) is more aligned with Helguera's description of collaborative participation because the spectator's contribution folds back into the making of the work. By interacting with the artwork, the spectator contributes to its ongoing shape. This contribution to the continuous making of the artwork broadens its collaborative and authorship status to include those that interact with it.

Two kinds of collaboration result in the making of The Art of Conversation (Digital). One, within the studio and amongst tbC artists who bring it into being. Two, within the community and amongst the general public who interact with it and collaboratively participating in its ongoing making. The work is contingent on both. The artwork is made by the artist and community members alike. However, does this collaborative participation qualify as joint authorship? As the artwork is brought to life by the collaborative participant's interaction and contribution, the answer to this question is, to some degree, yes. While interaction does not necessarily qualify as joint authorship, contributing to the work's materiality arguably does. Australia’s Copyright Act 1968 defines a work of joint authorship as “a work that has been produced by the collaboration of two or more authors and in which the contribution of each author is not separate from the contribution of the other author/s.”[29] This definition arguably validates the spectator's participation in The Art of Conversation (Digital) as joint authorship because participants contribute to the making of the work instead of just interacting with it. The conversational input they contribute forms part of the artwork's functionality and materiality, which is experienced by others engaging with it. In the context of Sherry Arnstein's Ladder of Participation, The Art of Conversation (Digital) awards the participant high degrees of "citizen power and control"[30] in the ongoing creation of the work. The Art of Conversation (Digital) is not a "manipulation,"[31] nor is it intended to be "an informative or placating experience."[32] Instead, the participant is in partnership with tbC in the ongoing making of the artwork. tbC delegates power to the participant to change the artwork, much like the way tbC's egalitarian studio environment gives member artists the power to transform creative ideas and collaborative artworks.

The copyright case of Edward B Marks Music Corp v Jerry Vogel Music Co. (1942)[33] validates the idea that The Art of Conversation (Digital) participant is a collaborator and worthy of joint authorship status. This music industry example of copyright and classification of joint authorship helps identify the degree to which participants understand the collaborative nature of their authorial contribution to the ongoing making of The Art of Conversation (Digital). Those interacting with the work can't help but realise they are involved in a reciprocal relationship in the form of two-way conversations and that these conversations contribute to the ongoing making of the artwork. The conversation is the artwork, and those interacting with it are collaboratively making it. In this artwork's continuing creation, extended joint authorship is forged between the tbC artist and the spectator.

However, the copyright case of Thomson v Larson 1998.[34] challenges the above argument. This case stipulates that joint authorship is measured in the joint labouring by two or more persons in the pre-concerted design of an artwork and that in the absence of this, the artwork is not jointly authored. In The Art of Conversation (Digital), the collaborative participant has not been involved in the pre-concerted design of the work. However, the fact that the artwork is designed to be a living one – an artwork that builds participation, collaboration and joint authorship into its engagement phase – heightens the authorial status of the collaborative participant. The artwork is designed (albeit by tbC artists) to be jointly made and authored by the collaborative participant. While this designation may not extend the collaborative participant a legally binding joint authorship or joint ownership of The Art of Conversation (Digital), the artistic intention behind the work symbolically extends both. This analysis has concluded that The Art of Conversation (Digital) embodies degrees and perceptions of joint authorship, both within its conception and ongoing making. While joint authorship may be more clear-cut and verifiable in the case of the artwork's conception in the studio, the invitation the work extends to the spectator to collaborate in its subsequent making/authoring is genuine. The spectator's collaborative participation in the ongoing making of the work constitutes a degree of extended joint authorship – something tbC artists intentionally built into its design. This comprehensive discussion around The Art of Conversation (Digital) and its complex authoring is important because it reinforces the collaborative and joint authorship claims tbC makes about both its artistic processes and outcomes.

Furthermore, the collaborative experience of making and interacting with The Art of Conversation (Digital) contributes valuable in-practice data about tbC's collaborative arts and joint authorship practice and its success in supporting young artists in building artistic agency and status. The questions the digital interface asks have come directly from studio discussions around this subject. As such, The Art of Conversation (Digital) simultaneously operates as an artwork, a social action and a research method/ology. While case study data like this doesn’t produce statistical or quantifiable proof, it does produce valuable anecdotal and experiential information that can be tested and validated through the reappearance of data, embedded observation, deep reflection and critical analysis. In this context, recurring themes and patterns and generalisable tenants corroborate experiential and observational data, making it more explicit or, as research theorist Robin Nelson argues, more verifiable.[35]

There is agency and power in tbC's collaborative, joint and dialogical practices. tbC's arts model supports young artists in voicing their creative ambitions and connects these voices to listening and responding audiences. These avenues of two-way communication empower young artists, advance their visibility and afford them earlier opportunities to engage with the artworld.

Suzanne Lacy, Annice Jacoby and Chris Johnson's project The Roof Is On Fire[36] makes for an interesting comparison. The Roof Is On Fire is a dialogical engagement with TEAM (Teens + Educators + Artists + Media Makers). The project engaged two hundred high school students in a series of unscripted conversations about the problems faced by young people of colour in California. These mass conversations were held in cars on a city building roof-top in the community of Oakland. Surrounding the young people were over a thousand Oakland residents and media representatives who had been invited to listen.[37] In this case, the audience contributed to the successful building of agency and status, as the young people involved were not just talking; they were being listened to and heard. Kester explains that “in The Roof Is On Fire, the space of the car and the performative nature of the piece provided the students with a stage on which to speak to each other as co-inhabitants of a specific culture and environment, as well as to a bigger generalised audience.”[38] He further notes that the process of listening, which is of such importance to dialogical projects, is evidenced in Lacy's extensive discussion with students during the development of the project and the attitude and receptiveness of the listeners.[39] The project resulted in many Latino and African American teenagers being able to control their self-image and address and redress some of the one-dimensional clichés promulgated by mainstream news and entertainment media, such as the perception of the young person of colour as "sullen, inarticulate gang-banger."[40]

Similar empowerment arises within the making of The Art of Conversation (Digital) and its subsequent public interaction. However, what distinguishes this artwork from The Roof Is On Fire is the way its relational and dialogical dynamics breaks down the conventional distinction between the artist, artwork and audience even further, creating a relationship that allows the viewer/listener to speak back to the artist. Lacy's The Oakland Projects[41] involved this more extended conversational relationship. The project included a six-week series of discussions between high school students and the Oakland Police Department members, resulting in a video that the Oakland Police Department uses as part of their community policing training program. Despite the subtle differences (including the more conspicuous lead artist status of Lacy, Jacoby, Johnson), these projects are part of a significant body of contemporary art practice concerned with collaborative, participatory and emancipatory forms of dialogue and conversation.[42] Again, although slightly different, what connects them is the role conversation plays in the creation and outcome of the works themselves and the agency and status this dialogical exchange delivers.[43]

Austrian art collective Wochenklausur and their 1994 Floating Dialogues exemplify a socially engaged artwork that focuses on two-way conversations. In this case, talks were held between politicians, journalists, sex workers, and activists from Zurich to contribute to the city's drug policy. The conversations "forged a consensus of support for a modest, but concrete, response to the problem – the creation of a pension or boarding house in which drug-addicted sex workers could have a safe haven [and] access to services."[44] These Floating Dialogues "created a site for exchange which otherwise would have been impossible in existing social and political configurations."[45] The Art of Conversation (Digital) questions the wider community's perception of young artists and their potential for artistic agency and status in a similar way, creating a site for exchange and empowerment that doesn't otherwise exist.

Read the Art of Conversation (Gallery) case study
Read the Hoodie Mag case study
Read the Blacksmiths Way Graffiti and Street Art case study

[1] Charlie Gere, "New Media Art and the Gallery in the Digital Age," in New Media Art in the White Cube and Beyond: Curatorial Models for Digital Art, ed. Christiane Paul (California: University of California Press, 2008), 15.
[2] Ibid., 13.
[3] Today's young people are "native speakers" of the digital language of computers, video games and the internet, having been born in the digital age. See, Marc Prensky, "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1," On the Horizon 9, no. 5 (September 2001): 1. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816.
[4] David Greenfield, "Why Social Media Might Just be Antisocial?" The Centre for Internet and Technology Addiction (2018): 1, https://virtual-addiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/What-is-antisocial-about-social-media-revised-1.pdf.
[5] Mark Fischetti, "Social Technologies Are Making Us Less Social," Scientific American, accessed August 15, 2019. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/social-technologies-are-making-us-less-social/.
[6] Evelyn Ruppert, John Law, and Mike Savage, "Reassembling Social Science Methods: The Challenge of Digital Devices," Theory, Culture & Society 30, no. 4 (July 2013): 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413484941.
[7] Charlie Gere, "New Media Art and the Gallery in the Digital Age," 15.
[8]Joan Soler-Adillon, "The Intangible Material of Interactive Art: Agency, Behavior and Emergence," Artnodes 16 (2015): 43-52, https://doi.org/10.7238/a.v0i16.2744
[9] The Tate, Art and Artists, "Interactive Art." Accessed June 26, 2019.  https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/i/interactive-art.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Christiane Paul, Digital Art, (New York: Thames & Hudson Inc, 2003), 11.
[12] Allan Antliff, "Situating Freedom: Jackson Mac Low, John Cage and Donald Judd," Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies: Art & Anarchy (2011): 54, https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/adcs/article/view/17134.
[13] Ibid.
[14] A self-described 'un-artist,' Allan Kaprow championed an artistic practice that moved art out of the museum and into the everyday. See Allan Kaprow and Annette Leddy, Allan Kaprow: Art as Life (Getty Publications, 2008), 63.
[15] Fluxus was an international, interdisciplinary community of artists, composers, designers and poets during the 1960s and 1970s who engaged in experimental art performances that emphasised the artistic process over the finished product. See, Lisa S. Wainwright, "Fluxus." Encyclopedia Britannica 2016, accessed September 4, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/art/Fluxus.
[16] Shreya Garg, "From Duchamp to HTML: Introduction to New Media," Artsome, published March 12, 2015, https://artsome.co/blogs/art-blog/part-3-from-duchamp-to-html-introduction-to-new-media?_pos=5&_sid=32074cfee&_ss=r.
[17] QR stands for Quick Response code, the two-dimensional barcode invented in 1994 by the Japanese automotive company Denso Wave. See Shih-Hsuan, Hung, Chih-Yuan Yao, Yu-Jen Fang, Ping Tan, Ruen-Rone Lee, Alla Sheffer and Hung-Kuo Chu "Micrography QR Codes," in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 26, no. 9 (September 2020): 2834-2847, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8632711.
[18] Grant Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013).
[19] Ibid., 156.
[20] As noted in Claire Doherty, Contemporary Art: From Studio to Situation. (London: Black Dog, 2004), 10.
[21] Stephanie Springgay, Rita L. Irwin, and Sylvia Wilson Kind, "Artography as Living Inquiry Through Art and Text," Qualitative Inquiry 11, no. 6 (2005): 905 & 906, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405280696. A comment inspired by this source.
[22] Rirkrit Tiravanija, "Untitled (free/still)1992/1995/2007/2011," Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), accessed January 30, 2019, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/147206.
[23] Garg, “From Duchamp to HTML.” A comment inspired by this source.
[24] Pablo Helguera, Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials and Techniques Handbook. (New York: Jorge Pinto Books, 2011), 14; Linda Candy and Sam Ferguson, eds. "Interactive Experience, Art and Evaluation," in Interactive Experience in the Digital Age, Springer Series on Cultural Computing (Basel: Springer, International Publishing, 2014), 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04510-8_1. A comment inspired by this source.
[25] Pablo Helguera, Education for Socially Engaged Art, 14.
[26] Ibid., 15.
[27] Ibid., 14.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Canberra. Australian Copyright Act No. 63, 1968.  Section 10, Part 11 – Interpretation, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00253, 23.
[30] Citizen power and control is the highest form of participation on Arnstein's ladder of participation. See, Sherry R Arnstein, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, no. 4 (1969): 217, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944366908977225.
[31] Ibid., 217-218.
[32] Ibid., 219.
[33] Marks v Vogel Music Co. "Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 47 F. Supp. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)"  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/47/490/1799427/.
[34] Lynn M. Thomson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allan S. Larson, Nanette Larson, and Julie Larson McCollum, Defendants-Appellees, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Docket No. 97-9085, Decided: June 19, 1998, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1392355.html.
[35] Robin Nelson, Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 62.
[36] Suzanne Lacy, Annice Jacoby and Chris Johnson, "The Roof is on fire 1993-94," Suzanne Lacy, accessed June 3, 2018, https://www.suzannelacy.com/the-oakland-projects/#:~:text=Suzanne%20Lacy%2C%20Annice%20Jacoby%2C%20and,1000%20Oakland%20residents%20listening%20in.
[37] Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art, 4.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Kester, "Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially Engaged Art," in Theory in Contemporary Art Since 1985, ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), Introduction.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Suzanne Lacy, "The Oakland Projects (1991-2001)," https://www.suzannelacy.com/the-oakland-projects/#:~:text=Suzanne%20Lacy%2C%20Annice%20Jacoby%2C%20and,1000%20Oakland%20residents%20listening%20in. A ten-year series of installations, performances and political activism with youth in Oakland, California.
[42] Kester, "Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially-Engaged Art," Introduction.
[43] Lacy, "The Oakland Projects." A comment inspired by this source.
[44] Fiona Geuss, "The People's Choice – Floating Dialogues – How Artists Create Publics through Conversation Formats," Seismopolite Journal of Arts and Politics (October 8, 2015), http://www.seismopolite.com/the-peoples-choice-floating-dialogues-how-artists-create-publics-through-conversation-formats.
[45] As noted in Lacy, "The Oakland Projects."