Stadtkuratorin
Leipzig

Artists who develop art in public space, as envisaged by the Stadtkuratorin Leipzig program, leave the closed spaces of traditional art institutions, such as museums or theaters. They operate in public spaces and often interact with other people, which is why they have a strong interest in ensuring that participation is as equal as possible. At its core, this is often about strengthening or rearranging democracy and public spirit. Such artists experiment with co-creative methods, trying to implement concrete formats of equal participation in practice. In two graduate colleges I co-directed—Assembly and Participation and Performing Citizenship—doctoral students researched cultural participation and practically implemented transdisciplinary interventions with experts from everyday life, such as elderly people, children, activists, and migrants, in the spirit of transformative research. The urban real-world laboratory was the preferred method, co-designing with institutions and heterogeneous participants, to sustainably transform society. The research not only observed and reflected, but intervened concretely in society, “to learn about social dynamics and processes.”1 Under the heading “Participatory Art Based Research,” we summarized our successful experiences: “Participatory Art Based Research happens where (...) three different trajectories – humanities go experimental, artistic processes go public and social experimentation challenges hierarchies of knowledge production – cross and get entangled."2 These three aspects—experimentation, publicness, and the dismantling of hierarchies—were central themes for reflection, before engaging in participatory art, including art in public space.

Fundamentally, it is clear that the number of participatory projects oriented toward the common good has increased, especially in urban settings. Citizens no longer demand “political participation in the form of information or well-intentioned dialogue events”; rather, they want to play a real role in shaping their urban environment.3 Those in the culture sector in particular become “new stakeholders of urban change,”4 helping to shape cities through urban gardens, neighborhood initiatives, networks, projects with refugees, or upcycling meetups, for example.

However, those who initiate participatory projects usually experience failure at first. It is very challenging to curate functioning formats for participation in which people work together on equal footing, in creative collaboration. Despite great idealism, hierarchies and power imbalances quickly arise in groups, unintentionally, based on a variety of factors such as age, education, gender, spatial settings, finances, or ethnicity. I have observed, researched, and carried out many projects in which the right to participation was clearly described, but only partially realized in practice. In cultural studies and political theory, too, “certain forms of participation are now suspected of merely simulating participation, promoting neoliberal concepts of governance and self-control, being instruments of domination, and replacing distributive justice with participatory justice.”5 However, there are a number of studies which analyze successful participatory projects, and highlight examples of best practice. In her publication “Action Instead of Negotiation” (Handlung statt Verhandlung), cultural scientist Hilke Berger describes the fundamental prerequisites of the success of participation. She highlights the following conditions: the integration of local knowledge; an awareness of one's own role; the recognition of difference as a productive force; the acceptance of different timelines, or space for opposing positions; and an attitude that does not seek to force consensus.6 In participatory projects, we usually work with very heterogeneous groups, so a lot of experience and competent moderation skills are needed to create these conditions. Since hierarchies always arise in collectives at some point, due to different power relations, encounters on an equal footing are possible, but usually not lasting. However, if all participants succeed in reflecting on their own roles, and also changing roles at different stages of the process, a working process on an equal footing can succeed, at least temporarily.

Definition of Complicity

The Stadtkuratorin Leipzig program develops model projects for art in public spaces and art in construction in the three districts of Grünau-Nord, Paunsdorf, and Lößnig on behalf of the Cultural Office of the City of Leipzig. In this context I would like to introduce the specific model of social interaction with local initiatives, culture workers, and local residents, known as complicity. Complicity relies radically on self-organization and only takes place in small groups. For this reason, complicity is an ambivalent concept, because it does not include everyone, but only those who are truly active and take personal responsibility for participating. The conditions for this are that the participants are intrinsically motivated and have an inner need to transcend boundaries and create something new. Accomplices aim for transformation; as a group, they want to turn new ideas into new actions.

How is complicity defined?7 A concise definition is provided by the doctrine of crime in criminal law, based here on the Swiss and German variants. Complicity means aiding and abetting, which requires intent: “Aiding and abetting can be characterized as the joint commission of a crime in conscious and deliberate cooperation.”8 Criminal complicity is a group offense whose conscious and deliberate form of collective interaction leads to a crime. Regardless of the illegal goals of such complicity, it is interesting to note that the focus here is not primarily on the responsibility of a single person, but rather on the analysis of complicity. How is this complicity practiced? How is it structured? Why is this complicity, which comes into being under adverse circumstances, so effective? In cases of complicity, questions arise about group structure and joint action, because their power lies precisely in the fact that a group can develop forces and energies that would not be possible for an individual. Complicity can have a complex hierarchy, which does not necessarily produce a singular responsible person. On the contrary, it is assumed that everyone was actively involved in the crime, and that responsibility and punishment are shared accordingly.

Complicity can be divided into three phases: accomplices make a joint decision, plan an act together, and carry it out together. Classic accomplices go through these three phases together as a group. The defining factor in this three-step process is that it describes the entire development of an act, from the idea to the planning to the concrete practical implementation. While the decision-making process is still very much in the visionary realm, the planning phase involves weighing up possible real-life circumstances and making decisions. Finally, the execution phase puts the plan into action and is thoroughly practical, which is why complicity always occurs during the execution: without execution, i.e., without enactment, there can be no real complicity. Accomplices are therefore not only co-thinkers, they are always co-perpetrators who—and this is what is special about this form of collectivization—always cross a line during their act. They do not follow a predetermined, familiar path, but create new structures that can enable something new to be created.

Complicity as a Creative, Productive Form of Work

Complicity has negative connotations in the German language. We use the term complicity to refer to collective crimes that are opaque, often brutal, uncontrollable, and anonymous to outsiders. At the same time, we also associate the term with a powerful, passionate, emotional, and emancipatory form of collective interaction. Complicity makes liberation possible; it overcomes constraints and innovates through forming alliances with the right people.9 This ambiguity between destructive and productive makes the term attractive and dazzling. This suggests a thought experiment: Can complicity, beyond destructive aims, also be understood as a particularly productive and creative form of collaboration, for example in the field of art? As something that comes into play when groups want to initiate and implement something unusual, new, or different? Complicity is overcoming rigid structures, changing something through unconventional, as yet unknown forms of collaboration— when the creative break with practices and norms and the emergence of new scenes begins. Such moments of community building cannot be explained by familiar forms of collaboration such as teamwork, alliance building, or networking.10 They are based on very special social practices, since boundaries must be crossed and therefore a particularly close bond develops within the group, based on strong trust and also on the conscious decision not to disclose certain information to the outside world. The fact that crossing boundaries is necessary and productive in such cases is demonstrated by their outcomes— artistic production, the founding of companies, the development of new products, and the creation of social initiatives.

The three steps can be understood as a sequence, idea–opportunity–realization. We find this sequence not only in destructive projects, but also in legal and creative ones. In the research film Complicity (Komplizenschaften, 2007), constitutional law expert Daniel Jositsch sums up this situation as follows: “If two of us agree to rob a bank and plan it, and we both take a gun with us, and I shoot, then you are also responsible for it, even though you didn't shoot yourself. That's the special thing about it, because complicity considers everyone as a group, and if something happens, everyone is responsible for the same thing” (Jositsch, 2007). This quote once again clearly shows how complicity can be thought of productively: accomplices are all equally responsible for their actions. This entanglement can also be found etymologically in the sense of “com plectere” as “to intertwine” or “to interlock.” Anyone who is part of a complex network of complicity assumes responsibility for the overall outcome. They have deep trust in the others, because they know that the actions of the others carry just as much weight as their own, and can therefore either greatly strengthen or weaken their position. Furthermore, “a person becomes an accomplice when they enable another person's actions by not preventing them, even though they know that these actions are questionable.”11 Accomplices place their fate in the hands of others. To put it more radically, the other person is just as responsible for me as I am for myself, and conversely, I am just as responsible for others as I am for myself. This surrender to others, which is at the core of complicity, is an existential state which does not always happen voluntarily. It can be deliberate, but it can also be caused by an emergency where the individual's position is so weakened that the only chance of survival is in the collective.

In summary, the four key points of the definition that make it possible to apply the term to legal project work are as follows: First, complicity always involves putting theory into practice, as described by the three steps of decision-making, planning, and execution. This approach is also found in successful collective project work. Second, the individual is intensely embedded in collective structures, which also applies in reverse: not only do individuals constitute the collective, but the collective also constitutes the individual. Third, complicity is not a hierarchy-free model of action. It is self-organized, yet highly structured. At the moment of activity, the hierarchies are clearly defined, but they change from phase to phase. Individual competence may be important in one phase and play only a subordinate role in another. Fourth, stories about complicity often suggest a special relationship between decision-making and execution of the act, and thus between theory and practice. Theories of action in criminal law emphasize the intentionality of the act. However, reality shows that despite will and consciousness, the act often deviates from the plan—this is true in the creative sphere as well as in crime. A good act of complicity is characterized by the guiding determination, which can still be quickly revised during the act.

Complicity For Art In Public Space

If we disregard the illegal nature of criminal association, it becomes clear that all these points also apply to creative work, and very much to art in public space. Complicity occurs when something must be put into practice, when theory becomes practice. And this happens in public space through interacting with the environment— involving people, objects, or nature, often in surprising and unpredictable ways. Art in public space integrates its surroundings like hardly any other creative practice, and must therefore give special consideration to its methods and impact. At the end of every complicity is the performance, i.e., the implementation of the project. Complicity never remains just a concept; it always ends with action. And interestingly, true complicity also ends after completion. It cannot be repeated, like a good dinner with strangers, or a party. If the group continues to work together successfully, teamwork usually sets in, and an art collective or company is founded. If the group breaks up, new complicities or other group constellations are formed.

For the conceptual development of art in public spaces in Leipzig, we should enter into partnerships with a wide variety of participants, in order to explore new topics and find new formats for communication, such as the topic of forgotten cultures of remembrance: with the city administration, civil society, existing organizations, schools, NGOs, and other art institutions. The great strength of art in public space is its dynamic creation of new social constellations and gatherings. Many people contribute to this, and when they temporarily join forces, they can courageously share responsibility and rise above themselves.