NOT FAKE

When an artist creates a series of photographs or a painting, or even a performance piece, she will refer to it as an "artwork". When that same artist creates something, a living thing, that relates to, community, social or political issues, she will refer to it as a "project". Regardless of whether it has a material dimension (because, for example, a performance does not) or whether it is priced (because, for example, a land art work or a public space intervention does not have a price either). Why classification, nomenclature, naming is important when we want to go against categories and override boundaries and hierarchies between genres? Why does it matter whether we consider community artworks as "artworks" or "projects"? Why is this the case, what is behind this naming mechanism?

Community projects operate with a radical artistic language and form, they are embedded in reality and have a very concrete and tangible side. A community project, as opposed to object-based art, can, for example, give a clear answer to the questions "what is this about?", "what is this for?", "what is the point of this?". Of course, the language may be abstract (e.g. dance), but the intention is clear and understandable. In many ways, community art is more democratic than other artwork-categories, it does not speak in riddles to a privileged segment of society, but rather, "comes down to earth". Perhaps this is the 'problem' with it, and precisely why it is excluded from academic and institutional discourse, because it is simple, ordinary and accessible. Because it has real content behind it, because it can assert interests and have a real impact at both individual and societal levels. Because it is currently the only art form that is free in its thinking, efficient in its means, and dangerous to power.