Living documents: the role of audience members in the (after)lives of participatory and ephemeral art practices

Participatory art is characterized by a certain openness, inviting members of the audience to fill in the gaps of a work of art that is initiated by one or more visual artists. Processes of interaction, collaboration, and co-production are at the heart of this type of art practice, which started to flourish for the first time—at least in the western world—in the so-called long sixties (starting in the late 1950s and ending in the early 1970s). These temporary processes do not necessarily bring about tangible end products that can or should be preserved for the future. Participatory art projects tend to be focused on the here-and-now and the generated results are mostly characterized by mutability, multiplicity and ephemerality. To a certain extent, one needs to accept that these so-called ‘participatairy’ artworks—i.e. works that are both participatory and airy (or ephemeral) in nature—are no longer there and can, in the traditional sense, not be preserved, stored and collected for the future. But that does not mean that we should completely forget about these fleeting works or stop considering (alternative) ways to pass them on and make them ‘last.’ But how does one pass on these ephemeral forms of art, without limiting or stabilizing them? How does one keep them ‘in motion’ to prevent them from vanishing into thin air? And who should take part in these practices of safeguarding and transmission? In this ‘Spotlight article,’ I make an argument for moving from practices of co-production to practices of co-care, and for taking into account the so-called ‘living documents:’ those audience members who once participated in the events in the 1960s and 1970s and can now, when still alive, be considered valuable repositories of data, stories and memories.