The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.27 (2023): 1-13

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art:
From the Perspective of Environmental Aesthetics*
AOTA Mami
Gunma Prefectural Women’s University, Gunma
Abstract: This paper discusses the artistic value of "community-engaged art project (CEAP) "from theperspective of environmental aesthetics. CEAP refers to art projects that take place in a specific region forrevitalization and other similar purposes. I evaluate the artistic value of it in terms of creating a cycle ofdiscovery of the aesthetic value of a place by various subjects. Section 1 examines Vid Simoniti's "pragmaticview" of the artistic value of socially engaged art (SEA). Section 2 points out two problems that arise when
applying the practical view to CEAP. The first is the ambiguity of community revitalization as a social purpose,and the second is that the view overlooks that art is an act of making something. Section 3 interprets previous
research on creative placemaking and site-specificity from the perspective of environmental aesthetics andargues that CEAP creates a cycle of discovery of the aesthetic value of a place at the initial phase ofrevitalization. Section 4 explains what exactly a cycle of discovery of the aesthetic value of a place means,referring to the case of the Oku-noto International Art Festival.
Keywords: Community-Engaged Art, Socially-Engaged Art, Oku-noto Triennnale, Art Critisicm, Environmental
Aesthetics

Introduction
This paper presents a model from the perspective of environmental aesthetics to explain how
the artistic value of “community-engaged art project（CEAP）” can be evaluated.1 The term
CEAP is coined by Naoya Fujita and refers to art festivals held in local regions, such as the
Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennale, Yokohama Triennale, and Aichi Triennale, as well as other art
projects held throughout Japan (Fujita 2016, 17–18).
Fujita uses this term to question the fact that CEAPs only serve the external purpose ofregional revitalization and are not critiqued in the context of art. Hence, the name work as a
stigma Concerns have been expressed about the appropriateness of discussing a large number ofprojects with different objectives under the title of CEAP (Hoshino 2020, 92). Furthermore, by
its very nature, it may be difficult to incorporate negative aspects of the region in CEAP. In this*This paper is based on the Japanese version printed in Bigaku 72, No. 1 (2021): 25–36, published by theJapanese Society for Aesthetics.
1
CEAP is described in Japanese as “Chiiki-art (地域アート). Chiiki is a general noun referring to any specificplace. As Fujita translates Chiiki-art as community-engaged art project, this term is used in this paper.

2

AOTA Mami

sense, it may be said that the genre has certain restrictions.2
Nevertheless, this paper posits the existence of the genre of CEAP and considers how theirartistic value should be described. There are two purposes. First, as Fujita points out, artistic
activities related to a region, or in other words, to a specific place, have been rapidly increasing.
By presenting an axis for evaluating these activities not only from an economic perspective but
also from an aesthetic one, its significance and problems will become clearer. Then, it will bepossible to set up a standard for evaluating individual projects. Second, the introduction ofenvironmental aesthetics to the discussion around CEAP is also a central issue of this paper. Some
previous research has examined the aesthetic value of Japanese-style art projects from theperspective of the participation and dialogue of diverse actors (Cf. Tanaka 2017, 2018, 2019,2020). However, in this paper, we focus on environmental aesthetics to shed new light on whatparticipation means for CEAP by referring to environmental aesthetics and introducing theperspective of exploring the aesthetic value of place.
The remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 1 provides an overview of the pragmatic
view of the artistic value of socially engaged art (SEA) by Vid Simoniti while relating CEAP to
SEA. Section 2 describes the limitations in considering CEAP based on Simoniti’s view. Section
3 reinterprets previous research on creative placemaking and site-specificity from anenvironmental aesthetic perspective and examines what local revitalization is and what art
produces in the process. Section 4 uses specific examples to demonstrate that the generation of acycle of discoveries of the aesthetic value of a place can make CEAP artistically valuable.3

Chapter 1: Simoniti’s Pragmatic View on Socially Engaged Art
As seen in the introduction, Fujita sees CEAP as a type of art project. According to Junko
Kumakura, art projects are “activities that go beyond the exhibition of artworks and enter into thesociety of their time and develop in relation to individual social events” and “create a newartistic/social context by becoming a trigger for connection/contact that is different from existing
circuits” (Kumakura 2013, 0–2). Another characteristic of Japanese-style art projects is that they
are held in various regions (Kumakura et al. eds. 2015, 4). CEAP, as art projects, engages withsociety. As such, they overlap with SEA, that is, art forms that engage with society, although
there are some differences in their political nature. Beyond the fact that there are differences2

Furthermore, it is thought that there are examples of CEAP leading to gentrification in some cases. In the area
where the Koganecho Bazaar (Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, 2008–) was held, which used to be lined withillegal sex shops, art was used to improve the situation by preventing illegal shops from moving in by using theproperty as an art-in-residence, with the aim of “purifying the town’s environment” (Suganuma 2019, p. 70). While
the residents’ intention to eliminate shops of that kind and make the town a safe place to live, including for children,
should be respected, it should be noted that initiatives to rapidly construct a new image through this kind of
disconnection from the past could easily turn into a gentrification of the place.
3
While the focus of this paper is on art practices in Japan, we refer to Western debates where appropriate during
the argument. For example, when Nicolas Bourriaud’s “relational aesthetics” is applied to the discourse on thecommunity-engaged art project in Japan, it is sometimes pointed out that it is freely used out of context (Hoshino &Fujita 2016, p. 55). Caution is needed when introducing different discourses. Nevertheless, in view of the current
situation where theoretical research on community-engaged art projects has not been fully developed in Japan, thispaper introduces Western arguments with caution, as far as necessary.

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art

3

between the two, it should be noted that both CEAP and SEA are concepts that blur theirextensions. However, because both of their social effects are often the subject of debate, it isuseful to consider Simoniti’s pragmatic view on the artistic value of SEA.4
In his discussion, Simoniti cites specific examples of SEA, such as Theaster Gates’ The
Dorchester Project (2009–), Jeremy Deller’s The Battle of Orgreave (2001), and Olafur
Eliasson’s Little Sun (2012). Gates’s project is about bringing social change to a community byrenovating a rundown bungalow on Chicago’s South Side and turning it into a multi-functional
space for local residents. Deller’s project is a “re-enactment” of a clash between miners and policein Orgreave in 1984. Eliasson sells yellow flower-shaped solar-powered lights, developed incollaboration with engineers, to bring lighting fixtures to areas where the electricity supply ispoor. Simoniti characterizes these SEAs in that (1) the intended value of the art project is
coextensive with its social and political impact, and (2) the methods utilized to produce that
impact bear a close resemblance to non-artistic forms of political and social activism (Simoniti
2018, 72).
Simoniti first examines aestheticism and pluralism concerning artistic value and argues thatneither of these can successfully capture the artistic value of SEA. Aestheticism is a position that
equates artistic value with aesthetic value (Simoniti 2018, 74), while pluralism, in contrast, is aposition that sees artistic value as encompassing various types of value, including cognitive,
ethical, and political value, in addition to aesthetic value (Simoniti 2018, 74). Perhaps it is easierto understand that the artistic value of SEA cannot be captured under aestheticism. Nevertheless,as pluralism sees artistic value as encompassing different kinds of value, at first glance, it seems
to be a position that can also identify the value of works with social and political consequences,such as SEA. However, Simoniti judges that aestheticism and pluralism have something incommon and, therefore, both are ineligible for assessing the artistic value of SEA. Theircommonality is the premise that what is considered artistic value is realized through artisticfeatures such as medium, genre, theme, technique, mode of display, and art kind. Through artisticfeatures, we can make a distinction between the artistic and practical value of an artwork (e.g., ifa painting has practical value in the sense that it is just the right size to cover a hole in the wall,
it cannot be count as its artistic value because it is not derived from its artistic features).
However, Simoniti argues that SEA can be artistically valuable precisely because of thepractical value not directly related to artistic features. While there are artistic features in SEA,
they are used as an interchangeable means to the end of social transformation, and the artisticfeatures of SEA are not essential to realizing SEA’s artistic value. He, therefore, formulates his
own “the pragmatic view” as follows5:
Value V, possessed by artwork X, is an artistic value ←→ V is the positive political,
cognitive, or ethical impact of X (Simoniti 2018, 76.)
4

Pablo Helguera, for example, notes that, besides SEA, relational aesthetics, community art, collaborative art,
participatory art, dialogic art, public art, and social practice are used as designations for the arts based on social
interaction (Helguera 2015, 30–31).
5
Simoniti’s pragmatic view has nothing to do with pragmatism in philosophy. The word “pragmatic” is used
simply to refer to a work serving some social and political purposes (Simoniti 2018, 82, Note 4).

4

AOTA Mami

According to Simoniti, the fact that SEA is a work of art can be adequately explained by adopting
a historical or institutional definition of art: it draws on post-minimalist art in terms of its
participation in place (this point is discussed in more detail in Section 3), and it also has a politicalaspect. French realism and Russian constructivism, in terms of their political aspect, collaboration,and participation, have precedents in the Situationists of the 1950s, the Happenings of the 1960s,
and the feminist practices of the 1970s. Therefore, according to Simoniti, it is clear that SEA is
art in terms of historical definitions. It is also accepted as art by institutional definitions, as SEA
artists such as Gates and Eliasson have been recognized by international exhibitions such as
Documenta and museums such as the Tate Modern SEA.
Furthermore, some, if not all, SEA works are good works; that is, SEA as a genre is not
worthless, and this can be explained by the fact that there are already works that are valued in theart world. As SEA’s search for political validity is not curious in our contemporary art world, thisdoes not prevent it from being called art.
If SEA is art, it must have some artistic value, but aestheticism and pluralism cannot explain
it. In the case of participatory art, which overlaps with but is distinct from SEA, there may bethings that encourage participants to have aesthetic experiences through their interactions witheach other and can therefore be explained by aestheticism and pluralism. However, SEA, which
has a perspective from social activism, does not directly try to enhance participants’ aesthetic
experience. For example, Claire Bishop evaluates Deller’s The Battle of Orgreave by seeing it asa hybrid of performance art and historical painting. However, according to Simoniti, in light of
its aim to bring about change for the mining community, the participants are indifferent to theproject’s place in the art world. Its artistic characteristics are not the most important factor inmeasuring Deller’s achievement with SEA. Hence, the pragmatic view supplies a better accountof the artistic value of SEA than aestheticism and pluralism (Simoniti 2018, 77–80).
As mentioned above, the pragmatic view makes radical claims, but Simoniti intends to createa stir in the current state of SEA criticism, which is dominated by ambiguous axes of evaluationin the first place. According to him, on the one hand, SEA criticism tends to overestimate its
power of social change. On the other hand, if its social influence is low, there is a tendency tochange the criteria and evaluate it in terms of aesthetic value. He offers a pragmatic view to rectify
this confusion of axes of evaluation, arguing that the artistic value of SEA should be assessed
exclusively in terms of their social impact: as long as SEAs are intended to bring about social andpolitical change, they should not be compared with other works of art, but be assessed in thecontext of wider social and political action. Eliasson’s Little Sun, for example, should becompared to the work of the NGO Litter of Light, which supplies countries worldwide withlighting systems made from plastic bottles. This policy would certainly be demanding for SEA,
he argues, but before becoming over-enthusiastic about the “transformative power” of art, it isnecessary to carefully consider the actual political and ethical implications of each work thatseeks to engage with society (Simoniti 2018, 81).

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art

5

Chapter 2: Problems Applying the Pragmatic View to Community-engaged art project
As stated by Simoniti, his pragmatic view does not apply to all art forms. Furthermore, it
should be noted that Simoniti does not share the concept of CEAP, which is the subject of thispaper’s consideration. Therefore, the fact that this view does not apply to CEAP may not
immediately undermine his argument’s validity. However, attempting here to apply the pragmatic
view to CEAP and pointing out its limitations may help to take the consideration of the artistic
value of CEAP. If we apply his pragmatic view to individual CEAP, we can say that some CEAP
are superior in terms of artistic value if it has a social impact comparable to other pragmaticmeans. However, does this solve the problem? Two problems with applying the pragmatic viewto CEAP are identified below.
First, the pragmatic view asserts that each SEA aims to create some kind of social change
and that its achievement is of superior artistic value. However, what this social change looks likewill vary from one work/project to another. Although Simoniti does not make much distinction,
there are different types of social change, and what and how close to achieving it may varydepending on the type of social change desired. In the case of CEAP, it is generally assumed that
regional revitalization is one of its major goals. This is particularly the case for CEAP in rural
areas, which are usually set out in a straightforward manner, while urban art festivals also often
have objectives related to regional revitalization in a broader sense, such as linking with creative
city planning and the reuse of hollowed-out areas within the city. If the social change expectedof CEAP is regional revitalization, then its contribution to the resolution of the economic
recession due to reasons such as population decline or urban devastation would, in a pragmaticview, enhances the artistic value of CEAP. However, many CEAP are very unlikely to smoothly
achieve such an effect compared with other means, such as attracting businesses and so on. In thefirst place, it is doubtful that there are quick-acting methods to fullfill regional revitalization.
From the pragmatic point of view, most CEAP would probably cease to be artistically valuable,
and therefore an axis of evaluation that compares the artistic value of various CEAP forms witheach other would not be possible.
Of course, there is no proof that dismissing the significance of CEAP, in general, is wrong.
This paper strongly acknowledges that, in a situation where CEAP is in a state of flux, theenthusiasm for its social effects should, to some extent, be tempered. However, we can point out
another problem from the pragmatic view: Simoniti fails to consider what art is supposed to doin the first place.6 As we will see in more detail in the next section, Simoniti demonstrates that
art with social utility, like SEA, also emerged because of the development of art history. If SEA
is a kind of art, the basic point that art is the production of something should not be lost sight of.
Of course, something here does not necessarily refer to a work of art as an object but may be asituation, for example. Also, the subject of producing it may not be the artist alone but may refer
6

While acknowledging the significance of Simoniti’s pragmatic view, Futoshi Hoshino is concerned that “theconsideration of the formative or, more broadly, formal aspects of the work of art can somehow slip away completely”(Hoshino 2018, 143). He argues that, if we consider SEA (which Hoshino calls social practice) in relation to theconcept of art, it is necessary to “secure a unit of analysis that corresponds to the ‘form’ of the work” (Hoshino 2018,
144).

6

AOTA Mami

to various actors, such as viewers and performers (Cf. Berleant 1991, 49). Even if the concept ofartwork and author in the modern sense has been transformed, the choice of artistic means is notjust a linear progression towards the goal of social change but also a step in the process of
producing something on the way to that goal. As I will argue in the next section, when considering
CEAP, the perspective of what is being produced is the key to understanding its artistic value interms of environmental aesthetics.

Chapter 3: Revitalization and the Aesthetic Value of PlaceIn the previous section, we pointed out that it is inappropriate to apply the pragmatic viewto CEAP due to the ambiguity of revitalization and the lack of a perspective that art produces
something in the process of achieving social change. On the other hand, the difficulty in applying
the pragmatic view also raises ways in which it is considered important to describe the artistic
value of CEAP. First, we need to articulate the role that art can have in the process of social
achievement of regional revitalization, and then we need to identify what it is that art is producing
for this role. This method enables us to question the nature of the artistic value of CEAP in relation
to society while distancing ourselves from a pragmatic view.
The key to advancing this approach is a focus on place. In demonstrating the link between
SEA and art history, Simoniti refers to Miwon Kwon’s work on site-specificity. Kwon argues
that following Minimalism and Land Art, which engage with a place from a phenomenologicalperspective, and Institutional Critical Art, which questions place in relation to art, a stream of art
emerged in the early 1990s that engaged with a place outside of the artistic context, either as alocal community or political discourse. Simoniti sets this third phase, which Kwon encompasses
under the label site-specificity, as the beginning of SEA (Simoniti 2018, 73).7 Simoniti does notfurther consider the issue of place in SEA, but this is an important perspective for this paper.
First, to demarcate the role of art in achieving the social objective of revitalization in relation
to place, we refer to the debate on creative placemaking. According to urban philosopher Sharon
M. Meagher, creative placemaking refers to attempts to use art to revive cities and towns or tobuild communities (Meagher 2020, 169). It has many overlaps with CEAP. 8 In a booklet
published by the National Endowment for the Arts, creative placemaking encompasses the goalof creating “livability” and economic development (Meagher 2020, 170). This livability is further
defined in terms of the safety and aesthetic, expressive, and environmental concerns of people
living in and visiting a place, which Meagher summarizes as “the quality of life” (Meagher 2020,
170). Although the purpose of creative placemaking overlaps with regional revitalization, it is not
limited to creating economic benefits but also involves reimagining place from a variety of

7

Simoniti partly agrees with Jason Gaiger’s critique of Kwon. Gaiger argues that the transition from
Minimalism to SEA should be seen as a history of art’s emancipation from autonomy. Simoniti tries to locate SEA
in the history of art in a way that integrates Kwon’s and Geiger’s theories (Simoniti 2018, 73–74).
8
The term creative placemaking was first used by the United States National Endowment for the Arts in 2009and has since been used by various organizations with different definitions and extensions. According to Meagher,
creative placemaking is positioned as a grassroots effort to counter globalism and ensure a sense of place andcreativity (Meagher 2020, 171).

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art

7interests, including aesthetic ones, to improve people’s quality of life. Meagher further states that“creative placemaking projects foster justice—by creating spaces for civic dialogue andengagement and bringing neighbors and outsiders together to (re)imagine their communities andcities” (Meagher 2020, 172). In other words, there is the phase in local revitalization, the “phaseof (re)imagining place,” which makes the next phase of social transformation possible.
What role, then, could art play in the (re)imagining phase of place? This means addressing
the second issue of this section, which is to consider what CEAP produce. In the context ofcreative placemaking, place can also refer to social contexts such as communities and theirassociated discourses. When Kwon refers to art in the 1960s as being site-specific, it was
exclusively in reference to concrete, physical places. However, as symbolized by the New Genre
Public Art movement of the 1990s, the focus of artworld has moved from being site-specific tobeing issue-specific; that is, a complex discourse. The notion of site=place, she says, is being
extended to what might be the question of community as constructed by a complex set of
discourses (Kwon 2004, 112). This shift may also indicate a shift of interest in art from theaesthetic to the social. However, when considering the various practices of CEAP that are thesubject of this paper, can we reconsider the significance of their production in terms of(re)imagining the aesthetic in place as the basis of community? Kwon is critical of how
community identities are linked to places as physical spaces. She also has a concern about
nostalgic impulses driving the identities (Kwon 2004, 164–165). I agree with Kwon’s concern,and, moreover, argue that place and community may not be separated. However, just as Kwon
argues that communities and their identities can be variably constructed through the interventionof art (Kwon 2004, 165), the aesthetic value of a place can also be social in the sense that it is not
univocal but constantly explored through the participation of diverse people.
Environmental aesthetician Emily Brady believes that the search for the aesthetic value ofthe environment takes place through our communication. We belong to different sensitivity
groups, depending on our backgrounds (Brady 2003, 209–210). Even on the same mountain, a
farmer and a traveler will engage their sensitivities in different ways and discover different
aesthetic features. However, Brady does not assume that any view is acceptable and calls her
position critical pluralism. Under this position, the validity of an interpretation is relativizedaccording to the interpreter’s background beliefs and the cultural and historical context to which
they belong, while prejudices and personal whims are excluded (Brady 2003, 80). We
communicate their aesthetic judgments of their respective environments to others, and throughthis communication, the aesthetic value of the environment becomes pluralistic (Brady 2003,
212). In this process, our imagination works well. According to Brady, imagination creates newconnections between us and our environment and allows us to extend our experience in ways that
go beyond perceived content.
If we consider Meagher and Brady’s arguments together, we can think about what CEAP
produces in the following way. In places where local revitalization is needed, people’s interest in
the places is considered to have waned or become polarized for some reason. The search for theaesthetic value of the place is one of the things that currently stagnates. Artistic interventions canengage people’s imaginations to re-initiate this exploration of the aesthetic value of the places.
Just as the development of landscape painting in Europe turned people’s attention to the real

8

AOTA Mami

landscape, or the genealogy of nature writing in North America opened people’s eyes to thebeauty of wilderness, it is not impossible to say that the aesthetic values of art have been strongly
linked to the aesthetic values of the place. CEAP also has this effect that art can have. It
reinvigorates the search for the aesthetic value of place in different ways for people inside andoutside the community, and this cycle of aesthetic value discovery is something that CEAP
produces.
If, to begin with, place is something that changes spatially and temporally according tonatural and cultural conditions, then we will never be able to grasp its aesthetic value fully andcorrectly from a single perspective. The search for the aesthetic value of the environment is,therefore, a collaborative process of people (Aota 2020, 280–285). 9 In other words, what
emerges from overlaying the perspective of environmental aesthetics on discussions of creative
placemaking and site-specificity is that issues of participation and collaboration can beincorporated into a focus on place itself. Participation and collaboration in CEAP do not simply
mean the involvement of non-artists in the process of an art project but can also mean that diverse
actors become engaged in the collaborative process of exploring the aesthetic values of a place.

Chapter 4: The Cycle of Exploring the Aesthetic Value of Place
The previous section, via Meagher’s discussion of creative placemaking, provided an answer
to a problem that Simoniti’s pragmatic view cannot solve. In other words, it became clear that
local revitalization as a social impact of CEAP can be divided into at least two phases and thatwhat CEAP produces can be viewed from the perspective of creating the cycle of exploration foraesthetic values of place in the first phase of this process.
In the following section, we aim to describe the relationship between CEAP and the aesthetic
value of place in concrete terms, using the framework of environmental aesthetics. Through this,it becomes clear what is meant by exploring the aesthetic value of place as a collaborative process.
I will mention the Okunoto International Art Festival as an example (Suzu City, Ishikawa,2017).10 It is obvious that the concept of CEAP, which can include a wide range of examples,cannot be represented by the Okunoto International Art Festival alone and that other types of
CEAP should also be analyzed for more comprehensive research.
However, this paper uses this art festival as a specific example for the following two reasons.
First, the Okunoto International Art Festival is a later example of a large-scale CEAP. The styleof CEAP had been developed well already before this festival was organized. It is therefore asuitable example for considering the artistic value of CEAP. Second, while the Okunoto
9

Drawing on Dominic McIver Lopes’ discussion of aesthetic adepts in addition to Brady, I have offered aperspective that sees the exploration of the aesthetic value of the environment as a collaborative process (Aota 2020).
By examining Lopes’ aesthetic network theory, Hitoshi Tanaka presents the possibility that it can function as atheoretical model for the aesthetic evaluation of “art projects” in Japan (Tanaka 2020, 95). Although our perspectives
on these issues differ, we share a common attempt to view collaborative work concerning the aesthetic in relation to
Lopes.
10
Okunoto International Art Festival is held in Suzu, Ishikawa Prefecture, at the tip of the Noto Peninsula, withFram Kitagawa as general director. The city used to be a candidate site for a nuclear power plant, but a policy change
eliminated that option.

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art

9International Art Festival is a “regional-type” CEAP in the countryside (Yoshida 2019, 10), as aninternational exhibition, it also invites artists from abroad, so the differences in the positions of
the participants—artists, residents, and tourists—are outstanding. By selecting an example where
diverse people participate in the exploration of the aesthetic value of place, a model can bepresented that can also serve as a reference point when considering cases where the differences
between these positions are blurred.
The arguments in the following discussion can be put forward as follows. CEAP involves atleast three types of people: artists, residents, and tourists. When the works are organized so that
all these people become both creators and appreciators of the aesthetic value of the place, CEAP
realizes a cycle of exploration of the aesthetic value of a place and enhances its artistic value.
When we aesthetically appreciate an object that does not have clear boundaries, such as a place,we create frames by ourselves to select the object of appreciation (Hepburn 1966, 291; Moore
2008, 108-109), which is analogous to the act of production in that we choose aestheticallyvaluable things from within a place to constitute an aesthetic object. In this respect, it can be
described analogously to the act of production (Aota 2020, 192–197). In other words, the active
appreciation of a place is, at the same time, an act of producing a new way of looking at theaesthetic value of a place.
Based on this idea, artists are creators in two ways. That is, as well as being creators of thework that serves as a device to initiate the collaborative act of exploring the aesthetic values of aplace, artists first create a new way of looking at the aesthetic values of a place. In CEAP, works
that reflect the specificity of the place are usually welcomed, and many artists produce works thatare in some way specific to the region by visiting the site and going through a process of
research.11 In the process, artists are expected to be sensitive to and scoop up the aesthetic valuesof a place.
Brady presents “aesthetic integrity” as an aesthetic norm that functions in practices such asenvironmental conservation. Aesthetic integrity is the principle that requires that, whenmodifying parts of the environment, we preserve the integrity of the story of the environment as
a whole, that is, the diachronic unfolding of the forces of nature and human culture (Brady 2003,
243–244).
Although her discussion is not about the production of art, it can help think about CEAP. In
the case of CEAP, the place that is the material for the art is never untouched. When using a place
already imbued with history as a material, artists see the aesthetic value of the place asappreciators. However, even if a place has a story to tell, there is no single interpretation. Rather,
11

Kwon draws attention to a point made by Hal Foster; in community-based art, artists objectify the community(Kwon 2004, 138). In terms of the aesthetic value of place, which is the issue of this paper, it is possible that Foster’s
criticism could be valid. In other words, artists can present the aesthetic value of place as a kind of authority.
Therefore, this paper emphasizes that searching for the aesthetic value of place is a collaborative act. In
environmental aesthetics, too, the position known as the cognitive model, represented by Allen Carlson, authorizes
certain views by arguing that common sense/scientific knowledge of the environment is necessary for an appropriate
aesthetic appreciation of the environment (Cf. Carlson 1979, 273). In contrast, Brady and I see the aesthetic value assomething to be discovered by communicating with a more diverse range of actors. It is artists who initiate the search
for the aesthetic value of place in CEAP. However, if their work acts to lead people only to a fixed view, it will not
be a successful piece.

10

AOTA Mami

artists, through their active appreciation of the place, initiate a cycle of exploration by drawing
sympathetic attention to the place while also perceiving the aesthetic value of the place in theirunique way and showing this through the production of the work. For example, Theatre Sumer
by Yoshitaka Nanjo, one of the works exhibited at the Okunoto International Art Festival, is an
installation set in a former movie theater. It is unique in its use of diatomaceous earth, whichforms the Noto Peninsula. The work, which combines the nature and history of Okunoto, isformed by overlaying and giving form to the aesthetic values of the place he has discovered.
Nanjo’s work reminds local residents, especially older people, of the time when the site wasa real theater (Yamashita 2017, 54). The cycle of exploration of the aesthetic value of place in
CEAP is thus further linked from artists to residents. Theatre Sumer evokes the past, while
Aleksander Konstantinov’s 53 Bus Station of Suzu, for example, covers four bus stops withaluminum, drawing attention to the components of place that are integrated into everyday life.
Arto Haapala argues that the environment in which we spend our daily lives is the basis ofeverydayness by becoming part of the residents’ existence and evokes feelings of familiarity inus, a kind of aesthetic pleasure that can be found in the everyday (Haapala 2005, 50). Often,
however, we are not conscious of this feeling of familiarity. CEAP evokes this feeling by bringing
change to the everyday, making residents aware of the aesthetic quality of familiarity of the place.
In other words, it transforms residents into active appreciators of the place and engages them in
exploring its aesthetic value.12
Another example of a different approach that initiates the exploration of residents is Maki
Kijima’s Sea Life and Mountain Life. Kijima organized a workshop where local residents wereasked to create flags using cloth as the main material, based on their memories of the sea andmountains, and exhibited the result in Hioki House (formerly Hioki Elementary and Junior HighSchool). Although they directly the flags, they also become creators of aesthetic value in that they
select aesthetically valuable places to make the flags.
In addition to artists and residents, tourists are also participants in CEAP. CEAPs, especiallythose that take the form of large-scale art festivals, often follows the format of art tourism. Even
if the artworks representing regional characteristics have their specific meaning for residents, they
may be consumed by tourists with mere curiosities. The Okunoto International Art Festival also
follows a style of typical tourism that is not limited to art, for example, by overlapping the festival
period with the time of the local festival and organizing tours to experience the region’s uniquecustoms. While these initiatives may effectively attract people to the region, they may also havethe danger of fixing how outsiders view the region. Also, it sometimes risks remaining tourists as
passive viewers by reinforcing the stereotypes.
However, it would not be impossible to make tourists also active appreciators; that is, who
produce new ways of looking at the aesthetic value of place. Tomoko Konoike’s Go Ashore is athree-dimensional work in which an animal horn and a child’s foot are fused together on the cliffsof Shakuzaki, located at the northernmost tip of the Noto Peninsula. The work can only be viewed

12

I have elsewhere presented “past-oriented framing” and “future-oriented framing” as mechanisms by which
residents become aware of the aesthetic property of familiarity (Aota 2020, 230–248). The effect of CEAP here does
not fit into either of these categories. It is a potential third framing for familiarity.

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art

11

by walking along the cliff for about ten minutes. Konoike says this is because “art has no meaning
unless it is blurred from the inside” in a situation where art festivals are often turned into mere
objects of sightseeing. She dares to invite the audience to “walk in inconvenience” and to“reorganize their whole body senses” (Konoike 2018, 33). This place is difficult to discover ineveryday life, not only for tourists but also for residents. By being involved in the process ofwalking, tourists can discover the aesthetic value of the place rooted in their physical senses intheir own ways, such as by noticing the sensation of stepping on the path, the things that happen
to come into view, or the sound of the waves that can be heard.
In this way, CEAP can enable such collaborative activities where artists, residents, andtourists explore the aesthetic value of a place from their own perspectives through the linkage ofvarious artworks. The artistic value of CEAP lies not only in the fact that individual artworks canhave aesthetic value but also in the fact that the artworks can be used as a catalyst to explore theaesthetic value of place.

Conclusion
This paper begins by pointing out the problems with applying Simoniti’s pragmatic view to
CEAP and argues it plays a role in creating a cycle of discoveries of the aesthetic value of placein the initial phase of regional revitalization. As a result, the artistic value of CEAP is based not
only on the aesthetic value of the artworks themselves but also on the discovery of the aesthetic
value of place through the artworks.
This paper concludes that assessing the artistic value of CEAP in terms of the extent to which
they contribute to the exploration of the aesthetic value of a place may not be in direct conflictwith Simoniti’s pragmatic view. Nor can it be said that CEAP has brought about social change inthe sense of the rise in electricity supply that Simoniti expected from Eliasson’s Little Sun.
However, if we use the ideas of creative placemaking seen in Section 3, local revitalization was
not only about making an economic impact but also about (re)imagining places, including
aesthetically. In other words, at least about CEAP, the step of discovering the aesthetic value ofplace is included as part of social change. The participation aspect can be reconsidered from theperspective that this is an activity that requires people to work together. Even if the aesthetic
value itself is divorced from usefulness, it is possible for the understanding of aesthetic value tohave social significance.
However, this paper does not conclude how much CEAP can be assessed as excellent interms of artistic value. Perhaps, just as Simoniti set a high bar for SEA, the criteria t in this paper
will not be easy for CEAP to achieve. This paper presents an axis for criticism of CEAP from aphilosophical-aesthetic point of view. The validity of this standard will be measured throughrepeated applications with specific cases.

Acknowledgment
This paper was supported by a JSPS Fellowship (18J00618).

12

AOTA Mami

References
Aota, Mami. Kankyo wo Hihyo Suru: Eibeikei Kankyo Bigaku no Tenkai [Critiquing theEnvironment: The Development of Anglo-American Environmental Aesthetics], Tokyo:
Shunpusha, 2020.
Berleant, Arnold. Art and Engagement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1991.
Brady, Emily. Aesthetics of the Natural Environment. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama
Press. 2003.
Carlson, Allen. “Appreciation and the Natural Environment.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 37 (3): 267–275. 1979.
Elguera, Pablo, trans. SEA Research Group. Socially Engaged Art Nyumon: Art ga Shakai to
Kakawaru Tameno 10 no Point [Introduction to Socially Engaged Art: Art & Society
Research Centre: Ten Points for Art to Deeply Engage with Society], Tokyo: Film Art, Inc.,
2015.
Fujita, Naoya. “Zen-ei no Zonmbie Tachi: Chiiki-Art no Shomondai” [Zombies of the Avantgarde: Various Issues in Community-Engaged Art Project], in Naoya Fujita (ed), ChiikiArt: Bigaku, Seido, Nihon [Community-engaged Art Project: Aesthetics/Institutions/Japan],Horinouchi Publishing, pp. 11–43, 2016.
Haapala, Arto. “On the Aesthetics of Everyday: Familiarity, Strangeness, and the Meaning ofPlace.” in Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith (eds). The Aesthetics of Everyday Life.
New York: Columbia University Press. 39–55. 2005.
Hepburn, Ronald. “Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty.” in Peter
Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen (eds). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art—The
Analytic Tradition: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 521–534. 2004 [1966].
Hoshino, Futoshi. “Social Practice wo Meguru Riron no Genzyo: Shakaiteki Tenkai,
Performance-teki Tenkai,” [The Current State of Theory on Social Practice: Social Turn,
Performative Turn], in SEA Research Group in Art & Society Research Centre, Socially
Engaged Art: Genealogy, Theory and Practice on the Social Turn of Art, Tokyo: Film Art,
Inc., pp. 122–152, 2018.
——. ”Kyoko no Hegemony” [Hegemony of Fiction], in Towada Museum of Contemporary Art,
ed. Chiiki-art ha Doko ni Aru [Where is Community-Engaged art Project?], Tokyo:
Horinouchi Publishing, pp. 92–95, 2020.
—— and Naoya Fujita. “Machidukuri to Chiiki-Art : Kankeisei no Bigaku no Nihonteki
Bummyaku” [Town Planning and “Community-Engaged Art Project” - The JapaneseContext of “Relational Aesthetics”], in Chiiki-Art: Bigaku, Seido, Nihon pp. 45–94, 2016.
Konoike, Tomoko. “Fujiyu na Toho to Umarekiesaru ‘Katari’” [The Inconvenient Walk and the‘Narrative’ that Is Born and Disappears], Okunoto International Art Festival 2017,supervised by Fram Kitagawa/Okunoto International Art Festival Executive Committee,
Tokyo: Gendaikikakushitu Publishing, 2018.
Kumakura, Junko supervised. Nihongata Art Project no Rekishi to Genzai 1990→2012 [TheHistory and Present of Japanese-style Art Projects 1990–2012], Tokyo: Tokyo
Metropolitan Foundation for History and Culture, 2013.
——, Yuichiro Nagatsu, and Art Project Research Group (eds). Nihongata Art Project no Rekishi

The Artistic Value of Community-Engaged Art

13

to Genzai Hoi [History and Present State of Japanese-Style Art Projects 1990→2012
Appendix], Tokyo: Arts Council Tokyo, 2015.
Kwon, Miwon. One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Local Identity. Cambridge: The
MIT Press. 2004.
Meagher, Sharon M. “How Might Creative Placemaking Lead to More Just Cities?” in Sharon
M. Meagher, Samantha Noll, and Joseph S. Biehl (eds). The Routledge Handbook of
Philosophy of the City. London and New York: Routledge. 169–180. 2020.
Moore, Ronald. Natural Beauty: A Theory of Aesthetics beyond the Arts. Peterborough:Broadview Press. 2008.
Simoniti, Vid. “Assessing Socially Engaged Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 76 (1):71–82, 2018.
Suganuma, Wakana. “Kousaku suru Art no Kokyosei: Yokohamakogamecho’Aer no Machi’ noSonogo ni Chumoku shite” [Intersection of the Publicity of Art: Focusing on the Aftermathof Yokohama Koganecho ‘City of Art’“, Sociological Review, No. 40, pp. 69–92, 2019.
Tanaka, Hitoshi. “Art Project no Biteki Hyoka: Sono Rironteki Model wo Motomete ①‘Collaborative Art’ in the One and the Many by Grant H. Kester” [Evaluating “Art Project”
Aesthetically: A Survey of Prior Attempts 1: “Collaborative Art” in the One and the Manyby Grant H. Kester], Co*Design, no. 2, pp. 41–58, 2017.
——. “Art Project no Biteki Hyoka: Sono Rironteki Model wo Motomete ② “Dialogical
Aesthetics” in Conversation Pieces by Grant H. Kester [Evaluating “Art Project”
Aesthetically: A Survey of Prior Attempts 2: “Dialogical Aesthetics” in Conversation
Pieces by Grant H. Kester], Co*Design, no. 3, pp. 55–69, 2018.’——. “Art Project no Biteki Hyoka: Sono Rironteki Model wo Motomete ③ ‘Infrastructural
Aesthetics’ in Social Works by Shannon Jackson” [“Infrastructural Aesthetics” in Social
Works by Shannon Jackson: Evaluating “Art Project” Aesthetically: A Survey of Prior
Attempts 3, Co*Design, no. 4, pp. 91–103, 2019.
——. “Art Project no Biteki Hyoka: Sono Rironteki Model wo Motomete ④ ‘Aesthetic Network
Theory’ in Being for Beauty by Dominic Lopes: Aesthetic Evaluation of ‘Art Project’”[“Aesthetic Network Theory” in Being for Beauty by Dominic Lopes: Aesthetic Evaluationof “Art Project”: A Survey of Prior Attempts 4], Co*Design, No. 8, pp. 75–97, 2020.
Towada Museum of Contemporary Art, ed. Chiiki-Art ha Doko ni Aru [Where is CommunityEngaged Art Project?], Tokyo: Horinouchi Publishing, 2020.
Yamashita, Rika. “SCOPE Tochi no Kurashi kara Hassou Sareta Art ga Chiiki to Hito ni
Motarasu.” Chikara Ishikawa-ken Suzu-shi Okunotokokusaigeizyusai” [SCOPE: The
Power that Art Conceived from the Life of the Land brings to the Region and its People:
The Okunoto International Art Festival in Suzu City, Ishikawa Prefecture], Chiiki Souzou[Regional Art-Activities], No. 42, pp. 50–55, 2017.
Yoshida, Takayuki. Geizyutusai to Chiikidukuri: Matsuri no Zyuyou kara Zihatsu, Kyoudou
niyoru Koteishigenka e [Art Festivals and Regional Development: From Acceptance of“Festivals” to Fixed Resources through Spontaneity and Collaboration], Tokyo: Suiyosha,
2019.