Chapter One
Establishing the Field as Youth Arts 

“For the young aspiring artist, the life path that leads to the professional
world is poorly marked and strewn with obstacles.”[1]

This chapter begins by defining the term youth, followed by three concise discussions that narrow the field within which this investigation sits. The first discussion establishes the distinction this research makes between youth arts and youth development, studio learning and arts education, and how conflating these terms is problematic for young artists seeking artistic agency and status. The second explains how the stigma of contradictory and deficit youth discourse interrupts the development of artistic agency and status. The third demonstrates the gap in longitudinal research around youth arts practice and the argument that this leaves the field under-explored and, by default, undervalued.

The United Nations defines youth as young people between fifteen and twenty-four.[2] Key youth organisations, institutions, events and reports in Australia define youth as young people between twelve and twenty-five.[3] The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare describes youth as “a period of rapid emotional, physical and intellectual transition, where young people progress from being dependent children to independent adults.”[4] tbC defines its young artist members as being between twelve and twenty-something, progressing creative practices and career pathways.

By examining tbC’s youth arts model, this research investigates how a dedicated and collaborative arts practice supports young artists in building the artistic agency and status required to progress these creative practices and careers. Before closely examining how this model of dedicated and collaborative arts practice does this, I will contextualise the field in which this practice and research are situated.

Distinguishing youth arts from youth development and studio learning from arts education

Following my more than a decade-long collaborative arts practice with young creatives and an extensive review of the theoretical field, I have come to understand youth arts as a practice and activity that focuses on young artists and the establishment of their artistic careers. A practice the National Youth Council of Ireland describes as voluntary and self-directed, specifically focusing on creative expression and artistic intent.[5] I have come to understand youth development[6] as a practice and activity that focuses on young people in general and their health and wellbeing. A practice that arts educator Anna Hickey-Moody notes is not always voluntary and is commonly distinguished by organised participation.[7] The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria points out that youth development  focuses on a young person’s overall development and their involvement in society in general.[8] The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria further notes that while youth development activities encourage young people to participate in decision-making processes on issues that affect them, these issues are generally centred around ideas of community citizenship, education, health and personal development.[9] The result of my review of the literature around youth engagement in general has led me to conclude that even when youth development programs are arts-centred, artistic goals are secondary to health and welfare goals. This developmental focus even characterises many youth arts practices. In contrast, tbC’s youth arts model has a dedicated arts focus that explicitly advances creative practices and pathways.

In a similar vein, I have come to understand arts education as a school-based pedagogy driven by a prescribed curriculum. Like youth development, it is more formal, structured and adult-led. In contrast, I have come to understand studio-based learning as a voluntary, self-organising, informal, and often collaborative activity focused on the development of creative practices and pathways. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s Institute for Lifelong Learning supports this understanding, describing studio-based learning as a practice outside formal organisational or institutional settings.[10] Educator William Charland notes that studio-based learning is also often rooted in apprenticeship models or mentoring relationships.[11] Educational philosophers Franz Cizek and John Dewey describe studio-based learning as self-directed[12] and learner-centred experiences.[13] Linguist Shirley Brice Heath and educator David Kolb respectively describe studio-based learning as creative[14] and experiential.[15] Educator and philosopher Paulo Freire describes informal learning environments, like that of the artist’s studio, as having less structured curricula, where dialogue and conversation innately guide cooperative activities and outcomes.[16] As already signposted, dialogical practices significantly define tbC’s artmaking environment and will continue to be a key discussion point throughout this artistic inquiry.

While the descriptions I have given for youth arts, youth development, studio-based learning and arts education are distinguishable, in practice, they are often conflated and used interchangeably. My research challenges this conflation and confusion, especially the tendency to use youth arts as a mode of redemption and self-improvement.[17] In my experience, one also echoed by Hickey-Moody, confusing or conflating such terms and activities can lead to clichéd representations of youth-as-marginalised or youth-in-need-of-improvement, as well as politically and pedagogically conservative artistic practices and outcomes.[18] Instead of mobilising the arts to save or improve the lives of young people and society as a whole, the model I am embedded in and examining mobilises the benefits dedicated creative goals and activities have on young artists and their artistic practices and careers.

Of course, when connected with youth development and arts education, a youth arts practice can achieve combined aesthetic, educational and social outcomes of value. I am not advocating that these value systems necessarily need to oppose one another. I argue that youth arts practice is overly skewed toward formal educational, social governance and policy goals that associate the practice with improvement, outreach, risk mitigation, and social cohesion.[19] I further argue that an over-emphasis on educational, outreach and/or ameliorative activities and outcomes within youth arts can result in what educator Helen Cahill describes as a fundamentally disabling experience for young artists.[20] tbC artists talk about this disabling experience in the studio and how they often feel stigmatised and marginalised by the health and welfare centred goals of youth development programs and overwhelmed by the formal educational goals of arts pedagogy. This study examines this experience and suggests that if we are to benefit from the creative potential of youth arts practice, we need to work beyond what Cahill refers to as traditional modes of provider/recipient that underpin the majority of youth development programming,[21] arts education and even youth arts programming. This research aims to present a model of youth arts practice that champions a more autonomous aesthetic for youth arts.

Philosopher T. J. Diffey’s writing around aesthetic autonomy helps me frame this argument for a more autonomous aesthetic for youth arts. Diffey defines aesthetic autonomy as an aesthetic appreciation that is unconditional or intrinsic in character and an experience independent from anything other than itself, measured by the pleasure, delight and enjoyment it brings.[22] Diffey’s counter-concept, aesthetic instrumentalism, describes an appreciation for how art fulfils social and/or political functions - measured by the contribution art makes to human welfare.[23] Aesthetic instrumentalism arguably describes a youth development model, one that is more interested in practices that benefit the general health and wellbeing of a person and/or community. tbC’s youth arts model corresponds with Diffey’s conceptualisation of an aesthetically autonomous practice.

In further championing the argument for more aesthetic autonomy within the field of youth arts, I also call upon the writings of literary theorist Terry Eagleton. Although Eagleton acknowledges that the discussion around aesthetic autonomy and aesthetic instrumentalism is at times contradictory,[24] he also acknowledges that an autonomous aesthetic practice can be a “genuinely emancipatory force.”[25] At tbC, we often talk about the emancipatory concept of an art-for-arts-sake approach to creative practice and how this early nineteenth-century philosophy (and its emphasis on the value of art as separate from didactic, political or utilitarian functions)[26] liberates young artists from the aforementioned marginalisation, stigmatisation and/or amelioration.

While I characterise tbC’s arts model as aesthetically autonomous, I haven’t overlooked the ‘body politic’ associated with the group’s social action agenda around the building of artistic agency and status. The body politic is an ancient metaphor, originating more than twenty-five centuries ago, connecting notions of the state, society and institutions to the concept of the body, unified by their connected parts.[27] The concept of a body politic is often associated with aesthetic instrumentalism through the functional construction and empowerment of a collective identity.[28] The idea of a unified social purpose or action can be a powerful form of advocacy. I acknowledge that tbC’s collaborative approach to the positioning of the young artist is tied to an underlying social action agenda that asserts a new agency and status for young artists. However, the success of tbC’s collaborative arts action is primarily the result of a collective and dedicated arts practice that advocates for the intrinsic value of art and aesthetic expression and experience. While the fulfilment of functional or instrumental social values may well be a natural by-product of artistic practice, this is not tbC’s primary focus or goal. I refer to the West Australian Academy of Performing Arts’ graduate dance company LINK and its 2019 dance suite titled The Body Politic as an example of the prioritising of aesthetic autonomy. LINK’s artistic director Michael Whaites points out that despite presenting the quasi-political message that “collectively we are powerful,”[29] the intrinsic value of the dance suite is primarily found within its aesthetic expression and experience.[30]

In exploring the aesthetic benefits of a dedicated youth arts practice, I draw on Hickey-Moody’s conceptualisation of aesthetic citizenship. While this conceptualisation emerges within the context of arts education,[31] Hickey-Moody’s points are relevant to my earlier argument (supported by Cahill) that an over-emphasis on educational, outreach and/or ameliorative activities and outcomes can result in a fundamentally disabling experience for young artists.[32] Hickey-Moody acknowledges that while art practices can mediate young people’s experiences of community citizenship, as well as community perceptions of youth in general, the focus on socio-cultural practice and outcomes ahead of aesthetic ones can be disabling and diminish the intrinsic value of a youth arts practice. Hickey-Moody goes as far as to argue that when youth arts practices and programming focus on aesthetic sensibilities ahead of institutionalized forms of social organization,[33] through the dedicated process of making and consuming art, empowering forms of aesthetic citizenship emerge.”[34]

This investigation troubles the disproportionate engagement of youth arts as a model of diversion, redemption and/or self-improvement.[35] It presents tbC’s collaborative youth arts practice as an example of the independent aesthetic function of youth arts and the emancipatory value aesthetic autonomy delivers. It also demonstrates how the articulation of an autonomous youth arts voice is constituted through the building of aesthetic citizenship.

This focus doesn’t negate or refute what former Australia Council CEO Tony Grybowski refers to as the essential role the arts play in building social cohesion and healthy, inclusive communities,[36] nor the role formal arts education plays in the lives of young people in general and our wider communities. The distinction this investigation makes is that tbC sees these qualities and benefits as naturally occurring during artistic practice and that they don’t always need to be emphasised. These naturally occurring qualities and benefits are echoed in a witty poem written by one of tbC’s founding members Jacqui, in which she reflects on the underlying health and welfare benefits naturally associated with tbC’s youth arts practice.[37]

Interestingly, a colleague once advised me while I was preparing an arts funding application that tbC doesn’t need to do and be everything to all young people.[38] This advice was liberating and encouraged tbC to focus on what we were good at – artmaking and presenting. This focus means that instead of serving all young people and their needs in general, tbC can firmly position itself as a youth arts project that supports young artists and their artistic development.

A common sentiment expressed in the studio by tbC artists is that the focus on dedicated arts practice and aesthetic outcomes makes tbC different from other youth (arts) programs and that this is what attracts and sustains their membership – in many cases for several years. Young artists also remark during these regular discussions that they find the focus on their education, health, and wellbeing ahead of their artistic talents and needs annoying. They argue that when engaging in youth arts programs, they prefer to focus on pursuing creative goals and activities that have dedicated artistic intentions and outcomes. These discussions are documented throughout the companion website that accompanies this dissertation. They are also part of the dialogical content of many artworks made by the group, including three of the four case studies at the centre of this investigation. Rosie’s story specifically demonstrates why tbC has actively built a youth arts model with a dedicated arts focus and why it distinguishes itself from outreach, formal education, community arts, and other youth arts practices.[39]

Three examples from the youth arts sector further demonstrate the conflation between youth arts, youth development and arts education. This comparative analysis points out that while these examples describe successful arts projects involving young people, not all of these young people are artists, and in each case, the projects conflate the concept of youth arts with youth development and/or arts education.

The Artful Dodges Studio is a twenty-five-year-old Melbourne-based community cultural development program that engages at-risk young people between fifteen and twenty-seven in art and music-making.[40] Although situated within a social service and registered training environment auspiced by Jesuit Social Services, the group strongly emphasises artistic excellence and professional practice.[41] This aligns with tbC’s interest in artistic excellence and professional practice. The way young people at Artful Dodgers Studio can freely choose the artistic projects they want to participate in is also comparable to tbC’s informal engagement model. Furthermore, like tbC, the Artful Dodgers Studio is not a “linear, stepping-stone model where young people are forced to acquit themselves within strict timelines, defined aspirations or set program choices.”[42] However, despite these similarities and the fact that the group’s artistic programming and outcomes are sophisticated and respected by the arts community (bringing the work of largely unseen or undervalued artists to the wider public’s attention) the model overtly reaches out to and characterises members as at-risk. What also distinguishes the two groups is the fact that tbC’s governance is entirely member-driven with no institutional oversight.

Dublin’s Rialto Youth Project is like tbC in that it is a more than decade-long collaborative arts practice committed to the durational and professional development of young people. However, like the Artful Dodgers Studio, the Rialto Youth Project is first and foremostly a community development and youth support program,[43] albeit one with a strong artistic focus (visual and performative). Rialto Youth Project’s mission includes the social and cultural development of young people at risk and the communities in which they live. Furthermore, like the Artful Dodgers Studio, Rialto Youth Project’s governance is supported by a board of adult directors and a range of community and local youth authorities and services, such as Fatima Mansions (a public housing complex in Rialto, Dublin), Dolphin House (a Dublin council estate) and other forms of regional, city-wide and national affiliations. Rialto Youth Project also offers creative engagement opportunities to young people in general, as opposed to young artists. While tbC also has an interest in social change, the key difference between the two groups is that for Rialto Youth Project, social change practices include broader social, wellbeing and educational goals - whereas, at tbC, social change practices are specifically focused on the development of artistic agency and status.

Tim Rollins and K.O.S. is an over thirty-year-old collaborative arts practice based in New York City. Despite Rollins’ sudden death in 2017, the group is still operating, reimagined by a group of founding members as Studio K.O.S. While the group focuses on aesthetic practice and presentation (specifically the visual arts), the welfare and education of K.O.S. members was its founding principle.[44] Rollins, an artist-teacher, initiated the group as a creative after school remedial reading class involving students from a New York City school based in the Bronx. The social and educational inequities and welfare issues of the young students Rollins was teaching significantly inspired the group’s development.[45] Furthermore, while this model of practice has led to Tim Rollins and K.O.S. receiving significant artistic agency and status, this is in part due to the established artistic profile of Rollins himself and the direct access he had to the artworld.[46] The attribution Rollins gives himself in the group’s name also establishes and maintains his lead artist status. I discuss this latter point in more detail in Chapter Three, especially in relation to the way tbC has, in contrast, developed multi-artist-led governance and operation. However, it must be said that Tim Rollins and K.O.S. is the most like tbC’s model, with its focus on the visual arts and its interest in the “development of a high level of artistic sophistication”[47] aimed at supporting young artists in building artistic agency and status. The group’s dedicated arts focus and bold commitment to “dare to make history when you are young...”[48] are acknowledged as significant reasons for their notoriety and development of genuine artistic agency and status.

Although similar, these three examples are more programmed, adult-led, and outreach-driven than tbC, albeit to differing degrees. What ultimately distinguishes tbC from these comparative youth arts and engagement models is that tbC does not engage in outreach and is more self-determined and youth-led. This investigation demonstrates how tbC’s arts model addresses the young artists’ creative needs and aspirations ahead of their general health, wellbeing and formal educational needs and how this supports the building of artistic agency and status. Young members often remark in the studio that they choose to participate in tbC’s model of arts practice because of this focus. While the relational aspects of collaborative arts practice are an important part of the inviting studio culture at tbC, member artists often comment on how the focus on professional arts practice is implicitly nurturing and that they respect the model for not stigmatising them by focusing on their personal life or romanticising the positive outcomes the model indirectly has on their education, health and wellbeing.

tbC is also completely autonomous, with no organisational or institutional affiliations or restrictions. Membership and ‘events of the day’ drive the group’s practices and outcomes. This independent, flexible modus operandi keeps the group fresh, responsive and relevant. Even the modest (mostly local government) funding that sustains tbC’s practice is secured based on this autonomy. While engaging and sustaining young members and audiences is a key criterion of youth (arts) funding, funders have come to appreciate the success tbC’s autonomous and dedicated arts model has had in achieving this engagement without overtly focusing on youth development and formal education practices. Many funders reach out to us unprompted, inviting us to bring tbC’s youth arts model to their youth communities.[49] This desire for and trust in tbC’s autonomous and dedicated youth arts model and the flexible funding partnerships that result help the group maintain its core artistic goals and aspirations.

Community sport presents an excellent example of the positive balancing act that can be achieved between institutional programming/funding and an autonomous and dedicated practice model. Group sporting activities are a well-established youth engagement and development tool and highly regarded and attended by young people. I would argue that the main reason for this high regard and attendance is because the outreach goals of the model are not overstated. Instead, the model focuses on attracting young people to the game, skills practice and team building. In this case, the focus on physical activity, game playing, sporting skills and teamwork (as opposed to outreach strategies and activities) attracts and builds sustained participation and membership. I speak from experience here, as I have two sons who have been inspired by and engaged in the community-based sports model for more than fifteen years. They talk plainly about how the focus on the game, the team and the club are the motivating forces behind their ongoing interest in this sports model.[50]

Like Argentine writer and youth theatre director María Inés Falconi, this investigation contends that young people’s capacity to engage with art (in Falconi’s case, theatre) in a way that does not include an overt message or lesson is underestimated and that too often we try to develop and educate young people rather than allow the aesthetic function of creativity to stand as an independent artistic practice and outcome. It further contends that the focus on formal education and personal development within youth arts practice can distance the work from art.[51]

The comparative examples of collaborative youth arts practice and the sporting analogy I have presented in this section will be explored further (along with others) throughout this dissertation - especially in relation to the concept of artist-run governance, the reciprocal nature of mentoring and tbC’s overall artistic and youth-driven foundations and principles.

Contradictory youth discourse restricting agency and status

Giroux argues that young people are often caught in contradictory discourses that, on the one hand, celebrate them as symbols of hope for the future and, on the other, reproach them for being a threat to social order.[52] This investigation proposes that this contradictory youth discourse marginalises young artists, devalues their creative potential and limits their capacity to build artistic agency and status – thus restricting their “representational status as [aesthetic] citizens.”[53] Like Griffin, this investigation challenges societal tendencies to view youth as a troubled subculture, categorised by hormonal upheavals, rituals and cultural practices associated with the rites of passage from child to adult.[54] It argues that, in the case of tbC, this narrow view of young people obscures and restricts creative potential and limits a young artist’s capacity to build artistic agency and status.

Sociologist Colin Campbell defines agency as the capacity to act independently of structural constraints and to make free choices.[55] Cultural theorist Chris Barker argues that the structural constraints societies naturally build can limit the capacity to act. He includes class, religion, gender, ethnicity, ability and customs as key structural constraints.[56] Considering the context of this research, I would add age to this list.

Status is broadly understood as an individual’s position or professional standing within a (social) hierarchy, resulting from accumulated acts of deference (respect and esteem).[57] Sociologists Michael Sauder, Freda Lynn and Joel Podolny talk about how the building and effects of status are determined by the degree of deference one receives.[58] Other sociologists like Paul Munroe and Emile Benoit-Smullyan talk about deference as the granting of influence and esteem to one another[59] and how approval, prestige and power[60] are important to building this deference or status.[61]

Anthropologist Linton Ralph describes two main kinds of status: ascribed and achieved. He defines ascribed status as one’s position in a social structure that is neither earned nor chosen but assigned, such as gender, ethnicity and age.[62] He describes achieved status as a position in a social structure that is earned or chosen, such as a profession/occupation, relationship status, hobbies or pursuits.[63] This research demonstrates how tbC’s united front approach to making and presenting art positions young artists’ work ahead of their ascribed youth status and emerging identities and how this supports the development of an earlier achieved status.

Building agency and status is a cumulative process, developing over time and with concerted effort. Young artists often lack confidence due to the limited (durational) opportunities they have to make and present art. tbC members often talk in the studio about how empowering regular practice is and how presenting to audiences who view and critique the work the group makes builds confidence, recognition and respect that leads to the building of an artistic reputation. tbC’s more than a decade-long record of practice and presentation provides a platform for young artists to springboard from. The case study analysis ahead will explore the cumulative agency and status this durational and dedicated arts practice seems to have built at tbC and how this might present a significant reason for how and why tbC’s model of collaborative arts and joint authorship is so empowering for its participants. It will also examine the proposition that durational group practice delivers exponential benefits to member artists and the idea that tbC’s growing visibility and reputation may have developed an artistic power base from which expanding artistic agency and status are achieved.

tbC’s collaborative arts and joint authorship practice support young artists in a continuous and committed way, creating time and space for the possibility of agency and status to develop.[64] The past thirteen years of arts practice at tbC has resulted in a real sense of achieved status amongst artist members, something we all talk about in the studio and routinely attribute to the group’s dedicated and durational collaborative arts and joint authorship model. For us, artistic agency emerges with confidence from regular and ongoing creative group practice and presentation. This research explores the idea that heightened recognition and respect may result from this consolidated creative group practice and presentation, delivering artistic agency and status that arguably could not have been built as quickly or successfully when working alone. Young tbC artists often talk about this during studio conversations. Many examples of this thinking can be found in the in-practice dialogues[65] housed within the companion website that accompanies this dissertation.

There are, however, limited opportunities for young creatives to engage in dedicated studio-based art practices like tbC. This makes it difficult for other young creatives to achieve the kind of artistic agency and status tbC artists are building, especially when burdened with the aforementioned contradictions, prejudices and marginalisation. While arts training is available to secondary and tertiary students, this training is often highly structured and based on predetermined curriculums and formal assessments. Young artists at tbC often describe curriculum-based arts learning and training as too formal and restrictive, as evidenced by young tbC artist Joseph. Again, while this research doesn’t advocate replacing one model with another, it does argue that there aren’t enough studio-based art programs for young artists to engage in alongside traditional youth development and arts education models.

The youth sports analogy is particularly relevant again here. Young people and children have many opportunities to practice sport and acquire skills that set up early sporting career pathways. Again, my personal experience supports this assertion. My two sons have enjoyed the benefits of early sports training and practice. My eldest son has gone on to build an early professional soccer coaching career with one of Melbourne’s national soccer clubs and a key outer-suburban club. My youngest son is sporty and artistic and often compares the many choices he has to engage in dedicated sports training with the limited opportunities he has to engage in dedicated arts training. tbC member Rohan has also commented on this. As a talented footballer, illustrator and street artist, Rohan often compares the unlimited opportunities he has to train as a footballer with the limited opportunities he has to train as an artist.

I have also observed that the youth sports model encourages durational practice and supports emerging sporting talent for extended periods of time – even years. As a result, young sportspeople have opportunities to lead and direct teams and clubs, with many taking on governance, coaching and umpiring roles alongside sports mentors. This kind of respect, recognition and support for emerging sports talent is significant. Many young people (some as young as six years of age) are accessing dedicated and durational sports training that delivers them a sporting status well beyond their ascribed youth status.

tbC focuses on young artists’ passion for artmaking, just as the community sports model focuses on the young sportsperson’s passion for sport. tbC views its youth arts model as just as significant a community asset as a youth sports model. Inspiring more dedicated art studios[66] is a key objective of tbC’s practice and this research around it. This underlying social action agenda will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

A gap in longitudinal research around youth arts

There is an abundance of research around young people in general and their developmental needs.[67] This research is frequently longitudinal, the benefits of which can be seen in the repeated and verifiable data that durational investigations deliver. There are many examples of youth development programming both here in Australia and around the world.[68] In reviewing the field and some of the key literature around youth development, a range of prominent themes emerged, including how youth development programs help young people become more competent, engaged and responsible citizens;[69] the positive impact adult and peer relationships have on young people’s development of life skills, learning and community participation;[70] the social, educational and employment benefits of youth development programming;[71] the way youth development programs support the in-between state of adolescence and adult-hood;[72] the positive impacts out-of-school and community-based youth programming has on the development of young people in general[73] and the positive outcomes youth development specifically has on young people’s health and wellbeing.[74] This survey has confirmed my understanding that research around young people predominantly focuses on young people’s social, cultural and educational growth. This focus is qualified by academics like Joanna Wyn and Robert White, as well as Hickey-Moody, who also notes that an overemphasis on these factors can marginalise young people.[75]

In contrast to the abundance of literature focusing on youth development and education, I found limited research (especially longitudinal) around the practices of young artists and how they are supported, especially in the case of the visual and experimental arts. The less frequent (longitudinal) research around youth arts and young artists can be attributed to what Hickey-Moody refers to as limited medium to long-term funding and the pragmatic and logistical difficulties associated with examining durational artistic practices and shifting youth populations[76] - the nuances of which I have come to understand throughout tbC’s more than a decade-long practice.

During my review of the limited literature around youth arts, I found a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that focuses on the benefits of arts programs in communities.[77] What was interesting about this report was the fact that it advised that “longitudinal studies of program outcomes would help to capture and assess the magnitude of those benefits that appear to take longer to form than the average funding cycle allows.”[78] The use of the word ‘would’ reinforces the argument that there is currently not enough longitudinal research around youth arts and that more would be of benefit.

The University of Melbourne’s Youth Research Centre at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education supports longitudinal research around young people. Yet, the focus is still on understanding and improving young people’s learning, participation and wellbeing.[79] Again, the lens and language focus on young people in general and their social, health and educational agency and status.

My literature review did reveal more frequent research around young people and the performing arts, which could be the result of a growing (youth) rights-based culture,[80] especially noticeable within youth theatre-making - Theatre for the Oppressed being a particularly good example.[81] The term rights-based is often used within the context of this form of youth theatre-making and is defined with the help of institutions, sectors and practitioners who align youth practices with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[82] Rights-based youth theatre-making challenges dominant views of children and young people as vulnerable and in need of protection and commits to removing the barriers to fuller creative participation and recognition. This progressive approach resists practices that result in the stigmatisation, marginalisation and/or amelioration of young theatre-makers. This growing culture of rights-based youth theatre-making supports what artist-researcher and educator Natasha Budd describes as practices that are successfully shifting the field’s dominant developmental focus to an ethos of artistic agency and status for young people.[83] Budd makes this comment in relation to her own experience as a theatre-maker and academic within the child/youth theatre-making sector. Through her work, she proposes a model of practice that moves beyond participant empowerment toward a more dynamic understanding of the creative processes that see adults and children working together to create mainstream artistic products, which she argues leads to more authentic theatre-making practices with children and young people.[84]

tbC’s model of collaborative arts and joint authorship aims to support young artists in seeking similar access to the gamut of artistic practice and expression and the rights to the artistic agency and status this fuller artistic practice and expression delivers. However, an equally in-depth review of the visual and experimental arts field has revealed limited examples of dedicated youth arts practices like tbC and little research around such. This suggests that the aesthetic citizenship of young visual and experimental artists is not sufficiently supported and/or adequately recognised. This reinforces my argument that the articulation of a youth arts voice and the development of aesthetic citizenship amongst young visual and experimental artists is under-valued, under-supported and, by default, under-researched.[85]

This investigation highlights that even when practices and research around young people and youth arts claim to focus on the arts, there is still the tendency to value the developmental benefits of arts practice over the aesthetic benefits. A range of Australian studies evidence this persistent focus on education, health and wellbeing.[86] For example, even the most recent (of four) Australia Council Arts Participation Surveys reports how significant and valuable the arts are to making young people stronger and the communities they live in more cohesive.[87] Like much of the research around youth arts, these reports focus on art and creativity's value on educational, social and community development.[88] This investigation argues that there is a distinct lack of research specifically related to the benefits and intrinsic value a dedicated arts practice brings young creatives. 

I did find some significant research around young people and their attendance at art events and programming. One of the aforementioned Australia Council Arts Participation Surveys (the 2020 report) confirms that young Australians strongly participate in and avidly attend creative programming.[89] The report indicates that young Australians value the arts and are highly engaged, with four in five of those aged fifteen to twenty-four attending arts events and activities, two in three creatively participating in them and four in ten giving their time or money to the arts in general.[90] However, while repeatedly acknowledging the benefits of arts participation and attendance and the fact that young people are vital to the future of Australia’s cultural success, there is minimal reporting on how Australia is specifically supporting current and future young artists in the artmaking at the centre of these artistic events and activities. Despite stating that ninety-one percent of young Australians aged fifteen to twenty-four recognise the positive impact of arts and creativity in their lives and communities,[91] there is less clarity around how we provide young artists with the resources and spaces within which to build and sustain the practices behind these artistic events and activities.

The National Youth Arts Summit 2016,[92] presented by the Australia Council for the Arts, resulted in a report that listed “key research and data about children, young people and the arts.”[93] However, yet again, the examples listed mainly highlight the benefits of arts practice on the education, health and wellbeing of young people and communities in general.[94] The report acknowledged this[95] and the fact that this made it difficult to draw causal inferences from the data because of a lack of high-quality studies that specifically report on the artistic benefits of dedicated youth art practices.[96] The report encouraged Youth Arts Summit participants and the sector in general to submit new research that contributes to closing this gap.[97]

West Melbourne’s Western Edge Youth Arts has also produced some innovative research around young people and the arts, working in partnership with the University of Melbourne and Deakin University, publishing peer-reviewed articles and chapters in national and international books and journals. These research endeavours focus on “innovative qualitative research based on the important principle that young people should be able to define their experience of and learning in the arts on their own terms.”[98] However, this research is still primarily focused on how youth arts builds stronger, healthier, more connected and inclusive communities,[99] leaving room for more research that focuses on the benefits youth arts practice has on aesthetic enjoyment and the preparation of creative pathways.

Data resulting from Arts Front’s Under 30 Symposium (2018)[100] proved more useful to this investigation. Still, again this symposium focused more on the benefits arts practice has on the education, health and wellbeing of young people and communities and was not explicit enough about the artistic benefits of youth arts practices. However, what was most interesting about this symposium was Arts Front Symposium organiser Sara Strachan’s argument that the lack of specifically arts-focused research around youth arts stems from the fact that young people increasingly report being locked out of the arts sector in Australia and that “very few young people are included in conversations that steer the direction of the Arts industry.”[101] Arts Front is an Australian four-year arts sector visioning project (2017-2020) supported by Feral Arts (a national community arts and cultural development service) and the Australia Council for the Arts. It has been researching how arts practitioners, organisations and institutions can shape the future of culture and the arts in Australia, specifically focusing on how young artists aren’t currently but can be involved in this visioning. This aspiration and Strachan’s comment are hopefully the beginning of a new momentum in research that focuses on amplifying the young artists’ voice and more targeted research around the artistic benefits youth arts can deliver.

International perspectives also reflect the disproportionate focus on youth development, even within the field of youth arts. An example being Helen Jermyn’s review prepared for the Arts Council of England titled The Arts and Social Exclusion. During this review, Jermyn reflects on the popular governmental approach to youth arts, which focuses on the engagement of the arts to support education, mental health, social cohesion, the reduction of offending behaviour, and even the rehabilitation of young offenders.[102] Again, the links between the arts, social cohesion and education are reinforced. A more recent UK report in the form of a literature review produced by Connected Communities[103] explores how artists work in communities to help build social cohesion and bring diverse forms of knowledge to the surface.[104] Yet again, “[t]his literature review specifically considers the use of arts methodologies for social cohesion.”[105] These examples testify to the argument that research and practice around youth development and even youth arts focus on the development or engagement of young people in general and that this focus invariably centres around educational, social and welfare drivers and activities. Even the OECD’s (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation’s comprehensive review titled Arts for Art’s Sake (2013) focuses on the educational, behavioural and social impact of arts education.[106] It did, however, briefly acknowledge the benefits of critical and creative thinking and noted that the “main impact of the arts is in arts specific skills such as arts practice, observation, exploration, persistence, expression, collaboration and reflection.”[107]

One of the key actions of this investigation is to highlight the fact that while social service and educational programming facilitate the positive development of young people in general, their community citizenship and the articulation of a youth voice, it doesn’t adequately support the development of young artists, the articulation of a youth arts voice or the constitution of aesthetic citizenship.[108]  The conflation of youth arts, youth development and arts education means that youth arts programming is often driven by outreach, public policy, educational and community health and wellbeing goals and activities. This is borne out by my experience with local, state and national government arts funding programs over the past decade. Funding for youth arts projects, especially community-based ones, is generally contingent on explicit educational, health and wellbeing activities, benefits and outcomes. This research highlights and addresses the fact that there is less funding, research and practice that specifically focuses on the aesthetic benefits of youth arts.

The Australia Council’s ArtStart grant scheme is an interesting exception, of which tbC was a recipient in 2013. (The grant scheme ended in the wake of the 2014 national arts funding cuts). ArtStart was conceived in 2009 “to provide financial assistance for young artists wanting to establish a career as a professional artist.”[109] ArtStart recipients were allowed to use the $10,000 grant to fund artistic services, resources, skill development and equipment to help establish an income-generating career in a chosen artform. To be eligible, applicants needed to show a commitment to building a career as a creative practitioner. They also needed to present a viable plan outlining their proposed ArtStart activities, demonstrating their artistic potential and commitment to their chosen field. Instead of stipulating customary developmental and/or community and cultural goals and outcomes, the grant encouraged the demonstration of artistic practice, potential and display.[110] tbC used its ArtStart grant to fund a studio space, purchase art materials and produce and present artwork during 2013/14. Member artists found the experience and the focus on artmaking and display extremely validating.

While this investigation acknowledges that participation in the arts supports and improves young people’s health, education and wellbeing[111] and dramatically adds to the quality of a young person’s life,[112] this research focuses on the aesthetic values and benefits of youth arts practice. It argues there are few examples of practices and research around youth arts models that are driven by dedicated creative activity, which operate outside formal educational, behavioural, health and welfare programs and which specifically advance artistic agency and status. It further argues that most youth arts programming persists in employing youth engagement and development strategies in conjunction with artistic ones. This invariably means that the artistic goals and outcomes are a secondary priority. Instead of practicing and theorising youth arts as a method and model of community citizenship, tbC and this research advances the practice and theorising of youth arts as a method and model of aesthetic citizenship.

As noted earlier, my investigation did reveal more frequent literature around youth theatre and performing arts. However, this research still disproportionately focuses on the impact youth theatre and performing arts has on young people's personal, educational and social development and, by default, the wider community. (The earlier example, Theatre of the Oppressed being an exception). Such examples include Jenny Hughes, Karen Wilson and Michael Richardson’s research around how taking part in youth theatre positively contributes to young people’s personal and social development and transition from childhood to adulthood;[113]  Lori Hager’s critique of the ideological underpinnings of government policy related to theatre and the way it demonstrates how political, economic and social agendas shape and justify the role of (youth) theatre and legitimise it via its social service practices and outcomes;[114] and Kathleen Gallagher and David Booth’s theorising around how youth theatre can be an educative force.[115]

Examples of more aesthetically focused research within the youth theatre and the performing arts sector are less frequent. Still, they include Rachel Turner-King’s research around collaborative co-creation with young performers[116] and Thomas Barone’s focus on artful research around youth theatre and performance.[117] While Barone’s research is also educationally focused, sitting somewhere in the middle of the arts/arts education research continuum, it does critique the common marginalising practices inherent in youth development and champions the concept of aesthetic citizenship for young people.[118]

Adding to this more prevalent research around youth theatre and performing arts are the many standout examples of youth theatre practices. Australian examples include Sydney’s Australian Theatre for Young People and Powerhouse Youth Theatre; South Australia’s Carclew Youth Arts and South Australian Youth Arts; Melbourne’s St Martins Youth Arts Centre, Western Edge Youth Arts and Riotstage; ACT’s Canberra Youth Theatre; Queensland’s Backbone Youth Arts; Northern Territory’s Corrugated Iron Youth Arts and Tasmania’s Launceston Youth Theatre Ensemble. There are also many international examples. Key ones being London’s National Youth Theatre and Southwark Youth Theatre; Irelands Kildare Youth Theatre; Germany’s Berlin International Youth Theatre; Singapore’s Buds Theatre; Chile’s La Resentida and America’s Young Americans’ Theatre Company.

A possible reason for the limited longitudinal research and practice around the visual and experimental youth arts could be the fact that these practices are not as commonly positioned as collaborative or ensemble-based, as is the case of the performing arts.[119] Having said this, the visual and experimental arts are becoming more collaborative and, to a degree, even ensemble-based as in the case of tbC. The rise of the artist-run initiative is also supporting more ensemble-style visual and experimental arts practices, which I discuss in detail in Chapter Three. Despite these developments, this trend is arguably underexplored. I will discuss the concept of ensemble-based practice in relation to tbC’s collaborative youth arts model in more detail in Chapters Three and Four.

I did find some useful research material from a range of conferences held around the world that focus on contemporary artistic practice with and by young artists. I attended several (and presented at some) of these and have built a supportive academic community around my practice and research (particularly in the UK). This academic community is actively documenting, mainly via conferences, a range of arts-based research around youth arts practice. I regard this academic community as a valuable source of contemporary artistic inquiry. The most interesting and useful conference I attended was Practice and Power 2018, hosted by Create Ireland as part of the 2015-2018 Collaborative Arts Partnership Program – a transnational cultural program focusing on collaborative and socially engaged arts practice, often with young people.[120] I was particularly interested in the way this program and conference focused on “critically engag[ing] with questions of negotiation, power and representation in collaborative arts practice”[121] and how other (youth) arts projects and practices were exploring these questions.

I met Heart of Glass during the conference, an English collaborative and social arts agency based in St Helens, Merseyside. Heart of Glass focuses on “building communities of inquiry, in sharing skills and experience and placing art in direct interaction with all areas of life.”[122] They work extensively with young creatives, engaging them in dynamic and ambitious inquiry-led collaborations.[123] Another good example is Britain’s Live Art Development Agency (LADA). LADA works extensively with young artists and is interested in supporting “contemporary culture’s most radical and inventive artists, practices and ideas.”[124] What particularly interests me about LADA is the way they “champion new ways of working; legitimise unclassifiable artforms; record untold histories and support the agency of underrepresented artists.”[125] Both Heart of Glass and LADA are distinctive because of their upfront focus on dedicated and collaborative arts practice instead of an upfront focus on outreach, wellbeing and education.

In summary, this chapter has defined the overarching concepts of youth and youth culture and established clear distinctions between youth development, arts education and youth arts. These definitions and distinctions are important within the overarching goal of tbC’s practice and this research around it, as they actively position tbC as a dedicated youth arts practice and this investigation firmly within youth arts scholarship. This chapter also highlights a disproportionate focus on youth development rather than youth expression and champions the idea that the intrinsic value and inherent benefits of arts practice should be valued in and of themselves rather than as a means towards something else.[126] The fact that this examination has revealed limited examples of dedicated youth arts practice and limited scholarship around such means this research has the potential to make an important contribution to the field.

The next chapter examines the methodological scope of artistic research, making a case for the adoption of a research-creation methodology. It describes the methodology in detail and explains how and why research-creation best fits this investigation.

[1] William Charland, “The Youth Arts Apprenticeship Movement: A New Twist on an Historical Practice,” Art Education 58, no. 5 (2005): 39, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043125.2005.11651560.
[2] “Definition of Youth,” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, accessed November 3, 2018, https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-definition.pdf.
[3] See for example, Australian Government. National Strategy for Young Australians (Canberra: Australian Government, 2010), 2, https://www.youthpolicy.org/national/Australia_2010_National_Youth_Strategy.pdf; Australia Council for the Arts, Arts Participation Survey (Canberra: Australian Government, 2009, 2013, 2017), https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/news/media-centre/media-releases/connecting-australians-the-national-arts-participation-survey/; “About us,” Youth Central. State Government of Victoria, accessed 4 May 2019, https://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/; “Are you 12 to 25?,” Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, accessed 20 June 2019, https://www.yacvic.org.au/; “Age Standard,” Australian Bureau of Statistics, published March 11, 2014, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/age-standard/latest-release; “National Youth Week,” Youth Coalition of the ACT, accessed 3 August 2019, https://www.youthcoalition.net/national-youth-week/.
[4]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Young Australians: Their Health and Wellbeing 2007 – Part 1 (Canberra: Australian Government, 2017), 1, https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/288c1939-a365-433d-a0a1-c7a4e1a83e99/yathaw07-c01.pdf.aspx.
[5] “Youth Arts,” National Youth Council of Ireland, accessed August 3, 2019, https://www.youth.ie/programmes/youth-arts/.
[6] Similar terms for youth development include youth engagement, mainly used in Australia; and youth participation, youth governance, youth voice and youth empowerment, mainly used in North America. See for example, “Principles of Positive Youth Development,” ACT for Youth Centre of Excellence USA, accessed October 2, 2020, http://actforyouth.net/youth_development/development/; Stephen F. Hamilton, Mary Agnes Hamilton and Karen Pittman, eds. “Principles for Youth Development,” in The Youth Development Handbook: Coming of Age in American Communities (California:  Sage Publications, 2004), 10; John Muncie, Gordon Hughes and Eugene McLaughlin, eds. Youth Justice: Critical Readings (California: Sage Publications, 2002).
[7] Anna Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education: Reassembling Subjectivity through Affect (Abingdon: Taylor Francis, 2013), 3.
[8] “Youth Participation,” Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, accessed October 27, 2018, https://www.yacvic.org.au/training-and-resources/youth-participation/.
[9] Ibid.
[10] “Promoting Lifelong Learning for All,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Institute for Lifelong Learning, accessed October 14, 2019, https://uil.unesco.org/.
[11] William Charland, “The Youth Arts Apprenticeship Movement,” 40-41.
[12] Peter Smith, “Franz Cizek: The Patriarch,” Art Education 38, no. 2 (1985): 28 – 31, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043125.1985.11649668.
[13] A system of instruction based on a student’s individual choices, interests, needs, abilities, learning styles and educational goals that encourages students to construct meaning and understanding at all stages of the learning process. As noted in Kaya Yilmaz, “Democracy through Learner-Centered Education: A Turkish Perspective,” International Review of Education 55, no. 1 (2009): 23, 2020, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270107. Also see, John Dewey, Democracy and Educations: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (New York: Macmillan, 1916).
[14] Shirley Brice Heath, “Seeing our Way into Learning,” Cambridge Journal of Education vol 30, no. 1 (2000): 123 and 129, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03057640050005816.
[15] David Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall 1984), 20.
[16] Mark Smith, “Paulo Freire and Informal Education,” The Encyclopedia of Pedagogy and Informal Education, last updated, April 4, 2013, https://infed.org/mobi/paulo-freire-dialogue-praxis-and-education/.
[17] Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education, 61.
[18] Ibid. A comment inspired by this source.
[19] Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education, 59 and 62.
[20] Helen Cahill, “Resisting Risk and Rescue as the Raisin d’etre for Arts Intervention,” in The Arts and Youth at Risk: Global and Local Challenges, eds. Angela O’Brien and Kate Donelan (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2008), 24. A comment inspired by this source.
[21] Ibid., 26.
[22] T. J. Diffey, “Aesthetic Instrumentalism,” The British Journal of Aesthetics 22, no. 4 (1982): 338, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/22.4.337
[23] Ibid., 338.
[24] Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1990) 28.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia, “Art for Art's Sake,” Encyclopedia Britannica, January 23, 2015, https://www.britannica.com/topic/art-for-arts-sake.
[27] Joëlle Rollo-Koster, “Body politic,” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 2, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/body-politic; A.D. Harvey, Body Politic: Political Metaphor and Political Violence (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007).
[28] Karl Axelsson, “Taste is Not to Conform to the Art, but the Art to the Taste: Aesthetic Instrumentalism and the British Body Politic in the Neoclassical Age,” Journal of Aesthetics & Culture Vol 5, no. 1 (2013): https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v5i0.21096. A comment inspired by this source.
[29] Maureen Levy. “Dance: The Body Politc,” Seesaw, Western Australia’s Art Playground, published Friday 10, May 2019, https://www.seesawmag.com.au/2019/05/dance-the-body-politic.
[30] Ibid
[31] Hickey-Moody, Youth, Arts and Education, 16.
[32] Cahill. “Resisting Risk and Rescue,” 24. A comment inspired by this source.
[33] Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education, 145-149.
[34] Ibid., 122.
[35] Ibid., 61.
[36]Tony Grybowski, The Australia Council for the Arts, Connecting Australians: The National Arts Participation Survey 2017 (Canberra: Australian Government 2017), 1-2, https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/news/media-centre/media-releases/connecting-australians-the-national-arts-participation-survey/.
[37]As noted earlier, this dissertation not only hyperlinks the reader to the four case study artworks at the centre of this investigation it also hyperlinks the reader to a range of in-practice discussion that has emerged from artmaking at tbC. These in-practice discussions speak directly to the subject of this research. Although not formally solicited, this creative knowledge emerges from the artistic practices and outcomes being investigated and constitutes valuable creative data. This dissertation periodically hyperlinks the reader to the companion website in which these in-practice dialogues are creatively housed. To reiterate, these in-practice dialogues have been in the public domain for years, with no adverse consequences.
[38] Greg Box, former Manager Arts and Culture, Yarra Ranges Council. In conversation with, 2014.
[39] tbC’s community location and youth demographic sometimes results in the assumption that the model should cover both the artistic and general developmental needs of young people. This perception is mainly attributed to the common understanding that community-based art practices are associated with cultural development practices that support both the emotional and aesthetic needs and desires of participants and communities. As noted in “What is Community Arts and Cultural Development?,” Australia Council for the Arts, accessed December 19, 2018, https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/artforms/community-arts-and-cultural-development/what-is-community-arts-and-cultural-development-practice/.
[40] “About Us,” Artful Dodgers Studio, accessed October 27, 2018, https://artfuldodgers.tv/about-us/.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] “Aims,” Rialto Youth Project, accessed July 7, 2017, http://rialtoyouthproject.net/aims/.
[44] Ian Berry, ed. Tim Rollins and K.O.S. A History (New York: MIT Press, 2009), 242.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Artworld is a term used to define an academic or institutional expression of art. The conceptualisation of an artworld began emerging as far back as the mid to late sixteenth century in Florence. Under the influence of Italian painter, Georgia Vasari, artists and architects began to cut their ties with the craftsmen's guilds and formed an Academy of Art, the first of its kind that served as a model for later similar institutions in Italy and other countries. The nineteenth century saw artistic academies around the world further contextualisation the fine arts within institutional expressions of the artworld. This resulted in important and extensive theoretical and critical literature. Contemporary notions of an artworld emerged during the eighteenth century, along with the term fine arts (Beaux Arts). See for example, Julius von Schlosser, The Art Literature: A Handbook for Source Studies in Modern Art History (Vienna: Schroll, 1924); Leonardo Olschki, Geschichte der Neusprachlichen Wissenschaftlichen Literatur (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1919); Anthony Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1600 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940); Nikolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art, Past and Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940); André Fontaine, Les Doctrines d'Art en France: Peintres, Amateurs, Critques, de Poussin à Diderot Paris, Ouvrage Illustré de 12 Planches Hors Texte (Paris: H Laurens,1909); Arsene Soreil, Introduction a l'Histoire de l'Esthetique Franfaise: Contribution a l'Etude des-Theories Litteraires et Plastiques en France de la Pleiade au XVIIIe Siecle (Paris: H Laurens,1909);Vernon Lee, Baldwin: Dialogues on Views and Aspirations (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1886); Paul Oskar Kristeller, “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics Part I,” Journal of the History of Ideas 12, no.4 (1951): 496-527, https://doi.org/10.2307/2707484.
[47] Susan Cahan, “The Wonder Years,” in Tim Rollins and K.O.S. A History, ed. Ian Berry (New York: MIT Press, 2009), 106.
[48] “Tim Rollins and the K.O.S.: A History,” Frye Art Museum, published January 23 – May 31, 2010,  https://fryemuseum.org/exhibition/3315/.
[49] Communities such as Hobsons Bay, Maroondah, Cardinia and Casey.
[50] Community sports is partly funded by a pay to play model. In the case of community arts, activities are often free and participants are less accustomed to paying to engage – a disparity this research acknowledges.
[51] María Inés Falconi, “Theatre for Children and Youth: Art or Pedagogy?” Youth Theatre Journal 29, no. 2 (2015): 159, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08929092.2015.1084828.
[52] Giroux, “Teenage Sexuality,” 313.
[53] Ibid., 308.
[54] Griffin, “Imagining New Narratives of Youth,” 148.
[55] Colin Campbell, “Distinguishing the Power of Agency from Agentic Power: A Note on Weber and the ‘Black Box’ of Personal Agency,” Sociological Theory 27, no. 4 (December, 2009): 414 and 416, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01355.x. See also, Craig Calhoun, ed. Dictionary of the Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 7; Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill and Bryan Turner, The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (London: Penguin Books, 1985), 6.
[56] Chris Barker, Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice (California: Sage Publications, 2005), 448.
[57] Michael Sauder, Freda Lynn and Joel M. Podolny, “Insights from Organizational Sociology,” Annual Review of Sociology 38 (2012): 268, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23254596.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Paul T, Munroe, “Deference,” in Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online, ed. George Ritzer. (Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 990.
[60] Emile Benoit-Smullyan, “Status, Status Types, and Status Interrelations,” in American Sociological Review 9, no. 2 (1944): 151, https://www.jstor.org/stable/i336334.
[61] Munroe, “Deference,” 990-991.
[62] Ralph Linton, The Study of Man: An Introduction (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1936), 479.
[63] Ibid., and 115.
[64] Dana Keller and Jennifer Sandlin, “Socially Engaged Practice and Pedagogy: A New Lexicon,” School of Social Transformation, Arizona State University (2013): 2, https://www.academia.edu/5654246/Socially_Engaged_Practice_as_Public_Pedagogy. A comment inspired by this source.
[65] Again, as noted in the introduction to this investigation and signposted for further discussion in chapters four and five, the in-practice dialogues this dissertation periodically hyperlinks you to have been collected during the process of artistic practice. They are documented as records of studio conversations within the extensive video footage the group has archived and through the notes artists write and leave on their studio art boards. Some of these dialogues even take the form of poetry written by member artists. Many of these in-practice dialogues were expressed during the making of Hoodie Mag and the two Art of Conversation art projects (included in this investigation as case study one, three and four), which saw artist members contribute responses to ongoing in-studio provocations about what it is like to be a young artist and how a collaborative arts and joint authorship practice supports young artists in building artistic agency and status. These in-practice dialogues are part of the material and medium of artmaking at tbC and were not formally solicited for the purposes of this research. Despite not being formally solicited, they constitute valuable creative data and are often used to support my observational arguments.
[66] Art studio is distinguished here from an art class at school or a community workshop.
[67] A range of related examples have and will continue to be presented, compared and contrasted. In short, the past twenty years has seen significant research on the subject of youth development. Some of the leading researchers and their investigations include: Jodie Roth et al., “Promoting Healthy Adolescents: Synthesis of Youth Development Program Evaluations,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 8, no. 4 (1998): 423–459, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0804_2; Roth and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, “What Exactly is a Youth Development Program? Answers from Research and Practice,” Applied Developmental Science 7, no. 2 (2003): 94-111, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S1532480XADS0702_6; Joyce Walker, Michelle Gambone and Kathrin Walker, “Reflections on a Century of Youth Development Research and Practice,” Journal of Youth Development 6, no. 3 (2011): 7-19, https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2011.172; Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer Appleton Gootman, ed. Community Programs to Promote Youth Development (Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002); Nicole Yohalem and Alicia Wilson-Ahlstrom, “Inside the Black Box: Assessing and Improving Quality in Youth Programs,” American Journal of Community Psychology 45 (2010): 350-357, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9311-3; Larson, “Positive Development in a Disorderly World,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 21, no. 2 (2011): 317–334, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00707.x; Michelle A. Gambone and Amy Arbreton, Safe Havens: The Contribution of Youth Organizations to Healthy Adolescent Development (Philadelphia, PA: US Department of Justice; 1997).
[68] Some key ones include: “Be Youth, With Youth, For Youth,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO )Youth Programs, accessed April 2, 2019, https://en.unesco.org/youth; “Empowering Young People Since 1844,” World YMCA, accessed April 5, 2019, https://www.ymca.int/; “International Youth Exchange,” UNESCO, accessed April 5, 2019, https://en.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/international-youth-exchange-34; “Global Youth Summit,” Global Youth Summit, accessed April 5, 2019, https://www.iucnyouthsummit.org/; Smaller, specifically local examples include: “A Platform for Change,” Youth Development Australia, accessed April 5, 2019, https://yda.org.au/; “Storytelling With Impact,” Youthworx, accessed April 7, 2019, https://youthworxproductions.com.au/; “Fun Programs for Multicultural Youth,” Youth Activating Youth, accessed April 7, 2019, https://yay.org.au/; and “About Us,” Reach Out, accessed April 7, 2019, https://au.reachout.com/. The underlying principle behind all these organisations and initiatives is to provide life skills and general support to the educational, health, wellbeing and developmental needs of young people and to foster strong community engagement.
[69] Roth et al., “Promoting Healthy Adolescents,” 423.
[70] Richard M. Lerner, “Commentary: Studying and Testing the Positive Youth Development Model: A Tale of Two Approaches,” Society for Research in Child Development 88, no. 4 (2017): 1183-1185, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12875.
[71] John Bynner, “Rethinking the Youth Phase of the Life-course: The Case for Emerging Adulthood?” Journal of Youth Studies 8, no. 4 (2005): 367-384, https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260500431628.
[72] Jeffry Jensen Arnett, “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens Through the Twenties,” American Psychologist 55 (2000): 469-480, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.
[73] Yohalem and Wilson-Ahlstrom. “Inside the Black Box,” 350; Eccles and Appleton Gootman, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development; Lori L Hager, “The Arts Matter in Afterschool: Community Youth Arts and Out-of-School Time,” Afterschool Matters: National Institute on Out-of-School Time (June 2010): 33-41, http://www.niost.org/images/afterschoolmatters/asm_2010_11_june/asm_2010_11_june-5.pdf.
[74] Peter Benson and Rebecca Saito, “The Scientific Foundations of Youth Development,” in Trends in Youth Development: Visions, Realities and Challenges, ed. Peter L. Benson and Karen Johnson Pittman (Massachusetts: Springer, 2001), 135, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1459-6_5.
[75] Joanna Wyn and Robert White, Rethinking Youth (Melbourne: Allen & Unwin Academic, 1997), 51 and 71; Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education, 16.
[76] Hickey-Moody, Telephone conversation, Professor of Media and Communications at RMIT University, Melbourne, July 2020.
[77] Vicki-Ann Ware, Supporting Healthy Communities Through Arts Programs, Resource Sheet no. 28, (Canberra: Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne and Australian Institute of Family Studies 2014), 3,https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/142afee1-f0b5-40c9-99b5-5198feb255a4/ctgc-rs28.pdf.aspx. A report based on the synthesis of findings from over 30 studies and some international data.
[78] Ibid., 18.
[79] “Youth Research Collective,” University of Melbourne, accessed November 6, 2018, https://education.unimelb.edu.au/yrc
[80] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO, Diversity of Cultural Expression, Upholding the Rights of Children and Young People to Cultural Entitlement (Ireland: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO, 2012), https://en.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/upholding-rights-children-young; Sarah Louise Austin, “Ethics, Agency and Disruption: Toward a Rights-based Practice of Working With Children in Contemporary Performance,” PhD thesis (Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne, 2019), http://hdl.handle.net/11343/238845.
[81] Theatre of the Oppressed is a performance strategy which aims to develop possible alternatives to oppressive forces in individuals lives, with the goal of creating generative conversations that look deeply into the issues of community through theatre. There is a historical connection between Theatre of the Oppressed and education, inspired in part by Paolo Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed, as well as between youth and spaces of institutionalized oppression. As noted in Megan Alrutz, “Review of Youth and Theatre of the Oppressed, edited by Peter Duffy and Elinor Vettraino,” Theatre Journal 63, no. 3 (October 2011): 485-486, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/455488. Also see, Peter Duffy and Elinor Vettraino, ed. Youth and Theatre of the Oppressed (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2010).
[82] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) treats children and young people as an important constituency, actively encouraging and upholding the rights of children and young people and their full access to, and enjoyment of cultural entitlements and experiences. See, “Children’s Rights Simplified,” UNICEF Australia, accessed April 8, 2019, https://www.unicef.org.au/our-work/information-for-children/un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child.
[83] Natasha Budd, “Staging Childhoods; Experiments in Authentic Theatre Making with Children,” PhD thesis (Queensland: Queensland University of Technology, 2014), 62, paraphrased.
[84] Ibid., 12 and 3.
[85] Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education, 12-13. A comment inspired by this source.
[86]Australia Council for the Arts, Creating Our Future: Results of the National Participation Survey, Executive Summary, (Canberra: Australia Council for the Arts, August 2020), 1-36, https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Creating-Our-Future-Results-of-the-National-Arts-Participation-Survey-executive-summary.pdf; Kevin Dupreez, Youth Arts Research: A list of Research on Children, Young People and the Arts (Canberra: Australia Council for the Arts, 2016), 1-4,  https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/youth-arts-research-5791aa72793a6.pdf; Australia Council for the Arts, Connecting Australian’s: Results from the National Arts Participation Survey, (Canberra: Australian Government, June 2017), 1-96, https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/connecting-australians/; Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cultural Participation and Attendance Survey 2017-18, (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017-18), https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/attendance-selected-cultural-venues-and-events-australia-methodology/2017-18; Mary Ann Hunter, Education and the Arts Research, (Sydney: The Australia Council for the Arts, 2005), 1-40, https://www.ampag.com.au/wapap/Campaign/2-education-EducationAndTheArtsResearchOverview.pdf; Andrew Martin et al., “The Role of Arts Participation in Students’ Academic and Non-academic Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of School, Home, and Community Factors,” Journal of Educational Psychology 105, no. 3 (2013): 709–727, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032795; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office for the Arts, Culture and Closing the Gap 2013: Report by Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office for the Arts (Canberra: Australian Government, 2013), 1-4, http://iaha.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/000214_cultureclosinggap.pdf; Ware, Supporting Healthy Communities,1-23; James S. Catterall, Susan A. Dumais and Gillian Hampden-Thompson, The Arts and Achievement in At Risk Youth: Findings from Four Longitudinal Studies (Washington DC: Office of Research & Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts, International 2012), 1-28, https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Arts-At-Risk-Youth.pdf. These examples include large systematic reviews of the impact of the arts on young people. We can see, even from the titles of most of these studies that the focus is on the educational, cultural and health benefits of youth arts.
[87] Australia Council for the Arts, “Creating Our Future”, 23.
[88] Ibid, 31.
[89] Ibid, 10.
[90] Ibid, 20.
[91] Ibid, 18.
[92] The National Youth Arts Summit is now run and reported on annually by Carclew Youth Arts.
[93] Dupreez, “Youth Arts Research,” 1.
[94] Ibid, 3.
[95] Ibid, 1 and 2.
[96] Ibid, 3.
[97] Ibid, 1.
[98] “Research,” Western Edge Youth Arts, accessed May 29, 2021, https://westernedge.org.au/?s=research.
[99] Western Edge Youth Arts, Annual Report (Footscray: Western Edge Youth Arts, 2018), 2,  https://westernedge.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/WEYA_AnnualReport2018.pdf.
[100] “Arts Front Under 30,” Arts Front, accessed October 3, 2019, https://artsfront.com/event/67-arts-front-under-30.
[101] “Arts Front Under 30 Symposium,” Brisbane Art Guide, accessed July 19, 2019,http://bneart.com/arts-front-under-30-symposium/.
[102] Helen Jermyn. “The Arts and Social Exclusion: A Review Prepared for the Arts Council of England,” Arts Council England (2001): 13. https://www.creativecity.ca/database/files/library/arts_social_exclusion_uk.pdf.
[103] Connected Communities is a multi-million-pound research programme designed in conjunction with Bristol University, University of East Anglia and the Arts & Humanities Research Council to understand the changing nature of UK communities in their historical and cultural contexts and the role of communities in sustaining and enhancing quality of life. See, “About,” Arts and Humanities Research Council: Connected Communities Project UK, accessed  September 23, 2019, https://connected-communities.org/index.php/about/.
[104] Katy Goldstraw, Taking Yourself Seriously: Literature Review on Arts Methodologies for Social Cohesion, (Sheffield: The University of Sheffield, 2018), 3. https://takingyourselfseriously.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/arvac-key-findings.pdf.
[105] Ibid., 1 and 32.
[106] Dupreez, “Youth Arts Research,” 3.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Hickey-Moody, Youth Arts and Education, 12-13.
[109] “Kickstart Your Art Career with ArtStart,” Australia Council for the Arts, published September 11, 2014,  https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/news/media-centre/media-releases/kickstart-your-art-career-with-artstart/#:~:text=The%20Australia%20Council%20started%20the,1%2C000%20grants%20to%20emerging%20artists.
[110] Ibid.
[111] Francois, Matarasso. Us or Ornament?: The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. (Stroud: Comedia Publications, 1997).
[112] Jermyn. “The Arts and Social Exclusion,” 23.
[113] Jenny Hughes and Karen Wilson, “Playing a Part: The Impact of Youth Theatre on Young People's Personal and Social Development,” Research in Drama Education 9, no.1 (2004): 57, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1356978042000185911; Michael Richardson. Youth Theatre: Drama for Life. (London: Routledge, 2015), 1.
[114] Hager. “Partnerships, Policies, and Programs: Ideological Constructions in Federal Youth Arts and Drama,” Youth Theatre Journal 17 no. 1 (2003): 82, https://doi.org/10.1080/08929092.2003.10012554.
[115] Kathleen Gallagher and David Booth, eds. How Theatre Educates: Convergences and Counterpoints with Artists, Scholars and Advocates (Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2003).
[116] Rachel Turner-King, “Questioning Collaborative Devising in a Post-truth Era: Crafting Theatre With Youth,” Youth Theatre Journal 33 no. 2 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/08929092.2019.1688212.
[117] Thomas Barone, “Response to Greg Dimitriadis: The Curriculum Scholar as Socially Committed Provocateur: Extending the Ideas of Said, Satre and Dimitriadis,” in Curriculum Studies Handbook: The Next Moment, ed. Erik Malewski, 477-480 (New York: Routledge, 2010).
[118] Barone, “Education as Aesthetic Experience: ‘Art in Germ,’” Educational Leadership 40, no. 4 (1983): 107-120; Barone, “Seen and Heard: The Place of the Child in Arts-Based Research on Theatre Education,” Youth Theatre Journal 11, no. 1 (1997): 113, 10.1080/08929092.1997.10012487.
[119] Cahill. In conversation with, August 3, 2020.
[120] This conference was held in Dublin, Ireland and supported by a group of transnational partners including: coordinating lead partner Create (Ireland), Agora Collective (Berlin), hablarenarte (Madrid), Heart of Glass (St Helens), Kunsthalle Osnabrück (Osnabrück), Live Art Development Agency (London), Ludwig Museum – Museum of Contemporary Art (Budapest), M-Cult (Helsinki), and Tate (Liverpool).
[121] “Practice and Power 2018,” Create: National Development Agency for Collaborative Arts, accessed May 3, 2019, https://www.create-ireland.ie/activity/practice-and-power-booking-open/.
[122] “About,” Heart of Glass, accessed May 3 2021, https://www.heartofglass.org.uk/about.
[123] “Spring 2021 Cohort,” Engage: Bringing People and Art Together, accessed May 3, 2021, https://engage.org/happenings/extend/spring-2021-cohort/.
[124] “About LADA,” Live Art Development Agency, accessed May 3, 2021, https://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/about-lada/.
[125] Ibid.
[126] Kevin McCarthy, Elizabeth Ondaatjt, Laura Zakaras and Arthur Books, Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2004), 3.