The Heidelberg Project uses the absurd as an entry point for the viewer. The installation is accessible to viewers native to the city of Detroit as well as to visitors to the area. By invading his neighborhood and creating art out of houses, vacant lots, trees and abandoned garbage, Guyton alters the landscape of the neighborhood and blurs the boundary between art and life. In my previous blog entry I was concerned Guyton created a spectacle by inviting visitors to observe the inhabitants of Heidelberg Street. I pondered how residents who did not give consent for participation in the work nevertheless became part of the exhibition. In the following space I further dissect these ideas, first addressing the idea of the spectacle and then the privilege of the artist.
Creating a spectacle suggests viewers are looking for the sake of looking. The spectacle entices the onlooker, but does not require his/her participation beyond gawking. Artist Tyree Guyton transcends the boundary of the spectacle in the Heidelberg Project because the installation is intended to elicit responses from the viewer. The purpose of the Heidelberg Project is not to apprehend the gaze of the viewer for sport, but rather engaging the viewer into the work and letting art act as a medicine making the person and the community well again (Come Unto Me).
Art possesses the power to draw attention to an issue that would otherwise remains unseen. Art transforms Heidelberg Street from vacant lots and abandoned houses to bright colors and playful scenes. The absurd aesthetic of the Heidelberg Project serves Guyton’s goals of healing the community through art because it entices the viewer with something out of the ordinary. Guyton thought the vacant lots and abandoned houses were a “reflection of the people” and proceeded to “just [go] out there and [do] it” by ordering the junk he found in his neighborhood (Come Unto Me). Residents and visitors interact with one another because art exists in the neighborhood. Guyton’s installation brings together parties that might not otherwise cross paths. Guyton’s intent to demonstrate the transformative power of art extends from the installation to community programming. The metaphor of using junk to create art extends to building skills among underprivileged children and young adults. Creating art is an empowering tool for teaching people to create the lives they desire to live. Residents of Detroit can participate in community programs such as Art in Da Hood, Bunche Elementary School, Heidelberg Project Community Garden, Camp Heidelberg, Youth Association of Heidelberg and the Penny Project.
Guyton does not attempt to mediate interactions between residents and onlookers; the art work is the forum for interaction. For example, there are no safeguards to prevent passersby from demolishing the art space or the domestic space that encompasses the Heidelberg Project, save a sign asking patrons to please be respectful. I do not think this choice is indicative of Guyton creating a spectacle, in as much as it is a reflection of his ideas about how to create change. The installation sparks the magic of dialogue by creating a place “to talk about things” that maybe would not otherwise be discussed (Come Unto Me). The task of people to spark dialogue rests firmly in their hands, with Guyton creating the place for this to happen. When citizens successfully petitioned the city to demolish Heidelberg in 1991, Guyton did not attempt to silence his opposition. After creating a grave to bury the rubble, “there is no death for art”, Guyton and community supporters began to build again (Come Unto Me).
Awareness on behalf of the artist about his/her inherent power (for example, race, class, gender, sexual preference) and an awareness about how these distinctions subsequently affect his/her relationships within the population is vital information when creating art with a community. Therefore, I think the artist has a responsibility to his/her subjects and participants to let them know the aim of the art work, particularly when endeavors seek to bring light to community development and/or when the artist is not part of the community he/she wishes to help. Doing otherwise is a misuse of privilege. I do not think the preceding suggestions are a litmus test for “good” or “bad” art, but rather, are tools changing communities from the inside out instead of telling communities how to behave. It brings to mind the questions of “what makes a difference?”, how can we make these changes? who decides what changes are made? When the artist articulates such questions to the population he/she is working with and to the viewing public he/she exemplifies the transformative power of art.
I think my fixation with spectacle in my previous blog entry was a misnomer. That is to say, I let the notion of “spectacle” overshadow my concerns about the artist’s agency or privilege. My critique of Guyton’s methods has little to do with spectacle, because I believe his aims and their affect move beyond the arena of spectacle. I think that Guyton might have received less criticism, especially early on, if he had found more effective ways of communicating with community members about the aim of his project. I think this communication is an important part of the community work he is enacting. As time passed, it appears that these problems have lessened. One of the biggest things I take away from Guyton’s work is a better understanding about the complexity of the situation: Detroit’s demise, programs to revive the city, the cycle of poverty, the role of the city government, the role of the artist. Guyton walks a tight-rope between the alleged categories of artist and community activist.

Advertisement