Artist Residency in Russia: Role Disposition in the (Re)Assembly of the Contemporary Art Field

This study analyses artist residencies in Russia as institutions that assemble the artists, local context, and stakeholders. The main focus is on three key aspects: strategies for institutional positioning in the field of art and in relation to stakeholders, residents’ practices in working with the local context, and the interaction between residencies and local residents. The process of institutionalising artist residencies unfolds through several mechanisms: integration into the ‘creative economy,’ balancing between autonomy and stakeholder interests, and the differentiation of the residencies themselves. Inclusion in the field of contemporary art plays an important role. Artist residencies reproduce its key trends: a shift towards participatory practices, an emphasis on the process of creating a work and its narrativisation, and a research-based approach to art. Participatory practices allow for more horizontal interaction between the author and the audience, and involving the audience in the creation of the work strengthens their connection with the final object. However, the success of this practice may be undermined by the difficulties associated with the institution’s dominance in organizing interactions with the audience, including with regard to the relevance and justification of incorporating participation into art practice. The more reflexive character of practice in art, manifesting itself in the spread of the 'artistic research' model, makes it possible to level this problem out to a certain degree, attenuating hierarchy through an understanding of the author's role as a mediator, including in participatory practices. The study revealed that employees and residents of artist residencies consider it important to involve the local community in their activities, but in practice, face limited opportunities for such cooperation. The limitations of such interactions stem from both the residents’ level of practice and the artist residency as an institution. The multi-stage character of practices involves a chain of translations, phased in research, conceptualization, and materialisation, necessitating the inclusion of an intermediary who (or which) would carry out the reverse translation from the object to the locality. In seeking to strengthen its position in the art field, the institution unintentionally reproduces the boundaries between art and audience.

1. Abramov R.N. (2015) Ordinary and Scientific Knowledge in Studies of Professions and Professionalism: Historical and Theoretical Analysis. In Devyatko I. F., Abramov R.N., Katerny I.V. (Eds.), Ordinary and Scientific Knowledge About Society: Mutual Influence and Reconfiguration (pp. 246‒309). Progress Traditsia. (in Russ.)

2. Aspers P.A. (2006) Market in Vogue: Fashion photography in Sweden (Yu. Muratova, trans.). Journal of Economic Sociology, 7(5), pp. 39–55. https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2006-5-39-55. (in Russ.)

3. Bishop C. (2018) Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship (V. Solovey, trans.). V–A–C Press. (in Russ.)

4. Boltanski L., Chiapello E. (2011) The New Spirit of Capitalism (S. Fokin, trans. and ed.). New Literary Observer.

5. Bourriaud N. (2016) Relational Aesthetics. Postproduction (A. Shestakov, trans.). Ad Marginem. (in Russ.)

6. Geertz C. (1996) From the Native’s Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding (I. F. Devyatko, trans.). In I. F. Devyatko (ed.), Models of Explanation and Logic in Sociological Research (pp. 88–97). IS RAS, TEMPUS/TASIS. (in Russ.)

7. Groys B. (2023a) Comrades of Time (I. Kushnareva, trans.). In B. Groys (ed.), Politics of Poetics (pp. 75–93). Ad Marginem. (in Russ.)

8. Groys B. (2023b) A Genealogy of Participatory Art (E. Dyogot, trans.). In B. Groys (ed.), Politics of Poetics (pp. 279–297). Ad Marginem. (in Russ.)

9. Zhelnina A.A. (2012) Creative Activities for Selected Cider: Social Exclusion and the Creative Spaces of Saint Petersburg. In Papushina Yu. O., Matetskaya M.V. (eds.), Creative Industries in the City: Challenges, Projects, and Solutions. Collection of Scientific Articles of Students and Teachers of the Higher School of Economics (pp. 42–57). Levsha. (in Russ.)

10. Zaporozhets O.N. (2017) “Mobile methods”: studying life in motion. Sociology: Methodology, Methods, Mathematical Modeling (Sociology: 4M), 44, pp. 37–72. (in Russ.)

11. Simmel G. (2008) Digression about the stranger (A. Filippov, trans.). In A. Filippov (ed.), Sociological Theory: History, Contemporariness, Prospects. Almanac of the Journal “Russian Sociological Review” (pp. 9–14). Vladimir Dahl. (in Russ.)

12. Ivanov D., Vlasova T., Abramov R. (2024) Cultural Citizenship: Definitions and Empirical Contextualization. Russian Sociological Review, 23(3), pp. 25–52. http://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2024-3-25-52. (in Russ.)

13. Kim A. (2021) Art Residencies: For Whom, Why, and How. Association of Artistic Residencies of Russia. http://airofrussia.ru/toolkit. (in Russ.)

14. Kononchuk V.V. (2023) “Artistic research”: Approaches to Definition, Criticism and Specificity in the Russian Context. International Journal of Cultural Research, 2(51), pp. 99–114. https://doi.org/10.52173/2079-1100_2023_2_99. (in Russ.)

15. Kuziner E.N., Petrunina D. S. (2022) Creative Hubs as Third Places in Russian Regions. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 172(6), pp. 333– 355. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2022.6.2316. (in Russ.)

16. Latour B. (2015) Pasteur: War and Peace of Microbes, with an Appendix Entitled “Irreducible” (A.V. Dyakov, trans.). EUSP Press. (in Russ.)

17. Obrist H.U. (2016) Ways of Curating (L. Rechnaya, trans.). Ad Marginem. (in Russ.)

18. Urry J. (2012) Mobilities (A. Lazarev, trans.). Praxis. (in Russ.)

19. Chaika Zh. (2024) The epistemological usefulness of artistic residencies and the husk of repetition. Logos: Russian Journal of Philosophy and Humanities, 34(1), pp. 37–62. https://doi.org/10.17323/0869-5377-2024-1-37-61. (in Russ.)

20. Chaika Zh. (2025) Art Residencies. How to Cook Them. V–A–C Press. (in Russ.)

21. Shirokostup O. (2024) Between river low and mountain high. Artistic research and what characterizes it. Logos: Russian Journal of Philosophy and Humanities, 34(1), pp. 63–76. http://doi.org/10.17323/0869-5377-2024-1-63-74. (in Russ.)

22. Acord S.K. (2010) Beyond the Head: The Practical Work of Curating Contemporary Art. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4), pp. 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9164-y

23. Acord S.K. (2016) Learning How to Think, and Feel, About Contemporary Art: An Object Relational Aesthetic for Sociology. In L. Hanquinet & M. Savage (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture (pp. 219–231). Routledge.

24. Alberro A., Stimson B. (2011) Institutional critique: An anthology of artists’ writings. MIT Press.

25. Alexander V.D. (1996) From philanthropy to funding: The effects of corporate and public support on American art museums. Poetics, 24(2–4), pp. 87–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(95)00003-3

26. Baumann S. (2007) A general theory of artistic legitimation: How art worlds are like social movements. Poetics, 35(1), pp. 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.06.001

27. Becker H. (1982) Art worlds. University of California Press.

28. Bell D.M. (2017) The Politics of Participatory Art. Political Studies Review, 15(1), pp. 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12089

29. Bohn C. (2021) Contemporary Art and Event-Based Social Theory. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(3), pp. 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764211042085

30. Borgdorff H. (2012) The conflict of the faculties: Perspectives on artistic research and academia. Leiden University Press.

31. Bourdieu P. (1993) The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. (J. Randal, Ed. & Trans.). Polity.

32. Clifford J., Marcus G.E. (Eds.) (1986) Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press.

33. DiMaggio P. (1982) Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, part II: The classification and framing of American art. Media, Culture & Society, 4(4), pp. 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344378200400402

34. Elfving T., Kokko I., Gielen P. (2019) Contemporary artist residencies: Reclaiming time and space. Valiz.

35. Fine G.A. (2018) Talking Art: The Culture of Practice & the Practice of Culture in MFA Education. University of Chicago Press.

36. Foster H. (1995) The artist as ethnographer? In G. Marcus and F. Myers (Eds.), The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art and Anthropology (pp. 302–309). University of California Press.

37. Gerber A., Childress C. (2017) I Don’t Make Objects, I Make Projects: Selling Things and Selling Selves in Contemporary Artmaking. Cultural Sociology, 11(2), pp. 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975517694300

38. Haraway D. (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

39. Heinich N. (2014) Practices of Contemporary Art: A Pragmatic Approach to a New Artistic Paradigm. In T. Zembylas (Ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics (pp. 32–43). Routledge.

40. Holm D.V., Beyes T. (2022) How art becomes organization: Reimagining aesthetics, sites and politics of entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 43(2), pp. 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840621998571

41. Inglis D., Hughson J. (2017) The sociology of art: Ways of seeing. Bloomsbury Publishing.

42. Kawashima N. (1999) Distribution of the arts: British arts centres as “gatekeepers” in intersecting cultural production systems. Poetics, 26(4), pp. 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00006-6

43. Kester G. (1995) Aesthetic evangelists: Conversion and empowerment in contemporary community art. Afterimage, 22(6), pp. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.1995.22.6.5

44. Kester G. (2011) The one and the many: Contemporary collaborative art in a global context. Duke University Press.

45. Kwon M. (2004) One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. MIT Press.

46. Lash S.M., Urry J. (1993) Economies of signs and space. Sage.

47. Nowotny S. (2009) Anti-canonization: The differential knowledge of institutional critique. (A. Derieg, Trans.). In G. Raunig & G. Ray (Eds.), Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique (pp. 21–28). MayFly.

48. O’Neill P. (2016) The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Culture(s). MIT Press.

49. Pinto M.R., Viola S., Onesti A., Ciampa F. (2020) Artists residencies, challenges and opportunities for communities’ empowerment and heritage regeneration. Sustainability, 12(22), 9651. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229651

50. Rauning G. (2006) Instituent Practices, No. 2: Institutional Critique, Constituent Power, and the Persistence of Instituting. In G. Raunig & G. Ray (Eds.), Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique (pp. 173–186). MayFly.

51. Relyea L. (2013) Your everyday art world. MIT Press.

52. Roberts K.S., Strandvad S.M. (2022) Artist Residencies as Creative Ecologies: Proposing a New Framework for Twenty-First-Century Cultural Production. In L. McCormick (Ed.), The Cultural Sociology of Art and Music: New Directions and New Discoveries (pp. 43–69). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11420-5_3

53. Rutten K., Van Dienderen A., Soetaert R. (2013) Revisiting the ethnographic turn in contemporary art. Critical Arts, 27(5), pp. 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2013.855513

54. Rycroft S. (2019) The Artist Placement Group: an archaeology of impact. Cultural Geographies, 26(3), pp. 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474018821860

55. Safonova M.A., Sokolova N.A., Barmina A. S. (2018) The established and the outsiders: legitimacy and economic niches of the four generations of Saint Petersburg cultural organizations. Cultural Studies, 32(5), pp. 747–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.20 18.1428647

56. Sheikh S. (2009) Notes on Institutional Critique. In G. Raunig & G. Ray (Eds.), Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique (pp. 29–32). MayFly.

57. Steyerl H. (2006) The institution of critique. In G. Raunig & G. Ray (eds.), Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique (pp. 13–20). MayFly.

58. Tung W.H. (2013) Art for social change and cultural awakening: An anthropology of residence in Taiwan. Lexington Books.

59. Wohl H. (2021) Bound by creativity: How contemporary art is created and judged. University of Chicago Press.

60. Zolberg V. L. (1984) American art museums: sanctuary or free-for-all? Social Forces, 63(2), pp. 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.2.377