





































 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 
 
ISSN 2184-6995 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International License. 

 

  

 

 
 
Emancipation and creativity atlas: Participatory art and design,  
the societal image 
 
António Gorgel Pinto 
 
Published online: April 2021. 

 
To cite this article:  
Gorgel Pinto, A. (2021). Emancipation and creativity atlas: Participatory art and design—societal image. 
Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 
2(1), 54-68. 
 
 
  



 

55 

Emancipation and creativity atlas: Participatory art and design,  
the societal image 
 
António Gorgel Pintoa 
 

aIADE—Faculty of Design, Technology and Communication, European University, Lisbon, Portugal. 

antonio.gorgel@universidadeeuropeia.pt 

 

Abstract 

Participatory art and design is an eclectic domain and an increasingly relevant trend. We have been 

witnessing the profusion of projects of an activist nature, simultaneously informed by ethics, aesthetics  

and politics, which aim to benefit society. Encouraging the social and cultural sustainability of citizens living 

in disenfranchised residential areas by developing their creativity in a systematised way is the scope of the 

present research. Through an experimental methodology focused on project development, three case 

studies are presented—Netskola, Kowork and More South—all of which took place in socially and culturally 

disenfranchised neighbourhoods of the wider Lisbon area, specifically in the cities of Amadora and Oeiras. 

Then follows a case study evaluation conducted using the Delphi method. The research concluded that 

participatory art and design is a holistic territory that can be understood as interdisciplinary or 

transdisciplinary and that this understanding can foster the development of alternative and innovative 

solutions that contribute to the sociocultural sustainability of vulnerable urban areas. Recognising the 

advantage of this expanded field and enhancing the socially engaged art domains is not only important for 

these areas of knowledge, which can thus develop further, but also for the many situations in society that 

can benefit from systematic creativity. 

 

Keywords: Participation, Co-design, Social innovation, Societal image, Transmedia practice 

 

Common ground 

The research starting point is based on the recognition of weak common ground between the various 

practices of social art and the fact that this shared knowledge is the result of an interdisciplinary or 

transdisciplinary dialectic that could be further developed for the benefit of art, design and society in 

general. There is also the perception that the development of socially useful hybrid art initiatives is a means 

of intervention in society, with great potential for the development of social and cultural sustainability. 

 

The finding of common social objectives and the use of similar methodologies and methods by different  

art practices is a phenomenon that touches upon all fields of the arts and has an ethical and political aspect 

in confronting social concerns. As far as research is concerned, visual arts and design practices take on 

particular importance. In certain cases, in addition to promoting reflection, representation or the 

presentation of some answers to a set of problems in society, these practices seek to intervene directly 

with concrete solutions. 

 

Contemporary social art practices that are developed within certain communities have as their main goal 

the emancipation of the people involved so that they feel stimulated by the experience in which they 

participate (Helguera, 2011). In Bishop’s (2012) view, this is an expanded field of post-studio practices that 

have taken over several designations, such as socially engaged art, community-based art, dialogic art, 

participatory art, collaborative art, activist art and new genre public art, amongst others. 

 

mailto:antonio.gorgel@universidadeeuropeia.pt


 

56 

On the other hand, through the creation of services, systems and digital products, design is increasingly 

interactive and participatory, as well as characterised by a dynamic and co-creative aesthetic, increasingly 

based on knowledge networks and participants’ qualifications, then restricted to commercial products. 

These features sometimes result in more ephemeral or immaterial design approaches. Within this logic, 

many artists no longer make a clear distinction between their practice and a user-centred design approach, 

which is dramatically more political and speculative (Holt, 2015). Similarly, certain designers are 

experimenting with methodologies informed by participatory and dialogical aesthetics (Kester, as cited  

in Holt, 2015). 

 

These are ambivalent art forms, which on the one hand give continuity to their disciplinary language, and 

on the other hand play a role in social intervention. When focusing on social issues, both disciplinary fields 

tend to be characterised by a higher degree of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. The question is the 

extent to which there is a mutual exchange of concepts, methods and methodologies in a complementary 

process, or even the existence of a disciplinarily more autonomous approach, but which goes beyond 

conventional limits whenever experimentation in other fields is necessary. Parallel to this question, 

it is important to mention the problem of the means of expression in the development of participatory art 

and design practices. This overcoming of borders is a sensitive concept because it contributes to the 

transformation of each discipline, thus surpassing the conventional approaches of each territory. 

 

This takes into account that in visual arts one of the most used expressions is participatory art—as well as 

in design the denomination of participatory design—which is increasingly recurrent. Regarding the three 

case studies discussed further, the designation used to define the developed practice is participatory art 

and design. Regarding the artists and/or designers involved in the process, they are seen as conductors  

of a participatory project who seek to keep participants during the outlined activities so that they 

autonomously go ahead exploring knowledge. This is a way of promoting equality in which artists and 

designers in participatory projects have a role as conductors. According to Rancière (2002), this  

is a necessary quality for social sustainability, which needs agents for its promotion and  

permanent confirmation. 

 

The social axis of the arts 

Historically, the notion of holistic territory is a phenomenon that has its roots in the Western classic period, 

since the use of the teknè concept, in which there were present the notions of art and technique that 

served as the basis for the varied evolutions of art disciplines. At the end of the twentieth century, Galeyev 

(1991) created an open system to include art practices based on new techniques and technologies. The 

objective was to demonstrate the unity and systematisation of the existing art forms and to understand 

how they position themselves within an artistic culture. From this conceptual framework, an approach is 

made to the system of differentiation between the different arts to further propose the existence of a 

social axis with two distinct poles, namely the pole of social arts and the pole of self-centred arts (Figure 1). 

 

This is a way of classifying all the existing art forms, which, regardless of whether they are framed by  

a particular art discipline, such as painting, sculpture, design, architecture, music, theatre, amongst others, 

have a greater or lesser degree of social action. According to this understanding, zero degrees of social 

meaning indicate art forms exclusively focused on questions of expression and technique, from which, 

according to the position in the referred axis, they may reveal greater social focus. 

 

One of the precursors of social art forms that most influenced the territory in question is the artist Suzanne 

Lacy through the concept of a new genre of public art that she developed to characterise and deepen the 



 

57 

socially engaged art field. According to Lacy (1995), the artist imbued with an ethical sense articulates 

his/her thought and intentions with the ideas manifested by the social body in the public domain. In this 

sense, Lacy analyses different behaviours that an artist can have according to a scale between the public 

and private, such as the artist as the experimenter, as a reporter, as an analyst and as an activist. Parallel  

to this, Lacy develops the issue of public participation in the work of art, which is understood according  

to different degrees of responsibility, collaboration, proximity and involvement with the work of art. 

 

 
 

Figure 1: Social axis Z with two poles: The pole of social arts and the pole of self-centred arts. 

 

This particular notion of activism is also followed in the sphere of design. Authors such as Fuad-Luke (2009) 

and DiSalvo (2012), amongst others, explore a notion of design based on civic reflection and political action 

with the influence of several areas of knowledge, as well as involving protagonists with different 

characteristics, such as designers and other professional or non-professional creative agents. This line  

of thought is a consequence of the criticism that was first offered by Papanek (1971) to the design 

discipline, which he considered to be linked to the consumerist culture that has propelled design culture 

since the first Industrial Revolution. 

 

Within the scope of art and design practices that developed a culture based not just on techniques, 

technologies and aesthetics, but also underpinned by ethics, other authors were alerted to a set of social 

and environmental problems since the 1960s. A common feature is a relational and dialogical issue, which 

is transversal to all forms of social art and design. In the sphere of visual arts, the concept of participation 

and collaboration led artists to a different understanding of the logic of authorship centred on the artist  

or on a collective of artists to assume they are authors of events shared with other participants who, with 

different degrees of commitment, may also be considered as creative agents. In the scope of design, this 

relationship between various creative sources and protagonists is a situation of diffuse design and expert 

design, which is fundamental cooperation for the future development of society. A coalition not only 

focuses on the resolution of concrete problems but also the construction of social values and qualities 

(Manzini, 2015). 



 

58 

 

According to Manzini (2019), despite the neoliberal logic in various spheres of society, as well as in human 

thinking and behaviour, transformative social innovation processes occur in the opposite direction. These 

modes of action result from creative initiatives from citizens, which are characterised by being both 

individual and social, driving the creation or rehabilitation of links between people, as well as between 

people and the places they live in and, consequently, promoting the development of new communities.  

In this sense, participatory art and design is a significant way to systematise social and cultural innovation 

and strengthen democracy. Social innovation through creative practices and dialogic collaboration,  

in general, are ways of imagining and experimenting with social alternatives towards sustainability, where 

local initiatives are particularly meaningful, whose repercussions can generate other forms of development 

at a global level (Escobar, 2018). 

 

Emancipation through participation 

In the field of participatory design, a significant aspect is the array of different possibilities, specifically  

in terms of innovation, collaboration, emancipation and motivation, as well as concerning forms of public 

or community participation. These determine how the relationship between designer and user occur (Lee, 

2006). According to Manzini (2015), there is now a relatively strong consensus around the idea that design 

is an activity shared by different players whose initiatives are based on the same principles of creativity and 

reinvention of forms of interaction with the environment. Some designers with scientific knowledge who 

are more sensitive to this problem have been looking for ways to relate with empirical designers and to 

collaboratively participate in the creation of products and services that better contribute to society. There 

are also increasingly design initiatives for social innovation that arise spontaneously and are promoted 

without the participation of design specialists, by citizens who act in isolation or organised groups, as well 

as by professionals from other art fields and related areas. 

 

In tandem with creating coalitions between people with different forms of knowledge or finding solutions 

exclusively for human problems, it is important to mention the need for conductors of participatory art and 

design projects to establish other collaborations with non-human agents. Considering that there  

is active and continuous participation with more-than-human worlds (Escobar 2018), Holt (2015) argues 

that the environment should be considered a user and not just something to be explored as a theme  

or an aesthetic form. In Escobar’s (2018) view, this is an understanding based on the effort to reconnect the 

domains of culture and nature, namely human and non-human agents, through theoretical and practical 

proposals, such as “visualising networks, assemblages, nature cultures, or socio-natures, or through and 

analysing the composition of the more-than-human worlds always in the process of being created by all 

kinds of actors and processes”. 

 

The critical issue for understanding participatory art and design lies in the way the respective conductors 

interact with people and the environment, in the relationship that is established between each art and 

design area with society in general, as well as the integration of new experiences and concepts within the 

scope of participation. Therefore, it is important to expand the field of participatory art and design to other 

fields of artistic collaboration and to benefit from the resultant synergies. In the scope of design, Lee (2006) 

argues that the way the designer-user relationship occurs is decisive for the different participatory design 

manifestations, such as in the cases of innovation, collaboration and emancipation. In the sphere of 

innovation and collaboration, the interaction is centred around the user. Regarding motivation, the 

difference lies in the fact that design methods are influenced by people's initiative. In the case of 

emancipation, the main issue lies in the fact that both the designer and the user play an active role  



 

59 

in a collaborative design process aimed at finding and implementing better solutions for the valorisation  

of a given social context. 

 

Participatory art and design through emancipation, which was the methodology used in the case studies 

analysed hereafter, is a more user-focused model often sought by users. The relationship between the 

conductor and the user in this domain occurs horizontally in a creative equitable group, with the common 

goal of promoting its development. It is a way of encouraging and supporting people through co-creativity, 

and this usually occurs in small initiatives where the outreach and follow-up work between the conductor 

and the user is constant. It is from the opinions and experiences of each partner that the whole process is 

built. An important aspect of this concept is the fact of disseminating the transfer of design knowledge that 

can be freely used by the user (Lee, 2006). 

 

According to Fuad-Luke (2009), the co-design methodology is another significant designation that brings 

together several practices of contemporary design that are determinants for the development of social 

innovation. The dynamic of knowledge based on co-design processes is open to the participation of 

different users, even if the contribution made by the empirical designers is not always helpful. The 

dialogical relation in which listening is as important as speaking is decisive for the development of 

participatory art and design. In this context, parallel to critical capacity and creativity, the artist-designer 

expert must develop his/her relational capacity to interact and enhance the co-design process. The 

dialogical method should not be used as an instrument to control the co-design process but to stimulate  

its development and keep it open. 

 

Mechanism of co-design and societal image 

Also important for the understanding of this common field of participatory art and design and the notion  

of transdisciplinarity among both territories is the idea of a transmedia practice, which is a concept created 

by the Fluxus artist Shiomi Mieko. The importance of transdisciplinary logic for understanding this hybrid 

art domain is related to the fact that it allows a better comprehension of the existing knowledge between 

disciplines whose boundaries are in constant dynamism as well as concerning spaces between them. This 

interstitial space is considered to be of greater relevance for the development of each disciplinary field 

(Nicolescu, 2010). The transmedia concept that was introduced by Mieko (2013) is a way of demonstrating 

the nature of her conceptual art projects, which were initially conceived for one specific medium and later 

assumed other interpretations and art forms by the artist and other Fluxus members. According to Mieko 

(2013, pp. 1–2), “… just as people continue their journeys by transferring from one type of transportation 

to another, an artwork can continue its creative evolution by transferring from one medium to the next”. 

 

Like Mieko’s practice, the participatory art and design projects developed in disenfranchised 

neighbourhoods of Amadora begin by using design as a medium, namely through participation and co-

design, to later become signifying objects through the reproduction of the communities involved in creative 

activities (Gorgel Pinto, 2017). The representation of communities is what constitutes the Emancipation 

and Creativity Atlas, which is an archive of photographs and videos produced during each of the projects, 

namely Netskola, Kowork and More South. Art and design practice is informed by aesthetic and civic 

questions whose purpose is the development of citizenship and sociocultural sustainability with the 

disenfranchised target populations. This atlas of images is the last stage of the systematisation of processes 

involving partners and participants in a continuum. The images and videos cannot be restricted to their 

form and appearance or as the outcome of only one author. They are also part of the participatory process 

whose main objective is to question and explore the common space between participatory art and design 



 

60 

and simultaneously demonstrate the potential of the arts for the development of social and cultural 

sustainability (Gorgel Pinto, 2019). 

 

The whole process of participatory art and design—the societal image that was experimented with through 

the research case studies—is defined by specific objectives and by the systematisation of processes. Within 

the methodology of the three projects, it is important to note the idea of a mechanism for the coordination 

of all actors and constraints, as well as for system operation and the consequent production of specific 

contents. This mechanism is titled a co-design machine and has as a starting point the identification of a set 

of factors, such as the training needs required in the context, the participants' willingness to learn, the 

material conditions and the experience of the local participants with which the interactions occurred for 

the development of the project, as well as the perceived latent potentialities. The co-design machine, 

inspired by Meadows and Wright’s (2009) systems thinking, is a mechanism to boost, reinforce and 

generate the growth of existing creativity in individuals and the community, and in turn contributes  

to the regulation of creativity capital (Figure 2). This means that it is a way of promoting the resilience and 

sustainable development of certain social groups as regards the ability to find different and original 

solutions to situations of inequality and social vulnerability. 

 

 
 

Figure 2: Co-design machine systematisation: A process to boost creativity in the individual and  

the community. 

 

The co-design machine’s main goal is to create a small-scale dynamic that seeks to influence the 

sociocultural structure of the larger-scale system, which is characterised by slow and stabilising 

development. It is a socio-technical system (Manzini, 2019) focused on developing solutions to real 

problems, as well as fostering the common good. In Wahl's (2016) understanding, this type of smaller 

system has the advantage of being faster and thus affecting larger systems with more efficiency, either 

through a chain reaction or through a “transformative (r)evolutionary” development. In this sense,  

the co-design machine, operating in the local sphere through a practice of participatory art and design  

with citizens in vulnerable situations, aims foremost at emancipating them, as well as rehabilitating the 

sociocultural fabric creativity in a broader sense. 

 

 



 

61 

Case studies in disenfranchised neighbourhoods 

The three participatory art and design projects developed and reproduced in the Emancipation and 

Creativity Atlas are entitled Netskola (Image 1), Kowork (Image 2) and More South (Image 3). These case 

studies took place in the Amadora and Oeiras municipalities. 

 

Amongst the most significant phases that are present in all projects are the interaction with local 

associations with roots in the territories, the existence of facilities and equipment that these organisations 

have and made available for carrying out each workshop, the voluntary collaboration of residents 

participating in the activities, the fact that these occurred in places where people live, the choice of themes 

and educational activities, as well as the definition of purposes related to the people's interests and 

willingness to participate in learning and creative processes, and the dissemination through an archive  

of video and photography. 

 

 
 

Image 1: Netskola project: ICT workshop with adults. 

 

The Netskola (2013–2015) project was the first intervention to take place. This initiative was developed  

in disenfranchised neighbourhoods of the city of Amadora in partnership with local private social solidarity 

institutions. In this case, an educational service was created in the field of computer literacy and 

photography, and it was open to participation by locals, mostly African or Afro-descendant. The activities 

took place in two local associations that people often use for social and educational support. 

 

The Kowork (2015–2017) project resulted from a collaboration platform between the Faculty of 

Architecture of the University of Lisbon and the local association Moinho da Juventude (Youth Mill  

in Portuguese) in the Cova da Moura neighbourhood, Amadora. The main objective was the creation  

of a training course focused on the development of skills in design to promote the institution's carpentry.  

In the context of creative stimulation and critical thinking, the participants of African descent were led  



 

62 

to survey latent problems in the neighbourhood and to propose possible solutions. In this sense, pieces  

of urban furniture were produced and installed in various areas of the neighbourhood, such as garden 

benches and litter bins built with reused wooden pallets. 

 

The More South (2017–2018) project was based on a proposal made by the Aga Khan Foundation in 

Portugal. A collaboration was initiated to implement a socially engaged art project with a group of African 

immigrants living in different neighbourhoods in a creative and participatory project in which design 

outcomes were developed. Based on the participants’ knowledge, the production of cloth bags with 

capulana (printed fabric used in some African countries) applications was carried out. Visual poems, also 

created in a participatory manner, appeared on bags. The idea was to develop a survey of expressions from 

various African languages and Creoles informed by the knowledge of those involved and further elaborated 

through graphic compositions. 

 

A common characteristic of the three case studies is the fact that they initially worked through the 

organisation of workshops and other educational activities and then unfolded into significant objects 

through the reproduction of the initiatives. This kind of societal image constitutes a photographic 

testimony through which the spectator metaphorically participates in the project. The observation of these 

societal reproductions requires a critical perspective of the sociocultural context in question, shaping  

a political attitude towards public life (Azoulay, 2015). Through the Emancipation and Creativity Atlas, the 

viewer becomes a witness of the evidence produced as well as the subject of a reflection around the 

permanent need for support and requalification of communities living in disenfranchised neighbourhoods 

(Gorgel Pinto, 2019). 

 

 
 

Image 2: Kowork project: Design workshop. 

 



 

63 

A negative aspect was the participants' precarious condition, which generally makes it impossible for them 

to be more involved in the initiatives. This is something that can be minimised through alternative forms  

of interaction and by valuing empirical knowledge that can contribute to a greater commitment of the 

participants and reduce existing inertia. On the other hand, it is possible to promote group cohesion 

through an involvement adapted to each situation and through the accountability of participants to certain 

tasks. Another concern was the possible lack of interest from the community in the participatory actions, 

and these can be minimised through the creation of collaborative educational contexts of their interest and 

by the perseverance of some participants in the project who are more autonomous and proactive. 

Amongst the qualities that can strengthen the experimented participatory art and design practice, what 

stands out are a) the valorisation of the aesthetic dimension of ethics, b) the use of a transdisciplinary 

methodology based on several means of expression for the benefit of social objectives to be achieved  

and c) the level of the relationship between art and social innovation. 

 

 
 

Image 3: More South project: Engraving and sewing workshop. 

 

The possibility of the adoption of the projects by the communities or by partner institutions is another 

advantage that can be leveraged, given the evident improvement that these actions bring to the 

communities in question. Through the experimented systematisation of the processes, it was proven to the 

partners that this kind of collaborative work is a benefit that can be continued and deepened. Also, it was 

demonstrated to the participants that with their will and creativity and these kinds of collaborations, it is 

possible to aspire to more sustainable sociocultural conditions. 

 

Establishing consensus through the Delphi method 

The application of the Delphi method focused on a set of questions with relevance for the study. The 

reflection on the issues and topics considered was crucial and resulted from the analysis and exploration  

of information collected through a questionnaire to reach a consensus. Another decisive aspect for 



 

64 

common understanding is the fact that there was an eclectic group of experts whose territory of origin 

corresponds to the various areas that inform the research. Designers, artists, theorists in both areas and 

other experts with experience in public affairs were part of the panel that allowed the application of the 

Delphi method. 

 

The Delphi method was used because it is an effective way of organising a group communication process, 

which enabled interaction with a panel of specialists to function in the critical analysis of a complex and 

subjective problem (Graham et al., 2003). In this context, judgements, opinions and convictions were 

systematically collected and structured, giving priority to the consensus creation, but also considering 

divergent points of view. Among the invited personalities to participate were design theorists such as 

Alastair Fuad-Luke and Maria Hellström Reimer; artists with a practice marked by the involvement with 

communities and by participatory art forms, such as Jane Gilmor, Virginia Fróis and the Wochenklausur 

collective; designers with an activity focused on participatory design and co-design, such as the collective 

Fermenta; a professional photographer and designer, David Van Allen; and professionals in public 

functions, such as Ricardo Robles and Ana Isabel Ribeiro from the Lisbon municipality, as well as Mário 

Campos from the Almada municipality. 

 

The panel was asked a series of questions, and they answered on the main aspects that inform the 

developed participatory art and design practice. The members of the panel also analysed and justified the 

resultant different perspectives. The main objective was to test the concepts and the experimented 

practice from a multitude of disciplinary perspectives. The inquiry process consisted of two multiple-choice 

questionnaires with several relevant questions for the research. In the first questionnaire, only five 

questions did not receive the intended result. Subsequently, based on the five questions that did not obtain 

consensus, plus the set of answers that did not reach strong agreement, the study continued with the 

application of a second questionnaire. This last approach to the expert panel resulted in a consensus  

on all issues. 

 

Amongst the expressed thoughts, the appreciation of cultural capital through an emphasis on art, heritage 

and plurality stands out, as well as the fact that the creative input of specific communities and citizens, in 

general, should be recognised and supported by professional artists and designers. Thus, more and better 

conditions for artists and designers to develop initiatives to encourage creativity and social innovation are 

necessary to improve creativity amongst citizens living in vulnerable areas. 

 

Regarding the methods and methodologies of participatory art and design, the panel highlighted 

the understanding of common aspects that are informed by both politics and aesthetics. Depending  

on circumstances, this area of knowledge should be seen as a whole and as an interdisciplinary  

or transdisciplinary phenomenon. 

 

Considering the different targets and forms of expression produced during each project (participants, 

community, society, art and design specialists), another consensual view was the understanding  

of different possibilities of interpretation derived from the participatory interventions. The proliferation  

of participatory art and design initiatives of an activist nature is a relevant way to boost sociocultural 

transformation, especially the promotion of citizenship issues in a sphere of sustainability, while reacting 

critically against the political agendas of certain organisations with social responsibility. This kind of practice 

is thus an artistic phenomenon, informed by ethics, aesthetics and politics and aiming at the involvement 

and collaboration with citizens for the experimentation and implementation of alternative  

sustainability models. 



 

65 

 

Concerning the dialogue between artists and designers with participants to stimulate interaction and 

optimise the collaboration process, the panel agreed that this is a core value in the social innovation 

process for the emancipation of citizens living in disenfranchised neighbourhoods. In this context, the use 

of participatory creation methodologies, particularly co-design, is a relevant medium for systematising 

methods of participatory art and design. 

 

Finally, the expert panel acknowledged that the representation of citizens residing in disenfranchised areas 

through images of their engagement in creative initiatives for social innovation is a proactive form of 

representation that goes against the usual reproduction of stigmas. These and other consensual opinions 

can be better analysed in the questionnaires (Appendix 1). 

 

Conclusions 

The results obtained in the present research can be verified in several ways. On the one hand, through 

what was achieved with each social group, and on the other, through the generated intersubjectivity 

between the areas of knowledge in the fields of design, visual arts, culture, education and social action. 

Regarding the developed initiatives in the disenfranchised neighbourhoods, the outcomes were not only 

recognised by the participants, but it was also possible to confirm through their interest and constant 

presence in the development of activities that these types of actions are significant and contribute to the 

residential areas that engaged. The projects’ implications in society are also revealed by the fact that they 

lead participants to the production of contents and objects with public interest and utility. Also, the 

outcomes are a testimony of creativity and civic participation in community life. In the Netskola case, these 

aspects were less evident because the project participants produced only small, illustrated texts about 

cultural references with which they identify themselves. However, both in Kowork and More South, through 

the creation of urban furniture and fabric bags with stamped visual poetry, value and impact were more 

evident for the local community, society in general and the activists of the established platforms. 

 

Regarding the intersubjectivity generated in the territories of art and design, as well as in the areas  

of culture, education and social action, this was measured not only through the involvement with each  

of these contexts but also through their overlap. Within the scope of the design discipline, the 

understanding of the participatory and transmedia practices in question and the theoretical implicit issues 

were predominant since the study started from the design discipline. This research characteristic  

is a relevant aspect that demonstrates the openness of design and the ability to expand to other forms  

of knowledge. 

 

In the areas of culture, education and social action, the generated knowledge resulted from involvement 

with different organisations within the scope of the completed projects. These associations of social 

solidarity and non-governmental organisations, with which the intervention platforms have been created, 

have in general professionals with qualifications in areas such as psychology, sociology, economics and 

social assistance with whom the knowledge exchange was enriching. It should also be noted that these 

types of institutions are promoters of educational and cultural activities with experience in using public 

funding, as well as experience dealing with different local entities. In this context, in the development  

of the projects, through collaboration with local organisations and established contacts with the heads  

of public entities in these territories, it was possible to demonstrate the relevance and usefulness of this 

type of participatory art and design project, as well as discuss and disseminate among those experts some 

of the main concepts and the modus operandi. 

 



 

66 

Among the objectives achieved, it is important to highlight the production of a photography and video 

archive that represents the developed practice. Regardless of the citizenship status of all the case studies, 

the existence of another form of citizenship emerges, made possible through the imagery in question. This 

is an archive with images showing a disenfranchised community that lacks social support to unveil the 

presence of a rich culture. However, what is worth noting is that despite the many adversities in these 

marginalised places of our society, there are creative citizens full of knowledge and ready to pursue life 

opportunities (Gorgel Pinto, 2019). 

 

For further research in the same field, the lessons include fostering pluralism, eclecticism and  

a transdisciplinary approach. Considering that this type of socially engaged art initiative is characterised  

by multiplicity, the coexistence of different aspects and is constituted by elements from several origins,  

it is pertinent that different artistic approaches of social character seek other possibilities of intervention 

with similar objectives and without the loss of identity. If the initiative comes from the visual arts or design, 

for example, and within these with different means of expression and specificities, it is constructive to 

maintain an attitude that assumes itself by its characteristics and disciplinary context, at the same time that 

it is informed by other methods and methodologies, whether for their use or simply to better reflect on 

their condition. 

 

References 
Azoulay, A. (2015). The spectator is called do take part. In W. Beshty (Ed.), Ethics: Documents of 
Contemporary Art (pp. 160–163). London, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Whitechapel Gallery, MIT Press. 
 
Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. London: Verso Books. 
 
Disalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial design. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press. 
 
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse. Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making  
of worlds. Durham, London: Duke University Press. 
 
Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. London: Earthscan. 
 
Galeyev, B. M. (1991). The new ‘Laokoon’: A periodic system of the arts. Leonardo, 24(4), 453–456. 
 
Gorgel Pinto, A. (2017). Socially engaged transmedia practice: Co-design machine in Amadora 
neighbourhoods. UD16 Proceedings 5th PhD in Design Research Meeting. 
http://ud16.web.ua.pt/Atas_UD16.pdf 
 
Gorgel Pinto, A. (2019). Emancipation and creativity atlas: The societal image of three disenfranchised 
neighbourhoods in Lisbon. The International Journal of the Image, 10(3), 1–9. 
https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8560/CGP/v10i03/1-9. 
 
Graham, B., Regehr, G., & Wright, J. G. (2003). Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic 
criteria. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(12), 1150–1156. 
 
Helguera, P. (2011). Education for socially engaged art: A materials and techniques handbook.  
New York: Jorge Pinto Books. 
 
Holt, M. (2015). Transformation of the aesthetic: Art as participatory design. Design and Culture,  
7(2), 143-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051781 
 



 

67 

Lacy, S. (1995). Cultural pilgrimages and metaphoric journeys. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping the terrain.  
New genre public art (pp. 19-47). Washington: Bay Press. 
 
Lee, Y. (2006). Design participation tactics: Redefining user participation in design. Wonderground. Design 
Research Society International Conference 2006. Retrieved from 
http://unidcom.iade.pt/drs2006/wonderground/proceedings/fullpapers/DRS2006_0174.pdf 
 
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs. An introduction to design for social innovation. 
Cambridge, London: MIT Press. 
 
Manzini, E. (2019). Politics of the everyday. London, New York: Bloomsbury Visual Arts. 
 
Meadows, D., & Wright, D. (2009). Thinking in systems. London, New York: Earthscan. 
 
Mieko, S. (2013, July 13). Intermedia/transmedia. MOMA. Retrieved from 
https://post.moma.org/intermedia-transmedia/ 
 
Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity: Levels of reality, logic of the included middle  
and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19–38. 
 
Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. New York: Pantheon 
Books. 
 
Rancière, J. (2002). O mestre ignorante: Cinco lições sobre a emancipação intelectual. Belo Horizonte,  
São Paulo: Autêntica. 
 
Wahl, D. C. (2016). Designing regenerative cultures. Axminster: Triarchy Press. 

Appendix 
Selection of questions from the first and second questionnaires: 

Given the existence of several participatory art practices with social groups and communities, namely  
in the sphere of visual arts and design, how relevant is the fact that these disciplines inform each other 
concerning the methodologies, methods and means of expression? [75% Very relevant] 

How do you consider social art and social design as disciplinary practices? [75% Depending on the project 
circumstances, an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary phenomenon] 

How important do you consider the proliferation of social art and design initiatives of an activist nature, 
whose objective is to boost sociocultural transformation, especially the promotion of citizenship issues and 
their respective interests and ambitions in a sphere of sustainability, while reacting critically against the 
political agendas of certain organisations with social responsibility? [75% Important] 

In parallel with the critical and creative sense, how relevant is dialogue between artists and designers with 
participants to stimulate interaction and improve the collaboration process? [90% Very relevant] 

How important is the use of art and design for social innovation focused on the emancipation of participant 
citizens? [80% Very important] 

How important do you consider the use of participatory creation methodologies, namely co-design,  
by other disciplines in the field of social art? [88% Relevant] 

http://unidcom.iade.pt/drs2006/wonderground/proceedings/fullpapers/DRS2006_0174.pdf
https://post.moma.org/intermedia-transmedia/


 

68 

Do you agree that the representation of groups of citizens living in disenfranchised areas through images  
of their engagement in creative initiatives for social innovation is a proactive form of representation which 
goes against the usual reproduction of stigmas? [80% Agree] 

 
 


