“WHO IS ART FOR?” AN EXAMPLE FROM THE BAKSI MUSEUM A PHOTOVOICE ACTIVITY

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 175 - 191, 01.01.2026

Şenay Baş

https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1797637

Öz

This research aims to examine art students' perspectives on the question “Who is art for?” within the context of the Baksı Museum through a Photovoice activity. Photovoice was used as a participatory qualitative research method that enables individuals to express their experiences through visual production and develop critical awareness. This method was considered important for the research because it incorporates visual narration through photography, which is the most common practice among the current generation. Eleven students (7 female, 4 male) from the Painting and Crafts Teaching program at Trabzon University participated in the study. Participants took photographs during a museum tour and wrote short explanations for their selected frames, questioning the museum's inclusivity. The data were analyzed thematically. The findings show that the participants established emotional-identification bonds with the works, questioned the social functions of art, and addressed spatial and access barriers. The relationship between local and universal understandings of art was particularly emphasized by the participants. The study demonstrates that Photovoice develops critical visual literacy and social awareness in students in the context of art education. Consequently, Photovoice is an effective pedagogical tool that can be used in art education programs. In terms of museum policies, accessibility, interaction with local communities, and the development of digital opportunities stand out as critical recommendations for the democratization of art.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Photovoice , Baksı Museum , Inclusion , Contemporary Art , Visual Arts.

Etik Beyan

There is no violation of research and publication ethics in this study.

“SANAT KİM İÇİNDİR?” BAKSI MÜZESİ ÖRNEĞİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR PHOTOVOİCE ETKİNLİĞİ

Öz

Bu araştırma, ‘Sanat kim içindir?’ sorusunu Baksı Müzesi bağlamında Photovoice etkinliği ile sanat öğrencilerinin bakış açılarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Photovoice, bireylerin görsel üretim yoluyla deneyimlerini ifade etmelerine ve eleştirel farkındalık geliştirmelerine olanak sağlayan katılımcı bir nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntem araştırma için günümüz neslinin en yaygın fotoğraflama yoluyla görsel anlatımı içermesi açısından önemli görülmüştür. Çalışmaya Trabzon Üniversitesi Resim-İş Öğretmenliği programından 11 öğrenci (7 kadın, 4 erkek) katılmıştır. Katılımcılar müze gezisi sırasında fotoğraflar çekmiş, seçtikleri kareler için kısa açıklamalar yazarak müzenin kapsayıcılığını sorgulamışlardır. Veriler tematik analizle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, katılımcıların eserlerle duygusal-özdeşlik bağları kurduklarını, sanatın toplumsal işlevlerini sorguladıklarını, mekânsal ve erişim engellerini ele aldıklarını göstermektedir. Yerel ve evrensel sanat anlayışları arasındaki ilişki katılımcılar tarafından özellikle vurgulanmıştır. Çalışma, Photovoice’un sanat eğitimi bağlamında öğrencilerde eleştirel görsel okuryazarlık ve toplumsal duyarlılık geliştirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak Photovoice, sanat eğitimi programlarında kullanılabilecek etkili bir pedagojik araçtır. Müze politikaları açısından ise erişilebilirlik, yerel topluluklarla etkileşim ve dijital olanakların geliştirilmesi sanatın demokratikleşmesi için kritik öneriler olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Photovoice , Baksı Müzesi , Kapsayıcılık , Çağdaş Sanat , Görsel Sanatlar.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmada araştırma ve yayın etiğine aykırı herhangi bir durum bulunmamaktadır.

Kaynakça

• Becker, H. (1982). Art worlds. University of California Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Columbia University Press.
• Braden, C. (2016). Welcoming all visitors: Museums, accessibility, and visitors with disabilities. University of Michigan Working Papers in Museum Studies, i.
• Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
• Brischetto, A., Iacono, E., Becchimanzi, C., & Tosi, F. (2023). Enhancing inclusive experience in museums: Results from a field study. AHFE International, 132–144.
• Burke, L., Gavigan, N., Smith, C., Belton, S., & Goss, H. (2024). The use of photovoice in youth health education programs: A systematic review. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1(aop), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2023-0030
• Carroll, N. (1999). Philosophy of art: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.
• Catalani, C., & Minkler, M. (2010). Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior, 37(3), 424–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198109342084
• Çiçek, A., & Ceylanlı, A. (2025). The reflection of institutional identity in the architecture of contemporary art museums in Istanbul. International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 11(2), 45–62.
• Danto, A. (1964). The artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571–584.
• Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the aesthetic: An institutional analysis. Cornell University Press.
• Fern, W. G., Hsu, J., Baek, J. H., Coleman, A. L., Maresca, F. M., & Miller, M. B. (2006). A view through a different lens: Photovoice as a tool for student advocacy. Journal of American College Health, 55(1), 53–56. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.1.53-56
• Fotiadi, S. E. (2024). Multisensory technologies for inclusive exhibition spaces: Disability access meets artistic and curatorial research. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 8(8), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti8080074
• González-Herrera, A. I., Díaz-Herrera, A. B., Hernández-Dionis, P., & Pérez-Jorge, D. (2023). Educational and accessible museums and cultural spaces. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01563-8
• Kurnaz, Z. [@navavar]. (2024, 27 Aralık). Photovoice [Tweet]. X (Twitter). from https://x.com/navavar/status/1872537633202880841?s=46
• Lofton, S., & Grant, A. K. (2021). Outcomes and intentionality of action planning in photovoice: A literature review. Health Promotion Practice, 22(3), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839920957427
• OECD/ICOM (2019). Culture and Local Development: Maximising the Impact A Guıde For Local Governments, Communıtıes and Museums. “ Museums and rural development: Baksı Museum, Turkey.” OECD/ICOM Policy Brief. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/09/culture-and-local-development-maximising-the-impact_4d5fd9ca/9a855be5-en.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• Royce, S. W., Parra-Medina, D., & Messias, D. H. (2006). Using photovoice to examine and initiate youth empowerment in community-based programs. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 4(3), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.32398/cjhp.v4i3.1960
• Schell, K. (2009). Photovoice as a teaching tool: Learning by doing. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 8(1), A10–A15.
• Sutter, G. C., O’Malley, L., & Sperlich, T. (2023). Rural community engagement for heritage conservation and adaptive renewal. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 15(2).
• Sutton-Brown, C. A. (2014). Photovoice: A methodological guide. Photography and Culture, 7(2), 169–185.
• Jahn, G. R. (1975). The aesthetic theory of Leo Tolstoy's what is art?. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34(1), 59-65.
• Wang, C. (2006). Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n01_09
• Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309