For the past four years, I have been working in art workshops where my role is not that of an animator or a cultural mediator, nor specifically that of an artist. It has been all three at the same time. I was often confronted with people who belonged to the cultural and institutional environment of the state and for them, I had to separate these areas and place myself in one of the boxes. For a long time, my dilemma was: either I am an artist or I am a cultural mediator, but the third-way artist-mediator did not suit the others and I must admit that I had some discomfort myself. This dilemma led me to question my professional identity and therefore my position in relation to pedagogy, the people who participate in the workshops, and art itself. I came to the conclusion that the problematization of education, my presence, and that of other individuals in the workshops would be worked out through creative research, which would allow me to get out of this dilemma and leave behind the passivity that the workshops had taken.

So, if we start from the fact that the mediator can make art and that the artist makes art; mediation as an artistic practice has allowed the mediator-artist to be situated on both levels at the same time and it is the very definition of participative art that gives him this status. The question is thus to find an artistic device that allows at the same time to produce a collective work of art and to account for the fact that the value of this work is located not only in the product (the physical result) but in the participation (the energy) which allowed its manufacture.

And also the fact that, the pedagogical projects are inscribed in a participative and mediating step in places other than those in which art has the habit of being witnessed (artistic institutions such as galleries or spaces of the exhibition of art) and which are valued according to ethical criteria, and besides these projects will not be identified to systems of technical representation of knowledge - to make. On the contrary, the mode of visibility of its aesthetic unit corresponds to the sensitive sharing between an experience that has already taken place outside the place where it is exposed, and that needs then, not only to give an account of it but to make feel this energetic experience, through what could be a new energetic experience. So there would be two experiences at the end.

But in order to carry out this procedure, we will need a device - in Rancière's sense, a form, endowed with meaning for collective life - that will allow us to transmit the relationships of reciprocity, the ecosystems created, and the actions of participation from an artistic point of view.