INTERPRETATIONS Action Research for Interpretation Practice in Contemporary Art

Report written by Maureen K Michael drawing on work by Kirstie Skinner (Collective Gallery)

Sarah Derrick (Dundee Contemporary Arts) Carol Dunbar (Pier Arts Centre)

Zoë Fothergill (Talbot Rice Gallery)

August 2008

1

Contents

Acknowledgements Page 2 Overview Page 3

Part One Introduction, Context and Methods Part One introduces Interpretations and the four participating gallery projects. There is a description of the project context and the methods used to support the projects. Pages 4-11

Part Two Case Studies, Discussion and Comparison This section describes each of the four projects as case-studies exploring the action research processes. A Comparison Table concludes Part Two. Pages 12 - 31

Part Three Observations, Reflections and Conclusions In Part Three the report reflects on emerging themes and suggests conclusions. The report finishes with recommendations for the development of Interpretations. Pages 32 - 37

References Page 38

List of Tables Page 39

List of Images Page 40

List of Appendices Page 41

2

Acknowledgements

Interpretations has been made possible with the funding and support of the National Lottery through the Scottish Arts Council; engage Scotland and the Hugh Fraser Foundation. Special thanks to the Advisory Group and the engage Scotland Coordinator, Sarah Yearsley for their commitment to the concept, funding and dissemination and feedback of each stage of the project. To the extended network of staff, freelancers, academics and audiences of the participating galleries; a warm and grateful thanks, in particular the project coordinators, Kirstie Skinner, Collective Gallery, Edinburgh Sarah Derrick, Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee Carol Dunbar, Pier Art Centre, Orkney Zoë Fothergill, Talbot Rice Gallery, Edinburgh And to those artists working in the field of contemporary art whose work has contextualised the interpretative practice in each of the projects: Matthew Buckingham Enrico David Richard Deacon Freee Colin Johnstone Camilla Løw Jason Nelson Bill Woodrow Artur Zmijewski

3

Overview Interpretations gave four galleries in Scotland the opportunity to affect change in their interpretation practice through action research. Drawing from their own specific circumstances, gallery teams developed innovative ways of working with staff and audiences towards fresh interpretation practice for contemporary art. Through a variety of interventions each project shifts the authorial voice from the expert to the visitor. In using action research the projects promote participation and critical reflection as key values in developing new and existing audiences for contemporary art. This pre-evaluation report presents each project as an individual case-study and characterises them as iterative, strategic, holistic and responsive, respectively. The case-studies describe the various research questions, methods and outputs and offer a brief analysis of process. Interviews, experiential workshops, questionnaires, document surveys and focus groups were all used as tools in the action research process but investing time in critical reflection emerges as a possible cornerstone of the Interpretations project. Interpretations tentatively concludes that whilst action research offers a creative process for affecting individual and organisational change, the challenge of documenting and presenting diverse and complex projects cannot be overestimated: sensitive, sustained support is required for optimum results. The visual literacy of practitioners in the field of gallery education and interpretation could be further championed through the use of image-based methods in the research process. Again, sensitive but rigorous support of practitioners is required to build confidence with existing visual skills towards an action research context. The report concludes by proposing five areas that could structure future evaluation, assessing the success of Interpretations and its importance to the fields of gallery education and audience development.

4

Part One Introduction, Context and Methods

5

Introduction Interpretations is a project rich in complexity and diversity. It explores the potential of gallery-based interpretation methods to develop new and existing audiences for contemporary visual art in Scotland through action research. Interpretations operates on two levels. First, at the level of individual galleries: project teams use an action research model to investigate the effectiveness of a gallery-based project, reflecting on the impact of such a participative process. At a second level, Interpretations looks across the four projects and attempts to draw out the commonalities and the innovation through a case study approach. It is this second level that is the purpose of this report. This report is not an evaluation of Interpretations. It is a stepping stone towards evaluation that offers a representation of the underpinning action research and identifies aspects that may inform the evaluation process. The report welcomes a wide readership but invites specific comment from the community of educators involved in interpretation for contemporary art. The report is structured in three broad sections with the case-studies of the four projects at the centre:

Vocal Collective Gallery, Edinburgh (CG) Minding The Gap Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee (DCA) Reach Out Pier Arts Centre, Orkney (PAC) Show Me Yours, I’ll Show You Mine Talbot Rice Gallery, Edinburgh (TRG)1

Individual project reports and other relevant documentation are located in the appendices. Research Focus The focus for the action-research is the practice of interpretation in relation to audience engagement with contemporary art, addressing the generic research question,

How can we use interpretation to increase access to contemporary art, and to address perceived barriers to intellectual access?

Aim

To provide opportunities for gallery staff to look creatively at methods of gallery-based interpretation and to experiment with approaches addressing barriers to (intellectual) access.

This aim is to be achieved through meeting the following objectives: Objectives

consider each project as a case-study supporting gallery teams in the methods of action research

identify common characteristics across the case studies

1 Abbreviations in brackets used throughout document when referring to the specific galleries and/or projects. The

alphabetical order of the galleries is a convention used throughout Interpretations and in this document.

6

further promote and embed principles of equality into gallery practice through attention to equality in the selection, implementation and evaluation process of the action research2

Selection Through the websites of engage and the Scottish Arts Council, an open call for proposals was launched in June 2007. Twelve proposals were received from venues across Scotland and were considered through a process of blind peer review. The Advisory Group then invited nine proposals to a second stage. Three proposals were selected at Stage Two with the Advisory Group making a decision to invite a proposal from one further venue thus extending the geography, audience profile and exhibitions programmes represented across the four proposals. Written feedback from the selection process was emailed to all unsuccessful proposals. Background The provenance of the Interpretations Project is located in the scoping work of Heather Lynch, “Mapping Interpretation Practices in Contemporary Art” (2006)3. This document outlines existing interpretation practice of contemporary art venues in Scotland and describes the barriers to accessing this art as perceived by those working in the sector. Each participant of Interpretations contributed to the data collated for the Mapping document: Interpretations is inspired from within the profession rather than being imposed by outside agencies. Existing forms of interpretation are summarised in “Map 4” (Lynch 2006:29) reproduced in Table 2. Methods appealing to the multiple literacies of audiences are highlighted in this “Map” including text, visual, tactile and media literacies. Lynch explores these methods and the contributors‟ evaluation of them. The report identifies and concludes with five key areas for further research:

1. Interactivity – active engagement with interpretation offered in gallery 2. Audience-generated – creating content based on audience

responses/engagements 3. Space – how physical and conceptual ideas of space promote or hinder

interpretation 4. Language – the accessibility of scripted communications 5. Partnership approaches – negotiating shared meanings with external

organisations The action research projects within Interpretations address one or two of these key areas specifically but inevitably touch on aspects of all five. In implementing their action research, the gallery teams investigate the generic research through the pursuit of specific questions. These are listed on page 8 and discussed more fully in the case-studies.

2 As described in Project Overview submitted to each gallery October 2007 (Appendix 1)

3 www.scottisharts.org.uk/DownloadPublication.aspx?pub=11490

7

Table 1

Map 4 Forms of Interpretation from Lynch 2006:29

reproduced with permission from engage Scotland

8

Specific research questions Vocal research question:

How does consulting a panel of audience members affect the delivery of interpretation for the Collective Gallery?

Minding The Gap research question:

How can we support Gallery Assistants to operate in the perceived gap between organisational aspirations for and audience expectations of a contemporary art experience at DCA?

Reach Out research question:

What interpretation strategies can we develop and adopt that will encourage and maintain interest from a locally-based audience?

Show Me Yours research question:

How do different audience interpretive communities receive and interpret artworks using a variety of tools and activities. How is this capability most effectively facilitated?

These research questions relate to the specific organisational and audience context of each gallery and are focused on issues of practice. The four different projects address the central research question in diverse ways reflecting the inherent variety within gallery education that gives it its strength. Whilst the variety brings strength it also means that general conclusions are harder to arrive at. Interpretations contributes to a growing body of UK research in the field of gallery interpretation and audience development (Taylor 2006b; Charman & Ross 2006). Currently the research and dissemination of enquire and envision are advancing the significance of gallery experiences for young people‟s learning. The enquire project, “Inspiring Learning in Galleries” (Burgess & Addison 2007; Taylor 2006a) facilitates intellectual access to contemporary art for school children through partnership clusters of artists, university-based researchers, gallery educators, pupils and art teachers. envision focuses on young people (14-21) working through action research with galleries. enquire and envision differ from Interpretations in terms of scale, scope and focus but they offer valuable insights into the various conditions for intellectual access, the sustainability and legacy of gallery-based projects for audience development. However, in common with enquire and envision, Interpretations is concerned with the participatory methods of action research as a means of professional development in the practice of interpretation.

9

Action Research Action research, or action enquiry, has no single definition but can be characterised through its practitioner focus on practice in a way that promotes participation and empowerment. Table 2 lists seven definitions of action research, illustrating the main principles of this method.

Action research is a process of systematic reflection, enquiry and action carried out by individuals about their own professional practice. Frost 2002:25 in Costello 2003:3

Action research is a term used to describe professionals studying their own practice in order to improve it. GTWC 2002a:15 in Costello 2003:3

Action research combines a substantive act with a research procedure; it is action disciplined by enquiry, a personal attempt at understanding while engaged in a process of improvement and reform. Hopkins 2002:42 in Costello 2003:3

Action research is... usually described as cyclic, with action and critical reflection taking place in turn. The reflection is used to review the previous action and plan the next one. Dick 1997 in Costello 2003:4

Action research is always open ended; it is a process of discovery and is not used to test assumptions (evaluation). Taylor 2006

...an important feature of action research is that the task is not finished when the project ends. Bell 1993:6

...action research breaks the divide between academic theory/ research and professional practice by equipping actors with the reflective tools that will assist them to understand their professional action from the inside. Grek 2008:4

Table 2 Seven definitions of action research

Developing research capacity and culture through the promotion of action research is a key objective of Interpretations, but the purpose is not to teach it through didactic methods removed from practice. Rather, it is to offer the tools and support that participants might need in order to experience action research as practice. Therefore, Interpretations is designed as an experiential process where participants are asked to critically reflect on their practice and in their practice (Schön 1983 & 1987)4. This is often a provocative experience as practitioner-participants place themselves in a learning context and are asked to manage and reflect on two projects concurrently: the episode of practice under scrutiny (often devised as a special project) and the systematic reflection and enquiry that defines the action research. For many practitioners, the cycle of planning, problem-solving, evaluating and more planning is a familiar way of

4 The work of Donald Schön (1983 & 1987) offers useful theoretical frameworks for concepts of

reflection in and on practice.

10

working. Adopting an action research framework can position the practitioner-researcher in order that everyday practice can be viewed from a different perspective. This new perspective offers new understandings and so leads to a development in practice. Thus the professional development occurs in a situated context and is therefore more likely to be transferrable (Lave & Wenger 1991). The case-studies emphasise the action-research of each project and tease out what new understandings may be emerging. Scope, Roles and Responsibilities Interpretations spans a period of approximately 15 months (May 2007 – August 2008) with gallery-based projects implemented between the eight months October 2007 to May 2008. The selected proposals are not representative of contemporary art venues but they indicate the variety of gallery context in Scotland. The projects are designed to appeal to a broad audience as identified by each gallery team. Financial support towards the implementation of the action-research was an award of £5750 to each of the four galleries. All galleries augmented this budget with in-kind contributions and other external funding. Interpretations is project managed by the engage Scotland Coordinator; the action research is supported by an independent researcher whose professional interests lie in practice-based research in art and education, contracted for a total of 42 days and supported by the Advisory Group.5 The researcher‟s remit was to facilitate the aims and objectives of Interpretations. Researcher Methods The researcher for Interpretations is the author of this report. The methods employed by the researcher relate to the coordinating nature of the remit and are mindful of the scholarship required for the stated aim and objectives. Through the Cluster Events, participatory workshops were devised in order to acknowledge and promote the visual and discursive aspects of interpretation as valid research tools. The content of each Cluster Event responded to needs identified by participants in previous sessions. Participant feedback was invited on materials disseminated at all Cluster Events. A chronological sequence of researcher process and outputs is available in Appendix 2. Project reports from each gallery were scrutinised using a simplified form of content analysis in order to extrapolate action research tools/methods implicit in the reporting. This analysis contributed to the construction of the case-study texts. Supporting the researcher‟s personal process of critical reflection were visual illustrations of concepts, process and outcomes. A single example is included in Appendix 9 representing a personal way of working that does not necessarily resonate with participants‟ working processes. Researcher Perspective This introductory section closes with a brief consideration of how interpretation practice is conceptualised by the researcher. Whilst researcher objectivity is sought through constant feedback, the position of the researcher is arguably never neutral. The following paragraphs are an attempt to lay bare researcher assumptions and prejudices implicit in this text and allow the reader to judge the text accordingly. The practice of interpretation weaves threads of audience development, curatorship, marketing, education and art criticism into an intricate pattern of possibilities. It is a practice evidenced in catalogues and leaflets, on labels and layouts, and in workshops, walkabouts, websites and wall panels. It is a practice

5 Advisory Group List located at the end of Appendix 1

11

that demands an understanding of audience perceptions and an appreciation for the multiple literacies through which meaning can be acquired. Confidence of non-understanding and a tolerance of ambiguity are perhaps useful dispositions for the practice of interpretation. Within Interpretations, the participants have organisational remits ranging between gallery educator, curator, exhibitions programmer, education and access and gallery assistant. Researcher discussions with participants suggests that for some, the word “education” and its connotations of formal learning and school activities, sits uncomfortably with their understanding of the context of their practice. There is an aspiration to facilitate meaningful experiences for audiences of contemporary art, offering a range of resources that might appeal to the multiple literacies and dispositions of audiences. Perhaps education and learning are seen as restrictive terms by some but the acquisition of meaning seems central to what happens through effective interpretation. The following quote refers to the work of artists and how their work challenges us to think about things differently. If the words of “art” and “artist” were replaced with “interpretation” and “interpreter”, does this help conceptualise the meaning and influence of interpretation practice?

“artists, through their work, can change our way of seeing. They can influence what we regard as art; they can challenge us in special ways to think about how those relationships influence our experience. Artists, like scientists, are often troublemakers, and the trouble that they make is that their work confronts our customary modes of seeing and challenges us to think afresh about how aspects of the world might be experienced.”

original text from Eisner 2002:124-125 Ethics and Consent Ethical principles of confidentiality, honesty and independence were applied to the management and conduct of Interpretations. Each project coordinator completed a consent form confirming their participation and their permission to use photographs etc (Appendix 4). The issue of anonymity was discussed at the participant information session: given the relatively intimate scale of Interpretations, anonymity of participants could not be guaranteed. Gallery teams were responsible for ensuring proper consent appropriate to their individual projects. In advance of this report the project teams were provided with drafts and invited to comment on details of fact and interpretation; their feedback informs this final version.

12

Part Two Case Studies, Discussion and Comparison

13

Introduction to the Case Studies Each project is situated in various contexts of organisation, exhibition programming, size of project team, audience focus, and research question. The interpretative outputs are equally varied covering web-based resources, DVDs, new gallery-guide formats and the professional development of staff. The formats of project reporting and evaluation have differed, reflecting the different working contexts of each project. Some have worked within suggested layouts; others have created their own formats. The individual projects are different but the individual action inquiries follow similar cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. With this intricate diversity, Interpretations is faced with a significant challenge. Presenting each project with a literary and analytical consistency has been a complex proceeding. Some of these complexities have been resolved in the simplified structure of the case-studies. For example, the uniform structure of the case-studies allows a rhythm of information to be presented and mitigates the differences in project reporting styles. However, some of the complexities have been exacerbated: in re-interpreting the project reports, the danger is that detail and nuance are lost. The project teams have had the opportunity to comment and propose amendments to their respective case-studies. The original project reports are in Appendices 5-8 with additional review material on the contemporary art context of each project. The review material does not necessarily reflect the thoughts or position of the respective galleries but is offered as an additional perspective. The reader is encouraged to read all accounts in order to gain a rounded picture of each gallery‟s experience and an understanding of their action research. The case studies are presented as follows Case Study 1: Vocal Collective Gallery, Edinburgh Case Study 2: Minding The Gap Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee Case Study 3: Reach Out Pier Arts Centre, Orkney Case Study 4: Show Me Yours, I’ll Show You Mine Talbot Rice Gallery, Edinburgh The commentary included in each case-study unpicks aspects of the action research. Consideration is given to the nature of the research question posed and the appropriateness of the methods selected towards its answer. Observations are made concerning characteristics and processes that may define each project. Subsequent to this report there will be a formal evaluation of the participants‟ experiences. Such an evaluation would further inform the analysis and understanding of the case-studies.

14

Case-Study 1 iterative

Vocal Collective Gallery, Edinburgh www.collectivegallery.net

Image 1 Jason Nelson New Work Scotland Programme 2007

Image 2 Artur Zmijewski Them 2008

Image 3 Freee How to Be Hospitable 2008

Project Summary The Vocal project assembled a panel of audience and staff, meeting six times over a seven-month period, to explore interpretation methods and materials appropriate for the Collective‟s audience. Structuring Vocal is a repetition of discussion, workshop and evaluation. Critical reflection on the interpretation material generated from this sequence informed subsequent iterations. The panel discussed three specific exhibitions: their recorded conversations used as a basis for online podcasts and essay guides in the gallery. Audience feedback on early formats was mixed (indeed in some cases hostile), and this helped the panel, during the evaluation sessions, to refine how their interpretation was presented as the project evolved. Later formats were enthusiastically welcomed. The Vocal project provides insight towards an alternative approach to interpretation that develops staff through structured collaboration with audience members. 6

6 Vocal Project Report Appendix 5

15

Contemporary Art Context7 Jason Nelson (UK) New Work Scotland Programme Artur Zmijewski (Poland) Them Freee(UK) How To Be Hospitable

Research Question

Evolving from the action research process, the Vocal research question became

How does consulting a panel of audience members affect the delivery of interpretation for the Collective Gallery?

Method As with each of the Interpretations projects, the Collective adopted the participatory framework of action research in order to examine their interpretive practices for contemporary art. Within this framework the Collective identified various methods that served to structure their investigations. The Collective team devised a method of semi-structured focus groups: inviting staff and known visitors to become a formal discussion group where the starting point for discussion is defined but the forward direction is driven by the group. Using a digital field recorder the discussions were recorded and later transcribed by the facilitator/interpreter. In addition, the facilitator/interpreter also made audio recordings of the group workshop and evaluation sessions for the purposes of continuity, archiving and documentation. The audio files were edited towards podcasts and scripted essays. During evaluation sessions the Vocal panel reflected on and assessed the project‟s progress, discussing the content, tone and delivery of the materials being produced. This evaluation informed the subsequent iterations of the three-step process and in the development of the interpretive material.

Outputs For each exhibition the interpretation outputs comprised of two-three podcasts (seven total), varying in length between one-seven minutes; and a scripted essay (three total). The podcasts were made available online; the essays available onsite and online.8 An outcome of the Vocal project has been a new format of exhibition guide at the Collective, comprising the Vocal essay, other relevant essays, regular exhibition information and web references.

Discussion From the proposal stage the Vocal project has been clear in its intention towards three areas of inquiry:

developing staff through contact with audience

soliciting interpretation content from a mixed group of staff and audience

expanding the role of audio recordings in interpretation practice These intentions have been realised in part through an adherence to a rhythmic and repeated process of preparation, discussion, reflections and evaluation. A steadfast commitment to preserving the integrity and challenge of emerging practice in contemporary art provided a philosophical foundation from which many project decisions were made.

7 Further Information Appendix 5a

8 http://www.collectivegallery.net/membership.html

16

Through an exhibitions programme of emergent art practice visitors to the Collective Gallery encounter work that is likely to be experimental and unfamiliar, rendering traditional interpretation strategies redundant or inappropriate. The Vocal project was designed to test an alternative approach to interpretation, achieving this through collaboration between staff and audience. Question The original research question directed the initial planning of Vocal

“How can multiple voices be harnessed in the development of meaningful Interpretations for an audience experiencing new art?”

However, as is the nature of action research, the doing of the research clarifies the project‟s focus and the Vocal research question becomes

How does consulting a panel of audience members affect the delivery of interpretation for the Collective Gallery.

The rephrasing of the research question was a “crucially important decision” for the Collective team and reflects the exploratory nature of action research.9 Process The participatory nature of the action research method is evident in the style of planning and project management. The intimate scale of the Collective‟s organisation supports a project structure where several members of staff contribute to the Vocal project. With the Panel workshops and discussion sessions, the facilitator encourages the sessions to be led by the participants. As panel members, the Vocal team were immersed in both the interpretation activities of the panel, and in coordinating the action research elements. Although distinct aspects within the Vocal project, for the practitioners the two aspects became constituent parts of practice. Key to both panel and practitioners was the process of evaluation. This was embedded within each cycle the project and was used to inform subsequent iterations. The Vocal Panel comprises a core of six members consistent across all three iterations of the process. A further two people are present for two iterations and then two others are present for one iteration each. Other than names, there is no further information available to the audience concerning the panel members. Outputs - audio The audio-tour or the acoustic-guide, as an enhancement of the visitor experience, is now an established form of interpretation across the gallery and museum sector. How does the Vocal project advance the use of this technology in interpretation for contemporary art? It is interesting to note that amongst the programme of exhibitions selected for Vocal all have audio as a constituent part of the coherent exhibition: sound has been used to interpret sound. Following feedback from the first exhibition the Panel decided that the audio material should be removed from the gallery and made available on the Collective Gallery website. This was seen as a bold step but the subsequent number of downloads suggests that the material is being used far more as an online podcast than if it was available in the gallery. It seems that by removing the audio from the physical gallery to its virtual equivalent, the Vocal project may be offering a type of intellectual access to contemporary art that enhances the experience for the virtual visitor.

9Case –Study feedback notes [B20]

17

Outputs - essay Constructed from the transcripts of the Panel discussions the essays are presented as coherent pieces of text offering insights to the possible „stories‟ of the artworks. The essays harness multiple voices and they read as a negotiated understanding rather than a juxtaposition of conflicting opinion. The content is respectful of the artist and the artwork: using descriptive musings that reflect the critical thinking of the Panel. Vocal identified description as an important aspect of interpretation resources and experience.

“Although audience feedback was initially mixed, there was a very positive reaction to the new, more varied and expansive gallery guide; and a large uptake of podcasts suggests that these have been useful too.”

Vocal Project Report Appendix 5 The essays and the podcasts exist independently of each other but are derived from the same recorded discussions. Combining the two provides yet another experience. Conclusions The Vocal process facilitates a collegiate approach to staff development and audience engagement. It provides a powerful framework for audience-staff collaboration towards a critical engagement with contemporary art. The repetition of reflection, discussion and evaluation establishes a routine useful in promoting group confidence. The combination of essay and podcast appears to broaden the appeal of the associated exhibition, presenting an innovative combination of text and sound that responds to the physical gallery context and a web context. A consulting panel of audience members has generated interpretation material that reflects the informality of spontaneous and descriptive group discussions. The energy of this material, particularly when combined with additional critical articles and web-references, builds a new format of gallery-guide for the Collective Gallery. The process that describes the action research for Vocal demonstrates the value of a cyclical approach to examining practice.

18

Case-Study 2 strategic

Minding The Gap Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee www.dca.org.uk

Image 4 DCA Gallery Assistants Interpreting Science

Project Summary Minding The Gap aims to professionalise the role of gallery assistants through a development programme of critical reflection in and on practice. This is achieved through integrating previous audience research10 with the implementation of Think Tank sessions that invite DCA staff towards shared perceptions of audience development and interpretation practice. As part of a wider restructuring programme, Minding The Gap promotes organisational coherence through an approach to professional development and interpretation practice useful across the other DCA resources (cinema, cafe, bar etc). Reflections on the use of language revealed that the word “interpretation” does not reflect what the DCA does, nor what the audience expects to find. Consideration is being given to possible replacements/substitutes. Some of the experiences of Minding The Gap culminate in a “Gallery Assistant Handbook” to be used for staff induction, which will be available from DCA.

10

Audience research work commissioned as part of ongoing SAC funded project at DCA (further info from DCA)

19

Contemporary Art Context11 Matthew Buckingham (USA) Play The Story Camilla Løw (Norway) Straight Letters Note: The work of Minding The Gap continues beyond the original Interpretations

timeframe to include the exhibition, “Altered States of Paint” with the work of Jutta Koether, Till Gerhard, Andreas Dobler, Angela de la Cruz, Neil Clements and Rabiya Choudry.

Research Question

How can we support Gallery Assistants to operate in the perceived gap between organisational aspirations for and audience expectations of a contemporary art experience at DCA?

Methods DCA developed a process of action research that collected information using the following methods:

observation of visitor behaviour and other venue practice

analysis of existing documentation (marketing surveys, policy documentation)

questionnaires for staff and visitors

staff focus group sessions (Think Tank)

desk research of other practice The Think Tank sessions are central to the Minding The Gap process. They were used to generate information and also to investigate connections between, for example, the outcomes of marketing surveys and staff questionnaires. Different staff may have been involved in different aspects of the information collection (eg, Marketing, Education & Access, and Programming) but the Think Tank sessions provided a shared means of bringing the information together and collectively making sense of it. Outputs Minding The Gap continues beyond the timeframe of Interpretations. As such it is working towards articulating the role of gallery assistants as an interpretation resource for visitors. A strategy for continuing professional development is explored through the Think Tank sessions. At the time of writing, the principle output in production is a “Gallery Assistant Handbook” developed as a framework of professional activities for gallery assistants. The effectiveness of this handbook and the impact on visitor experience are to be explored in the next phase of Minding The Gap. Discussion Minding The Gap is set against a wider context of organisational change. In the lifetime of the project DCA has undergone significant organisational restructuring with key posts appointed and remits defined. Focusing on the role of gallery assistants, and the organisation‟s perception of that role, has reaped benefits in terms of individual self-esteem and the status of the role within the organisation.

11

Further Information Appendix 6a

20

“We feel very strongly that people, our staff are our strongest interpretative tools.” “For Gallery Assistants the project has raised the profile and status of what they do across DCA staff teams, and emphasised their individual experiences as artists/makers.”

DCA Project Reporting Document July 08. Sections 7 & 8 respectively Appendix 6

Question How can we support Gallery Assistants to operate in the perceived gap between organisational aspirations for and audience expectations of a contemporary art experience at DCA?

The question acknowledges that Gallery Assistants have a role to play in the space between organisational aspirations for visitor experience and visitor expectations of that experience. Also, the question suggests that DCA has a collective responsibility for the purpose of their Gallery Assistants (GA). The question explores ideas of professional development and organisational attitudes regarding visitor engagement. Previous investigations12 have perceived the gap as a distinction between the aspirational and the expected. The perceptions of “gap” are those of DCA staff: the gap is identified as the difference between what DCA staff think visitors want and what DCA staff think visitors think they want. Methods The combined methods of observation, questionnaire and desk research are appropriate to gathering information about perceptions (of aspiration/expectation). For the DCA team these methods yielded key insights as to organisational and visitor perceptions of the role of the gallery assistant. These insights informed, in part, open focus group sessions designed to challenge staff perceptions of gallery assistants and visitor expectations. The DCA Reporting document (App 6) uses many quotes extracted from Think Tank sessions to illustrate perceptions. Quotes extracted out of context should always be treated with caution as they can be misinterpreted. However, Minding The Gap uses the quotes to give a general sense of staff and visitor feedback rather than to illustrate absolute trends. Of central importance to Minding The Gap is the function of the Think Tank. This is a mechanism that brings staff together, from various departments, for the purpose of discussion and reflection. Assigning work time to a structured programme of critical reflection communicates an organisational value placed on this type of professional development, which in turn confirms a professional identity and status on the role of gallery assistant. The desk research, document surveys and critical reflections converge on the issue of language in practice. Reflecting on the value of the Interpretations experience, the Head of Education at DCA states that,

“For staff teams it has developed team working, common understandings, reiteration of core aims and gave a focus that will be ongoing beyond the end of the project.”

DCA Reporting document July 2008 (Appendix 6) One of the most significant findings for the DCA team was that previously there had been no public articulation of the Gallery Assistants role in the visitor

12

Morris Hargreaves McIntyre commissioned audience research for DCA 2004/5 (SAC funded) (further information from

DCA)

21

experience, yet it was assumed that visitors identified Gallery Assistant‟s as both exhibition caretaker and visitor information. Conclusions Minding The Gap is deliberate in its intention to change perceptions (audience and organisational) of what interpretation can be in a venue for contemporary art. Minding The Gap demonstrates the value DCA places on staff as the principle interpretation resource for visitors. In making the Think Tank sessions open to all staff, Minding The Gap communicates this value within its organisational structure challenging perceptions that interpretation practice is only the realm of the „education‟ department. The concept of the Think Tank has potential for development as a means of affecting strategic change in interpretation practice. Formulating the experiences of Gallery Assistants towards a staff handbook is a tangible legacy of Minding The Gap. Action research as a reflective problem-solving process is perceived by the DCA team to mirror their everyday approach to practice. The Interpretations project offered a formal framework within which to pause for reflection, collate and evaluate information in a systematic way. The focus offered by Interpretations has encouraged DCA to develop practical tools and support for the Gallery Assistant Team to specifically engage with exhibitions and visitors.

22

Case-Study 3

holistic

Reach Out The Pier Arts Centre, Stromness, Orkney www.pierartscentre.com

Image 5 Encouraging local audiences: Family Day at the Pier Arts Centre, Orkney

Project Summary Set against recent refurbishment and building extension work the project for the Pier Arts Centre (PAC) investigated ways of engaging the local but scattered rural audience with contemporary art during the winter months (November to April). Reach Out explored a variety of strategies and partnerships that challenged visitor perceptions of PAC as a tourist-only resource that displays artwork irrelevant to islanders‟ lives. Gallery-based events were developed to engage audiences with the temporary exhibitions programme which is contextualised by a permanent collection of Modern and Contemporary Art. Targeted and open event activities ranged from traditional art-based workshops to storytelling events, invited speakers and artist-guided tours or “walk-and-talk”. PAC worked in partnership with arts and non-arts organisations towards capturing the imaginations of local people. Reach Out articulates an interpretation strategy that takes into account marketing, education and audience development, weaving together a permanent collection, a temporary programme and the physicality of a building as interpretation. The action research process followed a cycle of a critical review of existing practice, identifying gaps and devising different approaches. The experiences of the activities informed the interpretation materials as they took the form of audience generated artwork, text panels, catalogues, notice boards and press coverage. Several of the activities are ongoing into the summer months. The impact of Reach Out may not be fully realised until the next winter when PAC hopes to reap the benefits in terms of future repeat visits from the local audience.13

13

Reach Out Project Report Appendix 7

23

Contemporary Art Context14 Colin Johnstone (UK) His Angry Ghost Bill Woodrow & Richard Deacon (UK) Lead Astray

Research Question

What interpretation strategies can we develop and adopt that will encourage and maintain interest from a locally-based audience?

Method Reach Out is based on the premise that the key barrier to audience engagement with contemporary art in Orkney is that of “threshold”, i.e. encouraging people into the building. This is established through critical reflection of professional experience and confirmed through a review of previous documentation (feasibility studies and marketing reports). A programme of six gallery-based events, complemented by a publicity strategy, was formed and monitored by the Reach Out co-ordinator. Attendance figures and visitor comments are documented for each project. Partnerships with local non-arts organisations were used to increase public perception of relevance. The strategies devised through Reach Out concentrate on audience development and marketing. Events aimed at targeted groups were promoted through advance press coverage and supported by open events often with further press coverage. Through a programme of events that encompassed different age and interest groups Reach Out begins to establish a chattering network of visitor connections. The school children create interpretation wall text and labels to which friends and families are invited to see. Children want to be taken back to the gallery to see if their labels are still there: they need an adult to take them. Events focused on the permanent collection make reference to temporary exhibitions and vice-versa, each acting as an interpretive tool for the other. The non-arts partnerships extend the relevance of the PAC beyond existing arts audiences helping to shift local perception of the PAC as a tourist-only resource. Outputs The interpretation material developed for (and with) each public event reflects the successful strategies already acknowledged within PAC: audience-generated film-based, scripted texts, catalogues, wall displays & notice-boards. The pre and post event media coverage provide another layer of interpretation but also contributes to a holistic interpretation strategy which is the principle output of Reach Out.

Discussion Question

What interpretation strategies can we develop and adopt that will encourage and maintain interest from a locally-based audience?

A deceptively simple question that is difficult to answer in the short time frame of Interpretations. The question implies that PAC has existing strategies that could be extended but that not all of those developed need to be taken on board. Further, the idea of “encouraging” interest is speculative and “maintaining

14

Further information Appendix 7a

24

interest” needs clearly defined parameters within which to be measured. However, the use of the word “strategy” in preference to “tool” or “materials” liberates the Reach Out project from the production of interpretive artefacts and suggests that there are other ways of facilitating interpretation to a specifically local audience. The strategies devised through Reach Out take advantage of the PAC‟s permanent collection of Modern and Contemporary Art. This collection is not seen as separate to the programme of temporary exhibitions; it is seen as an interpretive tool that connects art movements and practices in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

“The Pier Arts Centre was selected to participate in the project partly because of its dual function as both a gallery and museum, housing an important permanent Collection of 20th century British Modernist art. The Collection has recently been extended through participation in the National Collecting Scheme for Scotland including works by Sean Scully, Callum Innes, Olaffur Eliason and Garry Fabian Millar which add a contemporary perspective to the Collection. Key to the Interpretations project is the juxtaposition of the Collection and local audience. The Collection serves as an important inroad to contemporary art, not just in giving historical context but also in being utilised more directly (or indirectly) as an interpretation aid when considering the temporary programme.”

PAC Interpretations Report, Conclusions July 2008 Appendix 7

Method Reach Out was built on an initial critical appraisal of existing interpretation practice that was supported with desk research of previously commissioned feasibility studies and audience development reports. This assessment process identified the issue of “threshold” as the primary barrier for audiences. The PAC team developed a versatile system of promotion that combined arts-based events with media coverage and non-arts activities. Close collaboration across curatorial, marketing and publicity, and education teams provided the opportunity to dovetail mutually supportive activities. Developed further, this approach could begin to tackle the issue of negative representation of contemporary art in the media as identified in Lynch (2006:20). Conclusions As individual components – art-based events, press releases and the venue being used for non-art purposes – they are not new approaches to interpretation and can be considered under the term “out-reach”. However, in the context of engaging a local but scattered rural audience, this blend of onsite participation meshed with external information and interest begins to suggest a strategy appropriate to the leading research question for Reach Out. The answer seems not to be in creating new strategies for a specific audience, rather it is the consideration of which strategies could be brought together and in what way to best capture the imagination of local people. The real test for this project will be during the next winter season and how easy it may or may not be to re-establish and build on local networks.

25

Case-Study 4

responsive

Show Me Yours, I’ll Show You Mine Talbot Rice Gallery, University of Edinburgh www.trg.ed.ac.uk

Image 6 Drop-In Session May 2008

Project Summary Embracing the notion of interpretive communities, Talbot Rice Gallery constructed a series of gallery-based events and activities designed to enhance audience access to Ultra Paste - the work of contemporary artist Enrico David. In developing Show Me Yours the Talbot Rice Gallery devised variations of audience engagement that fused interpretive audience responses with the production of film-based interpretation material. Show Me Yours illustrates a responsive model of interpretation practice that navigates challenge and opportunity whilst protecting the integrity of initial concepts. Four interpretive communities were identified for this project with the planning facilitated through collaboration between artists, educators, filmmaker and academic researcher. Various interpretive experiences were facilitated for the different audience communities. These visual and performing arts experiences were captured in video and used towards the creation of a film-work. Available to the general public during the final phase of the exhibition this film-work represents a tangible interpretive output for Show Me Yours. Show Me Yours is the first time that the Talbot Rice Gallery has used filmmaking as an interpretation strategy. TRG is keen to develop this strategy but more significantly, Show Me Yours has opened up,

“…interpretation not as a closed exercise, an educational programme with strict frames and timelines, but as an open process where reflection and negotiation are part of the working methods of everyday practice in the gallery – not just for, but crucially with visitors.”

(Show Me Yours Evaluation Report June 08, Legacy Section)15

15

Show Me Yours Project Report Appendix 8

26

Contemporary Art Context16 Enrico David (Italy) Ultra Paste

Research Question In negotiating the challenges of this project the research focus of Show Me Yours eventually rested within the question,

How do different audience interpretive communities receive and interpret artworks using a variety of tools and activities? How is this capability most effectively facilitated?

This was developed from the original research question,

Are young people best placed to develop gallery based interpretation for young people?

Method Adopting an action research framework Show Me Yours aspired towards a change in practice through collaboration and reflection amongst an interpretative community of five arts/education professionals: the Curator, Education Development of the TRG; a freelance educator and artist; a filmmaker; an academic researcher and a post-graduate student from the University of Edinburgh. The intersection of the work of the different communities is illustrated in Figure 1 of the TRG project report (Appendix 8). The research focus was explored primarily through a series of artist-led workshops observed by the TRG researcher and supported with field notes, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and photographs. A descriptive account of the project is provided by the TRG researcher (Appendix 8). An original proposal for a tight sequence of eight artist-led sessions for eight 16-18 year olds evolved to become a responsive programme of participatory workshops aimed at a broader wider audience profile (aged 10 – 50+ years). Audience participants engaged with visual and performing media in order to

a) facilitate individual and personal responses to the work of Enrico David b) contribute to the content of a film-based artwork offered as interpretation

material in the closing week of the exhibition Ultra Paste The responsive programme of workshops contributed to the final interpretation material through the following structures:

1) artist-led video/film workshops leading to participant interpretation recorded in digital video

2) drama improvisation and film workshops leading to participant interpretation recorded in digital video

3) performative response enacted through improvised dance and recorded in digital video

4) artist-led drop-in sessions using film-making and mask-making with written and audio responses from visitors

Outputs

16

Further information Appendix 8a

27

A digital film-based artwork was created by Pilton Video and made available to the general public during the final week of Ultra Paste.

Discussion Show Me Yours evolved from ambitious aspirations for a single group to ambitious aspirations for many groups of audience. This project emerges as a model of responsive interpretation practice from which insights to collaborative working can be drawn. The concept of interpretive communities is adapted from the work of Hooper-Greenhill (1999) and applied to the different groups within the TRG project because

“their work constantly involves acts of interpretation, either of the artworks themselves or of the tasks and objectives assigned to them: curators have to create a story; education staff need to interpret the exhibition narrative in order to find ways to pedagogically unlock it to the public; and finally, audiences are there to make meaning, to interpret the artworks themselves.”

Show Me Yours Project Report, Introduction. Appendix 8

The original proposal for eight x 3-hour sessions for eight 16-18 year olds, delivered between February and May was intentionally ambitious. Exploring the extent to which young people might be well-placed to generate engaging interpretation material for their peers; the Talbot Rice team collaborated towards a vigorous programme of artist-led experiences in order to explore this notion. In the absence of timely feedback from the Interpretations coordinator the TRG team continued towards this goal only to be informed, at a late stage in their planning, that the participant focus should be towards a broad audience. This focus was in the original brief but the Interpretations researcher had not counselled the TRG team as to the significance of this focus. The TRG team adapted their plan to include testing the young people‟s interpretive material with a general public audience and thus satisfying the requirement that the project speak to a broad audience. Of the eight planned sessions two took place with the original group of young people before its membership dissolved and the remainder of the sessions were redesigned. The TRG project emerged as a model of responsive interpretation practice when it navigated not just the miscommunication from the coordinator and then the collapse of their young people group, but particularly when it navigated the consequences of these events within their own interpretive community of five arts/education professionals. It seems that changes to the original plan, “exacerbated the conflicting interests – as it later turned out – within the project team.” (Show Me Yours Project Report June 2008, The Education Programme section paragraph 4 – Appendix 8). These were the unforeseen events to which the project responded. The project could not have predicted the untimely feedback or the collapse of their audience group. In embarking upon the project the TRG team was open to risk: it chose to work with teenagers, it chose to bring together a new team, and it chose to create a tight framework with flexible content. The TRG team responded to funding opportunities, securing an increased budget and widening the potential for dissemination. Tenacious professionalism and a commitment to a participatory mode of working carried this project forward, up ladders and down snakes, but always towards an end. For the TRG project, the majority of their project team were contracted to the project as workshop artist, filmmaker, researcher and other support roles. So the cohesion of this group was developed in the initial project planning stages as

28

people negotiated the meaning of the project and their role within it. When this planning was undermined the group cohesion was threatened. Assigned roles became unclear and hoped-for outcomes had to be relinquished for new outcomes. For the TRG team, working beyond formal education structures and within a clear voluntary context raised questions about participant motivation and reward. Changes and adaptations aside, the TRG team created a framework that had all the right elements: a collaborative ethos focused on inclusive aesthetic experiences where the authorial voice is given over to a young audience group rather than that of the artist or the curator. A hospitality budget ensured generous refreshments for the group – much was done in order to secure the success of the group. Integral to the success of action research was the role of ongoing reflection and evaluation for the community of arts/education professionals. Within the “Show Me Yours” project report there is evidence of positive feedback from workshop participants of all ages and across the different art forms employed. Critical reflection was key to the planning of Show Me Yours. If this element of practice had been missing then it is unlikely that the core group of professionals would have been able to respond to the series of challenges that emerged. In the TRG report we sense that professional commitment and loyalty carried this project forward and that there were moments of tension amongst the facilitators. It is no easy task to keep participatory projects moving forward. Conclusions Show Me Yours set out to build a long-term interpretation relationship between the TRG team and a single audience group using the media of film. What came about was a series of relationships and audience connections that explored film as a tool for interpretation experience and as a means of making an interpretation resource. The series of relationships allowed an interplay between various interpretive communities, and the medium of film provided a common thread between them. The action research process is embedded into the TRG project with review, evaluation and adaptation being repeated throughout the lifetime of the project. This proved to be an essential aspect of the project‟s success. An ability to respond to changing circumstances and a loyalty to collaborative working illustrates the TRG commitment to working with audiences as well as for audiences.

29

INTERPRETATIONS COMPARISON TABLE The table below summarises aspects of the case-studies as we move from the specific to the general. Some general observations are made on the pages following.

Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4

VENUE COLLECTIVE GALLERY DUNDEE CONTEMPORARY ARTS

PIER ARTS CENTRE TALBOT RICE GALLERY

LOCATION Edinburgh Dundee Orkney Edinburgh

TITLE VOCAL MINDING THE GAP

REACH OUT SHOW ME YOURS

FOCUS main aim of the project

audience-staff generated content presenting multiple perspectives

gallery assistants as the interpretation resource for visitors and the organisation

changing local audience perceptions

interpretive communities and digital film

KEYWORD iterative strategic holistic responsive

RESEARCH QUESTION driving the inquiry

How does consulting a panel of audience members affect the delivery of interpretation for the Collective Gallery?

How can the DCA support Gallery Assistants to operate in the perceived gap between organisational aspirations for and audience expectations of a contemporary art experience at DCA?

What interpretation strategies can we develop that will encourage and maintain interest from a locally based audience?

How do different audience interpretive communities receive and interpret artworks using a variety of tools and activities?

30

OUTPUTS interpretation resources

podcasts essay expanded gallery-guide

staff confidence, knowledge & skills Gallery Assistant Handbook

audience development strategy

film-work

AUDIENCE to which the interpretation resource is designed to appeal

existing audience profile online visitors

general/broad other DCA staff

local, island, remote, rural broad audience

OUTCOMES How was practice changed?

staff-audience-audio collaborations identified as successful

routes of communication between departments to be challenged; the status of GAs enhanced

a shift in focus from providing interpretation to demonstrating relevance to local audience

staff-audience-artist film collaborations as a successful practice

EVIDENCE to support findings

no. of podcast uploads visitor comments book formal evaluations

documentation of changes in organisational behaviours

local perceptions of PAC expressed as relevant and meaningful repeat visits during winter 08/09

visitor and staff comments analysis of qualitative data film-work

ACTIVITIES What was done in order to achieve the aim/answer the question?

series of core panel discussions and evaluation sessions taped, transcribed and re-presented by an “interpreter”

series of Think Tank sessions GA group activities

multi-faceted programme of workshops, events and publicity

series of artist-led workshops for audience groups filming

CHALLENGE ambiguities, tensions, conflicts or anomalies

the „ordinary‟ voice of the panel becomes critically aware: arguably no longer ordinary could the process be used to encourage new visitors?

sustainability staff retention

getting people into the gallery for reasons other than art might be what changes their perceptions about art

audience group motivation building flexibility into planning group dynamics

31

CPD PROCESS What strategies emerged as CPD?

gallery staff working with the audience core panel developing digital-media skills knowledge

staff coming together with artists/other departments

meeting with peers in other gallery contexts

cross-discipline collaboration: gallery/artist/research/video

OPPORTUNITY What has the Int. funding enabled?

staff time with core panel project activities purchase of audio equipment evaluation

staff time together with artists research visits cross department influence

dedicated time to reassess and address identified issues motivation

time for the collaboration in the planning, implementation and evaluation

MODEL What is the project a possible model for?

using a core panel & interpreter to create interpretation that offers various viewpoints developing the use of audio in interpretation practice

organisational change from Gallery Assistant up professional development across gallery staff

audience development for a rural population blending a permanent collection with temporary programme as interpretation

model of responsive collaboration across staff, disciplines and organisations (gallery, HEI, freelancers)

Mapping Interpretations

Lynch 2006:11 Areas for future research

covered by Interpretations

projects

audience generated interactivity language

language partnership approaches

partnership approaches audience generated space

audience generated partnership approaches interactivity

Table 3 Comparisons

Part Three Observations, Reflections and Conclusions

33

Observations and Reflections The content of the Table 3 is not exhaustive. The table summarises some key information across the projects encouraging comparison. However, comparison should be treated with caution as the various contexts that ground each project are different. Even where the projects are based in galleries half a mile apart there are organisational, historical and programming differences that make any comparison simply interesting at best and superficial at worst. However, it is interesting to see some information in parallel and to reflect on the four case studies as a whole. Contextualising the projects are programmes of contemporary art exhibiting the work of emerging and established artists.17 The artwork involves a range of media, issues and concepts of varying complexity. Project participants share a fundamental belief that while interpretation resources should offer “ways in” to the artwork, it should not reduce the complexity of the work – there should be no “dumbing-down”. All of the projects involve artists at the interface of audience engagement and interpretation but none have included the exhibiting artists into the projects. The research questions are all firmly grounded in issues of practice and have relevance to the generic question derived from Lynch (2006). Formulating effective research questions is a difficult and often underestimated task. Implicit in the wording of a research question is a theoretical framework or a philosophical stance that will determine the methods and forms of analysis appropriate to that theory or philosophy. In the implementation of the gallery-based projects, each research question was refined or changed. This is not an indicator that the original question was incorrect; instead it reveals a critical sensitivity and concentration of focus. Implicitly, all of the questions explore notions of shifting power relationships in gallery interpretation, where the audience is positioned as active author of interpretation rather than passive consumer. Each project demonstrates collaborative and participative practices in the action research process and in audience activities. Often the boundary between what is the action research and what is the interpretation activity is blurred and this can create confusion in the reporting and documentation of each. However, this confusion is often symptomatic of the professional transformation that can occur when one undertakes action research. At the point of writing up the project, when trying to make sense of what happened and why, this is sometimes when the most significant learning takes place and yet the writing up usually takes place when time is running out,

“It is really hard to stop writing – there is so much to say... and of course with more time thinking develops and ideas crystallise and new ways to organise them appear”

Participant email 12/06/08

17

see Appendices 5a, 6a, 7a & 8a for externally generated interpretation material on each artist (for example, as found in The Skinny)

34

“...there are still some areas that I need and want to work on still...I‟m only now beginning to get a sense of what we were doing and what the implications are.”

Participant email 24/06/08 The scale of Interpretations is relatively modest, certainly compared to enquire for example, but the earnest undertaking of action research of any scale is not to be considered lightly,

“Undertaking action research is not to be underestimated. Involving a wide range of staff / public in a programme of activity, remaining clear about key research questions and documenting/evaluating outcomes in a consistent manner so that results are meaningful is a big task.”

DCA Reporting Document June 2008 (Appendix 6) Many of the methods used by the gallery teams were already familiar features of their interpretation practice: questionnaires, surveys, interviews, focus groups. The Interpretations framework conceptualised these tools as research methods and encouraged participants to build a research vocabulary from their existing language of practice. None of the gallery teams ventured into visual methodologies, which is surprising given the visual context of interpretation practice. Participant evaluations could explore this further. The primary research output for each gallery team is the project report. This report is the artefact that documents the process, methods, context, findings and conclusions of the research. In practitioner research it is sometimes difficult to separate the practice from the research. More support on this aspect of action research from the Interpretations researcher might have been useful to the gallery teams. Perhaps one of the Cluster Events should have critiqued a completed piece of action research from a different practice-based context. If the galleries had been given the same research question would this have led to stronger peer collaboration? Again these questions are speculative but could be incorporated into the evaluation phase. However, each of the four gallery teams have engaged with a process of action research that has generated insights into their personal practice in addition to further understandings of audience access to contemporary art. The funding and framework of Interpretations secured time for gallery teams to critically reflect on practice. Allocating organisational time to such activities is an external indicator of professional values and commitments. In terms of developing the findings of Lynch (2006) the Interpretations projects tackle issues of interactivity, audience generated resources, use of space, language and partnership approaches. Each project touches on all five issues but explores one or two in particular detail. The Vocal project at the Collective Gallery considers issues of audience-generated resources and interactivity. A panel of audience is consulted in order to generate interpretation material using the descriptive, spontaneous language of dynamic conversation. The resulting podcasts are available online for audiences to interact with. Similarly, the scripted essay guides are contextualised with other critical material offering the visitor a range of perceptions with which to consider the artwork. At DCA, Minding The Gap is also concerned with language, but in particular the language that staff and the organisation use to describe roles and practice. Working towards strategic change the DCA have used Minding The Gap to explore meaningful connections within the various functions of the organisation. The Pier

35

Arts Centre, through its refurbishment programme capitalises on how the physicality of the interior space can support interpretation: how work is seen through windows, around corners; how one piece relates to another through the reflection in a window. Encouraging the local audience to experience the relevance of PAC has involved the building of non-arts partnerships between the gallery and the community – a foundation for future interpretation. At the Talbot Rice Gallery, Show Me Yours champions the benefits of audience generated resources through interactive workshops and collaborative partnerships. The processes involved in creating the interpretive material within each project are such that they do not reduce the complexity or challenge of the artwork. The resources and processes appeal to a spectrum of literacies: visual, aural, oral and tactile – facilitating aesthetic experiences in preference to a didactic delivery of information. A characteristic common to all four projects is that of participatory partnership. Within such an ethos project teams have brokered new relationships within and beyond their organisations. So then, to what extent do the four action research projects bring insight to the generic research question,

How can we use interpretation to increase access to contemporary art, and to address perceived barriers to intellectual access?

With the notion of “increase” there are assumptions about measurability and base-line data that none of the gallery projects have addressed. However, what Interpretations has encouraged is that practitioners see the activities of their practice as possible methods of action research, and that these methods can be used to explore issues of access and barriers relevant to their context. Diligently applied, practitioner research through action inquiry is a powerful means of capturing the imagination of practitioner and audience alike. Interpretations is an example of situated learning where each of the partner projects take place entirely within the social and cultural norms of their practice community. Participants bring prior experience to the project and they engage with the social and material contexts that the project offers. Because of this it is more likely that the participants will be able to apply what they have learned to other contexts, other projects. The conditions of their learning have not been remote from the situations in which what is learned can be applied (Eisner 2002:95).

Conclusions Conclusions at this pre-evaluation stage would be premature in terms of assessing impact and legacy. What can be drawn from this report is the significant challenge faced by all the participants in the documentation, presentation and evaluation of projects. As previously mentioned, the point of writing up, of re-presenting months of collaboration in an accessible, usually written format is a pivotal point in personal and organisational learning. Rather than marking the end of a project, the final report signposts the direction for evaluation. In support of an evaluation of Interpretations aims and objectives, the following five issues and related questions offer areas for further inquiry. 1. Research and Practice Interpretations has grappled with the dualities inherent to action research and its focus on participant‟s practice. The participants have had to design and

36

implement different interpretation tools and strategies, whilst at the same time reflect critically upon the nature of their practice. Research and practice are not opposites, they are powerful partners in affecting personal and organisational change.

To what extent do participants consider the integration of research and practice useful?

2. Visual Literacy and Image-Based Methods in Research Image-based methods such as photography, drawing, mind-mapping etc were not used by participants in the interrogation of research questions. Given the high level of visual literacy possessed by practitioners in this field, what could be done to encourage image-based methods in action research? 3. Learning and Teaching about Action Research The pedagogical intention of Interpretations was to facilitate learning about action research through doing action research. The method was less didactic, more exploratory, respecting and reflecting the types of experiences valued for visitors.

To what extent, now, do participants feel confident with action research as a process of affecting change? On reflection, what could be improved upon to support practitioner-learning in action research?

4. Interpretation and Education The project outputs of Vocal, Minding The Gap, Reach Out and Show Me Yours, offer audiences of contemporary art ways of seeing derived not from the curatorial team but from other audience members. The participative and practical processes employed by the gallery teams demonstrate value placed on partnerships with audiences and peers. Education and interpretation are entwined towards enhancing both the visitor experience and the professional development of participants.

With regard to audience “intellectual access to contemporary art”, what do participants perceive as the benefit of participatory approaches in generating interpretive resources?

5. Funding and Audience Development The funding and development framework of Interpretations has created opportunities for innovative interventions to the practice of interpretation for contemporary art. These interventions tackle issues of access through the areas of interactivity, audience-generated resources, space, language and partnership approaches. Aspirations for audience development are often in tension with the competition for funding.

How has the financial support of Interpretations supported audience development and professional development opportunities?

37

Recommendations The core recommendation is towards the formal evaluation of Interpretations focusing on the experiences of the practitioner-researchers and innovations in interpretive strategies and tools. Following this process more robust recommendations can be formulated. The following two points are for immediate action: The engage Scotland Conference (September 2008) should be used as a forum for sharing and exploring the project outputs, and the action research processes with the peer community of practice. A two-page summary should be prepared for delegates in advance of the conference. The gallery-based projects should be foregrounded through the dissemination of project reports on the engage website. Permissions should be sought for this purpose ensuring proper consent for the use of participant images in the public domain.

38

References Bell, Judith (1993)2nd Edition. Doing Your Research Project Buckingham: Open University Press Burgess, Lesley & Addison, Addison, Nicholas (2007). Conditions for Learning: Partnerships for Engaging Secondary Pupils with Contemporary Art. International Journal of Art and Design Education. 26.2 pp185-198 Charman, Helen & Ross, Michaela (2006). Contemporary Art and the Role of Interpretation: Reflections from Tate Modern‟s Summer Institute for Teachers. International Journal of Art and Design Education. 25.1 pp28-41 Costello, Patrick J M (2003). Action Research London: Continuum Eisner, Elliot W (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind New Haven & London Yale: University Press Grek, Sotiria (2008). Show Me Yours, I’ll Show You Mine. Talbot Rice Gallery „Interpretations‟ Project 2008, Evaluation Report. Talbot Rice Gallery: Unpublished. Hooper-Greenhill, E (ed) (1999). The Educational Role of the Museum London: Routledge Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lynch, Heather (2006). Mapping Interpretation Practices in Contemporary Art: A Report for Engage Scotland, commissioned and funded by the Scottish Arts Council. http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/resources/publications/research/pdf/RES22%20Engage%20Scotland%20final%20report.pdf last accessed 21/08/08

Schön, Donald A (1983). The Reflective Practitioner Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Schön, Donald A (1987). Educating The Reflective Practitioner San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Taylor, Barbara (2006a) (Ed). Inspiring Learning in Galleries London: engage Taylor, Barbara (2006b) Learning Through Action Research. engage 18 pp12-20

39

List of Tables Table 1 “Map 4”: Forms of Interpretation from Lynch 2006 Page 7 Table 2 Seven Definitions of Action Research Page 9 Table 3 Comparisons Pages 29 - 31

40

List of Images Image 1 Jason Nelson, New Work Scotland Programme 2008 Page 14 Image 2 Artur Zmijewski, Them Page 14 Image 3 Freee, How To Be Hospitable Page 14 Image 4 DCA Gallery Assistants Interpreting Science Page 18 Image 5 Encouraging Local Audiences: Family Day at PAC Page 22 Image 6 Drop-In Session at TRG Page 25

41

List of Appendices 1 Interpretations Overview

2 Researcher Process and Outputs

2a Summary Reports 1-4

3 Cluster Event Outlines 1-3

4 Interpretations Consent Form

5 Vocal Project Report

5a Vocal Contemporary Art Context

6 Minding the Gap Project Report

6a Minding the Gap Contemporary C ontext

7 Reach Out Project Report

7a Reach Out Contemporary Context

8 Show Me Yours Project Report

8a Show Me Yours Contemporary Art Context

9 Example of Researcher Visual Reflection