Analysis 1 – “Small Structures are Beautiful”

8-10 October 2010 Berlin– Analysis 1 – “Small Structures are Beautiful”
ANIMATED cooperation continues successfully with project exchange and analysis. In Berlin a group of professionals from Bulgaria and Hungary analysed the European cooperation experience of uqbar’s project - ‘Transient Spaces – The Tourist Syndrome’ - http://www.transientspaces.org/. On 9 october we discussed in details the principles of intercultural values and artistic cooperation of our Berlin partners at the backdrop of Art Forum Berlin 2010.

In the second year of the project partner meetings focus primarily on assessment of methodology and product development. An evaluation grid developed especially for this partnership and it at use since the start of the project in October 2009.This is based on the knowledge gained and shared with the 3 partners – VIVO, uqbar and ICC, the 63 direct learners in mobility visits and over 4100 colleagues in the outreach network of the partnership.

ANIMATED PROJECTS LIST

„theatrebulgaria.net” – performance arts portal Bulgaria - http://theatrebulgaria.net/

"One Time One Million (Migratory Birds / Romantic Capitalism)" Susanne Kriemann, uqbar - Berlin

“Transitland” - 2009 - http://transitland.eu/ – Budapest, Berlin, Sofia

“Transient Spaces – The Tourist Syndrome” - http://www.transientspaces.org/ - uqbar - Berlin “Le Grand Magasin”, - web: ec.europa.eu/culture/journalists/doc/page34_grd_magasin_en.pdf. - Berlin

‘Culture Innovation Strategies’ training series http://www.inter-cultura.eu/

The Unseen theatre – a Via Theatre project with students of the Louis Braille School (visually impaired) in Sofia

‘Joy and study among minerals’ interactive department - National Museum 'Earth and Men' - Sofia

’Effectiveness and efficiency of public investments in the cultural sector for the past 20 years’, Observatory of Cultural Economics Sofia

’Vocational training for Museum Guides directed at secondary school graduates’, Regional Museum of History St Zagora

Meeting Point - platform for international arts exchange at Vaska Emanouilova Gallery - Sofia

Tactile Art gallery project supported by "The fabriC" – Gabrovo

‘Black Sea Basin - Sharing Resources for European Culture Cooperation’ - coordinator, Municipality Byala, Varna region /project involving culture operators from Greece, Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan and Moldova/

Implicit Cultural Policy - the role of Social CLUBS IN COMMUNITIES - Intercultural Training Module for culture operators - http://www.inter-cultura.eu/images/stories/documenti/ICP_communities.pdf

‘Was geht das Mirh an?’ – The impact of art on youth audiences, assessment by Cultural Affairs, Berlin. ‘Pulp Fiction’ – cultural assessment project, Hamburg;

Artsfacts.net – on indicators and arts careers

Rahova-Uranus Community Centre - on urban regeneration, Bucharest - http://ofensivagenerozitatii.blogspot.com/2009/02/rahova-uranus-community-centre-labomba.html Intercultural festival & theatre activities Pomorie, http://www.svetlina-pm.com/ ‘Guide to European Culture Cooperation’ (BG/RU) for culture/arts professionals and agents, http://www.inter-cultura.eu/

European Year of Volunteering 2011 - http://www.eyv2011.eu/

PROTEXT BULGARIA 2010 – 36monkeys.blogspot.com

Sofia Music Weeks international festival - http://smw2010.free.bg/index.html EUROPEAN ART HOST PROGRAM – URL to be announced

Evaluation Project Workshops 2009 - 2010

FEEDBACK LEARNERS 2009 – 2010 1,2,3, 4 Workshops and ANALYSIS 1 -OCT 2010

SHARED THEMATIC PRIOTITIES - Useful methods of work
Numbers> indicate how many times the topic was underlined in evaluations of the workshops
arrows - > indicate comments by learners

1. developing and realising culture project- 27 > building and maintaining a transparent and efficient structure in cooperation; it is useful to practice project drafting in workshops, learning about work methods of various organisations, the workshops inspire group interaction and learning, new ideas about cooperation possibilities have been shaped, finding a common method adequately valuate a cultural project, strategies for applications/tenders for example the importance of including the motivation for the collaboration between two partners..
2. cultural policy –20> reflected by state and municipal art programs supporting galleries and museums, examples of arts organisation networks involved in advocacy , importance of self reflection/ evaluation and communication on decentralisation of policies.
3. audience development - 18 > arts & culture organisations - partners in projects, ‘ability park’, interactive programmes for the audience and capacity building for the teams of organisations engaged, importance and the value of evaluation in cultural processes, paying attention to the emotional aspect of evaluation, bearing in mind (not only during the evaluation process but during the whole project) that factors such as ‘success’ can have a different meaning for different people involved in a certain project.
4. curatorial and residence programmes- 9 > cross disciplinary approach as a basis of most small galleries to enrich programmes, exchange as small structure projects
5. culture and regional development in the EU - 16> learning about similar/different platforms that connect operators in the 3 countries of cooperation, before submitting proposals paying special attention to what is happening where within the EU - [institutes, networks, organisations and donors facilitating cooperation in between West, Central, South Europe exchange e.g. the Budapest Observatory of Cultural Economics South Eastern Europe, Ludwig Museum for Contemporary Art context, IGBK and connection to arts unions in the EU, discovering what happens also out of capitals and on the small-scale of younger initiatives [e.g. Berlin independents workshop, Sofia operators workshop], examples of methods for stakeholders to join resources for sustainable practices in culture development [e.g. Budapest Culture Access workshop, Sofia Culture Strategies workshop].

The operational context of projects in Budapest, Berlin and Bulgaria



There are similar organisations eager to set up partnerships and exchange in spite of the diverse contexts. The contemporary arts scene in Sofia is mush less visible than that of Budapest {two new projects starting in 2010 may lead to the proper creation of a Contemporary arts museum still missing in Bulgaria];, Berlin has a huge level of competition among galleries, musea and international exhibitions/projects compared to Budapest and so on. Still, the initiative for projects that are innovative in their themes and approach and that work at European level is present in organisations that are smaller, more flexible and internationally engaged. For example the Berlin independents in Berlin appeared on many occasions to promote a subject matter of the exhibition or project which stirs interest via the media, but mostly the word of mouth is expected to bring new-comers to the target audience. In Sofia also often events are planned as a series which should grow on the already existing interest of the public with fewer resources available to attract new audiences.

There is basis for initiatives on ‘culture access’ for international cooperation, more information is needed on how Culture project applications can be developed. The Berlin independents and Sofia operators’ site visits offered valuable direct feedback on projects during presentations. On many occasions it is the subject matter of the exhibition which is used to stir interest via the media, but mostly the word of mouth is expected to bring new-comers to the target audience. The policy on culture in Berlin has changed dramatically since the 60s and 70s. This reflects an EU tendency moving ‘culture for all’ to ‘culture for different target audiences’. This has caused a renewal in the management of culture organisations. Not only are budgets dependent on the target foreseen by applications but also on the foreseen quality of impact. Managers of public cultural infrastructure keep track of visitors’ numbers and compete to be the first to promote talent or to co-operate with promising international projects, raising public awareness about an issue of relevance to arts practices (such as culture and tourism or gender equality in the arts).
Exchanging arts residencies, as well as exhibitions was seen as a common European challenge in the short-term that all organisations are dealing with. Initiatives to promote ‘public bids’ for art works as in the e.g. of IGBK advocacy could be shared at inter- national (EU level) level.

FUNDING CULTURE and EU COOPERATION - in terms of structural support can be discussed further; State funds, local funds and other grant schemes for international cooperation of relevance to exchange were discussed. Berlin culture operators form the independent scene appear to share a routine task in identifying strategic funds for the specific project as a partner networking approach. Many of the artists are more ready to cooperate with other cultural operators, sometimes as members of an NGO, to be able to apply for funding or housing contracts. In Bulgaria project applications are less of a joint effort, however the formal organisations are linked to co-productions with the informal scene of artistic initiatives. About 90 % of the project costs in Berlin and Sofia depend on applications for grants, subsidies, sponsorship etc. The rest of the costs including operational capacity and infrastructural support depend on the entrepreneurial skills of the organisations and to a high extent on the investment of personal extra time by the key leaders to involve sponsors of other colleagues. The role of cultural networks as moderators of the artists who voice as well as address their needs and help them in an effective way to reach policy makers was present in discussions in Berlin, Budapest and Sofia. The central topic of cultural entrepreneurship targeted at building smaller structures as active international networks today came to the fore of discussion in Berlin and Budapest as well as in Sofia. The “art education” policy in the context of galleries in the neighbourhood stirs curiosity but also generates familiarity with the general/incidental public, E.g. curators are opening “idea tanks” for the public to choose among options for the programme they plan ahead.
The partnership has a useful focus on monitoring programmes and methods for identification of different qualities and process for creative practices.

EUROPEAN POLICIES OF RELEVANCE TO ANIMATED
Informal Learning was illustrated in projects as embedded in roundtables, workshops, audience involvement in the exhibition work or inviting local residents to perform or simply offering to host communal events in the gallery/exhibition space. More workshops to develop networks and groups of people who can develop and present case studies and propose strategies .Vocational Training elements were present in the organisations that are sharing trainers for their own staff of events and offering counselling to artists, providing basic Small Business management skills, lobbying for the arts, arts and dealing with copyright issues etc …
YOUTH in ACTION - Training kids to do self-publishing projects. Documentation of brainstorming results from workshops could be expanded and updated as participants gain more experience.
RESEARCH - The role of the audience as a part of the artistic work, arts and law, art in public spaces (IGBK), ecology and the arts, artistic impact on developing the local economy, social integration, an evaluation, reflection and feedback processes..
· MEDIA – CD, mobile technology, culture mediation tools (motto publishers and distributors),
ANIMATED blog TOOLKIT
· Content – ANIMATED should focus on EDUCATION WITH CULTURE, detailed introduction by directors/curators of specific organisations, European Added Value or relevance, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS in the midlife of projects; stimulate the exchange of know-how among professionals. Include examples and methods for those who are unfamiliar with evaluation as a practice. Individually contributions to the collectively to the development of the toolkit! E.g. what is appropriate for evaluating the widest types of cultural projects.
· An easily accessible toolkit is very desirable. Practice and experience can be shared through an online forum or blog.
· Learning exchange - ANIMATED should secure CULTURE and CITIZEN STRATEGIES, Actual project structures, SHARING IMPRESSIONS, It could serve as a starting point after interlink Policy making organisations at local level. which a customised, case studies that focus on problems and difficulties and their solutions. Evaluation from an ‘outsider’- someone who is familiar with the basic characteristics of the cultural sector and has experience in the field, documentation of brainstorming results from workshops could be expanded and updated as participants gain more experience, Choose participants wisely, based on language capabilities, social skills and networking talent.
· Dissemination - ANIMATED should be promoted via MINISTRSY-AUDIENCE-PARTNERS-PARTICIPANTS, in printed publications reflecting the results, during seminars and conferences, greater focus on practical ideas and evaluation, Workshops, blog and toolkit should be more interactive - Discussions could be factual as opposed to hypothetical, More free time to visit local organisations, Include case studies
· Material from the workshop (powerpoints etc) could be available on the blog or a password protected surface. This way discussions and input can be continued online after the workshop is finished.
· ANIMATED could lead to … INVOVEMENT OF POICY MAKERS, focus on IN-BETWEEN STAGE of PROJECTS, address Public authority REPRESENTATIVES, focus on SOCIALISATION AND CUTLTURE ACCESS,Inclusion of more opinions, findings and advice from people developing arts policy - Be succinct and user friendly. Don’t ‘overload’ - commonalities need to be highlighted.



ANIMATED PARTNERS

VIVO Watershed Visual Education Foundation is an organization founded in September, 2001. It concerns itself with museum education. The members of the foundation are students specialized in art history, aesthetics, literature, media as well as a number of foreign languages. The foundation organizes guided exhibition tours in a number of Budapest’s museums on a regular basis. These guided tours aim to awaken interest in the visual arts among children and adults. Along with expanding a child’s factual knowledge, special emphasis is put on improving their creative thinking. Programs are geared for small groups so that each participant can receive proper attention. This also allows every child to participate in numerous, playful exercises according to his or her own needs. Consequently, everyone takes an active role in the program’s activities.

The association uqbar - Gesellschaft für Repräsentationsforschung e.V. (en.: Society for Representation Research) was registered on 20 January 2004 as a non-profit and for public benefit. The name “uqbar” was taken from a novel by the writer Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986). In Borges’ novel this word is a construct, a letter combination without meaning. The problem of the constitution of meaning, signification and interpretation is central to the discussion around the term of the representation. The association uqbar – Gesellschaft für Repräsentationsforschung e.V. aims at promoting contemporary art and culture, above all implementing, supporting and hosting projects, which dedicate themselves to the research and promotion of experimental, interdisciplinary artistic and cultural practices in the international context.

Intercultura Consult, Sofia, Bulgaria (2004) is a specialised inter-cultural consultancy and it is a private initiative based on team work, supported by international expertise. Its projects favour the exchange and creation of inter-cultural platforms sustaining partnerships in competence-building for artists, cultural managers, private and public institutions, organisations and civil initiatives. Strategies for the development of the cultural sector, the arts education sector and the creative/cultural industries are prime topics developed by ICC.

CULTUREVALUATION – FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH?

On 12 -13 of June uqbar in co-operation with NGBK - New Society for Visual Arts hosted a workshop for international participants focusing on 'Evaluation’ - the magic word in the cultural policy and practice field. Leonie Baumann’ (NGBK) analysed the difference between assessing creativity and success in cultural projects. Artistic activities that build up cultural assets have a delayed effect on audience’ attitudes, interest and skills.

Methods to measuring this long-term impact exist both for the artists and for the funding institution. The formula is based on clear intentions for their short-term goals and long-term ambition that frame project objectives. Dorothea Kolland (Kulturamt Neukoelln) set apart a project in public space and a project engaging the public. She drew attention to the fact that the pleasure in the process is a criterion of cultural value. Audience development is a special task for the cultural entrepreneurs. A challenge for public projects is the communication with their intended users and target audiences that rarely gets acknowledged as a financial need in the project plan.

Irina Cios (CIAC/ICCA Bucharest) analysed the success and challenge of the Rahova-Uranus Community Centre cultural project. As the urban regeneration plan turned into success, it caused the initiative to reconsider its indicators of achievement. Artistic regeneration in this project had led to an upgrading in the economic value of property that may jeopardize the upgrade in the social context. Was this an intended result and was it the inevitable output of cultural production? Petya Koleva (Intercultura Consult, Sofia) furthered the discussion with a presentation of selected charts from the ‘Culture Projects: a guide to European Cooperation’.

She analysed with feedback from the partners the use of the quality and quantitative tools to monitor a project’s development. Some artistic as well as some culture funding priorities can be traced if they are clearly analysed with proper tools. Sustainability for instance is embedded in the methods structuring the project committee and stakeholders involvement. A participatory method could be used to share monitoring and foresee some risks at the inception of project. Self-evaluations and study-circle methods are appropriate to the development of projects that foresee sustainable results and co-operation. The ‘community’ concept was centre-stage in the presentation of ICC expert, Dr. Ruth Cherrington. She outlined contexts of ‘Implicit Cultural Policy’ in the organisational structure, the informal learning and volunteer-based methods of operation of Working Men’s Clubs in the UK reflected on www.clubhistorians.co.uk .

A broader inter-cultural analysis presented parallels with the ‘chitalishte’ network in Bulgaria and ‘casas de la cultura’ in Latin America. It proved that the social space rising out of a civil initiative can institute an organisation actively shaping local cultural policy today, a point that captured the attention of arts and culture managers. This was not incidental – in the autumn of 2010, Catherine Schoss will develop for a ‘club’ for NGBK association. The Ludwig museum’s new project space in Budapest has also been experimenting with a ‘club’ model by promoting inclusive policies via free internet and yoga courses on its location. Both of these examples form part of an implicit strategy to include the residents or accidental, ‘organic’ public in the exchange of an arts space. The workshop continued with an Exchange and Review exercise and a visit to the new location of ‘New Bethanien’ arts residence space that is now a public-private partnership. The outcome of the workshop shaped the prototype of a resource tool that will contribute to the analysis of CultureValuation and volunteer, community activities, clubs and hubs.

The outcome of the workshop shaped the prototype of a resource tool that will contribute to the analysis of CultureValuation and volunteer, community activities, clubs and hubs.

Self evaluation summary of 'For what it's worth - Culture valuation workshop'

1. Keywords linked to Culture Valuation and its methods
> Self reflection: 8
> Sustainability: 5
> Self evaluation: 5
> Evaluation (usability, definition): 5
> Reflection: 3
> Definitions: 3
> Partnerships: 3
> Short/ mid/ long term evaluation: 3
> Cultural policy: 2
> Measurability: 2
> Project planning: 1
> Ratio: 1
> Qualitative methods:1
> Monitoring: 1
> Cooperation: 1
> Community: 1
> Communication: 1
> Institutional valuation: 1
> Recognition: 1
> Interdisciplinary work: 1
> Multiplication: 1
> Quality: 1
> Emotion : 1
> Economics: 1
> Impacts: 1
> Common indicators: 1
> Surveys and interviews: 1
> Characterisation of cultural sectors: 1
> Common approval: 1


2. Useful approaches encountered during the workshop:
> Developing and realising culture projects: 12
> Culture and regional development in the EU: 9
> Cultural policy: 8
> Audience development: 6
> Curatorial and residence programmes: 4

Impressions of know-how/ methods of work. and experiences learnt from the workshop proposed by uqbar and NGBK on Culture Evaluation:
> Long term results/ effects/ impact should be considered and followed up immediately.
> The importance of planning and attention to detail as well as maintaining contacts/ networks/ partners.
> Extension/ generational aspects/ EU cooperation need to be a main focus.
> Idea of long term evaluation. How Berlin city’s ‘kunst am bau’ develops and how to measure evaluation.
> Thorough preparation before submitting proposals paying special attention to what is happening where within the EU.
> Focus on international partnerships.
> The importance of self reflection/ evaluation and communication.
> The importance and value of evaluation in cultural processes. Paying attention to the emotional aspect of evaluation and bearing in mind (not only during the evaluation process but during the whole project) that factors such as ‘success’ can have a different meaning for different people involved in a certain project.
> Useful strategies for applications/tenders for example the importance of including the motivation for the collaboration between two partners.
> The different types/stages/levels of evaluation.
> Useful strategies/factors while working on a cultural project.
> The importantance of evaluating the long lasting effects of a cultural project.
> When planning an EU project it is crucial to have an European Added Value.
> The difficulty of finding a common method adequate to valuate all kinds of cultural projects.

3. Recommendations for ANIMATED partners in the planning of the Evaluation Toolkit.
> Common questions on monitoring programmes and questionnaires about working together/sharing ideas/ pitfalls etc.
> Methods for identification of different qualities and process for creative practices and political views to be made public.
> People should work individually to contribute collectively to the development of the toolkit.
> Include examples and methods for those who are unfamiliar with evaluation as a practice.
> Develop an evaluation, reflection and feedback processes.
> More workshops to develop networks and groups of people who can develop and present case studies and propose strategies.
> Documentation of brainstorming results from workshops could be expanded and updated as participants gain more experience.
> An easily accessible toolkit is very desirable. Practice and experience can be shared through an online forum or blog.
> Critical self reflection on failure or unsuccessful projects. How to turn negative into positive, and learn from mistakes and miscalculations.
> The toolkit needs to be appropriate for evaluating the widest types of cultural projects. It could serve as a starting point after which a customised, and more focused evaluation can be developed.
> Case studies that focus on problems and difficulties and their solutions.
> Evaluation from an ‘outsider’- someone who is familiar with the basic characteristics of the cultural sector and has experience in the field (perhaps participants from the workshop?). Fresh eyes can potentially notice the weaker points of a project and objectively point out aspects that can be improved.

Expression of interest to contribute:
> Ruth Cherrington would like to contribute by adding her own experiences/ skills. She is also able to edit materials and texts produced.

4. Recommendations for ANIMATED partners in the planning of learners’ workshops and to include in the ANIMATED blog and toolkit:

> Practical workshops with a greater focus on practical ideas, and evaluation.
> Choose participants wisely. Based on language capabilities, social skills and networking talent.
> Workshops, blog and toolkit should be more interactive. Discussions could be factual as opposed to hypothetical.
> Is one and a half days enough? More meetings and extended workshops where people can talk and exchange ideas more.
> Inclusion of more opinions, findings and advice from people developing arts policy.
> Be succinct and user friendly. Don’t ‘overload’ the toolkit, examples are good but commonalities need to be highlighted.
> A greater volume of shorter presentations.
> More free time to visit local organisations.
> Include case studies.
> Material from the workshop (powerpoints etc) could be available on the blog or a password protected surface. This way discussions and input can be continued online after the workshop is finished.

5. ANIMATED could also
> Become ‘evaluation developers’.
> Offer some brief profiles of people/ places/ projects.
> Reach out to other fields/ areas.
> Consider ways of monitoring/ valuing long term methods–‘longitude measures’.
> Apply new approaches to group work.
> Share more case studies/ examples/ thoughts.
> Offer external evaluation sessions.
> After developing the toolkit ANIMATED should hold workshops for cultural institutions so that they can learn how to use it.
> It is important that the toolkit is shared and used in practice widely not just made in theory.
> After a given period ANIMATED should evaluate the toolkit. How useful was it? Did it actually work in practice?

Berlin Workshop “For what it is worth!” NGBK, 12-13 June 2010
Compiled by Frances Dixon

INFORMAL MEETING LEARNERS ANIMATED SOFIA

4 regular informal meetings were organised by ICC and parners from the project -notably Vaska Emanuilova Gallery - initiator of ‘Meeting point’ project in Bulgaria.
The idea was to allow Bulgarian participants to reflect on the methods of cultural cooperation already discussed and to share their experiences with a broader group of colleagues. The upcoming meeting is Nov. 9. at 18.00s at cafe ONDA, Angel Kunchev. Str.
In the next 12 months ahead of the project partner meetings will focus primarily on assessment of methodology and product development based on the knowledge gained and shared with the 3 partners – VIVO, uqbar and ICC.

12.6.- 13.6.2010: For what it’s worth (CULTURE VALUATION WORKSHOP) @ NGBK Berlin

Workshop venue

Hosted by uqbar partner of ANIMATED and NGBK, New Society for Visual Arts
Oranienstr. 25, 10999 Berlin, 1st Floor


Background

In the past years, evaluation has become a sort of magic word in the cultural field. Companies offering evaluation services mushroomed, as well as schools, classes and universities forming evaluators. Measurable criteria have become the key to give value to cultural projects. Cultural institutions such as Pro Helvetia, for example, have engaged professional evaluation companies to rethink and rationalize their structure, cutting off the branches not considered effective enough or not having enough impact on the territory.
As a matter of fact, be it the public, the private or even the non-for-profit sector, we all have to come to term with evaluation tools and criteria in our practice. The question for the cultural practitioners is how to make the best use these tools and criteria, to get and make the best out of their projects and programmes.
The workshop For what it’s worth (CULTURE VALUATION WORKSHOP), organized jointly by Wibke Behrens (NGBK) and Marina Sorbello (uqbar), offers a series of inputs and insights on evaluation practices today, with the aim of producing a “collective evaluation toolkit”.
Both the experts invited for the inputs and to moderate the workshops, and the selected participants are asked to contribute to the workshop with information, experiences, advices, resources, texts and whatever can increase the expertise on evaluation issues. At the end of the workshop the resources (evaluation toolkit) will be distributed among the participants and online.

For question and registration please contact:
Wibke Behrens koordination@ngbk.de
Marina Sorbello msorbello@uqbar-ev.de


About ANIMATED Learning Partnership (2009-2011)

The ANIMATED Learning Partnership is a capacity building and creativity project resulting from the cooperation between Intercultura Consult (Sofia), uqbar e.V. (Berlin), VIVO Foundation (Budapest). The goal of ANIMATED is sharing best practices and encouraging cultural participation, through a series of self-organized, interdisciplinary workshops taking place in Berlin, Budapest and Sofia in 2009/2011. ANIMATED is funded by the European Commission, Education and Culture DG (Grundtvig Programme).
http://animatedlearningpartnership.blogspot.com


Schedule of the workshop For what it’s worth CULTURE VALUATION WORKSHOP

12.6.2010

11.00 h Coffee+Tea
11.15 h Warming-Up with Mona Jas (1)
11.30 h Welcome and Introduction by Wibke Behrens (NGBK) and Marina Sorbello (uqbar)

12.00 h Input I: Screening of “Roland Berger Strategy Consultant”, a film by Antje Schiffers (2)
12.30 h Input II: Leonie Baumann, NGBK, Berlin (3)
13.00 h Input III: Dorothea Kolland, Kulturamt Neukoelln, Berlin (4)
13.30 h Input IV: Irina Cios, CIAC/ICCA Bucharest (5)

15.00 h Workshop moderated by Petya Koleva with Ruth Carrington, Intercultura Consult, Sofia (6)
- 19.00 h HOW TOs and tools of evaluation


13.6.2010

11.00 h Coffee+Tea
11.15 h Exchange and Review
12.00 h Visit: the new Bethanien (meeting with Christoph Tannert/Nora Mayr)


Biographies

(1)
Mona Jas (artist): At the centre of her work as an artist is the theme of individual identity within the political battleground of society. Memory, perception and language shape, consolidate and alter man’s inner identity, which shows itself to the outside world in lifestyles and rituals. She deals in her work from a variety of angles with the internal and external processes of this creation of identity. Her primary focus here is on critical observation of global practices and social mechanisms, especially the opportunity and freedom of individuals to take their own position towards the status quo.

(2)
Antje Schiffers (artist) often collaborates with businesses. Among her collaborations, she has made paintings for the consulting firm Bilfinger and Berger. In return, the Bilfinger and Berger advisers have produced a "business analysis" about Antje Schiffers. That was the deal. In this way, it was possible for Antje Schiffers to learn something about the consultant's own methods of work. The various artistic activities have been assessed as part of an investment portfolio and the artist was provided with strategic advice on how the artistic activities could "be better". The measure of success here were the economic indicators. It was of course immediately the question of what constitutes the success of an artist. The answer was obviously difficult and complex. Ultimately, it was noted that gaining attention is from the perspective of the artist is an important indicator of success.

(3)
Leonie Baumann, NGBK, is managing director at New Society for Visual Arts Berlin.
The New Society for Visual Arts (NGBK) – an art society with 850 members, people with different professions and ambitions: cultural workers, scientists, political activists, architects, artists, art theoreticians, sociologists, media studies experts, students… Through their work as volunteers they all go to make up the organisation's distinctive structure, in which all project-related decisions are taken at grass-roots and realized jointly.

(4)
Dorothea Kolland, Dr. phil.. Born 1947 in Bavaria, married, two children.
Studies in musicology, Italian language and sociology in Munich. Florence and Berlin.
Since 1981 director of cultural affairs in Berlin-Neukölln (called „the Bronx of Berlin“). Member of the German board of „Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft“ (NGO for cultural politics), for a long time member of the board of “Rat für die Künste” in Berlin (Assembly of the Berlin Culture), expert of the Council of Europe.
Political activities and publications on youth culture, community based arts, culture and migration, culture of ethnic communities, diversity, social exclusion and culture, social impact of the arts, art and education. Essays, reports, lectures.
www.kultur-neukoelln.de

(5)
Irina Cios (b. in București, RO) is art critic and curator, director of the International Center for Contemporary Art, Bucharest and guest lecturer at the National Art University. Initiator and curator of the SPACE CIAC Gallery (2000 – 2003) which was aimed at the promotion of experimental and media art. Since 2007, she started the ICCA’s artist in residency project “Under Construction”. She coordinates the MINUS UNU Gallery @ The Ark. Editor of contemporary art catalogues; Co-author of the volume Photography in contemporary Art. Trends in Romania, after 1989 (2006). Contributes with articles and interviews in catalogues, journals and magazines like: Observator Cultural, Artelier, Balkon, Secolul 21, Praesens, Idea etc. Since 2006 president of the Romanian section of the AICA - International Association of Art Critics.

(6)
Petya Koleva is a researcher in the arts since 1999 and an active expert on EU policies in the field of culture since 2004. Having studied Russian and English languages and Russian, British and American Culture Studies, specialising in Social and Political Science and Arts Theory Research she focuses in particular on multi-cultural, international cooperation projects. She has experience in implementing regional projects involving EU networks and EU neighbouring countries. Together with experts of ICC she offers trainings on European cultural funding instruments. As an evaluator she is experienced in EC Marie Curie Actions of the 7Framework programme and Culture 2007-2013 programme as well as the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument - EuropeAid. She is managing director of Inter Cultura Ltd – consultancy for arts and culture organisations or activities.
www.inter-cultura.eu

ANIMATED Museum – Culture Access – March 2010, Workshop 3, Budapest

The 3rd training of ANIMATED took place in Budapest in cooperation with VIVO Foundation and Ludwig Museum – Museum of Contemporary Art from 4 to 7 March 2010 with the aim of introducing contemporary art to PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.
The workshop offered a variety of programmes and a whole day conference, which attracted over 70 participants from different Hungarian cultural organisations, public and private institutions, along with the press. ANIMATED partnership guests were also Marina Sorbello, Antje Weitzel, Dorothee Bienert, Mona Jas, Ulrike Solbrig from Berlin and Aleksandra Nalbantova, Zhivka Janakieva-Nacheva, Diana Andreeva, Iveta Koleva, Ivan Dobrev and Georgi Iliev from Sofia and Stara Zagora.
The Ludwig Musem – Museum of Contemporary Art decided on the topic of CULTURE ACCESS as it not only coincides with the core principle of the museum to provide physical and intellectual access to the widest audiences but also fits in with the framework of the Grundtvig programme as part of the Lifelong Learning Programme.
The training has shown us that ‚CULTURE ACCESS‘ is a field of exploration to further explore and with a lot of potential. The topic is related to the broader field of audience development. It is associated with the broader theme of the 2010 theme of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Although operating in different organisational forms and with different focus the exchange between Uqbar, Intercultural Consult and Vivo Foundation proved to be relevant and aroused interest. We have found that all three partners have benefited from this direct learnign experience and there is need to follow up on its success.
The programme of the workshop:
On 4th March the group visited two private initiatives, the

„ABILITY PARK“ http://www.abilitypark.hu/home/english/ and the „INVISIBLE EXHIBITION“ http://www.lathatatlan.hu/en, which were examples of cultural entrepreneurship targeted at building on new ideas and trends in modern society. The Invisible Exhibition Budapest is a unique interactive journey to an invisible world, which allows participants to experience how to find their way through touch, sound and smells. The Ability Park - a thematic amusement park – helped the learners to get acquainted with the life of people with disabilities in an interactive and entertaining fashion.

On 5th March there was a whole day conference at Ludwig Museum – Museum of Contemporary Art. First Ranise Cécile PhD presented on the MEANING OF ACCESSIBILITY for people with special needs in the context of museums along with the current situation of Hungarian and European museums. Her presentation was followed by BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLES shared by: Skanzen Museum (Hungarian Open-air Ethnic Museum) on postgraduate courses offered by the Skanzen (Éva Csesznák); the Museum of Fine Arts Budapest (Edina Deme)
From the Ludwig Museum – Museum of Contemporary Art Rita Farkas and Henrietta Szira from the Education Department introduced how the museum can solve the question of accessibility. New initiatives from the context of Budapest Museum of Contemporary Art were discussed: the Guided tour for deaf and hard of hearing or blind and visually impaired in cooperation with the Hungarian Federation of the Deaf (Sarolta Dobránovics) and with the Hungarian Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted (Márta Dr Tolnayné Csattos); the guided tour for mentally disabled audiences was presented as a partnership of the contemporary arts museum with a day-boarder home for mentally disabled adults ( Ágnes Onódi). A concert by “Nem adom fel” (rock-group founded by people with special needs) was also part of the programme as well as a guided tour in the exhibition “Transitland” - Video Art from Central and Eastern Europe 1989 – 2009 http://transitland.eu/

On 6th March there was an informal meeting at Gödör Klub. The learners exchanged thoughts on their experience and discussed their impressions about the previous two days by doing an interactive word game. Hungarian and international contemporary artists whose artwork deals with the problems of people with special needs also joined the meeting. Later a partner meeting took place between Diana Andreeva /Sofia Observatory of Culture Economics/ and Peter Inkei, /Regional Observatory on Financing Culture in Central-Eastern Europe, www.budobs.org. The exchange of professional ideas between learners continues in June 2010 in Berlin and Sofia.

VIVO foundation

VIVO Watershed Visual Education Foundation is an organization founded in September, 2001. It concerns itself with museum education. The members of the foundation are students specialized in art history, aesthetics, literature, media as well as a number of foreign languages.

The foundation organizes guided exhibition tours in a number of Budapest’s museums on a regular basis. These guided tours aim to awaken interest in the visual arts among children and adults. Along with expanding a child’s factual knowledge, special emphasis is put on improving their creative thinking. Programs are geared for small groups so that each participant can receive proper attention. This also allows every child to participate in numerous, playful exercises according to his or her own needs. Consequently, everyone takes an active role in the program’s activities.

The activities are approximately one and a half hour long. This enables us to discuss 5 to 10 works of art in detail. In other words, the aim is to encourage quality – and not quantity – based reception of pieces. To help process the material exhibited, we utilize playful exercises, task sheets and other aids to promote creative immersion of the participants. We would like to prove that for the interpretation and enjoyment of works of art – that is to say, for a successful conversation with artistic products – preliminary knowledge concerning the objects on display is not necessary. We intend to provide a number of approaches to children so they might select their favourite interpretation or create new renderings afterwards. Along with all of this, our concern is also to develop the participants’ encyclopaedic knowledge and to point out the connection between factual data, which we believe necessary in order to attain a complex understanding of the ontology of artistic objects.

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT in CULTURE ACCESS

The Ludwig Museum – Museum of Contemporary Art and Vivo Foundation decided on the topic of CULTURE ACCESS as it not only coincides with the core principle of the museum to provide physical and intellectual access to the widest audiences but also fits in with the framework of the Grundtvig Lifelong Learning Programme objectives. The training has shown us that‚ CULTURE ACCESS‘ is a field of exploration to be further explored and with a lot of potential. It is associated with the broader theme of the 2010 theme of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1905&format=HTML&aged=0&language
While operating in different organisational forms Uqbar, Intercultura Consult and Vivo Foundation the learning exchange proved to be relevant for all three partners.

In the example of the ABITLITY PARK, the roles of educators and learners are reversed so that visitors to the adventure park are trained by qualified people whose ‘disabilities’ are transformed to the positive sign of an ability to share a world of experience otherwise unexplored in public. www.abilitypark.hu/home/english/
The partners/learners analysed methods and possibilities for improving the offer to young and mixed audiences and finding the partners that help expand the portfolio of services in galleries and museums .

BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLES WERE SHARED BY:
Skanzen Museum (Hungarian Open-air Ethnic Museum) on postgraduate courses offered by the Skanzen (Éva Csesznák); the Museum of Fine Arts Budapest (Zoltán Bartos); Ludwig Museum Budapest (Rita Farkas and Henrietta Szira ). The meeting with the Director of the LUDWIG MUSEUM, Barnabas Bencsik, and with the key experts in the educational department among whom Orsolya Barabassy, Rita Farkas and Eszter Arvai was valuable to understanding their EU/local audience development policy. A partner meeting between a representative of the Observatory of Culture Economics Sofia and the Regional Observatory on Financing Culture in East-Central Europe, The Budapest Observatory expert, started an exchange of professional ideas to be continued in Sofia. A guided tour in the exhibition “Transitland” - Video Art from Central and Eastern Europe 1989 – 2009 http://transitland.eu/ was part of the programme.

The workshop offered a variety of programmes and a whole day conference, which attracted over 70 participants from different Hungarian cultural organisations, public and private institutions, along with the press. ANIMATED partnership guests were also Marina Sorbello, Antje Weitzel, Dorothee Bienert, Mona Jas, Ulrike Solbrig from Berlin and Aleksandra Nalbantova, Zhivka Janakieva-Nacheva, Diana Andreeva, Iveta Koleva, Ivan Dobrev and Georgi Iliev from Sofia and Stara Zagora.

CULTURE INNOVATION STRATEGIES

6 - 9 December 2009 - Workshop 2 Sofia Culture Innovation Strategies and Sofia OperatorsOn Dec 7, 2010 an integrated training for culture operators took place in Bulgaria in cooperation of ICC and the Culture Contact Point of Bulgaria. The practice-based exchange involved expert input by ANIMATED on two projects “Transient Spaces” www.transientspaces.org and “Le Grand Magasin”, web: ec.europa.eu/culture/journalists/doc/page34_grd_magasin_en.pdf.
Workgroups were formed in which colleagues from Budapest, Berlin, Sofia and Plovdiv could solve problems of project management and co-operation and creating cooperation strategies.


A Sofia Culture Operators workshop with focus on BG contemporary arts culture managers, visual arts museum and galleries, independent spaces, residencies and informal spaces took place on Dec 8 and 9. The Sofia City Art Gallery and Veska Emanuilova project space presented their current methods of work and the role they play in Sofia as a specialised space for contemporary arts in the absence of a museum for contemporary arts.

Art residencies activities of the Art Today Association / Centre for Contemporary Art – Plovdiv were discussed. The initiator of Sofia Water Tower media arts festival, IME NGO, shared this topic in regards to an international debate on arts initiatives in urban space on June 26, 2010. Studio Dauhaus –initiator of the Sofia Underground arts festival introduced the informal cooperation as a next topic of exchange. The Bulgarian Culture Observatory, promoting research and culture valuation in Bulgaria shared their current findings. An interaction with independent curators from Sofia took place towards the end of the Tuesday programme with a discussion on curatorial exchange networks.

Sofia arts spaces and educational activities in the museum were the key topics in meetings at National Gallery for Foreign Art, Sofia, the Red House for Culture and Debate - Sofia and the National Museum “Earth and People”. We learned that the Ludwig Museum for Contemporary arts could have been located in Sofia before it settled in Budapest and that two public projects in Sofia (launch 2010) may improve the context of contemporary arts musea in Bulgaria. Several projects were indentified as a connecting point between Workshop 2 and Workshop 3 on Culture Access.

Participants to the ANIMATED Sofia Meeting: Over 35 participants from Sofia and Bulgaria representing over 25 different arts organisations benefited from this direct exchange. ANIMATED guests were Marina Sorbello (uqbar e.V., Berlin); Antje Weitzel (uqbar e.V., Berlin); Wibke Behrens, Neue Gesellschaft fuer Bildende Kunst (NGBK, Berlin); Orsolya Barabassy and Rita Farkas (Education Department, Ludwig Museum, Budapest); Petya Koleva (Intercultura Consult, Sofia); Lora Dimova and Todor Gadjev (Intercultura Consult, Sofia); Yovo Panchev, (Studiodauhaus); Iliana Dimitrova (National Academy for Theater and film arts, Sofia) ; Dr. Maria Vassileva (Chief curator Sofia City Art Gallery); Yana Kostova, (Bulgarian-German Cultural Centre, Plovdiv), Jacob Racek, (Culture manager Robert Bosch Stiftung); Nia Pushkarova, (IME arts initative); Irina Moutafchiеva, (National Gallery for Foreign Art); Diana Andreeva and Prof. Bilyana Tomova (Observatory of Cultural Economics Sofia ); Galya Dimitrova curator and Tzvetelina Josifova (Red House for Culture and Debate); Jivka Janakieva-Nacheva (National Museum “Earth and People”)