Audience development and Cultural Programming

April 1, 2011 - Analysis 3 - Sofia, BULGARIA

Organised by Intercultura Consult with the kind support of Sofia City Art Gallery

This one day symposium addresses cultural managers, policy makers, local authorities and administrators in municipal organizations involved with programming artistic and cultural events. The interactive program is composed of presentations; question and answer sessions, demonstrations of practice and group work.We bring together the perspectives and experiences of professionals from Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria.

TOPICS include: youth culture, community based arts, cultural diversity, social inclusion and culture access, social impact of the arts, valuation of arts long-term impact on local development, informal education, etc.

PROGRAM

09.00 - registration of participants

10.00 - Session 1 Audience Development – the role of cultural organizations and arts initiatives

Inroduction by by Ms. Patricia Piringer, Communications Department office, Ludwig Museum, http://www.ludwigmuseum.hu/

11.00 - Session 2 Cultural Programming – local policy and the evaluation of artistic quality and cultural impact on local development

Introduction by - Dorothea Kolland, Dr. Phil., director of cultural affairs in Berlin-Neukölln (called „the Bronx of Berlin“), Member of the German board of „Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft, member of the board of “Rat für die Künste” in Berlin, expert of the Council of Europe. http://www.kultur-neukoelln.de/

13.00 - Interactive session moderated by Petya Koleva, Intercultura Consult

14.00 Closing plenary

USEFUL LINKS

Berlin Neukölln - intercultural city
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/Cities/neukolln_en.asp
Relationship between Museums and Municipalities: White Paper
http://www.labforculture.org/en/groups/open/young-researchers-forum/publications/79725
The Ludwig Museum presents: LudwigInzert at Józsefvárosi Gallery -new external project space at the legendary Józsefváros Gallery
http://www.ludwigmuseum.hu/site.php?inc=0&menuId=305&tartalom=txt

ANIMATED international output:
ANALYSES: June 23 - July 1, 2011 - Movement and Mobility - Byala, Bulgaria; April 1, 2011 Audience Development and Culture Programming, Sofia, Bulgaria; May 5, 2011, Artist’s talk, Berlin, Germany; March11, 2011 - LLL Programs in Museums and cultural institutions – Budapest, Hungary ; October 9, 2010, “Small Structures are Beautiful - transient spaces analysis” –Berlin, Germany;
WORKSHOPS : June 2010 - For what it’s worth Culture Valuation, Berlin; March 2010 -
Animated Museum – Culture Access, Budapest; December 2009 - Culture
Innovation Strategies and So­fia Operators; November 2009 – Berlin Independents.

ANALYSIS 2: LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR DIFFERENT TARGET GROUPS AT MUSEUMS AND OTHER CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

Organized by VIVO Foundation in collaboration with Ludwig Museum - Museum of Contemporary Art
10 – 11 March 2011


Analysis venue
Ludwig Museum – Museum of Contemporary Art / Ludwig Studio, 2nd floor
Palace of Arts / 1 / Komor Marcell st. / Budapest / H-1095
Hosted by VIVO, partner of ANIMATED and
LUDWIG MUSEUM – MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART

Analysis’ key ideas and goals

In the past years, the term “lifelong learning” has become a key expression of basically all fields of education and programs fostering a lifelong self-development attitude and emphasizing it’s increasing importance.

The arts have the potential of mediating different images of cultures and illuminating our understanding of society, thus contributing to the complex network of relationships between people and their environment. Life-long learning through artistic and cultural activities is one of the most effective ways of becoming involved in the community. As mediators of knowledge and cultural heritage and resources of inspiration, cultural institutions, including museums should inevitably play a specific and vital role in this process.

It is significant to understand the special needs, motivations and interests of different target groups to involve them into the education programs. Successful informal learning (IL) strategies today are found when the specificities of the museum or the gallery are combined with audience development strategies. Typically they combat alienation and introduce methodologies of developing creativity through culture and the arts. The social aspect of intergenerational learning links human intelligence and technological awareness to social interaction. These assets rank high on the pleasure ratings of cultural experiences.

At the workshop in Budapest we present and discuss a range of Hungarian and European projects and case studies of successful practices and innovative possibilities of Lifelong Learning programmes in the field of culture.




PROGRAM 10.03.2011

10.00 – 10.30 Welcome coffee and tea

10.30 – 11.00 Welcome and Introduction by Tijana Stepanovic, president of VIVO and Orsolya Barabassy, art mediator of Ludwig Museum

11.00 – 12.00 LIFE LONG LEARNING PROGRAMS IN THE MUSEUM FOR DIFFERENT TARGET GROUPS
Input I: Orsolya Barabassy (education dept. of Ludwig Museum):
Generation Next.
About Ludwig’s Summer Camps for teens, Ped.Tuesdays for teachers and educators and LumiMini series for families with young children
Input II: Emőke Ferenczi (art historian, art mediator):
A Cup of Tea in Good Company.
Education project for the senior visitors.
Input III: Nikolett Koruhely (art historian, art mediator):
How to involve unemployed people into art education?
Education projects for unemployed people.

12.00 – 12.30 PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES
Judit Szalipszki (VIVO, board member):
Participatory practices - involving local communities.
Three case studies: the Garage Festival of Dunaújváros by Technica Schweiz; recent projects of Krétakör (in cooperation with Káva Cultural Group) and the future network of community gardens in Budapest (organized by Böske, supported by the Hungarian Contemporary Architecture Centre)

12.30-13.00 Tijana Stepanovic (VIVO, president):
Informal and professional networks in the international cultural sector.
Network building strategies and the importance of informal channels.

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch break

14.00 – 15.00 Maria Vassileva, Chief Curator, Sofia City Art Gallery, Bulgaria
Contemporary art: pushing the museum borders

15.00 – 16.30 Debate moderated by Orsolya Barabassy and Tijana Stepanovic



BEST PRACTICES 11.03.2011

11.00 – 12.00
Visit: LudwigInzert
Host: Veronika Lájer, leader of LudwigInzert
Topic: Audience development: vulnerable groups of the society

Opening in June 2010, Ludwig Inzert is Ludwig Museum’s new external project space at the legendary Józsefváros Gallery, former basis of different consecutive experimental art circles. By launching LudwigInzert, the Ludwig Museum would like to foster a lively relationship with the surrounding city and its residents, while expanding the spectrum of artistic practices represented by its collection and temporary exhibitions.
Veronika Lájer will introduce the institution, and its strategies to reach the people living in the neighbourhood: in the 8th district of Budapest characterised by serious socio-cultural conflicts.
http://lumu.hu/site.php?inc=0&menuId=305&tartalom=txt

13.00 – 14.00
Visit: Trafó House of Contemporary Art
Host: Áron Fenyvesi, curator of the Trafó Gallery

Trafó is an institution, a building, a place, a medium, an intellectual adventure, a risk and a possibility. It is a house that belongs to the contemporary arts; a place where life speaks about dance, theater, visual arts, literature and music; a theater, which has no company, and where the viewer is equal with the created opportunity. Trafó is a place where emotion is allowed more space than usual alongside abstraction, a place through which we can look out into the world.
www.trafo.hu

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