In terms of what I would like to see from representation (the question about organisation's voice) I would like to hear the participant's voice, but also the artist's - what value does the commissioned artist really get? Obviously money, but what else? What is learned, and how can that be shared with other artists/practitioners? There can be a conflict of interests for the organisation - if they are truly reflective and set out what didn't work, as well as what did, how will that go down with the funders?
Johnny: Thanks for the presentation and the different approaches. I love the scale of the work - and the finished drawing made with the kids. Also enjoyed the exploration of sites for creativity, and that often mediated sites are anything but creative spaces. This also links with some of the things that make me tick as a practitioner: not forcing something into existence like a sort of demi-god, but recognising what is there already, or what is happening and going with it. This reminds me of urban planners, trying to force people to walk a particular way, but Lazy Lines disrupt the order of this: the good planner recognises how humans want to walk/interact with a space and design from there. Jan Gehl's 'Making Cities For People' works this way.
Around permissions: a bit off topic but we have David Horvitz's piece "Without Permission" In The Window at AirSpace this week. We have displayed his work without asking for his permission.
One of the things I have really been thinking about since our meeting was Johnny talking about the value of participation: and measuring that. Thanks for giving more detail here: I was thinking about that model you presented Johnny, could be also exploring quality vs quantity.
Is it better to work with one person for 1000 minutes or 1000 people for one minute? 1:1000 vs 1000:1
I quite like the idea of a project which really tests this idea. How do you measure the value?
And then the other thing I meant to tell you about was the project I did recently in Harlech. Full details on my blog. This involved 3 different versions of 'How To Explore' a place. The first was a 'How To Explore' Kit for artists - the aim was to create a kit which can be used to explore a place in a different way than we might usually as a tourist. So this piece was an exploration of place from an artist's point of view. A lot of what I have done over the past few years has been around creating opportunities for artists and also sharing practice methods - through making kits and manuals for other artists to use. The Interrogation Manual is one of those: it is documentation of a project, but it also aims to be a handbook to be used by others - so for me documentation of participation can become a case book or toolkit. The How To Explore Kit then may be used by unknown artists, but is also a work in itself.
I think these three different approaches encapsulate some of the things I am interested in: and in particular the work with Rhian chime with ideas of small change - where we feel something is needed, or there is a gap, or a resource not being tapped, it encourages people to just get on and do something (however small) about it.
So: to round up: where am I heading in thinking about a project which we might do together? From what has been said:
Could we set up a project (I know there may be a bit of resistance to this due to workloads) and then aim to document and represent the project from the point of view of 1/the organisation 2/the artist(s) 3/the participants and anyone else that might be relevant - and explore how these different viewpoints end up providing a 360 representation?
The topic of the project I am unsure about at this stage: but I am still thinking a lot about Johnny's 1:1000 and 1000:1.