Home > Blogs > The Evaluation Files

Latest articles for The Evaluation Files

  • new hospital art

    by Ben Spencer 9 Mar 2010

    Health services in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) are undergoing a radical transformation to meet the changing needs of the population. £750million investment in acute hospital services means radical changes to Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s healthcare services. The NHS is building new hospitals and redesigning the way patient services are delivered to provide modern healthcare, in fit-for-purpose buildings.

    NHSGGC understands good health and well-being involves a holistic approach which includes thinking about art and therapeutic design in the look and feel of a place – the emotional environment. Nutrition, exercise, access to faster diagnosis and medical treatment are all recognised as vital to people’s health. There is a growing body of evidence which suggests environments designed to support positive emotions contribute to good health and wellbeing too.

    Two new hospitals, located at the Stobhill Hospital and Victoria Infirmary sites, opened in 2009 – purpose-designed to deliver outpatient, diagnosis, day surgery and minor injuries care. Both developments included significant allowances for the involvement of artists.

    The story of NHSGGC arts projects is summarised by Jackie Sands, Health Improvement Senior: Arts and Health: “Imagining Art strategies into new Hospitals Health Centres involves a strategic approach where plans are implemented in phases in line with build schedules, timeline, local regeneration plans, affordability and aspirations.” Indeed, this process was initiated with the appointment of Jackie Sands to the post of NHS Strategic Arts and Health Co-ordinator in 2005. This post was assimilated into the Health Improvement structure within Acute Planning in October 2008, signalling a commitment from NHSGGC to integrating art and creativity into healthcare.

    The direct and tangible outcomes of this commitment, in addition to the creation of permanent artworks at the new Stobhill and Victoria Hospitals, include increased confidence within the NHS to support art projects and the allocation of NHS staff time / investment to subsequent projects: New South Glasgow Hospitals project, Maternity Extension, Drumchapel Child Therapy Centre, Barrhead and Renfrew Health Centres. The continuation of the Strategic Arts Co-ordinator post has been instrumental in setting up structures and mechanisms for involving NHS staff, partner and community stake-holders in the development of art strategies; art sector capacity building, contracts and procurement; fundraising of approx. £1.4m; and contributing to the development of the NHSGGC Design Action Plan.

    Whilst recognising the very considerable achievements of the Health Improvement team, this reflection however concentrates mainly on the investment in artworks at the Stobhill Hospital and Victoria Infirmary sites only. Both projects received a single research and development grant from the Scottish Arts Council’s Artists Work in Public Places scheme in 2006 and subsequent, separate grants for their implementation in 2008. The value of the New Stobhill and New Victoria hospitals art and architecture programme is estimated to be in the region of £600,000.

    BACKGROUND

    The proposals for the involvement of artists at the new hospitals were put together as two distinct packages – with very different approaches. The period, and method, of development was widely divergent, although the timescale for delivery on-site was largely contemporaneous and therefore the two projects were somewhat inevitably considered as a single programme. Indeed, a single Public Art Manager was appointed to oversee the production and implementation of the artists’ work at both sites.

    One issue impinged significantly on both projects – the procurement of both hospitals through the private finance initiative / public private partnership (PFI / PPP). This probably had more impact at the New Victoria Hospital where the schedule saw the architectural design scheme signed off before the arts strategy was approved. The PFI / PPP framework raises difficulties because the design scheme and costs are fixed within the capital contract – everything has to be pre-planned, as measurable and quantifiable output specifications, otherwise the client is penalised through inflated costs for additional works.

    The art and architecture proposals at both hospitals were developed in collaboration with the architects, artists, NHS Strategic Arts and Health Co-ordinator, NHS Art, Architecture and Environment Steering Group and relevant local reference groups. Both projects also benefited from the involvement of Juliet Dean of public art agency PACE through the research and development phase. Again however because the project at the New Victoria Hospital was less advanced, Dean was more involved in developing a vision for the project at the Victoria Infirmary site and for promoting the art and architecture dialogue.

    At Stobhill Hospital Reiach and Hall were appointed as project architects, selecting Thomas A Clark as lead artist for the project based on previous experience of working with him. The architects began a conversation with Clark in 2001 about art – architecture – health and therefore the artwork is integral to the design scheme. Together a concept for the hospital was developed entitled ‘Grove: a grove of larch in a forest of birch’ which is realised by setting the hospital within a large planting of silver birch and planting larch within internal courtyards through the building. These courtyards are also surfaced with natural larch boarding. Clark produced a unifying text to elucidate the theme and this informed the development of additional proposals by visual artists Andreas Karl Schultz, Donald Urquhart, Kenneth Dingwall and Olwen Shone – selected and curated by Clark. Alec Finaly was appointed to undertake a related community engagement project in Springburn Park.

    At the New Victoria Hospital, PACE developed the project during the initial research phase, working with HLM, the project architects, to appoint Ally Wallace as lead artist and to develop a vision for the project, namely: the hospital in the park. The idea was to work in place as sustainably as possible in an historical, cultural and locally connected way. Work to bring the ‘outside in’ in a literal, metaphorical, cultural and historical sense; take the ‘old to the new’. A team of visual artists was appointed through an open selection process, comprising: Ally Wallace (lead artist), Hanneline Visnes, Calum Stirling, Jacki Parry and Ronnie Heeps.

    Chris Fremantle was appointed as Public Art Manager across both projects in April 2008.

    THE ART PROJECTS

    New Stobhill Hospital

    Clinic Waiting Areas, Thomas A Clark, Andreas Karl Schulze, Olwen Stone
    In 15 waiting rooms which look out onto courtyards, the Latin names of trees are sandblasted onto the windows. The walls are decorated by bands of colour installed by Schulze. Each waiting room also contains a video on a woodland theme by Stone (displayed on a monitor).

    Six Rooms, Thomas A Clark
    In six sub-waiting areas at the south elevation on the first and second floors, the name of a single bufferfly is placed centrally on a wall, painted in appropriate colours: ‘orange tip’ in white and orange, ‘speckled wood’ in green and yellow etc.

    Selected Grasses, Thomas A Clark, Olwen Stone
    In the Day Surgery waiting area, a poem of the names of selected common grasses scrolls across an LED sign. A related video is projected onto a frosted screen between the waiting area and central arcade.

    Day Surgery sub-waiting Areas, Kenneth Dingwall
    Groups of shallow relief constructions, in multiples of six or twelve, of primary or high-keyed colour relationships to create visual permutations of colour sequences and pattern of visual rhythms.

    Imaging Waiting Area, Thomas A Clark, Kenneth Dingwall
    Level one corridor with natural roof lighting, Clark places ‘blue sky’ texts on the wall accompanied by a series of low relief shaped works by Dingwall. The shapes in varied blue hues and placed on the ceiling or wall angles, optically change depending on position or approach.

    Endoscopy sub-waiting Areas, Kenneth Dingwall
    Groups of multi-angled, low reliefs in monochrome or two colour.

    Six Landscapes, Thomas A Clark, Donald Urquhart
    In five of the reception/waiting areas with no external view, Urquhart will install works collaboratively with, and in response to, texts by Clark. At each location Urquhart’s work, comprising a flat rectangle of colour with a painting ‘on top’, is sited on one wall with the text on another; e.g. “a deposit of mist moss”

    An Alphabet, Donald Urquhart
    On level three, at the top of the central staircase, 18 framed drawings will be hung around the landing which provides access to staff areas. Each drawing is in the form of a diptych: the left panel holds a single letter whilst the right hand panel comprises imagery of a species of indigenous tree. This work is based on the Gaelic alphabet which contains 18 letters – each traditionally associated with a tree name.

    Glade, Thomas A Clark, Donald Urquhart
    Design by Urquhart, in response to a text by Clark, of two adjacent rooms on the ground floor, accessed directly form the arcade, for use by the Spiritual Care Department.

    External Benches, Thomas A Clark
    To the right of the main entrance, three stone benches each bearing a one-line inscription: in good company | in your own company | in the company of trees.

    New Victoria Hospital

    Car Park, Ally Wallace
    Entrances to the main building, from the lower level car park, are highlighted with large scale wall markings and supergraphic signage.

    Coloured Glazing, Ally Wallace
    Throughout the building, panels of colour glass are introduced into the curtain wall glazing along the circulation areas to diffuse coloured light into the interior.

    Squaring of the Circle, Ronnie Heeps
    Design by Heeps for a Spiritual Faith and Healing Room, to provide a sanctuary space for patients and staff, through the use of circular motif to subert the squareness of the room.

    Waiting Areas, Jacki Parry
    Two adjacent waiting areas in the Outpatients Dept. and the Endoscopy waiting area are the site for Parry’s work – a series of nine small 3D objects, three in each waiting area. Each object is cast in paper and sealed in a ‘display pod’ – a transparent vacuum-formed oval container.

    Thresholds and Prospects, Calum Stirling
    At the junction of footpaths outside the hospital, Stirling has created a sculpture garden of various natural and manufactured forms. The scheme comprises trees and other planting, boulders, architectural cast pieces, a screen and sculptural seating.

    Waiting Areas, Hanneline Visnes
    A series of murals drawing on imagery from nature, in waiting areas on each floor, painted over a fairly large area of the wall but with an emphasis on detail.

    Programmable spaces

    Both hospitals have provision for programmable spaces for ‘community arts projects’ and touring exhibitions. Public areas have been identified within each building and provided with the means to receive artwork on a changing basis. The intention is to implement a continuous exhibition and commissioning programme of therapeutic arts and health improvement work, led by artists working with staff and community groups. Work generated through these interventions will be displayed in the designated, programmable areas. This is a particular feature of the New Victoria Hospital where resources for a 2-3year development programme to animate these spaces is built into the art project budget.

    EDUCATION and OUTREACH

    A community engagement project, at Stobhill, was undertaken by Alec Finlay with the Friends of Springburn Park. ‘Home for a King’ or ‘waiting room in the park’ is the result: a new entrance to the park opened up and marked with a Moon Gate. Boulders engraved with poetry, a bird box walk and additional benches seek to draw people further into the natural environment.

    An overarching outreach programme, Widening the Circle, was also implemented with the aim of extending the knowledge and experience of members of the Steering Groups to other members of staff in the hospitals. In addition, the Arts & Health team have guided tours of the artworks. Further Interpretation and publications are proposed for both hospitals.

    Allowances for education programmes (talks and workshops) were included in the original project budgets. For example, it is understood an artwork facilitated by Art in Hospital Artists working with hospital patients and local school children went up on the site hoardings in autumn 2007.

    REFLECTION

    Both projects demonstrate how artists can help the NHS develop an overall design vision for a new building, in creative ways. The approach at each site however varied widely, the result of different circumstances and the divergence of approach in the procurement of each new hospital. The impact of the artists’ interventions similarly therefore differs considerably. It is incredibly illuminating however to list all the art works as a way of noting the considerable achievement of NHSGGC in investing in artists’ work, as part of the redevelopment of the hospital estate, particularly given the size of NHSGGC as an organisation and the potential for this work to be completely marginalised.

    In discussion with NHS staff, a criticism of the more conceptual and cerebral approach to the artwork programme at Stobhill is that it doesn’t particularly relate to the community, although the question remains as to ‘what is the community’. The work may also be considered too small, in some cases, for the scale of the new hospital spaces. The programme at Stobhill does however have considerable rigour and coherence, with all the artists responding to a clear statement of intent. The works are composed together, in dialogue with one another, and not separately as stand alone works. The exception perhaps is Alec Finlay’s intervention which appears rather more independent. The work is however outwith the new hospital building and the result of a separate community engagement project developed with the Friends of Springburn Park.

    The artwork programme at the New Victoria Hospital appears more populist, although the artworks in themselves are still quite challenging. Perhaps this is because the artists’ interventions are described more easily in terms of traditional practice: painting, sculpture etc. The works exist pretty much in their own right rather than as part of the over-arching vision. The works tend to sit well in the smaller spaces of the New Victoria Hospital. The really innovative part of the New Victoria project is the commitment to the ongoing art programme.

    Whilst widely different, to a certain extent it is predictable the two projects were bundled together and this actually appears to be a strength and success of the project. In a sense, the two projects form a type of pilot initiative and the scale of the intervention helps to raise the visibility of the arts and health strategy. The two projects also demonstrate a multiplicity of approaches, a range of different programmes which is hugely appropriate and encouraging – NHSGGC has not adopted a ‘one size fits all’ solution to involving artists in its work. Indeed, the breadth of work has helped to change the language around the art commissioning process and the two projects have been instrumental in building capacity within the Health Improvement team to champion and develop further projects.

    In particular, the Arts and Health Co-ordinator sees the artwork programme working strategically to influence the rest of the NHSGGC about:

    • consideration of emotions and psychological effects of place and spaces in healing;
    • what it means when artists and designers ‘work in context’;
    • how NHS based artists and art programmes can be catalysts for facilitating health sector role in neighbourhood and city regeneration;
    • how NHS can work to support Glasgow City Council’s agenda for widening access to art and cultural activity.

    The projects at the Stobhill and Victoria sites have also been hugely important to NHSGGC in demystifying the process of arts commissioning and demonstrating the professionalism of the arts. For many staff it has been “an exciting journey and privilege to work with artists”. As more people get involved in the process, more learning happens and this is seen as being incredibly important. The artists leave and so more and more people need to be involved in the process to ensure it is embedded into NHSGGC’s learning culture – knowledge gained through new work is disseminated, discussed and modifications adapted as a direct result of new practice. For the arts programme this is happening within the NHSGGC Design Champions Group and therefore it can be argued the art interventions at the new hospitals has been instrumental in beginning to influence the whole organisation. A further key achievement is the development of the Glasgow Arts and Health Network where information and learning can be shared.

    Having said that some people still have difficulty in understanding artists’ working practice. For example, the research and development phase was considered very expensive – the question of value for money constantly needs to be argued at this stage. Also the artist design sketches were seen as final proposals with little understanding these would need considerable further development to be realised. It was clear that two totally different cultures were crashing together.

    NHS Estates has however produced a useful briefing, entlitled: ‘Improving the Patient Experience: The Art of Good Health – A Practical Handbook’ 2003. An extract is available at publicartonline

    This paper argues the arts have a significant contribution to make in creating impact in healthcare design. In particular, the arts can be used to:

    • create local distinctiveness;
    • ensure that the built environment reflects individual human scale;
    • meet the spiritual and emotional needs of patients and staff;
    • support and improve wayfinding, for example by creating landmarks at entrances and in key public spaces;
    • enhance landscaping and interior design through creative use of materials and finishes;
    • enhance the prestige and reputation of the NHS trust during the redevelopment process.

    The paper goes on to describe the PFI design process and advise on the commissioning of artworks, managing the transfer of existing works of are to a new building and setting service agreements in place for an ongoing arts programme. It is recommended NHS Trusts develop arts strategies and arts development plans as part of the PFI procurement process. Key factors for success are highlighted as:

    • build consensus early in the process with all stakeholders;
    • establish an art and design committee, with clear terms of reference;
    • ensure arts programme is professionally managed;
    • define scope and parameters of the arts project to quantify the work to minimise risk;
    • bring specialist arts advisers on board early;
    • budget for the arts strategy early in the process.

    It is recognised the Health Improvement and Capital Planning teams have learnt a huge amount in delivering the projects, but it is not clear whether this learning has been formalised. And ‘how to measure the impact of the projects is crucial to closing the loop’. Significantly the process for the procurement of artwork within new capital developments is now far more sophisticated and artwork is built into the output specifications for any new PFI / PPP contracts / tender documents.

    The two projects at Stobhill and the New Victoria Hospital have acted as a real lever to influence NHS staff throughout the organisation. Also the support of the Scottish Arts Council has been instrumental in influencing and supporting NHS policy.

    It appears that within only four years, the arts have moved from being considered as a separate agenda into an integral part of the capital planning process through the sustained promotion by the Health Improvement team. This is a truly considerable achievement.

    Comments [0]

  • target practice...

    by Ben Spencer 4 Oct 2009

    Well summer is well and truly over … the summer festivals and late holidays have come and gone for another year and my thoughts turn to completing this cycle of writings. I’ve been struggling to condense some ideas around the issue of ‘community’ – an issue that may be considered so vague that it cannot be ‘defined’. Yet in the current issue of the RSA Journal which focuses on various aspects of society, Amitai Etzioni argues: ‘community can be clearly defined as a group of individuals in possession of the following two characteristics: a web of affect-laden relationships that often criss-cross and reinforce one another (rather than merely one-on-one or chain-like individual relationships); and some commitment to a core of shared values, norms and meanings, as well as a shared history and identity – in short, to a particularistic normative culture.”

    This appears to me to be a useful definition for visual arts activity across Scotland and whilst people may not always agree with one another about values, norms or meanings, I do believe the sector recognises a common history and identity. But why this particular subject for this evaluation? Well I suppose previously I’ve looked predominantly at commissioning, the client, professional curatorial practice and the artist’s perspective, but never really who the work is for? And the projects under consideration raise a number of issues around audiences, participation and community.

    Just as projects vary hugely in scope and setting, so does their purpose and intended audience. A useful summary of various research studies into public art practice, audiences and impact is available at publicartonline here. But I’m not sure this really addresses the thoughts I’ve had around the topic. For example, many projects are developed for new housing developments, but where is the community when people have yet to move in? Who, or what, is the project for – the developer to gain planning consent and kudos? The sponsor (local authority / housing association etc.) aiming to succeed in place making? A source of additional funding or a legal obligation? Or for future residents?

    For projects as part of rebuilding the public estate (schools, hospitals, health centres, cultural venues etc.) the same questions arise, including those above but also across a broader spectrum. Is the benefit for the user – likely to be a transient audience in say the local hospital, in and out, fleetingly engaged with the work (measured in hours rather than years). Or is the project aimed at the staff? Is it possible to gain an insight into their views? Can you ever canvass opinion for a building project which doesn’t exist. So is the artwork primarily developed for the project manager, for the client? A condition of funding perhaps?

    For projects in the public realm, the audience is even more dispersed. I suspect, however, there is an even greater expectation for this audience to be involved in some way, in these circumstances probably as a condiiton of larger amounts of public money. The idea that participation creates ownership; that the work needs to grow out of the community. But who is the community and how do you reach them meaningfully and effectively? And are we talking of a geographical community or a community of interest? Does size matter? Is it better to reach a small number of people profoundly than a large number superficially?

    I suspect the response to all these queries is that the purpose of the project and its audience must be clear from the outset. Certainly the projects under review had a well articulated and overarching direction from the beginning. The hospital projects have been delivered through a wide range of art interventions directed at a number of different audiences: waiting patients, staff and the general public through outdoor installations. These varied communities are reached through a variety of means.

    The Inverness Old Town Art project (further details here) has been subversive in that its primary purpose is trying to create a sense of belonging for artists – to create a cultural community in the Highlands – while improving the public realm along the way. Similarly the strength of the project is the variety of approaches it has been able to adopt, through permanent work, temporary interventions and seemingly ad hoc celebrations (all carefully planned of course). It is the diversity of work which has allowed the audience to engage with the project rather than instigating a one-off participatory exercise. But also the project here is directed to both a public and an arts audience.

    I recall a piece of work about developing a long-term arts project and recommending that to be credible the project needed to be advertised in the arts press. Sorry who is your audience? I was drawn to the parallels in the music sector by an editorial in The Skinny: “…of late, it has become clear to me that one of the key elements in a healthy local music scene is the influence that comes over time. This is an often overlooked phenomenon.… the old business cliché – time is money – applies here. Because you don’t get that generational effect without people – lots of people – putting in the hours, often for little money or glory. So when we rightly celebrate the strength of the Scottish [music] scene right now, and the exciting new names making an impact, it’s worth remember the credit due to the people who established the culture, from the legends to the veteran foot-soldiers to the kids in the year above.” Rupert Thomson, The Skinny, Issue 48, September 2009

    Which I believe brings us full circle and back to the idea that shared history of relationships creates meaningful communities – within a building, through an interest, working practice or particular locality. My favourite project of the moment, the High Line, exhibits so many aspects of how a project can galvanise ideas of community.

    Comments [0]

  • 'built in?'

    by Ben Spencer 11 May 2009

    Over the last couple of months I’ve been struggling to condense my thoughts around the issue of ‘integrating’ artists’ work into any project. In writing here, I’ve always said the projects subject to evaluation will act as an inspiration for the blog rather than being referenced directly. The issue of integration, however, is directly linked to the projects under consideration and so I am likely to draw a little more directly on the projects under review.

    I suppose the idea underpinning my thoughts, and crucially the basis of any project, is: ‘why do we want to involve an artist in our work?’ Artists are very good at having conversations, looking at things in different ways, diverging or supporting the direction of a project. For some projects this might manifest itself through a practical, rather than an artistic, approach, but I would argue it will always be valuable, if sometimes rather intangible.

    Working on another project, another evaluation, has highlighted the contradiction of ‘intergrating’ artists work into capital projects:

    A growing number of artists are invited to become ‘creative agents’ in the construction of our public spaces. The language surrounding these schemes (manifested in the form of briefs, marketing material, funding applications, local authority documents and magazine articles) is now fully professionalised. Artists are no longer requested to make stand-alone works of art for designated spaces (the insensitive ‘plop’ associations that come with this type of commissioning have been well documented), they are now invited to help local authorities or clients ‘deliver a vision’, to become part of a large team of architects, planners, engineers, local authority officers and facilitators who are engaged in the process of making a building or a public space. The danger of this type of language and involvement is that the voice of the artist frequently goes unheard. An even larger danger is that artists themselves become professionalised and savvy to this way of working and in so doing become part of the system which kills the essence of an art programme.

    What’s a ‘creative agent’? Artists’ collaboration with architects and planners, Jes Fernie in ‘Open space – Art in the public realm in London 1995 – 2005’ ed. Jemima Montagu, Arts Council England and Central Lodong Partnership, February 2007.

    The central dichotomy remains. Is an artist involved in a capital project, as part of the design team and therefore in danger of becoming a designer – at the earliest stages of the project. Or is the artists’ work clearly identifiable and therefore in danger of being ‘plopped’ into a scheme, as referred to by Jes Fernie above. The difficulty is that clients will often be looking for an identified work – something to take to the funders – “this is what you will be paying / paid for”.

    While the projects under consideration are quite different (one ostensibly a city centre environmental regeneration landscaping project – the other two new buildings), the issues surprisingly converge on this topic. In both cases, the artists work is being ‘retro-fitted’ after completion of the construction works which begs the question as to whether the work is truly integrated or not. This situation has arisen predominantly for pragmatic reasons. The construction was well advanced and couldn’t be delayed to wait for the artists’ works. Contractural issues meant it was impractical for artists to be working on a construction site. And, in some instances, the appointment of the artists came late into the project.

    The flip-side of these thoughts is the nature of the involvement of the artist. Is the artist’s work intellectually integrated into the project – through early intervention, working with the design team, influencing the designers’ thinking, supporting the project ‘blueprint’. The artist may purely be another voice – being whoever they want to be. The artist’s work may alternatively be physically integrated into the project. Or the work may stand alone. Of course, there is no standard approach and the nature of the work will reflect the client, the commissioner, the design team and the artist.

    In talking about some of these issues, it seems that more artists in Scotland ‘toggle’ between gallery and public art practice. This is likely because work opportunities are fewer in Scotland, but it does seem a more prevalent Scottish practice which raises the point of who is the audience for the work – client / art world / user group / community?

    To a certain extent these writings and the PAR+RS web site are already reaching the ‘knowledgeable’, the professional and the interested. Another piece of work has highlighted the need to reach out to others, particularly development and regeneration services. This reflection on integrating artists work into construction projects makes me think we need to also take the arguments to the contractors – to educate ‘contractors’ champions’: builders who believe in the value of artists’ work in capital projects.

    Comments [1]

  • connectivity

    by Ben Spencer 27 Mar 2009

    Talking about writing for the PAR+RS web site, it’s been pointed that I am not really writing a blog, so I’m going to attempt to comment more in the spirit of the medium. And I’ll probably stray off message as, in the spirit of blogging, it seems more appropriate to reflect on what I’ve been doing rather than directly address a particular issue arising from the projects under consideration. More of that another time …

    The prompt to write this blog was a particularly busy and varied fortnight which I was reminded of over dinner at the weekend. A friend was espousing a hierarchy of communication to be worked through starting, from the top, with a face-to-face meeting. If that is not possible, a ‘phone call is preferable to email which is favoured over text messaging etc. Social networking and Twitter also entered the fray. While our other guests may have had some sympathy for the views about the merits, courtesy and effectiveness of each means of communication, the adherence to this hierarchy was shouted down… We argued the medium needs to be appropriate to the message or to the person – there are some people I can only reach by text, including in a work context. Or economic factors may determine how we contact people – the cost of communication determines an alternative hierarchy…

    Why do I raise this? I suppose I want to reflect on working practices and how we connect with people and what makes that interaction successful, or not. For instance, that fortnight, I attended a number of face-to-face ‘events’. Even these varied … some of the face-to-face contact was on a one-to-one basis – what I might term discursive, information finding exercises. Or work development – meetings with a focus on how to progress a particular piece of work. A number of these events were group meetings – dialogue and information sharing exercises, or participating in policy discussions over Creative Scotland and the National Campaign for the Arts. And I also participated in a consultation exercise on the Visual Arts Blueprint produced by Creative and Cultural Skills. All face-to-face, but very different and I suppose their success depended on knowing what the purpose of the meeting was and if both / all parties were approaching the dialogue from the same perspective.

    And then, in one of those strange circular coincidences of life, I attended a talk organised by Culture and Sport Glasgow when Gordon Torr referred to my ‘blog’ on this site which cited his provocation at the Creative Clusters Conference. Are we all just turning into digital ‘ground hogs’? Other talks in the snapshot series were presented by Philip Schlesinger, Director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Research at Glasgow University; John Holden of Demos; and Andrew Pearmain, Research Fellow in History at the University of East Anglia.

    And of course thinking back to that fortnight, I will have received newsletters, alerts, postings by email including, perhaps: " publicartonline, art rabbit, Voluntary Arts Scotland, e-Flux, artsJournal, Scottish Arts Council various departments but particularly the Visual Arts News and Opportunities, Arts Council England, RSA Arts and Ecology, a-n Artists Information Company, Holyrood Listserver, artshub, Scottish Artists Union, NESTA. And the journals dropping through my letterbox… And all the ’phone calls…

    I suppose my point is that, as in communication, a successful project relies on a whole panoply of contacts, meetings, reports, events and happenings. And different types and sources of information to stimulate thinking and debate about a project. There is no one way to determine how to take a project forward. Occasionally something completely serendipitous will happen to move things on, just as sometimes completely bizarre things land in my inbox – I refer to one such distraction for your enjoyment!

    Ben Spencer
    March 2009

    Comments [1]

  • economical with creativity

    by Ben Spencer 31 Dec 2008

    My thoughts this month result from attending the Creative Clusters conference in Glasgow from 17th-21st November 2008 – www.creativeclusters.com. I suppose I thought this would be a break from writing about the projects under evaluation, but the majority of sessions at the conference addressed issues around regeneration and therefore, on reflection, my musings seem particularly relevant.

    I attended the two ‘core’ days in the middle of the conference week and was a little naïve. On commenting that so few speakers even mentioned cultural activity in their presentations, it was pointed out to me that this was Creative Clusters’ 6th International Conference on the Creative Economy. I should have paid more attention when booking! So the event was frustrating from an arts’ perspective, but I also believe some of the references should be shared more widely.

    To give you some idea of the scale of the event, some figures first:
    450 delegates
    256 page handbook
    74 speakers
    29 policy sessions / discussions
    12 programme curators
    7 tours and visits
    5 days
    5 session chairs
    5 Lego serious play faclitators
    4 rapporteurs
    4 receptions

    And five themes:
    The Creative Economy in Smaller Nations
    The Moving Image Goes Online
    Policies for Festivity
    Strategic Leadership in the Creative Economy
    The Long Story of Glasgow’s Creative _Economy

    The conference kicked off in Edinburgh with a day long ‘Policies for Festivals Master-class’ and then moved through to Glasgow for the rest of the week. Forgive me the lists, but it seems to be the only way to convey the scope of the event.
    ‘Creative Britain: The UK’s Creative Economy Programme’
    ‘Guerilla Movie Production: Film-making in Brazil and Nigeria’
    ‘Tuning In: Television, audio-visual production and regional economies’
    ‘Creative Government: what kind of leadership?’
    ‘Creative Industries in the Baltic: Lithuania, Estonia, Finland’
    ‘Globalised Creativity: Creative economies in developing countries’
    ‘Clicks not Bricks: The role of media centres in the age of clicks, not bricks’
    ‘Story-Telling and the Economy: … and they all lived creatively ever after’
    ‘Rethinking the City: Embedding creativity across city policy’
    ‘Building for creative Business: Building-led development for creative regions’
    ‘The Audience as Artist: New forms of participation in events and exhibitions’
    ‘Cluster Strategies: China, Ontario, Nordic region’
    ‘Out of the City: Creative industries in rural areas’
    ‘Culture-led City Transformation: Glasgow, Singapore, Gateshead’
    ‘Beyond the Festival Hype: How many festivals do we need?’
    ‘Design & Crafts: Developing capacity in traditional sectors’
    ‘Enabling Technologies: The impact of new technologies on the creative economy’
    ‘Creative Futures: New research on the future of the creative economy’

    The handbook is a comprehensive reference to all the sessions with speakers’ biographies, abstracts of each session and, in many cases, copies of the presentations. This material is an incredibly useful record of the event – unfortunately not currently available online. Some of the case studies I found interesting include:
    Shetland Arts
    Klaipeda City, Lithuania
    Creative Industries in Estonia
    Crossing Boundaries
    from cowtown to wowtown
    Nordic Innovation Centre

    The best session I attended was a ‘provocation’ by Gordon Torr, author of “Managing Creative People”, The Unfactory (Wiley UK, 2008). And I want to conclude with Torr’s thinking which is really what prompted me to write this piece in the first place. Forgive me for quoting at length.

    The extraordinary growth of creative businesses has shifted the traditional focus of management from the organisation of skills and resources to the mysterious art of mining the imagination. Now the glacial predictability of corporate process has come up against the notorious unpredictability of the creative temperament, and business leaders are confronted with the challenging paradox of managing the unmanageable. The resulting clash between control and creativity is exacerbated by the myths and misunderstandings that continue to hamper our quest for innovation and originality.

    Torr decries the curse of the brainstorm, the commoditisation of creative talent, the deskilling of the imagination and the startling inadequacies of management theory. Torr argues creative people are often regarded by their managers as alien species whose motivations are impossible to fathom and recognises the non-conformity of the creative temperament is particularly difficult to accommodate in structured organisations.

    Torr cites research evidence into the psychology of creativity, the history of creative communities and the demographics of creativity in order to favour a reappraisal of government and corporate policy regarding the management, training and optimisation of creative talent. Torr argues that standing in the way of progress in corporate creativity are the flawed conceits of the so-called creativity trainers, such as de Bono, the entirely discredited yet universally accepted assumption that creativity can be taught and the ludicrous notion – no less ludicrous for being so avidly embraced by so many pundits – that “everyone is creative”.

    Torr proposes a new approach, marrying contemporary corporate culture with the criteria for successful artistic patronage, as practiced in Medici Florence, which include: the clear demarcation of creative roles, the critical distinction between craft and creativity, the psychological and environmental circumstances that promote inspiration, a counter-intuitive system of reward, and the important notion of creative redundancy.

    Through an entertaining presentation, with a total incomprehension of (and perhaps aversion to) the success of Leona Lewis, Torr elaborated on his arguments in more detail. While this is impossible to summarise, perhaps one of the most useful sections was on Torr’s description of the killers and aphrodisiacs of creativity:

    killers of creativity
    constraint
    poor project management
    evaluation
    organisational disinterest
    too much regard for the status quo
    lack of resources
    competition
    time pressure
    bribery
    surveillance

    aprhodisiacs of creativity
    freedom
    good project management
    resources
    encouragement
    recognition
    time
    challenge
    pressure

    And finally I particularly liked Torr’s 10 year rule – that it takes around ten years from the inception of any idea to realising it. Sounds like a pretty accurate reflection of most capital arts projects I’ve been involved in.

    Ben Spencer
    December 2008

    Comments [1]

  • '...big jobs?"

    by Ben Spencer 17 Nov 2008

    What is the difference between a project to produce an artwork for a clearly identified, single ‘client group’ and working on a project with multiple artworks for a large, disparate organisation?

    In writing here, I’ve always said that the projects subject to evaluation will act as an inspiration for the blog rather than being referenced directly. In the back of mind, however, there is the niggling question of how an artist, project manager (or indeed external evaluator) can work within, or gain access to, a sprawling organisation and so I am likely to draw a little more directly on the projects under review to explore my musing.

    Looking at the archive of projects on the PAR+RS web site, offers an insight into the whole range of commissioning bodies out there … arts initiatives, museums, galleries, schools, universities, hospitals, local community groups, voluntary organisations, housing associations, regeneration agencies, local authorities, commercial outlets and private companies. But such a list may indeed conceal who is actually commissioning the work. For example, the site of an artist’s activity may be a school, but is it the Head Teacher, the Parent Teacher Association, or the central education department at the local authority involved in drawing up the project brief and involved in selecting the artist? More likely it will be the project manager, leading the procurement of new schools under a ‘regional’ PPP/PFI contract.

    On the one hand, I suppose this does not present a problem for the artist. A well structured project, with clear lines of communication and management structures, should support the work of an artist and make their role easy to fulfil – irrespective of the labyrinth of bureaucracy which requires to be negotiated by the project manager. But this is a sterile response to my query which takes no account of the artist’s need to understand their position within an organisation or the context in which they are working. This approach is also likely to be very isolating, to a certain extent side-lining the artist and therefore probably leading to the work being misunderstood and receiving negative responses.

    The key issue seems to be the difficulty of finding that route through an organisation and gaining support for an art project and the artist’s work. A particular problem of working in a very large organisations is that there is little or no access to decision-making – a process which is likely to be driven forward through text and documentation. In some cases, an added difficulty is that the ‘client’ may span a number of organisations, pulled together for a particular purpose – a common situation in regeneration agencies – and so the people commissioning the project do not form a natural constituency. While the group may have a single objective in commissioning the work, such as the improvement of the physical environment, each contributor may measure the ‘success’ of the project through very different, maybe even conflicting, parameters. Or as already hinted at, the client may be fractured in delivering a project within a large organisation – commissioning work in a project which is being delivered by a capital procurement team – the involvement of artists may become an irritant: that precious pearl within the oyster.

    This suggests the clearly identified single ‘client group’ does indeed have an advantage in managing an art project over the large disparate organisation as it is likely to develop direct lines of communication with the artist. When 63 people are listed as being involved, as with one of the projects under review, that brings added challenges and complications in pulling together the delivery of the work. Large agencies may have a single name, but most bodies are complex structures and multi-layered with Boards and advisory committees, departments of staff teams and external advisers etc. forms an entity in itself. So in reality the delivery of an artwork through a team of consultants, artists, designers, construction personnel etc. Questioned particularly on this idea, a manager involved in one of the projects under review noted however that “you have to keep pushing projects in a busy environment – really it is the busy environment which is the issue, not necessarily the scale of organisation.”

    And this of course is the crux of any project development whether for a small community group or in a large agency – is the project the focus of their organisation? A community group may rely on volunteers who cannot work on a project consistently, day to day. In an organisation, how do you keep a project alive, alert and relevant when it is not central to a person’s work? How do you ensure any new project is accepted as a valuable activity and kept visible? What connections are required and how are they sustained?

    There is an argument that actually a large scale organisation can benefit the delivery of an art project. Involving a large number of people, from a broad range of perspectives, and gaining their support gives the work more legitimacy. Engagement in a project also becomes a form of education and an opportunity to ‘skill up’ people – explaining the process of art making. Anecdotal feedback often notes how people enjoy being involved in working with artists and consider it a privilege, . As more people are involved learning happens – the journey demystifies the arts community and demonstrates the professionalism of artists. A further benefit of involving a large number of people in a project delivers a legacy of interested workers once the artists have moved on.

    The artwork is often the catalyst to bring two cultures together, creating a space for dialogue and offering opportunities for ‘training’, irrespective of the scale of the project. There are particular benefits of a small, identified project but also significant advantages of working in a large scale organisation. Both, however, need significant energy and clear management keep the profile of the project alive, irrespective of size.

    Ben Spencer
    November 2008

    Comments [0]

  • to confer and commit

    by Ben Spencer 5 Oct 2008

    In writing a second piece for the PAR+RS web site, my thoughts turn – naturally? consecutively? – to the commissioning process. Projects funded by the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) Artists Work in Public Places (AWiPP) scheme adopt a number of routes to commission project managers, curators, lead artists and artists (all subsequently collectively referred to as artists) which makes me conclude there is really only one way to commission artists work – i.e. the most appropriate way. That seems a little bit obvious perhaps, but please bear with me in reaching this conclusion.

    LET’S go back to basics. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition 1983) includes the following definitions of the word commission:

    noun substantive Middle English
    1. Authoritative charge to act in a prescribed manner. 2. Authority committed to any one 1480; spec. that of an officer in the army or navy 1672. 3. An instrument conferring such authority ME.; spec. the warrant by which an officer in the army or navy is appointed to the rank and command he holds 1642. 4. An office conferred by such a warrant 1708. 5. The condition of being authoritatively entrusted or given in charge 1573. 6. A body of persons charged with some specified function 1494. 7. The entrusting of (authority, etc., to) 1883. 8. A charge or matter entrusted to any on to perform 1570. 9. Authority given to act as agent for another in business1622. 10. A pro rata remuneration for work done as agent 1725. 11. The committing (of crime, etc.) 1597.

    verb transitive 1661
    1. To furnish with a commission or legal warrant. 2. To empower; to entrust with an office or duty 1683. 3. To send on a mission1697. 4. To give a commission or order to or for 1790.

    Ignoring references to the armed services (the air force obviously didn’t exist in the 17th Century), the key words are illuminating and reflect the status, and seriousness, of any project plan or contract:
    • authority, charge, instrument, warrant, office, function, entrusting, agent, remuneration, committing,
    • to furnish, to empower, to entrust, to send on a mission.

    That seems clear then – a commission is a definitive instruction to carry out a specified piece of work, in a particular manner. But how do you actually go about commissioning artists’ work? There is no shortage of advice from public agencies and funding bodies – in print and online – about drawing up a commission, covering: a project’s conceptual framework, aims and objectives, developing a brief, artist selection, implementation, management, evaluation and budgeting. Some references may be instructive:
    http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/practical/commissioning/index.html
    http://www.commissionsnorth.org/commissioning/
    http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/artforms/public_art.htm
    http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publications/information_detail.php?
    http://www.happen.org.uk/resource.php?key=40

    More specific advice is offered SAC towards applying to its own Public Art Fund, but the areas covered are applicable to all projects involving artists work in public places:
    http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/1/information/publications/1005724.aspx

    While such advisory documents are useful to outline strategic approaches in commissioning artists to deliver projects, I have been struck through talking to people involved in ‘live projects’ about how the actual appointment process varies and, in some circumstances, how this has evolved from the original plan. This reflection therefore concentrates on the selection process rather than the more prosaic aspects of project delivery. To quote publicartonline: “the selection of an artist or craftsperson for a public art commission should be an intriguing and exciting task”.

    In offering advice to projects looking to engage artists in their work, I had always followed the mantra that there are three main ways of selecting an artist:
    • open competition – advertising widely to invite artists to submit applications
    • limited competition – compiling a short list from which a limited number of artists are invited to work up proposals
    • direct invitation – selecting an artist to propose work for a site, participate in the design process, or act as lead artist

    I hadn’t thought much further beyond this simple guidance, but these options highlight an important difference in approach – are you looking for a person (manager/curator/lead artist/artist) or a proposal? The nature of the project will also influence the option you follow – not the type of project being commissioned (stand alone artwork, participatory project, residency etc.), but the structure of the project. Where a commission is being implemented on behalf of a wide range of stakeholders and external agencies, an open process involving artists’ presentations is likely to be required. The scale of a project will also influence the manner of appointment – contract values may trigger a requirement to put the project out to tender and this will impact on the selection process.

    These issues may also determine how artists are invited or selected to apply for a commission. Promoting artists opportunities is becoming increasingly easy, and more diverse, as online listings and networks complement print media as sites for advertising projects. Again the nature of the project will influence where advertisements are placed – an artwork forming an integral part of a building project is likely to benefit from being advertised in the architectural press. Personal networks should also be used to ensure the greatest exposure of a project and therefore attract the widest range, and variety, of submissions. Of course, artists can be contacted directly to apply, as part of any competitive process.

    Of course, the process is simplified if it relates to a single, small scale project, but this might also limit the commissioning possibilities. A large scale project, made up of multiple opportunities for artists and comprising different commission strands, means the prospect may be available to share ideas and proposals. An artist applying for one particular commission may be unsuccessful, but then asked to submit for a different project.

    As pointed out above, the selection itself should be an intriguing and exciting task and can be an excellent inspirational and educational process for people who don’t usually come into contact with artists or their work. Consultations, exhibitions, presentations and interviews can generate enthusiasm for a project – getting people involved and talking about art.

    Returning to the OED’s definitions, I love the idea that commissioning artists work in public places is equivalent to the committing of crime, and I’m sure many people might agree with this sentiment, although of course I cannot condone, or suggest that SAC should support, criminal activity. I also relish the image that commissioning artists work in public places is equivalent to sending an artist on a mission, but my conclusion is that there is no straightforward answer to how to appoint an artist. You must chose the most appropriate route, in the context of your project, to commission artists work and this will vary from project to project.

    Ben Spencer
    September 2008

    Comments [1]

  • *reporting measures*

    by Ben Spencer 24 Aug 2008

    My appointment by the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) as an external evaluator for the Artists Work in Public Places (AWiPP) scheme is focused on a number of projects being funded by SAC. It is difficult, however, to write contemporaneously about specific projects and so the work being undertaken will serve to inspire a monthly post to the PAR+RS blog.

    SO, the first crucial question, at this early stage of my involvement with these projects, is: what is evaluation? Quite often I see confusion between monitoring and evaluation, and indeed the brief for my role identified two key tasks:
    i. ongoing evaluation of the progress of projects;
    ii. evaluation of the various processes involved, leading to written conclusions about best practice and points of learning.

    I consider the first task is a monitoring role, requiring different approaches from the second which is more appropriately defined as evaluation. Essentially the difference between each process can be described as follows:
    • monitoring – a reporting structure to comment on the activities undertaken, resources used and systems in place to deliver a project;
    • evaluation – how a project recognises whether it has been successful and how this will be measured.
    Therefore what IS evaluation? In essence, evaluation is the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of a project and on a basic level is relatively easy to define. Evaluation Support Scotland (ESS) outlines the process in four stages
    • getting started – why evaluation is important, getting people on board, understanding what you want to achieve…
    • collecting information – what to measure, how to measure and getting monitoring systems in place…
    • anyalysing and reporting – analyse your findings to understand the difference you have made and write reports…
    • learning from your findings – use your findings to improve your service and influence others…

    What’s the problem then? A closer look at the ESS web site, however, only lists case studies, online training and toolkits for community development projects, in areas such as: addiction / dependency, befriending and mentoring, childcare, criminal justice and offending, employment, environment, health and health promotion, homelessness, housing, regeneration, social enterprise and volunteering. In these fields, evaluation activity is undertaken to produce evidence to support and justify policy development. The specific issue under consideration here, however, is the evaluation of artists work in public places. In this context: what is evaluation?

    A search of the public art online web site for ‘evaluation’ results in 288 documents (of 1244 searched) being found. This only exacerbates the issue, as there is no consensus within the papers as to what evaluation is. There are obviously loads of people engaged in carrying out evaluation, but systematic, evidence-based studies of public art projects seem very thin on the ground. publicartonline

    A key reference here is the OPENspace report, commissioned by ixia, titled: Reseach on Public Art: assessing impact and quality’. The first 50 pages, or so, of this comprehensive study outline many of the issues and practices involved in evaluation – in far more detail than I can do here. The issues referred to are pretty much the same as I have made already. In particular, the report refers to a reluctance for public art practitioners to evaluate their projects and practice.

    The process of evaluation is however the same, in any field, and the starting point must always be to define what is being measured / what is the point of the evaluation. Is the purpose to:
    • consider quality?
    • measure impact?
    • define success?
    • count numbers?
    • learn from the project?
    • share best practice?

    The ixia report and methodology places artistic and aesthetic values at the centre of the evaluation of any project, but there may be other reasons to conduct an evaluation. Exemplars within regeneration projects, for instance, which aim to make places more people friendly and better environments in which to live, work, shop and visit must also be useful references for artists working in the public realm.

    A comparative study, carried out by Catherine Newbery for the Fondation Marcel Hicter European Diploma in Cultural Project Management (1999-2000), attempted to analyse the benefits of public art, especially on local communities, and what systems were used to provide evidence of those effects from projects in Germany, Norway and the UK. Only in Britain does culture have to justify its existence in social and economic terms and therefore projects have to be accountable and use a range of evaluation methods to demonstrate hard evidence of the benefits, as well as anecdotal evidence more commonly used. The report can be downloaded from the publicartonline archive

    The Scottish Arts Council itself also has a history of publishing a number of evaluation frameworks and tools, particularly in the performing arts, but other evaluation work has been done in the field of arts and health and around audience development. In addition and particularly relevant, partners ,a National Lottery-funded initiative giving communities with little experience of the arts opportunities to engage with professional artists, included evaluation pro-formas, to be completed by the participating artist and partner organisation/s. The information gathered was rather subjective, commenting on the processes involved in any project, not the wider outcomes or impacts. Partners Toolkit

    Of more use, I think, is a generic, wide-ranging evaluation tool published by the Scottish Executive Cultural Policy Unit in February 2007 to evaluate the Cultural Pathfinder programme. This framework appears particularly useful, as it has a cultural focus, but looks at project objectives, inputs, outputs, performance indicators and outcomes. Indicators refer to activities, participation, satisfaction, impact and value for money. And a process requiring baseline information, interim and final reporting is outlined, concluding with sections on outcomes, progress and learning points. Surely a systematic, evidence-based evaluation process which public art practictioners seem reluctant to adopt. Evaluation Toolkit

    It seems the issue is that the evaluation of Artists Work in Public Places has historically relied heavily on the empirical and anecdotal, rather than the measurable and factual. It can be argued there is room for both, but anyone embarking on a project must be clear from the outset which route they wish to follow.

    Ben Spencer
    August 2008

    Comments [1]