 social space at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Last week I attended Museum Next 3 – the latest in an excellent series of international conferences looking at how museums are being transformed by technology. It was attended by over 200 people from Europe and N America. Many of those attending had roles that included social media in museums and you could feel a surge of shared frustration (not least via conference twitter hashtag which came alive with endorsements and RTs) when one speaker voiced the frustration of many: having a facebook page isn’t engagement. In the rush to embrace the latest trends in social media, some museums, it would seem are missing the point are using social media to broadcast what they do, rather than to engage audiences in conversations.
Museum Next is about technology as a means not an end in itself – and what we’re excited about is how technology can transform and enable relationships with our audiences. To put it another way, the real transformative potential of technology is not the tools or gadgets – but the approaches which have emerged through digital culture. Another speaker put this in terms of how we move from using social media to how we develop social organisations – by which I think they meant institutions which enable people to come together to create meaning and value around their collections. Last year I speculated about what this might mean for art museums and galleries in an article partly inspired by attending the first Museum Next conference in 2009.
One of the issues I highlighted in this article, which also emerged in the conference last week, is how institutions enable their workforce (staff and volunteers) to make full use of their skills and expertise, rather than pigeon-holing people into tightly defined roles. Why crowd-source content or ideas from the outside world (which to do well takes skills and resources) until you’ve first made use of the talents within your own walls? One of the biggest complaints I hear from those running organisations is that there are not enough staff, and yet I often encounter staff with plenty to offer who are under-utilised (and volunteers). In a period when most arts and cultural organisations are having to look again at staff structures to reduce their fixed-costs to a minimum it’s ludicrous not to make full use of our people. What might this mean? Enabling staff to act as advocates for the museum via social media or in person is one way some museums do this.
Speaking at Museum Next, Rich Mintz of Blue State Digital shared the principles behind the ‘people-powered’ campaigns they had created for Barak Obama’s presidential election. His lessons had clear implications, not just for social media campaigns but also for anyone who wants to increase their impact: you can’t possibly think you can achieve a wide reach on your own, you need advocates, supporters who will influence on your behalf. This means giving them tools, lowering the barriers to joining in, allowing people to take ownership of your campaign: which means letting go a bit.
For museums and arts organisations ‘engagement’ might mean letting your visitors take photos they can share to tell people about their visit, enabling them to use your facilities for their own purposes, offering ways to contribute and support the museum that are open to all (and not just those who can afford patron-level support). Perhaps if we focussed a little more on how we can engage our visitors, we’d be able to worry less about advocacy – because we’d have other voices making the case with us, if only we can find ways to maker space for them.
 There’s been a rash of new art gallery openings this spring, first with Turner Contemporary then followed by The Hepworth Wakefield last weekend. Both galleries are hugely impressive in many ways – not least in terms of their ambition to show the best and most challenging art coupled with a genuine commitment to engage with their local communities. Both are off to a highly successful start and I look forward to seeing how they develop over the coming months and years.
But whilst the champagne was cracked open on Friday night, in many ways the Hepworth Wakefield felt like it had been open for some time: at least if you’d been following the director Simon Wallis on Twitter. Simon (who tweets as @HepworthGallery) has shared the preparations for the creation of the new gallery via Twitter. From meetings with collectors and potential patrons, to discussions with the architects and artists we’ve been allowed a series of rare insights into the life of a gallery. We also were updated as works arrived on site for installation, press events and during the launch weekend.
These might sound like relatively small relevations in themselves but this opening up of the gallery’s life through sharing the day-to-day events brings offers insights into how the institution works. Other organisations have used blogs in similar ways – as an opera novice I found the backstage blogs from Opera North both informative and accessible. In the UK we’re starting to see a few institutional blogs by curators (Tate for example has recently introduced them, including for its Gaugin exhibition) but on the whole our art museums and contemporary galleries are still largely anonymous and closed. Looking at gallery and art museum websites rarely reveals who works for the institution, how to contact them, what they do or why they do it.
Among his UK gallery Director peers Simon Wallis is unusual in tweeting about his day job. More often if there’s someone tweeting on behalf of the gallery it’s someone in the marketing team and there’s nothing wrong with that – the more voices the better in some ways. But it’s valuable to have senior, and curatorial, staff sharing their experiences not just marketing staff.
I’d like to see more galleries and museums opened up what they do, who does it and how so that our publics (and peers) can understand them better. Technology offers so really simple ways to do that – but there are plenty of low-tech ways too such as talks and tours. I understand that all staff at Turner Contemporary will be offering public tours, for example. What a great way to find out more about what a technician does, or a fundraiser or the Director.
Of course, being more open (or transparent) about what we do, how and why should also ensure we are accountable – but above all I advocate openness because I believe it improves understanding of our institutions.
Do you think openness encourages understanding of arts institutions? What have you found to be useful ways to open up your institution?
With public funding set to fall over the coming years those of us seeking funding for arts organisations and artists are always looking for new people and organisations who might support us, and new ways in which to encourage them to part with their cash. If you’re based outside of London – like many of us – then private sources of funding are few and far between.
Arts & Business’s own figures reveal that the English regions raise very little funds from the main three sources of private funds, with London dominating. Recent figures show:
68% of Trusts & Foundation giving
80% of corporate sponsorship and giving
90% of individual giving
goes to London.
Put simply, the opportunities for accessing private funds outside of London are far more limited.
So, forgive me if I don’t get too excited by the latest DCMS/ ACE challenge fund announcement today, following on the heels of the equally irrelevant endowments ‘solution’ to our funding woes. This new fund sounds rather similar to A&B’s old scheme – as does the emphasis on developing fundraising skills in the sector. I’m not dismissing philanthropy – it’s valuable, I’m sure many organisations could do better at it, and certainly for some, mainly very large, organisations endowments (partly funded by legacies perhaps) could be a valuable addition to the ever growing range of income generation options that most arts and cultural organisations are cultivating.
But I’m more excited about this kind of initiative wedidthis – launching in January – which seeks to encourage large numbers of people to engage with the arts through giving. Enabled by technology, this new form of crowd-funding or micro-philanthropy as it is variously called, offers both a new source of income for arts organisations and a new kind of relationship with their supporters. Rather than courting a handful of powerful individual donors, micro-philanthropy offers a more ‘democratic’ model where a broader range of people can afford to contribute. It’s closest to a subscription or membership model and has many of the same associated benefits in terms of the potential to develop deeper, long-term relationships with a group of supporters that can generate reliable income (including unrestricted income – depending on how you do it). Wedidthis embraces both the practical question of raising funds and the desire on the part of some arts organisations and audiences to have a closer, and more transparent relationship which enables new work to be supported and produced.
On their current publicity leaflets the Artfund’s marketing copy reads ‘Charles Saatchi isn’t the most important art collector in the UK – you are’ and micro-philanthropy embodies a similar philosophy – empowering those of us who aren’t high net worth individuals to become direct supporters of the organisations that matter to us personally. This is a particular challenge for the visual arts where raising donations is complicated by the expectation that visiting galleries is free. No-one wants to go back to charging for entry to museums (and few think anyone would come to contemporary galleries if there was a charge) but we do need some new ways to encourage low-level support in a sector which struggle to generate income in other ways.
There are clear links between micro-philanthropy and user-engagement and Web 2.0 culture too (hence the use of the term ‘crowd-funding’ which refers to ‘crowd-sourcing’). Micro-philanthropy (like volunteering) offers a way to capitalise on people’s engagement with your organisation in a way that underpins the business model – that sounds like win-win to me! And just as savvy arts organisations are able to encourage some of their repeat visitors to become members and then cajole some of these members go on to become higher-level donors – no doubt micro-philanthropy will develop similar ways to build loyalty and commitment over time – generating more support at all levels.
I’ll be interested to see how both public and arts organisations respond to wedidthis and similar initiatives – talking to people who run extremely successful membership organisations over the past couple of years, it’s clear that to really deliver both on mission and income generation there are two main critical factors:
1. Economies of scale – and hopefully the online platforms of crowfunding will enable this.
2. Developing the nature of engagement from a transaction to a longer-term relationship. In other words, for example, whilst people might initially join the National Trust because they calculate they will save money on entrance fees if they attend three times a year, what makes the NT one of the biggest and most successful charities is that people keep renewing their membership because over time they begin to appreciate the wider environmental work and campaigning role of the organisation and support this – without expecting a clear financial benefit in return for their annual fee. NCVO and RSA produced some very interesting research about this issue and their report about ‘The future of Membership‘ makes useful reading for anyone currently running or considering a membership scheme.
Above all micro-philanthropy will require a change in culture, from arts organizations and our publics. Organisations will need to work more openly, with more regard to their audiences/ supporters. And audiences will need to put our hands in our pockets (always difficult for a Yorkshirewoman like myself) if we want the arts experiences, empowerment and engagement that micro-philanthropy offers.
 Sun 28th November 2010 20:15  technology, Writing Uncategorized My son Alex's first birthday cake (and no of course I didn't make it). It’s a year since I started this blog back in November 2010, so I thought it might be a good time to look back on some of the issues I’ve been talking about in the past twelve months and to share my reflections on blogging about/as part of work which is still a relatively new thing for me, and for the field I work in.
There were three main things I wanted to achieve from blogging:
1. To share my experience of the Clore Leadership Fellowship – to encourage other people (particularly from the visual arts sector) to consider applying, and to share some of the opportunities I’ve had to attend conferences and events this year thanks to this marvellous programme, such as this excellent coaching course. I feel really lucky to have the time (and training budget) to attend events (such MMM’s seminar series earlier this year). The Fellowship is coming to an end for me early in the New Year and I’ll be posting about what I’ve got out of it and what I hope to do next – but if you’re interested in the Fellowship then this post outlines my mid-point thoughts and you might find useful the new category of posts bringing together reflections at various points.
2. To connect with other people interested in similar issues – to share ideas and start conversations – many of which have continued offline and led to new projects or opportunities – such as the recent invitation to facilitate a series of workshops in France on the theme of culture as as human right. When I started writing the blog I wasn’t sure what I’d write about – I’ve now begun reorganising the categories and tags so that hopefully it’s easier for the common threads to stand out. Audience engagement (particularly in galleries and art museums, leadership, life/work balance and business models/ funding for arts and cultural organisations form the core of the content although I also write about general arts management and policy issues when I feel I have something to say – such as defending the arts funding system (before the cuts – sadly Jeremy Hunt didn’t read it) or responding to ACE’s policy consultations etc.
3. To experiment with working in a new way – through blogging I hope to share ideas during development and seek other people’s views. In this I’ve been influenced by a great blog I read written by Nina Simon and the process of writing her book about museums in which I participated. This informed my approach to researching and writing an article about user-engagement which was published earlier this year by NESTA. I’m currently using the blog to share thinking (and seek feedback) around my current research project on joint leadership models.
In terms of the experience of blogging – it’s been interesting to keep an eye on how many times a post is read, and this can vary enormously from around 30 to over 300. Some topics (business models, audience engagement, life/work balance) are more popular than other. Twitter is a big driver of readership for me especially when other people tweet about my posts – we’ve now added some buttons to make it easier to share a post with someone else via Twitter, email or some of those other fashionable things.
Initially I wanted to generate comments and conversations, not least because the comments are often a very interesting part of the blogs I read and because one of the reasons I’m publishing these comments or reflections it to hear other people’s views. This hasn’t taken off as much as I had wished – I need to give this some thought. That said, many of the comments I’ve had (including from people I do not know) have been extremely helpful in terms of suggestions and ideas to follow ups – thank you, and please keep them coming.
Anyway, as Xmas is approaching (and it feels very festive as I look out of my office window onto a snowy street-scene in York) and we brace ourselves for the reviews of the year that will soon be in our Sunday papers and on TV, I’ll get in early with a selection of my favourites from blog. If you didn’t catch these posts as they were published, here’s your second-chance and why not test out our new buttons and gizmoes and forward them onto your friends:
- How business models are developing has been one of the main topics I’ve been blogging about including this piece about my ideal business model and a summary of our findings about what makes for a successful business model which I undertook with MMM for the Capital Matters Project.
- Getting to know our audiences better (in the visual arts sector in particular) and how we could engage with audiences in all aspects of running art galleries and museums – to extend audiences, develop a broader, larger advocacy base for the vsiual arts and to generate more sustainable earned income streams – is another topic I’ve written plenty about this year. I even managed to sneak in some asides about what arts leaders can learn from cycling in one post.
- What is means to lead an organisation jointly and what the benefits of collaborative leadership are the questions which are occupying my thoughts currently.
- The joys and challenges of combining parenthood and meaningful employment continues to keep me on my toes – and many of you too judging by the many comments of these posts about working patterns and being a working mum.
- Working out how to describe what I do in a sector which doesn’t value management or managers – well let’s just say it’s a good job I like a challenge!
Thanks for reading, subscribing and commenting – I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions and the next twelve months.
Arts Council’s England’s new 10 year strategy for the arts places great emphasis on how technology is changing the arts, and will continue to do so in the next decade – particularly in terms of production, presentation and distribution of artworks. The extent to which technology is already shaping how arts and cultural organisations (ACOs) was one of the questions we set out to explore in through interviews with 27 leading organisations in various artforms, as part of the MMM Capital Matters project. In this fourth in s series of posts based on that research project I outline what we discovered:
‘We’re doing a lot of work at the moment to explore how we can use technology – especially digital technology – to keep innovating. But it’s not technology for technology’s sake or indeed innovation for innovation’s sake – while opportunity is a driver to some extent, to use our resources as well as possibly it also has to be about a clearly demonstrable need.’
In most cases of business model development we explored technology is important in enabling change, but is not the key driver. Use of technology features in many areas of ACOs’ activities: from achieving back office efficiencies to influencing how work is presented and distributed. Our research suggests it has growing importance in enabling more effective engagement and communication with audiences. There are of course a growing number of organisations for whom technology is part of their DNA in terms of production, presentation and distribution – but among the more traditional models (producing theatres, exhibition galleries etc) the impact of technology is currently more in terms of back office and audience engagement (e.g. social media) than providing alternative or additional distribution channels.
| Areas where technology is having an impact |
Response |
| Improve understanding of audience need/behaviour/satisfaction |
77% |
| Provide new opportunities for audience engagement (i.e. participation) |
77% |
| Improving back office efficiency |
58% |
| Offering flexibility to staff e.g. distance working |
58% |
| Produce innovative programme content/ product |
65% |
| Wider distribution of work |
71% |
| E-commerce |
41% |
‘Technology has been important for efficiencies. Our audiences have gone up but the marketing costs have gone down in the same period. We attribute that partly to a combination of better intelligence about our audiences and greater ownership because we’re engaging more with our audiences. Another change we’ve made, using technology, is from programming the cinema by repertoire to using a ‘hold-overs’ model (we say what films are in the programme but the timings and frequencies of showing are determined only a short period ahead, in response to consumer behaviour). That’s made us more efficient.’
As an organisation that works across a wide geographical area, technology enables National Theatre of Wales (NTW) staff (and its partners and freelance project-staff) to communicate effectively. Investment in hardware (all staff have iPhones, laptops, cameras etc), software (Basecamp is used for sharing files externally) and training in using technology for staff has paid off in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of communications. The NTW community web (hosted as a Ning) has been critical in developing connections with the professional theatre community in Wales, and is now becoming a key way in which audiences can engage. The same is true for Salisbury International Art Festival which makes considerable use of technology to assist with a wide ranging programme of outreach across a large rural region.
Several organisations we spoke to were leading development on digital content and distribution, including iShed, B3 Media and Sound and Music. For example, during the Norfolk and Norwich Festival Sound and Music is piloting an education programme with national reach which exploits white board technology and offer sound ‘segments’ for use within the curriculum.
In my next post I will begin to explore the some of the characteristics of successful arts and cultural organisations. In the meantime if you have any comments or views on these findings – and their implications – I look forward to hearing from you.
 my bookshelf I noticed quite a few people had found the reading list I was using for my forthcoming article useful – so I thought I’d share the final version of the bibliography:
Bakhshi, Hasan & and Throsby, David, 2009. Innovation in arts and cultural organisations: interim research report. London: NESTA.
Boyle, David & Harris, Michael, 2009. The challenge of co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. London: New Economics Foundation & NESTA.
Bunting, Catherine, et al., 2007. Informing change: Taking Part in the arts: survey findings from the first 12 months. London: Arts Council England.
Connor, Michael, 2009. A manual for the 21st Century gatekeeper. [Online] Manchester: Cornerhouse. Available at http://www.cornerhouse.org/art/ongoingproject.aspx?ID=9&page=0 [Accessed 8 April 2010].
Fleming, Tom, 2009. Embracing the desire lines – opening up cultural infrastructure. [Online] Manchester: Cornerhouse. Available at http://www.cornerhouse.org/media/Learn/Reports%20and%20studies/Embracing_the_Desire_Lines.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010].
Flowers, Stephen & University of Brighton, 2008. The New Innovators: How users are changing the rules of innovation. London: NESTA.
Falk, John H. & Sheppard, Beverly H., 2006. Thriving in the knowledge age: New business models for museums and other cultural institutions, Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Gorschlüter, Peter, ed., 2009. The fifth floor: Ideas taking space, Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press.
Govier, Louise, 2010. Leaders in co-creation? Why and how museums could develop their co-creative practice with the public, building on ideas from the performing arts and other non-museum organisations. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries & London: Clore Leadership Programme Available at http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/rcmg.html & http://www.cloreleadership.org/library.php?cat=fellowship_research_projects [Accessed 9 April 2010].
Guntillake, Rohan, 2008. Mission 2.0: Advice for arts and cultural organisations from the social web. [Online] London: Mission, Models and Money. Available at http://www.missionmodelsmoney.org.uk/papers/mission-2-0/ [Accessed 8 April 2010].
Jones, Samuel, 2006. ‘The new cultural professionals’, in Craig, John, ed. Production Values. London: Demos, Ch.6.
Jones, Samuel, ed., 2009. Expressive lives. London: Demos, London.
Knell, John, 2006. Whose art is it anyway? London: Arts Council England.
Holden, John, 2008, Democratic culture: opening the arts up to everyone, London: Demos.
Holden, John, 2009, What are the new values that will inform arts provision in the next twenty years? [Presentation notes] London: Theatre Managers’ Association. Available at http://www.tmauk.org/Downloads/JohnHolden_TMAWinterEvent2009.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010].
Leadbeater, Charles, 2005. Arts organisations in the 21st century. London: Arts Council England.
Leadbeater, Charles, 2009. We think. 2nd ed. London: Profile Books.
Leadbeater, Charles, 2009. The art of with. Manchester: Cornerhouse. Available at http://www.cornerhouse.org/media/Learn/The%20Art%20of%20With.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010].
Morris, Gerri & McIntyre, Andrew, n.d. Insight required. [Online] Manchester: Morris Hargreaves McIntyre. Available at http://www.lateralthinkers.com/Resources/MHM_PDFs/insightrequired%20final.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010].
Selwood, Sara, 2008. Towards developing a strategy for contemporary visual arts collections in the English regions. London: Arts Council England.
Simon, Nina, 2010. The participatory museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.
Museum 2.0 blog. [Online] Available at http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/ [Accessed 8 April 2010].
 This is pile of books and articles on the floor of my office is a small part of my current (updated as of 8th Feb) reading list for the research – no doubt this will be added to once I start work – but please send links and suggestions. I am particularly keen to hear from people with suggestions about the leadership implications of a user-led or open approach.
I’ve split into into 4 sections covering the main areas I’m looking into, but I’m conscious each area could have a reading list several pages long – so what I’m looking for is the essentials. If there’s anything on here that looks like overkill from your persepective that would be really good to know.
User-led innovation and open innovation in other sectors
The aim of looking at research into user-led innovation in other sectors is to identify the key benefits and challenges for the arts and cultural sector, and particularly for leaders.
David Boyle and Michael Harris, The Challenge of Co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services, New Economics Foundations, 2009.
Charles Leadbeater, Ten Habits Of Mass Innovation, NESTA, London, 2006 – unable to locate a copy
Stephen Flowers, CENTRIM, University of Brighton, The New Innovators: How users are changing the rules of innovation, NESTA, July 2008.
Don Tapscott and Anthony D Williams, Wikinomics: has mass collaboration changes everything, Atlantic Books, London, revised edition, 2008.
Clay Shirky Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations
Soshana Zuboff and James Maxim, The Support Economy: Why Corporations are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism, Penguin, London, 2004.
Charles Leadbeater, We Think, 2007.
John H. Falk and Beverly H Sheppard, Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions, AltaMira Press, USA, 2006.
Challenges facing leaders of ACOs (esp in relation to ‘public value’ and participation in the arts)
What are the key challenges facing leaders in the arts and cultural sector – in what ways could user-led and open innovation be useful in relation to these?
Arts Council England, Turning Point: A Ten-Year Strategy for the Visual Arts in England, 2006.
John Knell, Whose art is it anyway?, Arts Coucnil England, London 2006.
John Knell, The Art of Dying, MMM, London, 2005.
Catherine Bunting, Jennifer Godlieb, Michelle Jobson, Emile Keaney, Anni Oskala, Adrienne Skelton, Informing Change: Taking Part in the arts: survey findings from the first 12 months, Arts Council England, London, May 2007.
Bill Ivy, Arts, Inc. How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights, University of California Press, 2008.
Charles Leadbeater, Arts Organisations in the C21st, Arts Council England, 2005.
Arts Council England, Achieving Great Art for Everyone, consultation papers, 2010.
Ben Cameron, presentation about the challenges facing arts leaders, Illinois Arts Alliance members’ meeting 2009. http://www.artsalliance.org/docs/meeting/Ben%20Cameron%20Remarks.pdf
John Holden, Democratic Culture: opening the arts up to everyone, Demos, 2008.
User-led innovation and open innovation in arts and cultural sector (NB this is where many of the interviews are focused).
What can we learn from where user-led innovation and open innovation are already happening in the cultural sector? What might a user-led ACO looks like (or activity within a user-led ACO)? What are the conditions for success? What are the implications for leaders?
Rohan Guntillake, advice for arts and cultural organisations from the social web, MMM: Designing for Transition, October 2008
Nina Simon The Participatory Museum, 2010.
Charles Leadbeater, The Art of With, 2009.
Museum 2.0 blog
Museum 3.0 Ning
Gerri Morris and Andrew McIntyre, Insight Required, Morris Hargreaves McIntyre, www.lateralthinkers.com
Peter Gorschlüter, ed., The Fifth Floor: Ideas Taking Space, Tate Liverpool exhibition catalogue, University of Liverpool press, 2009.
Tom Fleming, Embracing the desire lines – opening up cultural infrastructure, http://www.cornerhouse.org/media/Learn/Reports%20and%20studies/Embracing_the_Desire_Lines.pdf
The changing role of gatekeepers/ experts
Samuel Jones, ‘The new cultural professionals’, in Production Values, Demos, London, 2006.
Michael Connor, A manual for the 21st Century Gatekeeper, Cornerhouse, Manchester, http://www.cornerhouse.org/art/ongoingproject.aspx?ID=9&page=0
Gavin Wade, ed., Curating in the 21st Century, the New Art Gallery Walsall & University of Wolverhampton, 2000.
Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics, Les Pressed du Réel, Paris 1998.
Nicolas Bourriaud, Postproduction: culture as screen play: how art reprograms the world, Lukas and Sternberg, New York, 2005.
Below is the outline for the article I will be researching and writing Jan-March 2010. Any comments or suggestions are very welcome. I’ll be adding my bibliography and other plans and thoughts as the work progresses – so make sure you sign up for the RSS feed if you’re interested in following developments.
The concepts of user-led and open innovation are most closely associated with initiatives such as wikipedia or Linux in which communities of users generate content collaboratively – using the internet as a platform. User-led innovation is a hot topic –but the implications for how we do business are still being debated in the corporate and public sectors (for example in relation to public services reform).
In the cultural sector as we strive towards greater engagement with audiences, and search for new ways to generate income, user-led innovation offers enormous potential. However we need to work out how user-led innovation could be best facilitated in our sector – we can’t simply ‘copy and paste’ from other sectors.
For a start, who are the ‘users’ in cultural organisations? It could be argued that ‘users’ are the audience or equally users could be the artists. User-led innovation in an organisation working with living artists might look very different to user-led innovation in organisations presenting existing works. It could be argued that artists have been leading user-innovation in institutions for decades, but that institutional ‘leaders’ have not responded to opportunities created.
If we take audiences as ‘users’ then we need to consider where the voice of the audience sits in the strategic direction of our cultural organisations. Recent ACE research into the visual arts sector shows that 60% of galleries don’t undertake even the most basic monitoring of audience profile (Burns Owen Partnership survey, cited in ACE Turning Point national visual arts strategy 2003). So how many of our galleries can really be said to be guided by audience insight currently? Historically, in galleries and museums, responsibility for audiences has fallen between education/learning, marketing and access/outreach teams – interestingly we are seeing some structural changes in some organisations in relation to how they engage with audiences (e.g. Cornerhouse, ICA, Arnolfini). The article may consider the implications of organisational structure and culture for enabling leadership on this issue.
The article will sketch out the major questions around what user-led innovation might offer and entail for visual art galleries and museums. Visual art galleries are interesting because they encompass working with living artists, as well as presenting existing work (which present different options/ challenges for user-led innovation as described below).
It will set this in the wider context of the leadership issues for the cultural sector and suggest how user-led innovation might offer solutions to some of these challenges. It will also identify leadership issues in relation to responding to user-led innovation. The focus will be on the part of the sector I know best – visual arts galleries – but aiming wherever possible to be relevant to (and aware of) developments in the wider cultural sector.
I’m involved in an intesresting project at the moment to help peer-review a new book about designing participation within museums. The author is Nina Simon who I met at a recent conference on the same theme called Museum Next (NB – I understand they plan to run another event – can’t recommend it highly enough).
The book has been in development for some time and includes material that has previously been shared – and reviewed – via Nina’s blog. I’ve only discovered the project recently but it looks like the first draft of the book was then posted on a wiki – a website which can be edited by anyone.
We (she says grandly despite only having the tiniest of roles) are now working on a second version and the book is due for publication in the New Year. ‘We’ is a group of self-nominated (but vetted by the author) reviewers – some of whom are specialists in the field, some of whom are just interested by-standers (that’d be me).
So far I’ve just read the introduction and first chapter – to set the scene – before I start reviewing in depth one particular section of the book. It’s obviously going to take time – but I’m quite willing to get involved because the subject is interesting – and perhaps even more so the process and experience are.
We’re being given guidance about where input would be most welcome – and about how to supply comments in a way that makes it manageable – and we’ve just had the first weekly update on progress, giving us feedback on how it’s going from the author’s perspective.
I’m really enjoying taking part in this endeavour – it’s helping me learn about this subject and about how to facilitate participation from peers (not least how to do so using technology). I hope I’m being useful too.
Perhaps I’ll try out writing something this way when I get round to my research planned for later next year?
I’ll keep you all posted when the book comes out!
|
|
(2)
Loading...
Recent Comments