Space was concerned with engaging teacher-practitioners in exploring the inter-connection of teaching and practice as an interstitial or liminal space, through mark making activity, followed by discussion framed by the concepts of freedom and constraint.
Review of the workshop including processes, outputs and outcomes:
This workshop was based on the concept of non-directed creative exploration and interpretation of the interstitial, or third space, between teaching and practice. The principle behind the workshop was to establish a free space in an arts studio where participants were left to mark/create what they wanted, without interjection, (for about fifty minutes). They were then asked to record their thoughts from their work and responses to others on post-its and put them on the wall for others to read. There was a break between the creative activity and the ensuing small groups discussions. Participants were not asked to talk about their work, the post-its or the experience of the first session.
The strength of the workshop technique was that it did promote emotive responses and effectively promoted a space for the creative practitioner although the teacher aspect of teacher-practitioner did ultimately dominate the discussion. Participant feedback indicates some unease with the process and that they were a little unsure of the connection between the activity and the following discussion. The ‘free-form’ approach may be most effective as form of staff development, where there is a greater connection between discussing the issues, the process of exploring through ‘purposeful’ practice [as a way or working out or through] and then reflecting on further issues arising. A range of difficult issues were expressed towards the end of the workshop but there was not enough time to explore these in depth.
Lead Facilitator evaluation:
The workshop was split into three parts: one for laying out the area to be explored and ideas around this concerning the liminal and interstitial; the second around the free use of materials in a studio space and the third for discussion around the exploration of identities and issues arising from these. In the studio time, materials were provided, some of which were minimalist and some unusual (road marking crayons; and blocks of chalk) selected to inspire novel and inspirational use from the unexpected and to challenge customary media.
There was a mixed group of participants from different academic and professional backgrounds, some of whose art practice was stronger, some of whose teaching practice took a dominant lead. What resulted was the possibility of looking at the dynamics which emerged, regarding where people felt they were placed in relation to their professional profile and their commitment to their art practice, and how these two influenced each other. This presented various challenges for the facilitators as it emerged that many workshop participants felt the tension of this duality and the unacknowledged / unvoiced interstitial space and found it a frustration in the institutional framework with its research and outcomes agendae. What subsequently became apparent is that as the group gained momentum in discussing this liminal space, they appeared to seek more resolution, which was not possible in the limited time frame of a three hour workshop. This may be possible to return to in the future.
Suggested improvements or adjustments to the technique/approach adopted in the workshop:
The facilitator set the context at the start of the workshop but with limited time for discussion. Voicing responses as a group prior to the mark-making activity may have created stronger connections for participants which may have made it easier for individuals to come back together after their individual practice based exercise [conducted in near silence]. A clear relationship between the experiential ‘freedom’ and the issues [discussed later] could be communicated through a] articulating the intent behind the design of the activity as a post-event rationale; linking the methodology with content for participants and b] specifically addressing both participants’ experience of their work [which were varied] and their written responses to their own and others work through the ‘post-its’.
There needs to be a clear bridge between the two parts of the session [practice and discussion] to maximise the effect of the workshop. This could be resolved through keeping the creative process, visual product and subsequent discussions in one space, rather than divorcing participants from maintaining a connection with their creative work. Although it was the right decision not to focus on the experience of the ’space’ as this was not the goal of the workshop but a stimulus, participants may have benefited from more pro-active guidance from the facilitator to draw-out explicit relationships. However it is important for participants not to feel like they are in a ‘crit’ situation.
Lead Facilitator evaluation:
In a repeat workshop in the same time frame, it would be beneficial to have a less pedagogic structure at the beginning in terms of definitions of the main areas. This could be achieved by including key definitions in a brief, (interstitial, liminal, threshold), and inviting participants to frame the direction of the discussion from a personal and experiential angle.
It would be of positive benefit to run the workshop over a whole day to allow the participants to exit and enter the identity profiles of teacher-practitioner and the interstitial space with longer use of the materials and more time to reflect. The opportunity of reflection upon process and input would allow the participants a richer and fuller exploration in situ of the liminal state, as well as the prospect of being able to relate this experience more directly, with other professionals, to the apparent ‘messiness’ (complicated and complex nature) of this intermediary position. It would then be possible to relate this back to the two roles: creative-practitioner and teacher-practitioner. The emergent issues were involved and potent and it would have been beneficial to have more time to investigate them, both in the preliminary stages and in the final discussion stage.
In retrospect, it would also be worth the workshop running in the same studio/room so that the participants remained with their artwork, rather than there being a physical separation from creative to discursive activities, each without recourse to the other. The studio time felt both creative and instigative and produced a highly stimulated and positive response and to have the art practice present in the ‘Space’ workshop gave greater identity to the artist status. However, separation from the finished artwork denied possibility of further link into the ‘creative space’. Advanced discussion around it could have been as a direct result of further reflection on the artwork produced and ideas stimulated in the context of art practice; how it differed from the teacher-practitioner role, etc.
It would also be interesting to consider not necessarily having introductions, as these may have created more of a sense of working within an institutional framework in terms of how participants identified themselves within their institutional hierarchies. It therefore set the precedent for the creative-practitioner to take second place, whereas during the studio time there was a sense of parity.
Comments on the effectiveness of the workshop in engaging teacher-practitioners with exploring the issues:
A critical engagement with the issues was perhaps a little slow to develop through primarily focusing on individual creative process. It is particularly evident however in reviewing the creative outputs, that as a collection, the work represents visually and conceptually, some strong themes and issues expressed across the group. The small group discussions effectively drew out a wide range of the issues towards the end of the workshop.
Lead Facilitator evaluation:
Interestingly, although ‘process’ was deliberately not included as a component within the workshop, many of the participants referred directly to the ’space’ element of the workshop to frame their sense of the teacher-practitioner, and introduced the element of process as being important.
‘Space’ was successful in allowing the issues around identifying ‘practice identity’ and initiating debate around this and where the workshop participants felt their identity lay provoked lively discussion about the self in relation to the institution and the demands of the job profiles, as well as how they would ideally define themselves. It was evident that by the end of the discussion time there were more confident and in-depth comments emerging, fuelled by debate and a forum for exchange of ideas and experiences. It was at this point that the ‘hybrid’, the practitioner-teacher, was beginning to take shape and the interstitial space was beginning to be described through considered reflection.
Participant feedback:
12 creative practitioners participated in Space [1 participants made no additional comment].
Feedback indicates that some of participants felt they benefited more from the discursive element of the workshop, than the ‘free’ space of the mark-making exercise, which was non-directed.
Comments on the technique used in this workshop and its effectiveness as a staff development approach:
“more opportunity for discussion?”
“effective mix of experiential and group discussion. Not enough time with strangers and different disciplines to establish new and common ground”
“too loose. I think a more structured approach would have felt more effective. Not sure what it gave me. .. feel like it’s been of more use to the researchers”
“have thought about this area a lot, so not much new ground here. However, it is a really good idea to integrate this approach in staff development”
“the creative session was fun, but I’m not sure how informative it was in the context of the workshop. I felt that the discussion was really productive, and more time could have been allocated to that element”
“total free creative time as a tool to engage liminal space”
“a little hazy – not sure about the effectiveness of the free session in prompting subsequent discussion.. our group seemed a little unclear of the focus of follow-on discussion”
“as a therapeutic tool, very effective .. as a conceptual theoretical approach, analytical tool – less effective”
“would have been interesting to probe the outcomes of practical task further”
“I enjoyed the conversation, but didn’t find the practical work very elucidating, although I enjoyed playing with clay”
“I found the workshop helpful in finding the space where creativity can happen without bringing in the editor too early”
Space Workshop Evaluation: Project Leader: Antonia Clews and Lead Facilitator: Helen Jury
3/2009