Convenings

Past Learning Exchange Reports:
Minneapolis, March 8–10, 2002

Open Space Session: Success Stories and Train Wrecks

What defines a success?  What makes something a train wreck?  How do you extract lessons learned, and apply them across disciplines?  How do they inform other processes? 

What tools are left behind?  Both the tools of the artist, and the community.

Extreme reactions to exhibit or art event; lack of staff or resources to deal with it.  An organization needs to look at itself, to constantly re-group.  Not enough planning and resources directed to the practitioners. 

The emotion expressed is not the train wreck.  It’s how you deal with that emotion. 

How do you make the difficult things part of the art-making process?  How are those events themselves art?  Thinking of the artfulness of how things are put together; scripting how to move through process.

Marty Pottenger, artist:  I find my experience with a particular kind of thinking is limited, so some times I can’t process things at the time…making it into story form helps me take in information.  I use successful stories to draw from.

Tom Borrup, Intermedia Arts:  What is the difference between dialogues that get so intense and what we experienced (through Intermedia Arts)?  Art gives people new tools, in an experience that affects people on different levels. Talking about symbols, communicating in ways other than spoken language.  People may set out to talk about it one way, but it might mean something different to someone else.

Caron Atlas, consultant:  Successes and train wrecks might live in the same experience.  Can a compromise in one part of the process help fulfill the overall intent later?  What was the process you used to get through the train wreck? 

Examples:
First, talking about the wreck!  Processing grief, and at the same time, moving forward and taking responsibility for the work. Suddenly everybody was invested ... even though they didn’t understand/know what all the stories were.  We, as a group determined which stories would work for the project.

Shifts from initial agreement with partner institution in dealing with issues of racism:  Feeling dishonored and compromised by the people inviting us in...They really wanted to be there to make sure that it would go wrong.  There were the people there at each session to see that it wouldn’t work...Did change happen? Totally, we changed how much control we have – even in the contract.  They couldn’t change the fundamentals of the sessions.  It completely changed how we train our facilitators to deal with situations like this…From the invitation, we were more assertive about who the participant mix was going to be, and agreed that we would do a session (they wanted).

Caron: We need to be much more deliberate about the pre-conditions for success. Tools that seem apparent from this story:  a partner has to come in with intentionality and control. 

Diane Aldis, Perpich Center for Arts Education:  If it feels like heightened emotion needs to come out then it does. Re-directing the emotionalism is what can help make the dialogue successful. If there isn’t a place to put that, then the person will find a target to vent it.

Cultural differences in communication, and how people feel engaged.  You will fail miserably if the people involved don’t understand the culture in which they are speaking.

Expectations in relation to success/failure:  clarity of expectations is important.  If expectations are set too high, the project won’t work.  Success is very simple:  make a connection, let people hear each other from different points of view.

The value of not knowing what will come up:  bringing together people of different backgrounds and view points; some might see it as an obstacle, others as a point to grow from.  If everyone in the room thinks the same way, maybe that’s a train wreck.