Convenings

Past Learning Exchange Reports:
Seattle, May 3–5, 2002

Andrea Assaf
2002
Closing: Reflections on the Learning Exchange
Participant Feedback.  At the conclusion of each Learning Exchange, ADI staff invites participants to give feedback on their experience of the convening, in terms of structure, process, planning, execution, etc.  These closing discussions, together with written evaluations, are very important to the continuing development and evolution of the Learning Exchanges and our collective practice.

Q:  What are your comments about the Learning Exchange in terms of process and structure?

Ground Rules

  • The ground rules struck me from the beginning.  If we are about communication and dialogue, we need to have the courage and willingness to let that happen, particularly when it’s uncomfortable.

Theme

  • I liked that there was a theme that ran through the Exchange, allowing us to explore deeper

Time

  • Giving us an extended amount of time to hear about people’s projects, particularly the Hawaii project, was nice.  It let us be a part of it rather than just hearing briefly about it.  It allows for context.
  • I felt that on Friday morning there was time enough, but I wished there was more time in the afternoon.  It seemed like it was just thrown upon us and there wasn’t enough time.
  • Running out of time always seems to be a problem.  It always comes back to the power of one and each of us makes a difference.
  • This has been a more useful time, less fragmented, we had time to work some things out.  We need to structure things so that we have time to have a first reaction, whether in our presentation or in experiencing the Gene(sis) exhibition.
  • Very grateful for the case studies.  It was a rich experience overall.  I felt like there were many times when we go close to something but we’re prevented from going further because we were out of time or the group was too big. 
  • We need the content and the context to talk about arts-based civic dialogue.  In the Hawaii presentation, we had that, but in seeing the exhibition, we didn’t have time to develop a context for ourselves.  The places where we were able to enter more deeply into the issues and had time to breathe a little bit were the best.  It’s all a matter of trying to fit things into a short time frame.

General

  • From the general to the specific in creating dialogue was good
  • I hope the staff collected the questions we didn’t have time to explore.  For example, the question of contextualization and program notes:  When you see the art, what’s the first thing that happens?  Keep a list of not-now-but-later questions.
  • As a guest, I feel I come away believing that there are profound implications for arts-based civic dialogue, and I have a profound respect for what you’re doing, and who you are.

What did you find meaningful?
Jessica:  Notion of facilitation and engagement as neutral, that concerns me.  I don’t think that’s possible, and I think we need to acknowledge a sense of agency.  Experiencing Liz’s method was successful for me because she was so present in the activity, she wasn’t neutral.  I think that’s more the way to go—personal investment, being transparent about that, not being neutral.

Tuti:  The institutional question—acknowledging where you stand in the gray area, listening to people, and finding out where they are

Don:  The Saturday morning session on institutional mission was a great discussion, because people shared their thoughts on the engagement of artists in this work. It was interesting how people internalize a certain amount of ambivalence about being an artist in a world that doesn’t always value civic dialogue.  This was helpful to me in flushing out the issues.

Mark:  I was there, and wanted to thank BSB for allowing that to happen.  Her transparency helped me to move that discussion along.

David:  It lowered my expectation of the outlook.  I come away from this knowing that you can’t always control the outcome of the dialogue, and it won’t always meet your expectations.

Marty:  I want to thank the Hawaii folks for a session where we got to go someplace new and deep, allowing us to think about the work that we’re doing and the lives that we’re living. 

Tom:  Want to thank the creators of metaphors for enriching our language.

Jeff:  Thanks to the Henry for opening themselves up to all of us this weekend.

Susan:  Thank you to ADI for taking the Chicago experience and being willing to re-work, and push, and keep moving forward.  I loved the innovations at this—Pat’s reflecting group, Liz’s work, everyone for sharing themselves.

Bridget:  Thanks to everyone for coming to Seattle and participating, and for the feedback.

Heather:  I have felt really welcomed here.  In my work, leaving with the thought that if I only want to sing gospel, how do I make room for the blues?  (a reference to a story Liz Lerman shared about Dance Exchange’s collaboration with Rudy Hawkins)  It’s been an emotional and intellectual feast.

Kinshasha:  Thank you for welcoming me and for your generosity.  I have learned so much.  It is wonderful to see how far ADI has come from the beginning of the study.

Sandy:  Building my toolbox.  I feel like I’m amongst all these wonderful practitioners that I get to learn from.  I appreciate ADI’s flexibility and willingness to work on the Exchanges, and to shape-shift.

BSB:  That has come from people stepping up and answering our request for help in re-shaping these.  Thanks to all.