Sioux Trujillo
I recently resigned from a public art program in Detroit that was housed inside a small arts college. During my time there, evaluation became a big part of my job. It was critical to track, define, and report for the future of the program to serve as a baseline for success for the arts institution. Before this, my idea of success was primarily based from the perspective of the studio artist.
The projects that were created in the neighborhoods of Detroit were much more complex because each project was so very different from one another, involved different people from diverse backgrounds, and had community defined goals and artist selection.
When I set out to create a plan of evaluation I realized this was going to be a complex task.
My first obstacle was simply trying to figure out what to call the projects. A seemingly simple thing turned into more than I expected.
I started to compile a list of all the different names that artists and organizations are using to define public art which involves the people around the project in some way.
• Social Aesthetics
• Relational Aesthetics
• Social Justice Art
• Community Art
• Placemaking
• Social Sculpture
• New Genre Public Art
• Tactical Media
• Cultural Activism
• Social Practice
• Interventions
• Happenings
• Participatory Art
Looking at this list only made more questions about useful evaluation and the purpose behind evaluation. Thankfully, I found a partner to help me in a not so obvious place.
I had formed a working relationship with the University of Michigan School of Social Work to provide a place for social work graduate students to do meaningful work in the Detroit communities as part of their capstone studies. My social work intern, Kaity Nicastri, and I started a dialog about evaluation and our joint vision was developed over time.
Our partnership was a turning point for me when it came to my depth of thinking and understanding evaluation. The experience planted a seed in me about evaluation that is still growing.
A piece of public art that wants to involve a community can do so in many ways, big and small. All of these kinds of projects, no matter what you call them, are very dependent on the context in which it is created. They have a complex social, cultural, political, and economic system at play. Just because a project is thriving in one area of the city doesn’t mean that you can just replicate that project and get the same results.
The projects themselves can appear differently to those who have not been engaged in the project directly. Visually a project can look very deceiving. It could be small and insignificant but the dialogue around that project can be big and could have started other projects and have had a domino effect on the community.
Just as true, a large visually stunning project can ultimately have no real lasting impact on a community.
Community change takes time, patience, community organizing, authentic engagement, careful listening, and hope.
What do you do when those things don’t happen fast enough to document on your evaluation? This is where things really get interesting for me.
Since timing is critical for all evaluation. The story and the shapeshifting behind each project is where the true authentic evaluation exists.
I think the more dialog we have the closer we will get to verbalize this kind of evaluation.
What do you think?
Editor’s Note: Here are two examples of evaluation Sioux provided us for you to check out — Year One Project Evaluation Report and Year 3-4 Survey Template for the Community.
Sioux,
What is YOUR take away on this? It appears from the evaluations an ‘outside’ committee has decided what is good & valuable for a community (without their input).
Gary,
Typically depending on who is looking at the evaluation and for what purpose they will take away different aspects because they are focused on different data results. For example, a funder might be looking for how many people in their focus community are engaged in the project and at what level. Where the residents might be looking to see if the project had highlighted a positive aspect of the community or helped solve a problem area. During the time I worked to develop this initiative I engaged in many hours of careful listening and thoughtful conversation with all involved to determine the many needs and expectations for each project. This typically allowed space for revisiting goals and expectations as the project changed and evolved. Where it got interesting is when the goals of the community were counter to the vision of institutions. When this happened my creativity, social capitol and problem solving were key for resolution.
All that being said, when Kaity and I developed the evaluation the community was directly involved in it’s creation. Evaluation became part of our monthly meeting agenda. That is were Kaity’s social work skills really shined in my opinion. Her specialized training at UofM allowed her to really dig deeper to create dialog around evaluation. This dialog let us see what was below the surface and get closer to what our evaluation should look like.
I think that sometimes an outsider can play a critical role in helping the community see things differently but it is a delicate dance balancing the many viewpoints. I found myself weighing each aspect carefully and making my best informed decision. I also had to be willing to adjust and be wrong.