Essays
Questions
I have been struggling with how to make it easy for people to say what they REALLY think about Antarctic animations without feeling like they might offend me. I want to elicit useful information that will help me understand what works and what doesn't for them to connect them with Antarctica. This has been one of the "dissatisfactions and dilemmas" that Liz Lerman identified in her Method of Critical Response (2003) as being useful to reflect upon, to get to the heart of a creative problem. How successful are Antarctic animations in connecting people with Antarctica? Each animation aims to connect viewers in a different way. Which animations work best? Do any of them reveal things about Antarctica that people did not know before? Did making the animations teach me more about Antarctica than I previously thought I knew? What can be learned from people's responses that suggest ways of animationg that connect others with Antarctica, without compromising my own values? Listing these questions, I realise I am trying to bite off more than I can chew. This is a discussion about the possibility of devising an on-line questionnaire to help find answers to just some of these questions.
Having stated the intention of a particular animation, and described how it was made, observers could simply be asked to comment. I have done this and found it is usually unhelpful. Whilst it is affirming to hear 'wonderful' and 'beautiful', this offers no clue to how an animation succeeds in connecting with another person. If specific answers are needed, specific questions need to be asked. But what questions? And how should they be asked? Liz Lerman developed a Method of Critical Response (2003) that suggests some question for a hypothetical questionnaire. Although the context within which Lerman's method was developed is different from that of an on-line animator, it suggests a framework within to analyse animations, that is useful for reflecting on future work that could be done in this field.
Lerman's method is designed for working in a studio with choreographers composing dances, and with invited observers to assist in this process. Physically located together in a studio, dialogues between participants is immediate and interactive. Nuances of meanings of words and gestures can be discussed and clarified.
Two preconditions are required for successfully implementing Lehman's method. Firstly, it is acknowledged that observers want the artist to make excellent work, and secondly, that when responding to the work, they form their own opinions into a neutral questions. These preconditions are worth working towards, she says, even though, for various reasons, "people looking at work don't want the artist to succeed, especially on his or her own terms". A facilitator keeps things moving through this process, to maintain the agreed preconditions. One way to do this, Lerman explains, is to:
...continue to fine-tune the process. In fact, I find if I tell people I am still working on its evolution (I am) and that I might get confused at times (I do) and that we may have to stop the action of responding to someone's work while we question the process (this has happened), all of this openness creates an environment where good critical thinking can take place.
Lerman's process is not fixed. There is no set formula. As with the art-making process itself, it ideally evolves through practice, and peer and self-appraisal.
Step one in the process is Affirmation. Here, observers describe an aspect of the work they identify as meaningful for them. How can observers be quided towards this kind of question? What level of meaning does she mean? Lehman suggests words such as "when you did such-and-such it was surprising, challenging, evocative, compelling, delightful, unique, touching, poignant, different for you, interesting", and that there are many more such possibilities. The depth of the meanings expressed, then, could vary.
I recognise this method of performance feedback from studying dance with Hanny Exiner, Al Wunder, Tony Osborne and Andrew Morrish. This kind of questioning reveals opinions of observers only about what they enjoyed in the work. To find something positive to say was the rule. When this method is consciously practised, it can create an atmosphere of encouragement. It releases any fear of personal judgement, as observers acknowledge and own their own opinions about what they sound worked for them in the dance. This frees the performer to accept or reject feedback, depending on how they accord with her intentions.
As Lerman suggests, this approach could be criticised as "thin-skinned or needy". And this has been my reaction to this method. Seeking more than encouragement. Further into Lehman's process, I find this need can be met. In the meantime, I agree with Lehman's valuing of Affirmation, when she says that
...after all these years of doing work, and after many positive comments from others, it still makes sense to me that we tell each other at least one thing that we noticed about the work being discussed that brought us something special.
Step one suggests a question to elicit affirmative on-line responses to the animation, "Connectivity": Describe how one aspect of this animation means something to you. For example, the way the lines appear to draw themselves on screen is intriguing, mysterious, evokes memories of drawing as a child, looks like...reminds me of...etc." This style of questioning would be valuable as a beginning question, being if it is communicated clearly and simply. It asks observers to say something they enjoy about a very specific aspect of the work.
In step two of the process (Artist as questioner) the artist asks observers to say what they think about a specific aspect of their work, " in a way the creator is prepared to hear". If you read "prepared" as meaning "emotionally prepared", this too may seem "thin-skinned or needy". However, the kinds of questions Lehman suggests an artist pose to observers reflect an artist's conceptual and aesthetic concerns.
Do you think my arm should be this way or this way?" or "I'm working right now on the way I express a strong feeling, what did you think of this section?
Questioning observers in this way, the artist prepares herself to attend to particular responses she hopes to receive. The questions she asks are of immediate concern to her task at hand, as she is in the process of composing. If her questions direct observers to details of her work that she herself is questioning, then she will have "prepared" herself to hear their responses and to be open to learning from them. It would appear from Lehman's account that these kinds of questions work in face-to-face interactions, where immediate two-way responses are possible.
What questions would work for assessing completed animations, in a one-way on-line situation? If my purpose is collecting written responses from a range of people, that demonstrates how the work was understood (or not), the meaning of the questions need to be self evident, self-contained and require no feedback. They need to clearly reflect the intention of the work and in what form I need the answers to be written.
A question that prepares me for a useful response comes to mind regarding the animation, "Masson Range": The twisting movements of the spiral form, and of the climbing figure, were made to reflect the twisting form of an Antarctic mountain that had originally moved the artist Fred Elliott to draw it. Is this intention clear to you? Yes. No. Describe one way this effect could have been differently expressed?
One of the jobs of the facilitator of her method, Lerman says, is to help artists find their questions. Although some are able to analyze their own work and form questions from their "dissatisfactions or dilemmas", for others this is a new kind of task that requires practice and guidance. The facilitator guides the artist towards developing specific questions that reflect the heart of her matter. The artist needs to raise the questions first, and the facilitator then probes with more questions. The facilitator does not provide answers.
Experiencing my own "dissatisfactions or dilemmas", composing and writing about Antarctic animation, has taught me to recognise these as opportunities to change my thinking (writing) and ways of doing things (animating). Finding ways through such times can be confusing. Animation and writing can be solitary activities. Lehman's guiding questions about the creative process can be posed by an artist to herself, as I am demonstrating here. They suggest a framework within to test thinking and feeling through my ideas, and ask questions to myself and to observers of my work. This exercise helps to clarify the purpose of each animation, and the overall purpose of the research. The method suggests ways of considering one's work from the perspective of an observer, without feeling pressure to conform to their values.
In step three of the process, observers are invited to form their opinions about the work into a neutral, or non-judegmental question. The preconditions for this step are that hearing what others say is important to the artist, that she wants to learn from their responses. As an example, Lehman suggests that instead of saying, "It's too long," (an opinion) a person might ask, "What were you trying to accomplish in the circle section?" or "Tell me what's the most important idea you want us to get and where is that happening in this piece?"
Lerman has discovered that "the actual process of trying to form opinions into neutral questions is precisely the process necessary to get to the questions that matter for the artist."
What drives many artists is subjective by nature: an emotion, a vision, a dream, an opinion, for example. And subjective decisions are made continuously throughout the art-making process. The art-responding process is also subjective, reflecting feelings and opinions of observers. However, Lehman's argument for rigour in analysis of conscious intention and effect, suggests useful ways to talk about art making and responding, between artists and observers, and artists and themselves.
Step three is possibly the most challenging aspect of Lehman's method to adapt for an on-line context. And yet it is potentially the most valuable for this a researcher attempting to identify how people connect to her work. Careful wording is needed to explain what a neutral question is, and how to compose one from an opinion, without suggesting that having an opinion (or judgement) is "wrong". Passing judgements on other people is part of our survival strategy. We are hard-wired to judge who is safe and who is dangerous. For some people, being asked to change their ways of questioning may be confronting.
For the moment, no question has emerge for my questionnaire that can achieve the aims of Step three. This needs further thought. It could be more useful to practise this step of the method whilst in the process of composing an animating, by inviting peers to a screening, for example. Allowing time for discussion would be important.
Step Four is Opinion Time. Lehman describes this as "the one place in the process where people can actively offer suggestions. One simply says, "I have an opinion on a direction you could go in, would you like to hear it?" Again, the artist can say yes or no."
As with Step three, this step would be more appropriate to practise with live observers at a screening. Lehman says she has
...never been at a session where an artist hasn't been willing to hear from everyone. It is curious to note that often during this opinion time, people choose to do more affirmation. Usually by this time, so much has been discussed that there is not too much left to be said. This can complete the process in most settings.
In an on-line questionnaire, meanings of words cannot be negotiated, as they can be face-to-face. Observers cannot talk back. Since all observers are not artists, shared understandings of some words cannot be assumed. Some may, understandably, equate "critical response" with criticism. Different words will need to be used. By modelling questions on methods that have demonstrated themselves as valuable to other artists, it is anticipated that some useful data will emerge from responses to them.
Here are some questions for consideration for an on-line questionnaire. I have thought through by asking myself (me) what I want to know from (you) an observer. The questions assume the preconditions of the process are agreed upon: that observers want this work to succeed in its aims.
To me:
How successful are Antarctic animations in connecting people with Antarctica? Which animations connect with most people? What do people see in the animations that show them something about Antarctica they did not know before?
To you
After watching these four animations (to be provided as hyperlinks), fill in the boxes from one to 4 in order of preference.
After watching your most preferred animation again (as many times as you want), describe one aspect of it that means something to you. For example, "the way the lines appear to draw themselves on screen/ the contrasts between smooth movements and sudden changes/the softness of the sound/... reminds me of ..., looks like...suggests a time when...makes me feel...makes me imagine....etc."
To me:
I am aware of the power of suggestion, and am seeking other ways of framing this last question.
To you:
Describe one other aspect of this animation, or of of another in the list, and how you connect with it.
List some things you saw in these animations that showed you something about Antarctica you did not know before.
Write any other comments you consider may be helpful in understanding ways people connect (or not) with Antarctica.
To me:
Write about what I have learned from responses to these questions that reveal which Antarctic animations connect most with people, what aspects connect with people, and what people have learned about Antarctica that they did not know before. Write also about how successful or not these questions proved to be in assessing the aims of this research, and discuss other possible approaches.
It is beyond the scope of this research to conduct an on-line questionnaire. However, this essay suggests lines for thought for inclusion in discussion at the end of the dissertation.
References:
Critical Response Process: A Method for Getting Useful Feedback on Anything You Make, from Dance to Dessert" by Liz Lerman and John Borstel (Liz Lerman Dance Exchange, 2003)
Sydney, November 2008
