NEW PROPOSED CHARTER
1 CHAMBER PRESENTED (5 minutes)
List of Criteria Handed out
Function of Chamber discussed: make criteria out of many narratives
- market values
- criteria are concentrated values with non-monetary value
- make visible forms of value
- value forms which are not valued, because they are hard to quantify
- that is why this is a difficult process - must boil down narratives, emotions and metaphor etc. to semi-measurable criteria
- tools for discussion
2 THE ARTIST PRESENTS THE WORK (10-15 minutes)
3 CLARIFICATION OF THE ARTIST'S CRITERIA by Jury and Audience (15 minutes)
a) Each member of the Jury writes down the 5 most important criteria the artist sees as contributing to the success of the artwork.
They question the artist, to clarify the artist's criteria
b) "Are there any criteria that you think any work of art should fulfill?"
'universal criteria' are offered and 5 chosen by artist
e.g.
aesthetically interesting - beautiful
offers something new -
has a meaning -- i.e. sends a message, or provokes thought
quality of craftsmanship
relation to audience/s (communication)
making visible invisible things
political effect
c) (NOT ADDRESSED EXPLICITLY IN THE QUESTIONING) Jury writes down 5 criteria/aspects which the work doesn't address, but a work of art might be expected to address according to the artist
THE ARTIST IS THANKED, AND LEAVES
4 PRESENTATION OF THE CRITERIA CLARIFIED BY THE JURY (20 minutes)
Each Jury member presents
c) 5 negative criteria
a) 5 positive criteria
b) 5 general criteria
Criteria will be first presented by jury members to audience and discussed.
PROPOSALS FOR NEW CRITERIA will also come up in this process
Additional criteria can be proposed by the audience and the jury members
- they are accepted only if two out of three jury members accept it
A selection of 5 criteria of each kind will be agreed.
New Proposals for Charters for the Evaluation Chamber:
CHARTER COMPONENTS
i. according to criteria (discursive or with ratings -- see below Helsinki AA proposals)
1. the criteria would be selected by the 'Jury' of the Chamber (animator, core members, and chair) in one step
2. the criteria would be voted on by the wider audience
3. representations of the outcomes would be discussed?
ii. according to a conceptual/philosophical system chosen in advance for that work (agreed with the artists)
the audience would have to be introduced to the theory very briefly
e.g. Ariel Reichmann's work on documentary/fiction might be fruitfully evaluated using the 'raw, cooked packaged' theory and terminology
iii. an audience proposed approach to evaluation, if accepted by the 'Jury' of the Chamber (animator, core members, and chair)
SELECTION OF CRITERIA
The 50 criteria need to be reformulated and boiled down, we think.
We could have three choices of 5 criteria, say, by each of:
1/ the artists
2/ the jury
3/ the audience
This would give 15 criteria.
If the same criteria is chosen twice, its value is doubled, etc. -- a weighting system.
Proposals for procedures, aka 'CHARTERS' from the Helsinki Pilot AA:
4 POSSIBLE PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION THROUGH THE Valuation Chamber
NOTA BENE: --BOTH THE ARTIST AND THE CHAMBER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION, DEVELOP AND PRODUCE CRITERIA--
CHARTER 1
i. The work itself has to have its own time frame
ii. Whoever speaks about the work has 10 minutes to talk about it
iii. 10 minutes deliberation by the chamber
iv. The artist re-enters for 5 minutes of discussion- each member of the chamber can ask one question of the artist
v. The chamber members evaluate the work according to the criteria
CHARTER 2
i. The work itself has its own time frame
ii. Whoever speaks has 10 minutes to talk about the work
iii. 10 minutes artist/chamber dialogue
iv. 2 minutes per category of bidding and counter-bidding regarding the relevance of the category and the score that should be allotted
v. A feedback session of chamber/artist dialogue
CHARTER 3
i. The work itself has its own time frame
ii. Whoever speaks has 10 minutes to talk about the work
iii. The chamber members evaluate the work
iv. The artist gets the results, and can then remonstrate with the chamber members
CHARTER 4
i. The artist/delegated presenter presents the work
ii. The chamber evaluate the work - this is their stance
iii. The chamber selects one category through which to talk about the piece to the artist
iv. The artist can respond back and criticise the chamber
===========
The minutes of the Pilot AA in Helsinki at which these were proposed. This also shows the possible CRITERIA according to which the Evaluation is carried out. This chamber was previously called the 'Auction Chamber':