by Nova Benway

Note: This mainly addresses the Berwick’s desire to expand its network. It does not make much of an attempt to address the establishment of MMT as a platform for the continuation of conversations about public art among individuals, municipalities, etc. I think we need to discuss that more as a group before I think about it individually. However, I think some of the issues brought up here tangentially relate to the development of such a platform, post-dinners.

Context

What do we value? The process of public art seems, by necessity, to ask that question – and, significantly, to provide an answer, whether it is as open-ended as “collaboration” or as specific as “the contributions of Abigail Adams to American history.” When we talk about “community building,” a term so often mentioned in the context of public art, I think we are trying to answer that question. I think good public art –like good art in general -- holds resonance for a wide range of people. To me finding out how to encourage the development of works that do this seems to be the point of Meet me at the table - otherwise, why expand the Berwick’s network at all? Thus in order to answer the question of “what do we value?” in a Berwickian way and in the context of these dinners, we have to ask it first – carefully and deliberately. I am thinking here about how to do that.

Building on Dinner 1

Dinner 1’s attendees were without exception experienced, thoughtful and perceptive people. Yet they could not give the Berwick the perspective we needed to expand our network, because (as we know) they are the network. There are several questions that seemed unaskable at that first dinner: ‘What is the value of public art? What is the potential of art in our public sphere? What has to happen for a public artwork to be successful?’ Though to me these are questions vital to the evolution of MMT, their answers seemed to be already hanging in the air, because of the close philosophical associations between most dinner attendees. (Though a few of these questions were briefly addressed, the answers were not pursued.)

I am struck by how few people noted afterward that they learned something profoundly new at Dinner 1. I think it is the Berwick’s responsibility to guide this project so that meaningful learning does occur. We must be able to organize the dinners so that they are relaxed and enjoyable, yet focused. Chances are, if learning is not happening for the guests, it is not happening for the Berwick either. This may be one way to think about how to ensure MMT’s effectiveness. We have talked about facilitation, and I think the topic should be revisited. I have been considering whether in order to bring new groups into the Berwick’s network in a way that is comfortable to them, we must ourselves step out of our “comfort zone.” Finding a way to facilitate the dinners, while avoiding the role of teacher, may be difficult, but necessary.

In order to expand the Berwick’s community purposefully, I think self-evaluation is a continual necessity. To that end, some questions:

• What characterizes the Berwick’s social/professional sphere now?
• In what ways does that need to change, and why? (My best answer at the moment is “We need to expand our network to include different perspectives because public art is a community process,” but I don’t think that’s nearly specific enough.)
• What defines a meaningful exchange or collaboration in this context?
• What would happen at the ideal dinner?
• What would the ideal PAI program look like?
• How can we present MMT to people who have never heard of the Berwick so that they arrive at the dinner ready to collaborate in a meaningful way – and again, how is that defined?

General Evaluation

So far, I have a few ways to “evaluate” the MMT process. I am not particularly happy with them, because they seem pretty facile. We can track the profession of each guest (artist? activist?), the neighborhoods they live or work in, or how connected they are to the Berwick. It seems to me, however, that what is missing from this type of easy-to-plot data is the Berwick itself: how are we making sure that we are developing our thoughts about the Berwick network and the PAI program in a useful/meaningful way? In evaluating MMT, we may benefit from brief, focused interviews with Susan and Meg, conducted systematically. Perhaps this would ensure the kind of continual engagement we all hope for, in the midst of all the planning and administrative work?

As I write this, I am beginning to think that asking the right questions – of ourselves and our guests - is an essential part of this social/artistic process. Are we fumbling toward a usable definition of “effective collaboration?"

Nova Benway is the MMT evaluator & a Master's candidate in Arts Administration at Boston University