London>Evaluation workshop
On Day 2 of the London meeting a special evaluation workshop was organised for project participants to round off the project. A professional facilitator, George Gawlinski was hired, whose background in journalism ensured that by the end of the day we had produced some useful results.

The aim of the workshop was to enable greater exchange between the research themes (B activities) and the case studies and for those involved in the project to reflect and prepare for the final report. Below is an overview of how the day was organised

Step one:
After a short introduction by George, we broke up into B activity groups. Each group consisted of 7 people that would have the role of being a B activity researcher for the day.  Each group had a leader, who prior to the meeting had developed 6 questions related to their B activity. These questions dealt with the core issues of each research theme. The first step was for the B activity groups to discuss these questions and if necessary edit them and/or add new questions. It was important for the group to agree on what their core issues and questions were and what they should look for in the case studies.

Step two:
We dispersed and broke up into our second groups. These were made up of 6 people each. Each person had two jobs to do:
1. tell the story of their case study giving highlights which relate to as many of the key subjects as possible and
2. listen to the other case studies and act as researchers for a B activity - asking questions and taking notes.

Step three:
B activity groups reformed and boil down what they had heard from the case studies  a short list of headlines (or key messages) relating to each of the five research themes. Headlines had to be fascinating, interesting and groundbreaking.

Step four:
In the final group session, each B activity group reported back to all participants on their headlines.

The headlines of each B activity were:

B1 Preservation strategies
— Understanding the significance is key to designing your preservation strategy. Don’t acquire art without it.
— Are you prepared to let things fall apart - Installation art takes conservators to places that are not always comfortable.
— Conservation documentation is the preservation of the intangible.
— Installation is the restoration of the intangible?
— Inside installations has created a box of peers.

B2 Artists Participation
— “Next time I am going to find the artist an assistant with whom I will communicate”
We are dealing with people: the influence of emotions and the relation with the artist have a big impact on the result of an interview. There is always this individual/subjective aspect/impact.
— Expanding the idea of artist participation into a general public participation:
Besides the artists interview there are other sources of information. We should also consider to interview the assistant, the conservator etc. Have the artist discuss with the audience/communicate with the public.
— Is the idea of an interview an ongoing process or just capturing a moment?
— We need an international vocabulary/a definition of concepts/media in different languages.
— Try to find out what you buy/bought.
— Before you do an interview, do a reconstruction of the history of the work within the institution (which ‘actants’ were involved?).
— Never forget how ‘pragmatic’ a motivation can be.

B3 Documentation and archiving strategies
— No documentation without a plan/strategy. What is our reference?
— Awareness of the roles of the people involved and the responsibility coming with it.
— Documentation is a never ending story.
— Cooperation with other professionals is necessary.

B4 Theory and semantics
— The traditional conservation attitude has to be revised for installation artworks.
— Preservation of installations: institutionalizing the artwork is articulating the artwork.
— Reflection on different roles within the museum organisation is needed.

B5 Knowledge Management & Information Exchange
— Collaborations have to be open – results of collaborations have to be property of institution with no reserved rights by producers.
— With obsolescence of technology investigate alternatives while original remains functioning have a reference point: Revolution/ICN.
— No matter how precise the documentation is, it may still be incomplete and lacking when re-installing on future occasions as it is impossible to document embodied knowledge.
— Hired experts need good briefing about political aspects between the museum and the artist and to be assigned responsibilities before being involved in project.
— The Inside Installation project made it possible for research to be done that otherwise never would have been done.  The position of case researcher in the museum is greatly helped by money and prestige from project.