|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With its Free for All, Forever initiative on the horizon, the Memorial Art Gallery is enriching the gallery experience by emphasizing community perspectives through Open MIC, its member-only program.
Open MIC, short for Members in Conversation, uses the Artful Thinking Routine framework developed by Project Zero at Harvard University. The framework aims to enhance engagement with the community and their relationship with various artworks. The program, which began in October, is part of MAG’s approach toward making art accessible to the public.
The museum will make admission free for all next year. It has raised more than $9 million toward this goal.
MAG’s Lauren Tagliaferro, a curatorial assistant, and Adam Koneman, museum educator for school outreach, started Open MIC at MAG after recognizing the power of direct engagement.
“I think one of the takeaways that people have been really excited about is that (Open MIC) isn’t just like a lecture. We’re not just putting up a series of slides and telling you what you should know about this artist, the artwork, or this movement,” says Tagliaferro. “It’s participatory, it’s about conversation, and it empowers people to think analytically and critically about artwork, and to show that they also can have new ideas, opinions, and thoughts about artworks that are in the MAG collection.”
Open MIC centers participants by having them share their perspectives on a specific artwork. Koneman recalls a moment when a mother-daughter duo, loyal attendees of the program, experienced a transformation. The daughter, who was around 8 years old, was initially shy and didn’t want to voice her opinions. However, within a few sessions, she was already taking the initiative and sharing her insights with other participants.
The MAG showcases various Artful Thinking Routines done during Open MIC sessions. “Looking 5 x 2,” for example, encourages participants to analyze artwork, list five items they noticed, share them with another attendee, and then repeat the process. The activity encourages people to analyze artwork and then do so again from a different perspective.
“There’s a palpable energy in the galleries when these conversations are happening,” says Koneman.
A goal of Open MIC is to show participants that curiosity and discussion surrounding artwork is accessible to all. Art can be communicated in plain language by noticing details and emotions and discussing them with peers. Tagliaferro, who has a background in art history, and Koneman, with a background in special education, combine their strengths to supplement attendees’ experiences without influencing their thoughts about a piece of art.
“I think of them almost like training wheels,” explains Koneman. “It’s giving people common language vocabulary prompts to kind of think through, so that they can have a way into the conversation that feels safe, encouraged, and they might take a risk, or say something that might be unexpected. And it’s OK to do that, because there’s some parameters within the structure.”
As people continue attending the sessions, they begin to develop a sense of community and belonging. They start to identify with the program and influence how each other engages with art. Some attendees started calling themselves “Open MICers,” Koneman notes.
Tagliaferro recounts an experience where the program’s attendees viewed an E.E. Cummings piece. The attendees asked Tagliaferro and Koneman to rotate the painting, a request they had not encountered before.
As the painting rotated, new details started to manifest themselves.
“The best part was we flipped it one more time, and everyone went, ‘That doesn’t work,’ so it was this collective experience that was really incredible,” Tagliaferro says.
Moments like those highlight the program’s larger goal: creating a space where visitors can feel comfortable sharing ideas and learning from one another.
“People are very isolated from each other right now—socially, politically and technologically,” Tagliaferro says.
Open MIC arrives at the right time for people seeking in-person conversations, new perspectives, and a safe public space to connect with others.
“I would love it if more college students could come in our doors—especially now that (we will be) free—and utilize us as a resource, and as a third space, a meeting space to engage with the artwork and each other,” Tagliaferro says.
Open MIC is exclusive to members. (Individual memberships start at $75 a year.) It meets twice a month: one session during the day and the other on the second Friday of every month, when hours are extended. Having two sessions at different times has widened the audience and allowed people of all ages to participate in Open MIC.
“We’re a public museum, it’s for the community, so this is a real and very tangible way for people to create community around these artworks,” says Tagliaferro.
Danik Soudakoff, a student at Rochester Institute of Technology, is a member of the Oasis Project’s third cohort.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
Such good information. So happy to see such a renowned art institution make strides in connecting with the community.
MAG is a local treasure. Lately I have been photographing the Tom Otherness sculptures. I will say this…love the art, hate the artist…similar to love the sinner, hate the sin.
The quality, if any, of Otterness’ artwork is a matter of opinion. The vileness of his “Shot Dog Film” is not. The San Francisco Arts Commission in 2011, canceled his $750,000 contract for artwork for the Central Subway Project upon learning of his atrocity. An act that occurred in 1977 and which a few minutes research would have uncovered. Likewise, in 2013 the city of Lincoln, Nebraska scrapped plans to purchase a $500,000 sculpture from the artist after belatedly discovering what he had done. The MAG who also should have been aware of Otterness’ record, nevertheless hired him in 2010 for a reported $50,000. However, unlike the two organizations cited above, and despite criticism from the public and MAG staff, the Powers that Be opted to continue with the commission. No rational justification for doing so was ever made public.
If the MAG truly wishes to engage with the community, perhaps they should start by explaining why there was no public input sought prior to their commissioning Tom Otterness to create sculptures for their garden, and why all subsequent requests for a community discussion of the commission were rejected. For those unfamiliar with Otterness’ record, several years prior to his MAG commission, he took a dog from a pound, tied it up, shot the animal and filmed its death agonies, releasing the movie as a self-proclaimed work of art know as the “Shot Dog Film”. Prior to his being hired by MAG, word of this film became well known in the art community, so much so that other museums/cities were prompted to cancel his contracts. Why MAG proceed to go forward with their arrangement remains a mystery to this day.
I’m not sure the community with all its diverse ideas and opinions would be helpful in a discussion about an artist’s mental state.