The docents are all avid art lovers and it wasn't difficult to start the discussion with them. I did not ask them to raise their hands before making remarks about the work, as I thought that they are adults and are capable of carrying on a civil conversation, but this made it difficult at times to really facilitate the discussion and to ask specifically the second question, but in general it went very smoothly. Afterwards they also enthusiastically discussed the pros and cons (from their perspective) of VTS. One noted that he felt like the VTS process draws him in more than just looking, and that it "forced [his] brain to start putting the pieces together." Another noted that as art historians, we often talk "around" the paintings without ever really looking at the work, and valued VTS for encouraging that aspect. Someone else really thought the group discussion was important because they could incorporate others' ideas with their own to come to conclusions.
All agreed that they found the process somewhat frustrating though, as naturally at the end they all wanted more information, and I had not really done any research beforehand to be able to feed their appetite. I should have known better! But then they all also agreed that it is sometimes good to leave people "wanting more" and encouraging them to do more research on their own. They also noted that VTS highlights the viewer's experience which is important, and sometimes overlooked by docents.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that they said that my restatements of their observations were not patronizing (yay!) and made it seem like I was participating in the discussion. I wondered if this was a good thing, or maybe meant that I was not being neutral enough. These are people that I am pretty comfortable around, and I might have been a little less formal than is really necessary to be neutral. I also know that on a couple of occasions I did sort of add to the second question saying, for instance, "What do you see that makes you say that this is the older sister?" and wondered if this was an acceptable version of the question. Because they were throwing out ideas so quickly, it felt necessary to clarify which ideas I was addressing, which goes back to my error in not asking them to raise their hands at the beginning. It felt smooth and natural, and I think everyone found the process generally satisfactory.
I also didn't ask my peers to raise their hands, and it seemed to cause chaos at first, but then their comments started to spin off of each other, and the fervor that was created by not waiting for each other to finish was, I think, a benefit!
ReplyDeleteI was also hounded for information from my participants about the artwork when we were done! Because they aren't "arsty" people, and I wasn't expecting them to get as involved as they did, this was a pleasant surprise! I caved and gave them the artist's name and told them to research on their own. I also found myself adding to the second question to clarify for the same reasons as you!
ReplyDeleteWoot-woot! So fun to read this post! Sounds like you did a great job!! It seems like they were all good sports with positive attitudes, too. Loved that they at least entertained the idea of leaving the viewer wanting more. And you're right. As adults, they should be able to launch into great independent investigations that they can bring back to the group. One tidbit you might tease them with is that Paxton used several objects that appear in this painting in other paintings. Might be a neat scavenger hunt; send them off to surf the net and find out which ones. While there, they'll learn a lot about the artist, too.
ReplyDeleteElaborating the second question as, for example, "What do you see that makes you say that this is the older sister?" is perfect! I do it frequently myself and it really helps not only group focus but also checking to see if you, as facilitator, heard correctly. I think it adds to the conversational tone of the discussion by making it less mechanical and more authentic.
I had to smile (really big!) when you admitted that not asking them to raise their hands added to the challenge of "fielding" responses from eager participants. Housen and Yenawine haven't overlooked a thing. Everytime I think I can drop or gloss over one of their recommended facilitator behaviors, my participants show me why I shouldn't! VTS is action research at its best.
Nice job!!