Gesprek David Limaverde
Bijgewerkt op: 1 mrt. 2020
De uitwerking van het gesprek is omgezet naar een leesbare tekst. De cursieve teksten in rood zijn toegevoegd als aantekening voor mijzelf en komen niet uit het gesprek. Ik begin met een korte samenvatting van het gesprek.
My talk with David was like a brainstorming session, talking together to get ideas. The most important thing we talked about is how to get people together to undergo my experiment. I have to design or use a method and an evaluation tool. When I have a group I have to know what I want to measure and evaluate. I don’t have to use the word intercultural as in ethnic cultural, but it could also mean with different backgrounds or why not in generations. That makes it easier to form a group to test with.
Think about visuals, how to register the meetings for my communication.
To do: Check Baarda i.v.m. het stellen van vragen en evaluatie.
I have to start experimenting, however it is hard to do an experiment without people. Renske gave me some tips. I explain that I’m now ready to start which with a method to start experimenting. I prefer young adults.
My subject is intercultural dialogue by looking at art objectively. By looking at art I want to start a dialogue, share perspectives.
David: Art as a catalyst for cultural dialogue. Because of time, I don’t need to have a group. The core is that I have to work with intercultural dialogue. I can design a method to provide a space for people to meet. I need to design a method to evaluate that meeting, then I can write about this and my thoughts on intercultural dialogue. The outcomes are not objective, my brain has to make sense of all of this. (In other words, I have to give insight in my process and the decisions I made.)
David: I need people, because it’s about dialogue. I have to design a meeting and conceptualize who these people are and what kind of story I am going to tell the other to come to the meetings. It has to be really well thought and it has to be a lot of them (or at least repeatedly). I also have to create a method in order to evaluate.
I prefer adolescence (or young adults), because they are still in a developing stage.
David: I have to reach schools, but is it possible? What can I give back? What can we exchange? They need to have something, that’s why this meeting should be a concept. It’s like a trade of knowledge, what’s in it for them? (This will be very hard, perhaps a can ‘use’ some students form Eline and Rianne…)
Working with adults makes it easier because if they want to come they are already interested.
The age is also of influence. If I choose adults, the most obvious group are refugees, but this is heavy, it’s too much, and not good for them. It makes it hard and why should they cooperate. But they are more aware of intercultural dialogue.
Find a group of friends with different backgrounds. It’s about people, it’s not about ethnicity per se. David says it could also be about age difference. It doesn’t matter if it works.
I tell him that it’s about trying to understand each other. It’s about emancipation and about the way people interact. We have more in common than differences. That’s what I’m trying to find. He likes the idea if I do not frame it in a typical foreigner box. Everybody is welcome to participate. (I find this also important, not to frame is in ethnic groups. It’s about people.) Diversity and difference seeing intercultural as a broader term. It is not only about ethnicity. It is about providing material to have more things to write about.
David: Can I find a diverse group? I could also think about not having a group, this way I should only provide the space or place for the meeting, just to make it happen. I have to facilitate this. They shouldn’t be familiar to each other. Let them meet and talk. I should arrange the talk, to help them get the conversations started. Invite people, give them a cup of coffee. I have to think in advance who I want to talk to. What do I need, to make it happen. Make it smaller.
David: It’s good to start with friends and try to build the method by prototyping. After the prototype I have to reflect on it and refine it. Go to the museum with a few. I have to decide what I want and repeat it. I have to register what changes take place. First the methodology, or change an existing one. One design for everything otherwise it’s harder to evaluate.
It’s easier to get in contact with individuals. People who don’t know each other is interesting. The art is a means, it’s a pretext. The method is to look at art objectively. My reference to Amy Herman (De kunst van het observeren) is very important! If you want people to get together, you have to give them space to start the dialogue.
David: When I bring people to the museum, do I want to repeat the same route or change it. What type of art would I choose? I’m curating in a way. Don’t think too much about the work of art, just choose a work. It would also be nice to have documentation of the meeting, film, pictures or a record. For example, David photographs the table where he meets his ‘subject’ and uses this for his communication. Think about form, how I would like to visualize this. I could use it for my communication.
David: Do I have a connection to a museum? I can use this museum to do my thing, maybe I can arrange free entrance. Use connections to build a relationship later. Contemporary art would be best. Facilitate some space for me for doing the research. They don’t have to be partners. I should start to design my method and start matching people! (Design Museum ‘s-Hertogenbosch)