The process of redesigning the Pulitzer’s Exploring Art program has been long and circuitous.  We have agreed at last on the intended audience and overall purpose for the program: to draw in first time visitors and individuals who do not normally have any interest in or feel uncomfortable in art museums. We have structured the program content so as to put visitors at ease and increase their comfort level within the walls of the Pulitzer and with the art itself. We have trained our docents in Visual Thinking Strategies and facilitating group dialogue. And now, as we schedule our first group of visitors, our discussions have centered on how to best evaluate Exploring Art.

In theory, to effectively evaluate this pilot program we should take extensive measurements regarding our participants’ experience. Administering surveys pre-visit, immediately post-visit, and two weeks after the visit would allow us to establish a base line and track changes over time. The breadth and depth of such data collection would give us a richer picture of Exploring Art’s impact.  However, with each level of increasing evaluative rigor we also increase the invasiveness of our questioning. Requesting participants to complete a 20-item survey and then consent to supplying personal contact information is hardly a lighthearted trip to the museum.

Of course, some visitors may truly appreciate being able to share their opinions; some may really value taking part in the program piloting. Still, in many ways our goal of making first time visitors feel comfortable is at odds with our goal of in depth evaluation. Which leaves us with the question — How do we balance this tension between wanting quality data that can inform future programs and wanting to create a welcoming atmosphere for potentially nervous or disinterested visitors?

Annaliese Calhoun is a graduate student at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St Louis. Over the summer she is working part-time at the Pulitzer Foundation as an MSW practicum student.  Currently, her coursework has brought her to India where she is living in the rural village of Kalleda, immersing herself in the culture. For 5 weeks she is studying, among other things, the role of art in community empowerment. 

July 2009

I force myself to get up before 6am today. Though I have already missed the sunrise, I am determined to watch the village women go about their morning ritual of decorating their doorsteps with muggulu and malakala. I hurriedly dress and cross the yard of the school’s compound where I am staying. Out through the red gate and straight up the dirt road through town, I can see that for these Indian villagers, morning is already well under way. I smile at the men and children who brush their teeth with neen and clear their throats loudly.

I am just in time. Outside of one home, an ancient matriarch prepares the ground with a mixture of ox dung and clay; despite her age she leans over easily from the hips. Outside of other homes and businesses mothers or teenage girls complete the same ritual.  Next, an assortment of colored powders is fetched from within the house and the true mystery begins. Some women begin with a grid of small white dots, others simply launch into a full fledged design. Pinching white rice powder between thumb and forefinger they spread it so smoothly it is as if a paintbrush extended from their fingertips.  White arcs and symmetrical curves appear and quickly give life to detailed patterns.  Lastly, fingertips are tipped in small tins of red or vermillion to add highlights at the center of flowers or stars.

I walk up and down the street. No design is the same. By 10:30 in the morning many of these muggulu and malakala will be blurred and trampled by heavy traffic, others will still shine brightly and clearly against the dirt. Tomorrow, the women will wash away the remaining traces of their creative work and begin afresh.

Read the rest of this entry »