Evaluation of Artworks Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital 2006 – 2009 June 2009 Delday and Douglas, rgu insert Insert rach rgu art logo logo

13Studio 77 were shown artwork by the shortlisted artists which they were asked to rate and their scores were added to the scoring from the interview panel.

14 Family members were usually the mums accompanying the child

15 Interestingly the artist commented that in this RACH project she had been asked to be more transparent about her process than in any other commission i.e. in response to the monitoring and evaluation. This is discussed in the findings.

16 Observations by evaluator and relayed to the coordinator

17 Not all of the group could attend all the workshops

18 An interview was conducted with this mum to gain insight into the appropriateness of the workshops for autistic children.

19 The evaluator observed that the artist had to use a booking system to try to fit in all the staff eager to take part in this part of the consultation.

20 These descriptors used by the artist to summarise the work after she’d completed the project clearly reflect the deep influence the creative consultation had on her thinking and the resulting work. She is quoting actual terms used by one of the consultant psychiatrists and one of the mums.

21 In the artist’s contract it is stipulated that the maintenance of the artwork for the first year is their responsibility. It also stipulated that the work will remain fit for purpose for 4-5 years.

22 At this stage views on the process were sought if the staff member had not been interviewed previously. Where there had been contact through the evaluation, staff were asked to reflect on the whole process as this now included the final stage of installation.

23 These two examples were by no means the only examples of the value of the workshops as it was clear that almost everyone - other staff, children, family members who had taken part in workshops - had got something from them and to different degrees. The evaluator asked the consultants to give any specific examples of the value of the workshops to patients (if any) with the understanding that this was anecdotal in relation to the conventions of hard ‘scientific’ evidence.

24 As observed by the evaluator.

25 Though not stated there are two implications here; that the issues being dealt with (when parent/family and child attend) are not focused solely on the parent, and equally that the adults are not the centre of attention.

26 The consultant psychiatrist explained that these rooms are for testing for things like autistic spectrum disorder, and IQ testing and involves the child on their own, working with one or two clinicians for an hour to an hour and half. Many of the children have learning disorders and know they could potential fail and so are very anxious about undergoing this. She explained that they need the child to be relaxed and use techniques so that anxiety doesn’t impinge on the testing. She had noticed in the past that walking along the very long corridors past all office doors could add considerably to the anxiety levels by the time they reached the testing room.

27 ARTworks, Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital, RACH, 2009

28 The external youth groups included Studio 77, Westhill Youth Action Group, and Bridge of Don Academy. The fourth group involved in the program was Glaitness School, Orkney. Here adults involved in the project came, but it was not practical for the school children. It was also not practical for the Academy pupils to make a presentation as they were now in their third year and the original group was almost impossible to bring together.

29 Only two of the 6-8 members were able to view the installation on the RACH Event day

30 This was minuted (by the Art Group) as being completed in February 2008, but in fact had been planned for a number of years and had been requested repeatedly by the senior member of staff and the project staff representative long before the art project began.

31 The Bridge of Don Academy were invited but it was not appropriate for them to take part as the group had been split up as the pupils were now in their 3^rd year.

32 To the evaluator it seemed the artist deliberately revealed the process at each stage – the process unfolded as it were. That she should describe the process as a sequence of specific activities at the beginning was not really a consideration for her.

33 That a suitable candidate might not be an outcome at the shortlist or interview stage was something the Art Group had encountered in one programme where there was no engagement made from the candidates interviewed.

34 The Head of Unit did not respond individually to these evaluation questions, so it was unknown to the evaluator what her hopes and concerns for the project were.

35 The staff representative asked the coordinator why Studio 77 was involved in the project. She replied that working with an external youth group ensured that young people’s views were included – given the eventuality of there being no children in the hospital being available to take part. This also formed part of the funding bid.

36 The nurses were impressed with the work and one commented that the words made by the children looked more as though they had been made by adults.

37 This visit originally to be over lunch was delayed. Instead the artist accompanied them on a walk in the afternoon.

38 The coordinator would normally pop into the artists’ workshops to observe and check things were progressing well with everybody.

39 The evaluator asked a senior member of staff Jean Robertson ?? about the kinds of children attending the unit. She explained that in both the Lowit Unit and Rosehill House ‘populations will have children who have the same diagnosis …. The Rosehill House population of children will have very severe autism, learning disablities, ADHD (Attention Deficit and Hyperactive Disorder) or are children who are over-active and distractable. There will be lots of children who have been traumatised. There will be some children who have been abused and there will be some children who are in long-term therapy.’ (August 2008).

40 That the artist was coming from London meant the days she could come up were not the ideal days for the Lowit Unit, but it was considered manageable.

41 In one example the artist, on realising that the child was finding the task difficult, tried to explain further but this actually exacerbated his confusion. The staff later explained this to her.

42 There was also confusion about setting up this meeting for the artist to consult with staff one-to-one. Email communication was between the staff representative, the coordinator and the artist. Upon arrival the artist was surprised to learn from the Head of Unit that meeting with staff was not possible at this time. However it was agreed between them that she could have a short time with staff after the artist explained that a) she thought this had been arranged and b) even a very short time would be invaluable.

43 One of the nurses commented to the evaluator that there were new people constantly coming into the unit on a regular basis such as teachers, and student nurses and so they were dealing with this on a regular basis. It is possible that the tour and description at the outset by the staff representative was a misunderstanding in terms of strangers coming into the unit.

44 The coordinator was contracted for 2.5 days per week..

45 This was also experienced by the evaluator in terms of getting responses be email from individual people to the initial hopes and challenges for the project. A set of thoughts were offered by the staff representative.

46 When the project was stopped the Head of Unit contacted her line manager and this was the first he had heard about the project. The evaluator interviewed him and he explained that it was a pity he had not been involved in the early stages and would have liked to have been because there was a lot of scope for improvement in the Lowit Unit; it was a dark, windowless place and quite a ‘toxic’ environment. He gave an interesting example of art in a children’s hospital that he had visited – the M.I.N.D Institute in Sacramento, California. He explained that a great deal of the visual material in the Lowit was for therapeutic work and used on a daily basis and that, in retrospect, maybe some of the aims of the project should have been delimited.

47 This was echoed by another member of the Sub Art Group.

48 It is possible the artist felt pressured by splitting her time between the two sites (e.g. her first visit to the Lowit being delayed) though this was not made explicit by her. She was described by one of the Art Group as ‘a bit of a trooper’ and tended not to complain that she wasn’t getting the staff’s views or input on what they wanted to change or the areas to be addressed, until the end of the consultation period. It is also possible (though again not made explicit) that she felt over-stretched.

49 She has experience of working with children in education with behavioural and learning difficulties (e.g. ADHD) and was extremely surprised that the artist had been put into a group of this size.

50 A second senior staff member was interviewed after the project was stopped as she had also been contacted by the Head of Department after the event. She had knowledge of the project as she had been involved in the very earliest stages and had delegated the project to a consultant psychiatrist at Rosehill. Part of her role was to supervise art therapists throughout Scotland. The evaluator asked her to define the difference between an artist and an art therapist:

‘I would think that the artist’s first contact is with the medium and the environment – the actual fabric of the building and looking to having an impact on the client group through the building and the process of changing that building – with what’s on the walls, or how it’s decorated. An art therapist I would see as using the medium of art to look at their relationship with the child or the child’s relationship with other people or the child’s relationship with themselves. So it’s a very clinical orientation and specifically addresses the child’s difficulties. I think an artist is looking in a more general way to think about how any of us are influenced by shape, colour and so on and the process of making art – whether we are well or not. Whereas the art therapist is relating it to what they know of the client group’s specific difficulties or challenges in life or dilemmas in life, crises in life.’

51 When the evaluator, coordinator and Studio 77 visited the unit.

52 The four nurses and play staff person were all asked what might be done differently if the project were to begin again and/or any future project with an artist coming into the unit to work with them and the children. The Head of Unit was also asked this question.

53 A few of the staff mentioned that, in the past, art teachers had had difficulties with the children.

54 Scheduling workshops was difficult for the Lowit Unit. At one stage they requested Thursdays or Fridays but this was not convenient for the artist who was traveling from London)

55 There was a multitude of reasons as to why the project did not go according to plan. On top of the reasons outlined above there were also smaller but important things that also impacted on the project such as, the long time between the brief (and funding proposal) and the start of the project. A further delay was caused when awaiting the DBS check on the artist. There were also the difficulties of timetabling as the artist was travelling from London.

56 The artist commented to the evaluator that the two sites could not be more different. In Rosehill House there was nothing on the walls, it was sparse and clinical. The Lowit Unit was the most cluttered space she had encountered and this was the first time she had thought that she could improve the working environment if she were to actually to remove some of the clutter (and being respectful of the visual material used for therapy) and give some visual order and containment. This also reflects the character of the two sites. Rosehill has no history, whereas the Lowit has a long tradition and history - it was originally set up by Ian Lowit and had then been fully residential.

57 This did in fact happen though in an unexpected way i.e. the restrictions faced by the artist directed the aesthetic at Rosehill by her incorporating children’s photos, see Case study 2(a).

58 These descriptors were used by Dr Justin Williams and Dr Jean Robertson.

59 The coordinator had reiterated this but only very informally when she met staff members.

60 The Head of Unit forwarded the email from the Art Group to all the nurses.

61 All 20 pupils could not visit at the one time, so a smaller group visited. The teacher made sure that within the 5 groups at least one pupil had been on the visit and reported back to the others. They ‘were extremely enthusiastic’ and this reflected ‘the fact that it was a live project – something that was really going to happen’.

62 Neither the teacher nor the pupils were able to attend the interview, but they saw examples of candidates’ work.

63 This artist lived in England and subsequently ‘Disclosure Scotland’ had to be sought prior to commissioning.

64 The teacher stressed that in fact ‘all their collages would influence the final artwork’.

65 The play staff assisted by showing photographs of the work to some patients if they couldn’t go to the entrance area. The work was also displayed in another location – near the staff canteen, to maximize the collection of views/votes.

66 It had been considered by the coordinator and teacher, whether to hold the art workshop in the hospital but this was thought to be impractical.

67 That the artist could work with them was important because they had been enthusiastic about the project for such a long time. This sustained enthusiasm had surprised her.

68 The artist explained to the evaluator that, although she had a teaching background, it tended to be with older adolescents – at HE level and that she was working outside of her comfort zone, but that she had felt confident because of the teacher’s support.

69 The evaluator observed throughout the day and the artist invited the evaluator to ‘join in’ the workshop if she wanted to – which she did. This helped the evaluator be less estranged from the pupils and less intrusive.

70 After the workshop the artist and coordinator had discussed whether there should be another visit, but it was decided that the constrictions of the school time-table made this prohibitive.

71 The evaluator mentioned this to the coordinator (Case study 2 CAFMH) who understood that this was also a problem with another external youth group (Westhill Youth Action Group, in the Glass project).

72 Lumiwall is a trade mark for a relatively new technology of making large backlit displays. It is used in retail for advertising, and not, as yet, used outside of this sector, nor is it usually in a curved shape. The effect is like a large curved light box with a soft surface – like a skin stretched on a drum.

73 This included the ‘dead-period’ i.e. the month between the funding bid and the work beginning on the project and the point at which the artist visited the Academy.

74 Arguably their expectations were very high given the project became the main piece of work for them for the whole of the second year curriculum and there was not a huge amount of time spent with the artist (just over two days). It was also the long time span between their meetings with the artist.

75 The coordinator has a background experience of community art-style projects, and is herself an art practitioner. She also has experience working as an arts officer with a local authority.

76 These projects were Case study 2 CAFMH and the Glass project, involving the Westhill Youth Action Group, which is not included in this evaluation.

77 Observed by the evaluator, coordinator, Art Group members, play staff and staff from other departments.

78 The coordinator explained that she had benefited from being part of Working in Public: Art Practice and Policy (www2.rgu.ac.uk/subj/ats/ontheedge2/workinginpublicseminars/intro.html) where she had shared experiences with other people responsible for involving people in public consultation, in the production of ‘public art’.

79 The artist and coordinator discussed the visit afterwards. They agreed that another factor that affected the way this visit had gone was due to teenage egos at play, with one rather boisterous boy at the front trying to take over the short meeting by insisting his idea/theme of space had ‘won’.

80 The artist’s experience in teaching had been with older adolescents (Higher Education) and at first she mentioned she was ‘outside her comfort zone’ but relaxed with the excellent support of the teacher. Her method of presenting the design ideas (visuals) to the pupils was the same method she would use to present ideas to clients, such as a steering group for a public art project, where she would actively seek comments on and criticism of the visuals.

81 The two artists in this case study and in Case study 2 CAFMH both commented that their involvement in the RACH projects, coupled with the evaluation process, had led them to become more transparent about their working processes than they would normally be in public art commissions. This reflects the thoroughness of the RACH consultation and the evaluation in asking the artist to reflect on and explain their processes. Insight into how the artistic process operates is not very well known and could be an interesting area for development particularly given that youth groups (adolescents) need to better understand what their involvement/contribution might be in this commissioning approach.

82 The evaluator was unable to interview staff in the Day Case Unit within the timeframe.

83 The staff in Day Case Unit and here there was quite a number of people involved 7+

84 The coordinator suggested that it was not unlike using a ‘snagging list’. This is a checklist of things that need amending, adjusting, completion etc.

85 This pushing the artwork that bit further had also happened in the Ward Entrance project. Here the coordinator suggested colour behind the spaceman piece. The artist gave her two colour swatches to choose from and the coordinator suggested using both which the artist thought was an excellent idea. The resulting visual effect of the two-tone painted wall is a spaceman floating against the background, a lot more colour in the overall area, and a better balance given vis-à-vis the brightness of the Lumiwall. Again this additional work was done, strictly speaking, after the commission was completed.

86 She thought that she liked the pictures on the Perspex in the Day Case Unit slightly better, although it was based on the same theme. She especially liked the blinds where the slightly transparent images were seen when the blinds were pulled down.

87 Interestingly, quite a few of the staff across the case studies expressed their own personal aesthetic preferences on the artworks – an indication that, overall, staff were developing an awareness and a (more) critical appreciation of art. The department manager explained that she preferred the art work in the Medical Treatment Room – although she couldn’t ‘put it into words’ or explain why, it just seemed to work better aesthetically.

88 This artist was extremely experienced. For example, she commented that she had undertaken 4 major commissions in hospitals in the past 5 years.

89 Some of the consultancy time when people weren’t available was spent simply observing – spending time in the wards seeing how people used the space and observing how the staff interacted with the children. She commented that luck had also played a part – meeting a very articulate mum who would give her valuable information and something she could use.

90 Suggestions to change the content of the design were offered primarily by staff from the Day Case Unit. This was the third staff group in the commission alongside staff from the Surgical and Medical Wards.

91 Asking her if the distance to come to the hospital had caused any problems she said that this had not really been an issue. It was a professional decision that you can undertake the commission. Basically it meant the artist had to be very organised.

The one problem was when she might to want re-measure something or to try out something in the space to see if it worked, such as a colour on a wall. Clearly the coordinator had been very helpful with this.

92 She also mentioned that she regretted that the artist had felt that she needed to approach her to support her on this.

93 In this project it tended to be with the Day Case Unit, but it was an issue for the coordinator in other projects

94 The artist noted that it was up to her to structure the consultation and she did tend to ‘delve deeply’ into this.

95 Total consultation time was approximately 6 days.

96 The Day Case Unit staff were not as satisfied with their installation as the staff in Surgical and Medical.

97 In Case study 2(b) the artist did not have her own dedicated space and this added to some of the other issues in this project in terms of planning.