(via Museum 2.0: Getting in on the Act: New Report on Participatory Arts Engagement)
And if the graphic wasn’t excited enough, there’s a whole report from the Irvine Foundation!
Our Mini-game-jam at the Denver Art Museum, April 16 & 17 of 2011 follows this pattern, most especially Audience-As-Artist. The education and young-adult outreach officers certainly felt this way. I don’t believe that the curatorial staff was ready to see it that way. We had thirty participants who made eight games in the 16 hours we had available over the two days. It was a wonderfully uncomfortable fit. It was surprising to our liaisons at the museum that everyone came in, sat down, and worked non-stop. They anticipated behaviors that were going to be unacceptable. There was a member of museum security watching us the whole time. I chose not to project a feeling of being oppressed. Rather that they were looking out for our gear so that we could go get coffee and eat. Our liaison’s expressed a wish that games would have been themed to reflect the contents of the exhibition or of the collection. This is still narrowness of vision in my opinion. The work created was somehow insufficient in and of itself. It wanted for obvious and apparent connections to work that has already been sanctified. Our mini-game-jams were concurrent programming for a large scale exhibition of digital art works. We attracted novice and expert game makers to make digital artifacts. We provided instruction for the novices, and they were in the same environment as the experts.