After having a good night sleep after the Vilnius conference, I still feel lucky that I had the opportunity to attend this meeting. What a nice enthousiastic people, what an inspiring discussions, what a drive to improve art education...
But the day after, I also have a lot of questions. These questions are not ment as criticism to the congress, but (for me) as a starting point to further discussion.
- Do artists need courses / workshops to improve their work at schools?
- What is the influence of the space in which a workshop is given on the effect of the workshop?
- Is Icenet a community for artists who work in education or for policy-makers / intermediates / organizers of art education? Can it be both?
- The personality, the body language, the way someone talk is important for the effect of a workshop. If the website of Icenet exchanges workshop ideas, do they take this in account?
- Art education should be based on the specific circumstances of a country (history of the country, policy of the gouvernement etc) and on the circumstances of the local situation (policy of a school, practical situation, population of school etc). In what way does Icenet take this in account?
- If one of the aims of Icenet is to influence national and international policy, how do we avoid that it will be a weak compromise between all our national conceptions? (compare EU)
- Are we searching for the similarity in motivation / approach / passion between Shakespeare and Rembrandt? Or for instance between a practitioner in the UK and me? If we find that similarity, what do we do with it?