The Artground Ecology: Engaging Children in Arts and Play Experiences 9811605815, 9789811605819

Citation preview

Chee-Hoo Lum Jennifer Wong Editors

The Artground Ecology Engaging Children in Arts and Play Experiences

The Artground Ecology

Chee-Hoo Lum · Jennifer Wong Editors

The Artground Ecology Engaging Children in Arts and Play Experiences

Editors Chee-Hoo Lum Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

Jennifer Wong Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

ISBN 978-981-16-0581-9 ISBN 978-981-16-0582-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Acknowledgements

This research project was made possible through a partnership grant between the Nanyang Technological University-National Institute of Education (NTU-NIE) of Singapore and the National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC). A big thank you to The Artground team (Luanne Poh, Jane Choy, Anisa Hamsani, Michelle Tan, Yap Jian En, and Kimi Vynan), the many artists and arts practitioners, caregivers, and children for participating in our research, for your candid viewpoints and your generosity and patience. We would like to express our endless gratitude to Neryl Jeanneret, Robert Brown, Jennifer Andersen, and The Artground team who took time to read the book and wrote a response to our chapters whose words can be found in the Epilogue. Last but not least, we are thankful for the hard work and dedication of the entire NTU-NIE research team (Chee-Hoo Lum, Jennifer Wong, Leonard Tan, Marcus Tan Cheng Chye, Chong Gua Khee, and Jesslyn Lim Hui Ling).

v

Contents

Part I

Setting the Scene

1

Introducing The Artground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chee-Hoo Lum, Jennifer Wong, Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim, and Gua Khee Chong

3

2

The Research Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chee-Hoo Lum, Jennifer Wong, Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim, and Gua Khee Chong

25

Part II 3

The Visual Arts Space

Designing for the Visual Arts Space at the Artground: Perspectives from Contemporary Playgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chee-Hoo Lum and Jennifer Wong

53

4

Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim and Jennifer Wong

79

5

Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s Phenomenological Experiences Through the Lenses of Flow . . . . . . . 109 Leonard Tan and Jennifer Wong

Part III Artists and Audience 6

“Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works for Young Audiences in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Chee-Hoo Lum, Marcus Cheng Chye Tan, and Gua Khee Chong

7

Reflection 1 on Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Faye Lim

8

Reflection 2 on Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Melissa Quek

vii

viii

9

Contents

Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts for Young Audiences at The Artground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Gua Khee Chong and Jennifer Wong

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming at The Artground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Gua Khee Chong and Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim Part IV Epilogue 11 The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Neryl Jeanneret, Robert Brown, and Jennifer Andersen 12 To Let Art Do, What Art Does . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Luanne Poh and Jane Choy

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Chee-Hoo Lum is Associate Professor of Music Education with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Chee-Hoo’s research interests include the examination of issues towards identity, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, technology and globalisation in music education, children’s musical cultures, creativity and improvisation, and elementary music methods. He is currently the Co-editor of International Journal of Music Education (IJME) and on the editorial board of Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and Research Studies in Music Education (RSME). He served as a Board Member of the International Society for Music Education) (ISME) and the Asia-Pacific Symposium for Music Education Research (APSMER) and has previously been an associate editor with the International Journal of Education and the Arts (IJEA). Chee-Hoo has published three edited books: (1) Arts Education and Cultural Diversity: Policies, Research Practices and Critical Perspectives; (2) Contextualized Practices in Arts Education: An International Dialogue on Singapore and; (3) Musical Childhoods of Asia and the Pacific; three coauthored academic books: (1) Semionauts of Tradition: Music, Culture and Identity in Contemporary Singapore; (2) Teaching Living Legends: Professional Development and Lessons for the 21st Century Music Educator and; (3) World Music Pedagogy: School-Community Intersections; general music textbooks, and academic book chapters, refereed journal articles, and made numerous conference presentations at local and international settings. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make ix

x

Editors and Contributors

theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development.

Contributors Jennifer Andersen The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Robert Brown The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Gua Khee Chong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Jane Choy The Artground, The Ground Co Limited, Singapore, Singapore Neryl Jeanneret The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Faye Lim Singapore, Singapore Chee-Hoo Lum Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Luanne Poh The Artground, The Ground Co Limited, Singapore, Singapore Melissa Quek Singapore, Singapore Leonard Tan Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Marcus Cheng Chye Tan Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Jennifer Wong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Part I

Setting the Scene

Children participating in a workshop at The Good Garden in The Artground. From “About Us,” by The Artground, n.d. (http://theartground.com.sg/aboutus/). Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission.

Chapter 1

Introducing The Artground Chee-Hoo Lum, Jennifer Wong, Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim, and Gua Khee Chong

Abstract This chapter introduces readers to The Artground (TAG), a dedicated arts space for children in Singapore. Developed by The Ground Co Limited in collaboration with the National Arts Council, Singapore, TAG emerged amidst a growing number of purpose-built arts spaces for young audiences around the world, such as The Ark (Dublin, Ireland) and ArtPlay (Melbourne, Australia). Dubbed as ‘A Curious Place to Be’, TAG provides opportunities to both artists and audiences to be creative, to play, and to delve into an exploration and discovery of the arts. Children and families are offered a variety of arts, music, dance and theatre programmes, while artists are supported in the incubation and creation of these works for young audiences. This chapter traces the development of TAG, describing the various opportunities that are offered to TAG’s artists and audiences to encourage them to be curious. Keywords Arts spaces · Arts for young audiences · Families · Children · Artists

To cite: Lum, C.-H., Wong, J., Lim, J. H. L., & Chong, G. K. (2020). Introducing The Artground. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds.), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 3–24). Singapore: Springer. C.-H. Lum (B) · J. Wong · J. H. L. Lim · G. K. Chong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_1

3

4

C.-H. Lum et al.

Arts Spaces for Young Audiences Over the last two decades, a growing number of arts spaces have begun to target families with children as a niche audience, making dedicated efforts to draw them in and engage them. For instance, interactive family galleries have sprung up in many art museums across the United States. Research by Adams et al. (2010) surveyed 77 art museums, revealing that 60% of them had an interactive family gallery, of which 80% were created after 1999, thereby reflecting a growing trend. The researchers also noted that 90% of art museums in the United States offered specialised programming for families (Adams et al., 2010). These dedicated spaces within the museums “invite family visitors to touch and manipulate the environment and to engage in exploratory and creative play” (Adams et al., 2010, p. 1), allowing the engagement with art in a different way. Most of the museums hoped to achieve two objectives with the introduction of interactive family play and learning spaces: (a) to attract more families into art museums; and (b) to help them “feel comfortable” in art museums and “thus ‘launch’ them into the permanent collections and exhibitions, both physically and cognitively” (Adams et al., 2010, p. 2). The family galleries thus served to capture this niche audience, as part of the museums’ broader goals. In Singapore, a similar trend has been observed, with “arts institutions … [having] also carved out spaces for tots” (Salleh, 2016, para. 48). In 2015, the National Gallery of Singapore (http://www.nationalgallery.sg) opened to the public a dedicated Keppel Centre for Art Education catering to young visitors. The Keppel Centre for Art Education “introduces children to art at an early age while acknowledging the importance of lifelong learning,” through “immersive and interactive spaces that encourage imagination, creativity and self-led exploration” (National Gallery of Singapore, 2020) with year-round programmes for families, children and schools. The Esplanade (http://www.esplanade.com)—Singapore’s national performing arts centre, opened PIP’s PLAYbox in 2016. A “dedicated space for children and families to discover, imagine and play” (The Esplanade Co Ltd, 2020). PIP’s PLAYbox houses a reading corner, an arts and crafts area and hosts various activities in conjunction with the Esplanade’s pre-existing children’s programmes—such as its annual Octoburst! children’s festival or PLAYtime! series for pre-schoolers. Apart from such spaces that have emerged within galleries and museums, there are also purpose-built arts spaces for children dedicating their efforts wholly towards the engagement of their young audiences. Playeum (http://www.playeum.com) is “Singapore’s first locally grown non-profit Children’s Centre for Creativity…. its visions and mission embrace a commitment to the value of play, the arts and creativity in the lives of young children” (Playeum, n.d.). Primarily, the centre was set up as “a response to how children in Singapore and large cities across the world are increasingly deprived of play” (Davie, 2015, para. 3). In an interview with Davie (2015), Sumitra Pasupathy, co-founder of Playeum, shared that “children are increasingly having more hurried and busy lives. And this leaves less and less time to play, tinker, day-dream and create” (para. 4) and furthermore that “many of our environments for children do not offer enough opportunity and freedom for children to engage

1 Introducing The Artground

5

in high-quality play experiences as well as wide range of open-ended play” (para. 5). Playeum seeks to provide such experiences for children by presenting “themed hands-on exhibitions that change once a year” (Playeum, n.d.) for families, children and schools to explore, along with arts programmes and workshops. The centre also conducts community outreach, community-focused programmes, training for educators, artists and content creators working with children, as well as research focused on play. The Ark (http://www.theark.i.e.), a dedicated cultural centre for children in Dublin, Ireland, focuses on engaging children in performances, exhibitions and creative workshops in theatre, dance, music and other art forms. It opened its doors in 1995, founded on a vision, mission and values inspired by Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): 1.

2.

States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity (p. 44).

As a dedicated cultural centre for children, The Ark strives to: create opportunities for children, along with their families and friends or with their school, to discover and love art. We commission, produce and present work for, by and about children, from the ages of 2 to 12-years-old…. We also curate specific professional development opportunities for teachers and artists. We work in partnership with others as artistic collaborators and regularly share our resources and knowledge with artists, educators and all those interested in child-centred arts practice. We also work with other like-minded organisations to advance children’s rights to art and culture as part of their learning and development. (The Ark, 2020)

The Ark’s working model inspired the establishment of ArtPlay (http://www.mel bourne.vic.gov.au/arts-and-culture/artplay/Pages/artplay.aspx). Established in 2004 as “a permanent home for children’s art and play” (Jeanneret & Brown, 2013, p. 3) in Melbourne, Australia, ArtPlay offers programmes across diverse art forms for babies and children aged up to 12-years-old. Jeanneret and Brown’s (2013) research, which investigated the engagement, learning and cultural citizenship of children through the artist-led workshops at ArtPlay, found that the “great majority of children and families are indeed engaged when they participate in the offerings at ArtPlay” (p. 30). They further noted that “key learning outcomes were the development of confidence in the children who are challenged to try ‘something different’, and in doing so engage in creative and collaborative learning processes” (Jeanneret & Brown, 2013, p. 30). Such opportunities provided to children to explore the arts, be creative and take learning into their own hands are valuable. This sentiment is reflected in research literature as well. Rivera and Tonsgard (2018) report a “growing concern reflected in the academic literature about the reduction in child-directed, playful learning due

6

C.-H. Lum et al.

to increasing academic pressures and families’ overscheduled lives” (para. 2). This is especially so for children living in urban settings, who are seeing an “increase in the control of young children’s space and time” (Cobb et al., 2005, p. 19) via both formal and informal systems of regulation. Whether at home or in school, children receive a greater degree of instruction from adults who determine what they should be doing due to perceptions of risk, concerns over safety, as well as the immense pressure for children to achieve academic excellence. Drury (2006) echoes the idea that children are now being “rushed” or “forced” to grow up too quickly as a result of this focus on academic pursuits (p. 152). Society’s focus on academia often means that subjects such as the arts are deemed less important or even distracting from students’ abilities to pursue or achieve academic excellence in other areas (Brown et al., 2018; Gara et al., 2018), in spite of evidence proving otherwise (Mages, 2018). Hence, when schools face resource constraints, arts programmes are the first to be cut from the school curriculum. Even when they are retained or integrated into the curriculum, they are often productinstead of process-oriented (Bautista et al., 2018; Drury, 2006), used as a “vehicle for the teaching of other learning areas” (Bautista et al., 2018, p. 286) or simply as time-fillers. Children are rarely given opportunities to enjoy art for art’s sake or to have fun with the creative process. There is thus a need for an alternative space outside of school where children are free to explore their other interests and partake in creative exploration with their peers, without any academic pressures. Purpose-built arts spaces for young audiences like The Ark and ArtPlay provide one such informal setting, where both children and parents or other caregivers can feel more at ease and comfortable with engaging in arts activities and collaborative play (Brown, 2015). This differs from other arts venues such as music or dance studios where children may enter with the intent to learn about a specific art form, or even family galleries within art museums that may remain challenged in their outreach to families by perceived cultural barriers. By providing a more relaxed setting for arts engagement, arts providers are able to reach out to more consumers who may not be typically inclined to partake in such activities (Brown, 2015). Early exposure to the arts has also been found to encourage arts engagement in adulthood. Foster and Jenkins’ (2017) research findings “support the idea that engagement in the arts begets engagement in the arts, and this is a culturally valued activity indicative of well-being in adulthood” (p. 435). Hence, “if policy makers believe that such activities have broader social benefits, then lessons for children and youth today represent an investment in the nation’s cultural capital” (Foster & Jenkins, 2017, p. 438). Similarly, research by Kisida et al. (2018) posits that participation in the arts from an early age encourages positive attitudes towards the arts, noting that “exposure in early childhood is an important catalyst that sparks an interest in students to engage with the arts, which could lead to compounded downstream effects” (p. 202).

1 Introducing The Artground

7

However, it is important to acknowledge or remember that producing art for young audiences should not just be about cultivating the audience of the future. “Rather, they [children] are citizens of the here-and-now, with important cultural entitlements” (Drury, 2006, p. 151). They too deserve quality arts experiences that are specific to their childhood experience, because the arts play an important role in “asserting, marking and empowering presentness in human experience” (Drury, 2006, p. 152): An 8-year old is not a third of a 24-year old, a quarter of a 32-year old, or a fifth of a 40-year old. Being 8 is a whole experience and so we need to create situations where the stories, dramas, songs and images of being 8 are made and shared, and where 8-year olds can encounter the arts as fully-realized 8-year olds, rather than as adults manqués or in some sort of process of preparation for becoming adult. (Drury, 2006, pp. 151–152)

Essential to the crafting of such experiences for young audiences, are artists who often play multiple roles in facilitating or enabling these encounters with the arts. Equipped with the specialised knowledge, skills and background, artists are able to purposefully select materials and stimuli, as well as encourage or guide meaningful exploration in terms of creative and imaginative play (Brown, 2015). As such, they often take on different roles of “inspirer, collaborator, teacher, and creativity generator” (Brown & Jeanneret, 2017, p. 44) in such scenarios. Brown and Jeanneret (2017) specifically identified artists as the “key protagonists responsible for inspiring children to engage and learn at ArtPlay,” underpinned by factors including “the significance of the organization to provide leadership and support and to advocate for innovation; the motivations and investment of families; and the design of a dedicated multifunctional space for arts practices” (p. 46). It is therefore equally important for arts spaces for young audiences to nurture artists in the field by providing them with professional development opportunities. Art spaces like The Ark and ArtPlay enable artists “to share their knowledge, connect with others, generate income, and enhance their art practice” (Brown & Jeanneret, 2017, p. 44) by giving them a platform to present and develop programmes for audiences, as well as collaborate and dialogue with other artists, educators, caregivers and children within the space. This equips and supports artists with the resources, experience and knowledge they need to create higher quality works for young audiences.

The Artground: Setting the Scene “A Curious Place to Be” On a Saturday morning at The Artground, a group of toddlers are seated out in the garden looking at a cluster of earthworms wriggling about on a table in front of them. At first, the children are scared and hesitant. They squirm and recoil from the wriggly creatures, turning to their caregivers with looks of fear. Soon, however, with a bit of encouragement, the children begin to reach out their fingers to touch and play with the earthworms. Their eyes widen with curiosity, taking over their initial fear. They start to squeal in amusement,

8

C.-H. Lum et al. laughing and giggling as the worms now crawl all over their hands. Later, the children use recycled coffee grounds to make their own paintings inspired by the wriggly movements of their new friends. (observation, September 7, 2019)

These children and their caregivers were attending the Worms Love Coffee! programme at The Artground (TAG; http://www.theartground.com.sg), a dedicated arts space for children 12 years and below1 located in Singapore. The Worms Love Coffee! programme was facilitated by Nova Nelson, a permaculture designer from Cultivate Central (http://www.cultivatecentral.com), who introduced the children to the important role that earthworms play in fertilising soil through their movements— helping our plants and food to grow. By the end of the 30-minute programme in TAG’s outdoor space, the Good Garden, the children and caregivers were all smiles and ready to bring home their coffee paintings (observation, September 7, 2019). Indoors, other music, dance and drama programmes are carried out within TAG’s WhiteBox—a performance space that is an all-white equivalent of conventional ‘black box’ spaces. One such programme is Bitesize Lil’ Creatures, a music programme for babies 36 months and under presented by LittleCr3atures (http://littlecreatu ressg.com). Bitesize Lil’ Creatures invites babies to explore and play with musical instruments in the company of live performers. A 10-month-old baby sits quietly with his mother amongst the audience, looking intently at the three musicians playing their instruments before him. The baby focuses on a performer playing the drums, shifting his gaze between the musician and his instrument. Noticing this, the performer smiles at him. Not before long, the baby crawls forward with eager curiosity to approach the performer. He reaches his hand out to touch the drums, only to be stopped by his mother. A few minutes later, the baby is given the opportunity to try his hand at his own instrument. Maracas are handed out to the young audiences and the baby shakes one excitedly, sitting amidst his peers who are doing the same. His mother captures photos of him playing with the maracas as he smiles and laughs while shaking it. (observation, September 16, 2018)

The children and their adult caregivers’ experiences with these programmes are examples of how TAG seeks to plant seeds of curiosity in their young visitors through the arts, sparking a desire in them to explore and play. Apart from such arts programmes, TAG also provides families and schools with arts learning journeys and a visual arts space for children to explore. Artists are encouraged to be curious and play at TAG too. They are given professional development opportunities to present workshops and performances, seed and incubate new works, and attend training or networking sessions. TAG’s journey to being a purpose-built arts space for children began with an open call from the National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC). This opening chapter presents a timeline of TAG’s emergence and development as a dedicated arts space for young audiences in Singapore. 1 TAG’s

establishment arose as a response to the National Art Council’s (2016) open call for “a partner to pilot a children’s arts centre” to engage with “young audiences (children aged 12 and below),” (p. 2) and hence TAG initially specified that they were interested in reaching out to children from birth to 12 years of age. From 2020 though, after discussions with the National Arts Council, TAG has since revised this age range to be from birth to 9 years of age instead.

1 Introducing The Artground

9

The Open Call This partner will be responsible for developing innovative ways to engage young audiences (children aged 12 and below) through multiple art forms, providing children and their families with greater access to age-appropriate and high quality arts offerings. The NAC also hopes that with a dedicated space for artistic experimentation and exploration, artists will be inspired to take more creative risks in developing original works for young audiences in Singapore. (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 2)

In 2016, NAC put out an open call to find partners to “pilot a children’s arts centre” (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 2). The NAC intended for the children’s arts centre to serve the needs of both young audiences as well as artists who were keen on creating works for young audiences. In engaging the former, the council wanted the centre to “provide year-round, regular arts programming, providing the public with access to activities such as dance, music and theatre performances, workshops, open rehearsals of incubated works, story-telling and visual arts exhibitions by local and foreign artists” (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 2). At the same time, the centre would also “support arts-makers to incubate new and innovative ways of engaging young audiences through multiple art forms, with a priority on non-text-based, non-verbal, and original local content” through their position as “a platform for the incubation, rehearsal, presentation and workshopping of new works” (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 2). The centre was thus expected to “strengthen the visibility of the arts for young audiences sector amongst both the public and the arts industry” (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 2), with NAC referencing The Ark, ArtPlay, Telus Spark in Canada, and Asian Cultural Complex Children in South Korea as international examples. Interested applicants were invited to submit a proposal including a vision statement, programming plans and plans for fitting out the identified space—a multipurpose hall situated within Goodman Arts Centre (GAC). GAC is located within the Mountbatten residential district of Singapore, which is about ten minutes’ drive away from the Central Business District and within walking distance of a public train station. It also houses the NAC, arts spaces and facilities for artists and arts groups. The GAC’s proximity to residential estates, schools and pre-schools became an advantage as it has a “natural audience reach for the centre’s activities” (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 3). This multi-purpose hall proposed for the children’s arts space has a total floor area of 424 square metres, with a pre-existing 85 square metres of stage and dressing room space. The partner appointed through the open call would: • receive a 3-year grant to run the children’s arts centre; • work collaboratively with the NAC to set, monitor and achieve mutually agreed upon goals for the children’s arts space; • receive funding support of 100% or up to S$400,000 as its start-up costs (for the purpose of fitting out the centre); and • receive up to 80% of programmes and operating costs for the first year and up to 70% of actual expenditure for subsequent years (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 7).

10

C.-H. Lum et al.

Appointed Partner, The Ground Co Limited The Ground Co Limited (TGCL) was appointed as the official partner after a rigorous selection process—NAC first came up with a shortlist through a review of submitted proposals, then convened a children’s panel and a panel of industry professionals to assess in-person presentations by the shortlisted applicants. TGCL is helmed by Executive Director Luanne Poh (aka Chief Worm), a theatre practitioner with over 20 years of experience and Co-Founder Jane Choy (aka Rainmaker), an experienced early childhood educator. Besides Luanne and Jane, the team behind TGCL (aka TAG team) consists of: • • • •

Centre Manager Anisa Hamsani (aka Busy Bee) Programmes Manager Michelle Tan (aka Sunseeker) Visual Design and Exhibitions Manager Yap Jia En (aka Flower Power) Assistant Marketing and Programming Officer Kimi Vynan (aka Moon Beamer).

As a lean team, each member of TAG team has their own distinct role but “everyone does a little bit” (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018) and their roles sometimes overlap, as they often work collaboratively on TAG’s operations, marketing and more. Anisa echoed Michelle’s sentiment, stating that “we [TAG team] each have our expertise but we also have to help each other … to contribute ideas … to think creatively” to overcome limitations brought about by their limited resources (A. Hamsani, personal interview, October 17, 2018). In 2018, TGCL obtained its status as an arts charity, expanding on the sources of funding available to TAG. As a registered arts charity, TGCL is able to receive donations from the public and have access to volunteers to support the daily operations in the space.

Venues Within The Artground When first established, TAG described its aim as the provision of “positive arts experiences across a variety of art forms for children aged 12 and under in an accessible space that welcomes children from every community” (The Artground, n.d.-a). This section introduces the different venues within TAG that are used to engage the children in a myriad of arts experiences.

The Good Garden [For] ages 2 to 12 … a whimsical space that invites visitors to connect with nature and to use their senses to cultivate and celebrate creativity, diversity and life. The Good Garden is where visitors will learn what it means to help things grow. (National Arts Council, 2017, p. 5)

1 Introducing The Artground

11

The outdoor space facing TAG’s entrances was converted into the Good Garden (see Figs. 1.1 and 1.2) because Luanne had envisioned “nature to … inform or impact the journey in which the children … would experience The Artground” (N. Nelson, personal interview, October 23, 2018). The Good Garden was designed and is managed by Nova and her team from Cultivate Central, a team of permaculture designers and urban farmers that is “dedicated to helping people grow food in small

Fig. 1.1 The Good Garden at The Artground. From “About Us,” by The Artground, n.d.-a, http:// theartground.com.sg/aboutus/ (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

Fig. 1.2 Children participating in a workshop at The Good Garden. From “About Us,” by The Artground, n.d.-a, http://theartground.com.sg/aboutus/ (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

12

C.-H. Lum et al.

urban spaces … [and] aims to make growing food and living sustainably second nature to children” (National Arts Council, 2017, p. 8). Abundant with the growth of various herbs and vegetables, the Good Garden serves to encourage children to explore nature, plants and their food with greater inquisitiveness through a multi-sensory approach. Children are invited to touch, smell and taste the herbs and vegetables that grow in the garden when they participate in gardening-inspired art workshops organised and facilitated by Cultivate Central.

The Visual Arts Space (Ground Floor and Baby Stage) The Ground Floor is the main space that houses TAG’s tri-annual installations. This space will always feature something new and exciting for those aged 2 and up to crawl through, climb over, listen to, observe, touch and feel to learn more about the world around them. (National Arts Council, 2017, p. 5)

Walking into TAG’s indoor space, visitors will find a visual arts space on the Ground Floor (see Fig. 1.3). Children are welcome to explore and interact creatively with the structures presented by artists in collaboration with Jia En, TAG’s visual design and exhibitions manager. Since its launch in 2017, 7 different visual arts spaces have been presented, designed by a different artist each time. The intention is to spark a “sense of new-ness and excitement” in TAG’s visitors when they return (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Caregivers are encouraged to pay attention to TAG’s social media pages to be updated of new changes to the visual arts space. Interactive structures specially designed for little ones under 2-years-old who are just learning to crawl and walk are presented on the Baby Stage (see Fig. 1.4), “a safe and comfortable space for parents and babies to hang out and explore” (National Arts Council, 2017, p. 5). These interactive structures intended for toddlers and infants comprise of tactile and sensory elements which are safe and appealing for the very young children to touch and explore to stimulate their senses. The Baby Stage is accessible from the Ground Floor via a ramp (see Fig. 1.3), which was specifically constructed to ensure that all areas of TAG would be accessible to all visitors, regardless of mobility needs. A baby care room is situated at the side of the Baby Stage for the convenience and ease of use by nursing mothers and for diaper changes. The visual arts space provides an environment that encourages freedom in exploration, learning and play for children and their families. TAG does not charge an entrance fee for the use of the visual arts space although donations are encouraged.

1 Introducing The Artground

13

Fig. 1.3 The Visual Arts Space (Ground Floor) at The Artground. From “We are super proud to present to you HULLABALOO, designed by local artist Nur Aida Sa’ad (@yellowmushmellow) [Facebook status update],” by The Artground, 2018, http://www.facebook.com/theartground/posts/ 705299329804090 (In the public domain)

The WhiteBox [For] ages 0–12, depending on programme … the WhiteBox is the heart and soul of The Artground. A black box with a lighter, brighter feel, it is a cosy and unadorned theatre space for children to learn, discover and be curious. (National Arts Council, 2017, p. 5)

The WhiteBox (see Figs. 1.5 and 1.6) hosts a variety of music, dance, theatre, storytelling and other arts programmes for young audiences. These are mainly presented on weekends, but sometimes take place on weekdays as well, particularly during the school or public holidays. Prior to the start of each programme, an announcement introducing the programme in the WhiteBox is made and caregivers or children who are interested can purchase tickets at the door. The line-up of programmes is also made available both online and onsite for families who prefer to plan ahead. Fees for the weekend programmes, also termed as ‘drop-in programmes’ by TAG, are typically at S$10 per parent-child pair. In addition, the WhiteBox also functions as a rehearsal and event space that is available for hire. Programmes for schools and teacher training workshops are also

14

C.-H. Lum et al.

Fig. 1.4 The Visual Arts Space (Baby Stage) at The Artground. From “We are super proud to present to you HULLABALOO, designed by local artist Nur Aida Sa’ad (@yellowmushmellow) [Facebook status update],” by The Artground, 2018, http://www.facebook.com/theartground/posts/ 705299329804090 (In the public domain)

Fig. 1.5 The exterior of the WhiteBox. From “About Us,” by The Artground, n.d.-a, http://theart ground.com.sg/aboutus/ (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

1 Introducing The Artground

15

Fig. 1.6 Children participating in a theatrical production in the WhiteBox. From “About Us,” by The Artground, n.d.-a, http://theartground.com.sg/aboutus/ (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

held in the WhiteBox. However, the space is mainly used to support artists who need to rehearse, trial and devise new works intended for children.

Programmes at The Artground: Engaging and Developing Audiences and Artists In the very, very beginning, we were very clear that there were two areas that we wanted to focus on. One was audience development and engagement, and one was artist development and engagement…. and we believe that the two should happen in tandem and grow so that they will support each other. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

This section lists the varied programmes at TAG intended for children and artists. By engaging children and their families in exciting and enriching arts experiences, TAG hopes to pique the audiences’ interests and create the desire for more arts programmes. TAG’s strategy is to develop a pool of interested audiences who are then able to support artists ready to create works for young people by working with, drawing inspiration and garnering feedback from the same audiences.

16

C.-H. Lum et al.

Weekend Drop-in and Ticketed Arts Programmes Families who are spending time at TAG’s visual arts space on the weekends can choose to participate in weekend drop-in arts programmes which take place at hourly intervals. As noted by Jane, [Attending an arts performance is typically] an outing you have to plan for. If you buy the tickets and your kids fall sick, that’s it…. So if we [families] are to just go to any indoor playground where I could just be there and then there are programmes ongoing, I might just pop in…. it’s important [to make these programmes available and accessible] because we [TAG] wanna expose children from birth to 12 [years of age] to the different art forms. (J. Choy & L. Poh, personal interview, September 20, 2018)

TAG’s intention was to impress upon caregivers that attending an arts programme can be a casual, spontaneous and less intimidating affair, where caregivers could decide on the spot if the children would like to participate in an arts and crafts workshop or attend a short music performance. Table 1.1 lists examples of some of these programmes. Michelle, who is in charge of programming tries to “do as much as possible in a weekend … to also give the parents that variety of options” when they visit TAG (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018). Programmes are also targeted at different age groups, ensuring that there is something available for every child in the family—this includes the littlest ones who are just learning to crawl. TAG’s baby Table 1.1 Weekend drop-in arts programmes at TAG’s Whitebox Programme title

Art form

Artist or arts group

Age range

A Tiny Beat

Music

My Piano Room

3–5 years

Baby Beat

Music

Kulcha Pop

8–36 months

Bitesized Lil’ Creatures Music

Little Creatures

5–30 months

Thumpety Thump

Bounch and The Band

5 years and up

Rolypoly Family Dance Dance and Movement Party

Rolypoly Family

2 years and up

Dance Playground

Dance and Movement

Rolypoly Family

2 years and up

Bollywood Jingles

Dance and Movement

(not listed)

4–8 years

Here, There, Where?

Dance and Movement

The Kueh Tutus

4 years and up

Slinky Stretchy Toys

Dance and Movement

The Kueh Tutus

4 years and up

Terrific Tales

Storytelling

The Storytelling Centre 3–7 years Limited

Invisible Invincible

Theatre

MySuperFuture

Music

2–6 years

Let’s Bag It!

Arts and Crafts

Harng

3 years and up

Cardboard City

Sensory Exploration

Stan

Pre-walking babies

Little Green Thumbs

Gardening-inspired Art Cultivate Central

2 years and up

Note Data about TAG’s Weekend Drop-in Programmes from The Artground (n.d.-b)

1 Introducing The Artground

17

programmes are its most popular programmes to date, along with its storytelling and gardening-inspired art programmes. Families are also given the option of attending ticketed programmes presented at TAG. These include programmes that have been devised and produced by local artists at TAG, as well as international productions. Examples of the latter include Baby Space by Swedish choreographer Dalija Acin Thelander, a 35-minute “multisensory installation designed for pre-walking babies … where contemporary dance, music and visual arts meld together to form an immersive encounter with the arts” (The Artground, n.d.-c), as well as Oddysea by Australian theatre company Sensorium Theatre, which is a 60-minute “interactive multi-sensory tale set in a tactile underwater wonderland” that is “suitable for all ages,” but “especially suitable for young people with additional needs including autism spectrum condition, sensory processing issues or impairments, intellectual disabilities, global development delay, cerebral palsy and those with additional mobility needs” (The Artground, n.d.-g).

Arts Learning Journeys TAG organises learning journeys for preschools and primary schools. As part of the learning journeys, children attend an artist-led workshop and explore the visual arts space. The available workshops range from theatre, music, dance and crafts to gardening-inspired art programmes. Schools can select an appropriate workshop based on their students’ age group and learning needs. Students are additionally provided with a learning resource kit to guide them in their exploration of the visual arts space. The learning resource kit, created by a group of curriculum writers, initially included both an activity book and a craft kit (see Fig. 1.7). Each kit focuses in on specific themes and learning objectives of the current visual arts space at TAG, introducing its aesthetic elements to the children.

GroundBreakers Artist Incubation Programme GroundBreakers is an artist incubation programme “where all artists young and younger, can be curious about discovering different ways of artmaking, and create works that are delightful for their audiences,” and is grounded upon TAG’s belief that “all children deserve aesthetic experiences that are thoughtfully designed and considered” (The Artground, n.d.-d). Once a year, artists are invited to propose ideas for new works in application for GroundBreakers. Artists who successfully pass the selection process will embark on a year-long process of conceptualising, devising and testing their new works. TAG supports them by giving them a project stipend, access to the WhiteBox to devise and rehearse their works, as well as opportunities to test their works with targeted age groups. Chapter 6 follows the first two iterations

18

C.-H. Lum et al.

Fig. 1.7 A learning resource kit (left) and a craft kit (right) (Copyright 2018 by authors)

of the GroundBreakers programme in 2018 and 2019, and examines the views and processes of the artists and arts groups involved in it.

Artist-in-Residence Programme Serene Tan, better known as ‘Stan’, is the current, and only Artist-in-Residence (AiR) at TAG since its launch. “A musician, educator and maker,” Stan is “interested in creating music that enscones traditional instruments in sounds that are accessible in today’s society” (The Artground, n.d.-h). She also has her own piano school that “focuses on teaching children as young as 3.5 years using special syllabus developed as a result of her experiences as a music educator” (The Artground, n.d.-h). In making works for children, Stan brings in her own interest of “making things by hand,” and often uses “handmade props or sets” (The Artground, n.d.-h). Stan’s first collaboration with TAG was through her work on Baby Space as a music composer. As a result of her experience creating music for Baby Space, Stan “started wondering if she could create pieces for babies under 18 months that were simple in concepts and which used sustainable materials” (The Artground, n.d.-h). At that point of time, Stan was also already involved with TAG in several other ways—she presented weekend arts programmes at TAG as well as produced music

1 Introducing The Artground

19

that accompanied each changeover of the visual arts space. Stan thus proposed the idea of embarking on an artist residency at TAG, so she could develop more works for young audiences. TAG supported Stan with resources that included time, space, feedback, and the ability to trial and develop new works with groups of test audiences at TAG. One of the works that Stan developed as TAG’s AiR is Cardboard City, a “space for pre-walking babies to explore, make sounds and develop spatial awareness” that is made “primarily [from] recycled cardboard and yarn” (The Artground, n.d.-h). As a novel, experiential installation work for little ones, Cardboard City has been wellreceived by caregivers and babies, as they appreciate the opportunity to play and explore within a safe, relaxing and yet stimulating environment. As TAG’s AiR, Stan has also produced a performance piece titled BEAM, which “takes the audience on a sensorial journey and encourages everyone to see the world they live in, in a different light and appreciate beauty in the little things in life” (The Artground, n.d.-h). BEAM toys with the idea of light, and even after the performance ends, engages its young audiences in a further craft activity of creating a mobile light kit. The performance was produced in collaboration with arts collective TINY FEAT and theatre company The Finger Players.

100 and 100 More Festival for Young Audiences TAG’s 100 and 100 More Festival for Young Audiences served as a platform to present new works created by local artists that were supported through TAG’s programmes, along with other international works. Intended as a “biennial festival [that] showcases the best of children’s productions from around the world, [the festival aimed to be] a culmination of our centre’s [TAG] artist incubation and partnership efforts over the years” (The Artground, n.d.-e). Through this festival, TAG also hoped to be able “to present audiences with a 100 and 100 More novel ways of seeing the world through a child’s eyes” (The Artground, n.d.-e). The first edition of the festival ran from May 25 to June 3, 2018, premiering with Into the Blue Forest, a commissioned piece produced by Singaporean artist Jeffrey Tan, and Especially on Birthdays, a co-creation by TAG with Australian arts collective The PaperBoats. It also featured other prolific works from Denmark (Hans Christian, You Must Be an Angel by Teatret Gruppe 38 and Songs from Above by Teater Refleksion and Teater MY ), Scotland (Snigel & Friends by Caroline Bowditch and Company) and Indonesia (Puno, Letters to the Sky by Papermoon Puppet Theatre). These theatrical performances were accompanied by: (a) Rolling@TAG by Japanese artist Daiya Aida in TAG’s visual arts space, (b) a cardboard art exhibition by Singaporean inclusive arts movement SuperHero Me, (c) craft workshops by In Merry Motion, and (d) other fringe activities.

20

C.-H. Lum et al.

For local artists, the festival also offered numerous professional development opportunities such as sharing sessions and workshops by the visiting international artists. Additionally, there was an intensive incubation workshop by Swedish choreographer Dalija Acin Thelander, which is further elaborated upon in Chapter 6.

Further Professional Development Opportunities for Local Artists TAG partnered Australian artist Alex Desebrock to run an INHEPI (i.e., International Network of Human Encounters in Performance and Installation) Lab in 2019 to provide professional development opportunities for local artists interested in creating works for children. Intended as “an intensive week of artist collaboration … to seed new interactive works for children” (The Artground, n.d.-f), INHEPI took place at TAG from June 11 to 15, 2019. TAG also provides artists with the opportunity to venture out of Singapore for professional development opportunities, through its E.P.I.C. (i.e., Exposure, Participate, Innovate and Create) programme. E.P.I.C. is organised and curated by TAG and supported by the NAC who offers a grant to selected applicants to participate in the programme. This professional development opportunity was developed to “leverage on its [TAG] artistic networks of art-makers outside of Singapore” and is intended to “provide tiered levels of engagement for the artists centred in a geographical location/festival” (The Artground, 2019). The first edition of E.P.I.C. took place between September 22–30, 2018, in Melbourne, Australia with participants attending the Melbourne Fringe Festival and visiting ArtPlay, Melbourne Museum, and National Gallery Victoria. The second edition of E.P.I.C. took place between May 25–June 2, 2019, in Edinburgh, Scotland with participants attending the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival, masterclasses, and discussion sessions with Scottish artists working with young audiences. According to TAG, “the programme aims to spark new conceptual practices in order to develop original content that are relevant to our industry, both in terms of practice and ‘marketability’” (The Artground, 2019). Table 1.2 further details the goals of E.P.I.C. while Chapter 6 discusses the impact of programmes such as INHEPI and E.P.I.C. on the development of local artists.

Chapter Offerings This chapter has briefly introduced and described various opportunities that are offered by TAG to encourage its artists and audiences to be curious. Chapter 2 will detail the research context that has led to the examination of TAG, and flesh out of the research methodology and analysis procedures.

1 Introducing The Artground

21

Table 1.2 E.P.I.C. programme goals Programme aspect Goal Exposure (E)

To expose our local practitioners to a diverse range of presentations and content plausible for theatre for young audiences within the international festival/festival city

Participate (P)

To create participatory platforms/masterclasses based on dramaturgical research and ideas for these practising artists to embody, which can enforce their devising practices in these areas. In addition to a strong practice, it is necessary to employ with pedagogical know-hows and early childhood developmental milestones to design a work that can engage and excite a young inquisitive mind

Innovate (I)

In designing a programme that combines theory, research-led practicum, and exchange programmes with emerging and practising A4YA [i.e., Arts for Young Audiences] artists, we hope to spark innovative ways of developing works that are relevant to our scene and audiences

Create (C)

We hope that the E.P.I.C. programme will inspire our local artists to create works for young audiences that are ground-breaking and delightful

Note Data about E.P.I.C. programme goals from the open call for practitioners to attend the E.P.I.C. programme 2019 by The Artground (2019)

Chapter 3 will focus in on the design aspects of the visual arts space at TAG, examining particular design principles and features that have emerged. The chapter will also examine the creative journeys of two of the visual arts spaces that have been presented at TAG, discussing the intentions and motivations in the creation and working processes between the members of TAG’s team and artists for the space, and how the working relationship between TAG team and the artists enabled behaviours that promoted exploration and experimentation in art making. Chapter 4 will examine how children and their families who visit TAG have responded and reacted to the visual arts space in terms of play engagement. Chapter 5 examines the phenomenological experiences of young children playing in the visual arts space through the lenses of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) using mixed methods approaches. In this chapter, the findings are discussed in rank order—how participants felt that it was fun first and foremost, and then wanting more of it, expressing that TAG was the best play space, and feeling that it was challenging, but they could do it. Three main themes have also emerged from the qualitative data: (a) environment, (b) enjoyment, and (c) evaluation. Chapter 6 follows two iterations of the GroundBreakers programme (2018 and 2019) at TAG, examining the views and processes of artists and arts groups involved in the programme through a number of interviews and observations, concluding with reflections from two Groundbreakers, Faye Lim from Rolypoly Family (Chapter 7) and Melissa Quek from The Kueh Tutus (Chapter 8). Chapter 9 focuses specifically on the emergence of the artists’ and arts groups’ philosophies and pedagogical approaches from GroundBreakers. Chapter 10 sets out to examine TAG’s strategies and approaches using existing audience participation models as a framework. Through this examination, the chapter will highlight some of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of TAG’s approach,

22

C.-H. Lum et al.

so as to provide insights into audience development for other arts centres or arts companies in Singapore and beyond. Chapter 11 gathers critical perspectives about the written chapters in this book (Chapters 1–10) from three arts education researchers (Robert Brown, Neryl Jeanneret, and Jennifer Anderson) at the University of Melbourne who were deeply involved in research and documentation work at ArtPlay, Melbourne. The book concludes in Chapter 12 with a commentary co-written by TAG’s Executive Director Luanne Poh and Co-Founder Jane Choy.

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Choy J., & Poh L. (2018, September 20). Personal interview. Hamsani, A. (2018, October 17). Personal interview. Nelson, N. (2018, October 23). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Tan, M. (2018, October 10). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources Adams, M., Luke, J., & Ancelet, J. (2010). Family learning in art museum interactive spaces: A literature review. http://familiesinartmuseums.org/images/pdf/SUMMARYLitReviewENGAGE.pdf. The Ark. (2020). The Ark’s vision & mission. http://ark.ie/about/the-arks-vision-mission. The Artground. (n.d.-a). About Us. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground.com.sg/abo utus/. The Artground. (n.d.-b). Arts Programming. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/events2/programmesdirectory/. The Artground. (n.d.-c). Baby Space. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/ event/baby-space-end/. The Artground. (n.d.-d). GroundBreakers. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/groundbreakers/. The Artground (n.d.-e). 100 and 100 More. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/100more/. The Artground. (n.d.-f). INHEPI Lab 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/event/inhepi-lab-2019/. The Artground. (n.d.-g). Oddysea by Sensorium Theatre (Perth), 9–17 November 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground.com.sg/event/oddysea-2019/. The Artground. (n.d.-h). Our Artists. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground.com.sg/ ourartists/. The Artground. (2019, March 8). Open call: For practitioners to attend the E.P.I.C. programme 2019 [Press release]. http://theartground.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Open-Call-Infosh eet-2019-FINAL.pdf.

1 Introducing The Artground

23

The Artground [theartground]. (2018, August 30). We are super proud to present to you HULLABALOO, designed by local artist Nur Aida Sa’ad (@yellowmushmellow) [Facebook status update]. http://www.facebook.com/theartground/posts/705299329804090. Bautista, A., Moreno-Núñez, A., Bull, R., Amsah, F., & Koh, S. F. (2018). Arts-related pedagogies in preschool education: An Asian perspective. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.005. Brown, E. D., Garnett, M. L., Velazquez-Martin, B. M., & Mellor, T. J. (2018). The art of Head Start: Intensive arts integration associated with advantage in school readiness for economically disadvantaged children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 204–214. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.002. Brown, R. (2015). Engaging families through artful play. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 16(8), 1–20 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ1069834). Brown, R., & Jeanneret, N. (2017). Research, practice, and policy connections: The ArtPlay case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.120 1027. Cobb, C., Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2005). Governance of children’s everyday spaces. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(1), 14–20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Davie, S. (2015, November 23). The play’s the thing at this centre. The Straits Times. http://www. straitstimes.com. Drury, M. (2006). Steering the Ark: A cultural center for children. Teaching Artist Journal, 4(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1541180xtaj0403_2. The Esplanade Co Ltd. (2020). PIP’s PLAYbox. http://www.esplanade.com/visitor-guide/pips-pla ybox. Foster, E. M., & Jenkins, J. V. M. (2017). Does participation in music and performing arts influence child development? American Educational Research Journal, 54(3), 399–443. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0002831217701830. Gara, T. V., Brouillette, L., & Farkas, G. (2018). Did the frequency of early elementary classroom arts instruction decrease during the no child left behind era? If so, for whom? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.01.004. Jeanneret, N., & Brown, R. (2013). Behind ArtPlay’s bright orange door. http://education.unimelb. edu.au/research/projects/artplay/behind_the_bright_orange_door. Kisida, B., Bowen, D. H., & Greene, J. P. (2018). Cultivating interest in art: Causal effects of arts exposure during early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 197–203. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.003. Mages, W. K. (2018). Does theatre-in-education promote early childhood development? The effect of drama on language, perspective-taking, and imagination. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.006. National Arts Council. (2016, March 3). Open call: Children’s arts centre at the Goodman Arts Centre multi-purpose hall [Press release]. http://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:2d9228b6-6d3f-4efeabed-6454a55d6ade. National Arts Council. (2017, July 7). The Artground—A curious place to be: Launch of new arts centre for children [Press release]. http://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:8f362e03-564e-44d5-b704377d79ed8189. National Gallery of Singapore. (2020). Keppel Centre for Art Education. http://www.nationalgall ery.sg/discover-learn/keppel-centre-for-art-education. Playeum. (n.d.). Playeum, children’s centre for creativity. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http:// www.playeum.com/the-childrens-centre-for-creativity. Rivera, N. R., & Tonsgard, A. (2018, May 11). What’s play all about? Children’s museums weigh in [Blog post]. http://www.naeyc.org/resources/blog/whats-play-all-about-childrens-museumsweigh.

24

C.-H. Lum et al.

Salleh, N. A. M. (2016, May 3). Never too young to start on the arts. The Straits Times. http://www. straitstimes.com. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly.

Chee-Hoo Lum is Associate Professor of Music Education with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Chee-Hoo’s research interests include the examination of issues towards identity, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, technology and globalisation in music education, children’s musical cultures, creativity and improvisation, and elementary music methods. He is currently the Co-editor of International Journal of Music Education (IJME) and on the editorial board of Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and Research Studies in Music Education (RSME). He served as a Board Member of the International Society for Music Education) (ISME) and the Asia-Pacific Symposium for Music Education Research (APSMER) and has previously been an associate editor with the International Journal of Education and the Arts (IJEA). Chee-Hoo has published three edited books: (1) Arts Education and Cultural Diversity: Policies, Research Practices and Critical Perspectives; (2) Contextualized Practices in Arts Education: An International Dialogue on Singapore and; (3) Musical Childhoods of Asia and the Pacific; three coauthored academic books: (1) Semionauts of Tradition: Music, Culture and Identity in Contemporary Singapore; (2) Teaching Living Legends: Professional Development and Lessons for the 21st Century Music Educator and; (3) World Music Pedagogy: School-Community Intersections; general music textbooks, and academic book chapters, refereed journal articles, and made numerous conference presentations at local and international settings. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development. Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim is a Research Assistant with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She graduated from the Singapore Management University with a Bachelor of Social Science, having majored in both Psychology and Arts & Cultural Management. Prior to joining the NIE research team on The Artground research project, Jesslyn had worked with children and youth audiences at the Esplanade—Singapore’s national performing arts centre, The Artground and The Red Pencil. She is currently a Project Manager with Unseen Art Initiatives, a socially engaged arts platform that partners social service organisations and schools to present arts programmes and produce artworks together with artists, youth, and adult participants with visual impairment. Gua Khee Chong/ 张月崎 is a Singapore-based Theatre Director and Performance Maker who also takes on research projects. She is often engaged as a Facilitator or Dramaturg as well, in projects that span different disciplines such as visual arts and dance. At this moment, Gua Khee’s research interests are connected to issues around socially engaged art, architectures of care and resilience, conversational infrastructures, and also ways of generative resistance. She graduated from the University of British Columbia, Canada, with a Psychology (Honours) and Theatre (Major) degree.

Chapter 2

The Research Context Chee-Hoo Lum, Jennifer Wong, Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim, and Gua Khee Chong

Abstract This chapter details the research context that has led to the examination of artists and audiences’ experiences at The Artground (TAG). It describes the research methodology and analysis procedures of a 2-year partnership research project that examined children’s engagement, learning and flow experiences at TAG, as well as artists’ incubation processes and professional development journeys. Children’s engagement experiences and the artists’ incubation and professional development journeys at TAG are closely linked to form the ecology of this unique purposebuilt children’s arts space. This research project examined TAG as a case study— studying the purposes and processes behind its development in Singapore, as well as its outcomes and impacts made on different communities. In doing so, the research team seeks to present arts practitioners and educators with useful insights and practical applications on working with children in and through the arts. It is also hoped that the research findings will be able to generate discourse that may lead to the development of stronger arts programmes and arts spaces for young audiences in Singapore and beyond. Keywords Research design · Arts engagement · Learning · Flow · Children · Artist incubation

To cite: Lum, C.-H., Wong, J., Lim, J. H. L., & Chong, G. K. (2020). The research context. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 25–49). Singapore: Springer. C.-H. Lum (B) · J. Wong · J. H. L. Lim · G. K. Chong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_2

25

26

C.-H. Lum et al.

The chapters in this book investigate the experiences of both children and artists at The Artground (TAG), presenting and discussing findings from a partnership research project. The research project examined children’s engagement, learning and flow in the visual arts spaces and various arts programmes at TAG. It also examined artists’ incubation processes and professional development journeys within TAG. Children’s engagement experiences and the artists’ incubation and professional development journeys at TAG are closely linked to form the ecology of this unique purpose-built children’s arts space. This research project examined TAG as a case study—studying the purposes and processes behind its development in Singapore, as well as its outcomes and the impacts made on different communities. In doing so, the research team seeks to present arts practitioners and educators with useful insights and practical applications on working with children in and through the arts. It is also hoped that the research findings will be able to generate discourse that may lead to the development of stronger arts programmes and arts spaces for young audiences in Singapore and beyond. The research project was completed in a grant partnership between the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and the National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC).

Research Objectives The research study took inspiration from Brown and Jeanneret’s (2017) research investigation of the permanent community arts facility ArtPlay in Melbourne, Australia. Brown and Jeanneret’s (2017) study examined the engagement, learning and cultural citizenship of children through the ArtPlay workshops with artists. Similarly, the NIE research team was interested in examining how children would engage with an interactive and immersive arts experience at TAG and the impacts such experiences would have on the young people and their families. Neryl Jeanneret and Robert Brown were invited as consultants to the research project. They visited Singapore in late January 2019 and worked intensively with the NIE research team to advise and discuss the data collected and data analysis methods. The consultants also visited TAG and met with TAG team. The engagement, learning and flow of the research study was guided by the following research questions: • What are the purposes and intentions of TAG? How does TAG cultivate curiosity and creativity in the children through the space and programmes? • What are the reactions and responses of parents, children, caregivers, and artists to the visual arts space of TAG and the arts programmes that TAG provides? • What are the psychological benefits (e.g., flow) that TAG confers? In addition, the research study also examined the professional development and journeying of local artists in developing original programmes for children at TAG. This examination was guided by the following research questions:

2 The Research Context

27

• What are the purposes and intentions of an open-call programme for artists to work with TAG in developing programmes for young audiences? • What are the considerations for the selection of open-call artists, and the designing and implementation of programmes for specific intended age-groups? • How does TAG provide a mentoring and germination space for open-call artists to create arts programmes, and what are the artists’ experiences and perceptions of this incubation process? • What have TAG artists picked up from the professional development programme (pedagogic process, the artistic process, belief systems, etc.) in terms of learning in and through the arts? How do they feel they can transfer some of these ideas to further their artistic practice and their engagement with the children as they embark on the next step in their future work with similar art spaces?

Research Methodology The qualitative research study collated data mainly from observations, interviews and surveys. Data collection commenced in August 2018 and concluded by end February 2020. This section provides a detailed discussion of the data collection and analysis methods.

Data Collection Getting permissions. Consent to observe children at play within the visual art space or when they were participating in the various programmes in the WhiteBox at TAG were obtained from the children and the parents or other caregivers accompanying the young people. Similarly, the children were only interviewed after they and their caregivers had given consent for the researchers to engage the young people in conversations about their experiences both in the visual art spaces and also in the WhiteBox. The children’s names have been replaced by pseudonyms in this book. All adult participants mentioned in this book had also consented to participate in the research. Pseudonyms were also used in referring to the children’s caregivers who were interviewed. Consent was also sought from artists and members of TAG to use their actual names in reports and publications, and they had the option of requesting for a pseudonym to be used instead. All consent forms, observation, interview and survey protocols were cleared by the Institutional Review Board of the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore under the reference numbers of IRB-2018-04-027 and IRB-2018-04-035. Observations of children. Observations of children’s engagement and interaction were conducted within the Ground Floor and Baby Stage of the visual arts spaces, and also during the arts programmes that occurred inside the WhiteBox on the weekends. The observations were conducted during the following three visual arts spaces:

28

C.-H. Lum et al.

• Hullabaloo by Nur Aida binte Sa’ad (August 30, 2018 to January 6, 2019), • Wild Rumpus by Adeline Loo (January 24 to May 5, 2019), and • Happy Homebodies by Gracie Chai (May 23 to September 15, 2019). Appendix A provides further details of each visual arts space and the artists involved. For observations that took place within the visual arts space, researchers selected children with a consideration for an even distribution across the various age groups of children that visited TAG, so as to get a sense of how each age group might interact with the visual arts space at TAG. Following this initial selection, researchers then actively recorded field notes and took photographs of the selected children to capture their engagement with the visual arts space. The researchers paid special attention to the play structures or people the children were interacting with at different points in time. Observation of each child lasted the entire duration that the child was in the visual arts space. Appendix B provides the base template that was used to take down and code these observations. 71 observations of children within the visual arts spaces were conducted, totalling a duration of 39 h. 29 observations were completed during Hullabaloo, 22 during Wild Rumpus and 20 during Happy Homebodies. Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of the number of observations according to the age range and the gender of the children. As for observations that took place during the arts programmes, given that each programme was only open to specific age ranges, the researchers randomly selected from the group of children who were participating in the arts programme. Data was then collected in the forms of observation notes, videos and photographs. The data collected documented how the individual child was engaging with the arts programme within the WhiteBox, and interacting with the material or people present at different points in time. The observations lasted the entire duration of the programmes, which were typically 30 min in duration. 46 observations of children participating in weekend programmes were conducted, totalling a duration of 26 h. Table 2.2 provides a breakdown of the number of observations conducted by the age range and gender of the children, and Table 2.3 provides a breakdown of the number of observations by the primary art form featured in the programme. Prior to the formal observations of the children at play in the visual arts space and the arts programmes within the White Box for data collection, the researchers conducted one session of informal observation in the visual arts space to calibrate the Table 2.1 Breakdown of the 71 observations conducted within TAG’s interactive visual arts space by the age range and gender of the child

Age range of child

Number of observations

0- to 2-years-old

23

2- to 4-years-old

23

4- to 6-years-old

16

6-years-old and up

9

Gender of child

Number of observations

Female

34

Male

37

2 The Research Context Table 2.2 Breakdown of the 46 observations conducted during TAG’s weekend arts programmes by the age range and gender of the child

29 Age range of child

Number of observations

0- to 2-years-old

10

2- to 4-years-old

13

4- to 6-years-old

14

6-years-old and up

Table 2.3 Breakdown of the 46 observations conducted during TAG’s weekend arts programmes by the primary art form featured in the programme

9

Gender of child

Number of observations

Female

26

Male

20

Art form featured in the programme Visual arts Dance and movement

Number of observations 8 12

Music

7

Theatre

9

Others

10

focus of observing children’s engagement and interaction with the play structures and other children within the space. The informal observation session provided the research team with an understanding of the possible behaviours and ways of engagement in the visual arts space, and reinforced the need for conducting observations in an unstructured manner. Observations of artists. Observations of artists were conducted at: (a) GroundBreakers programmes or trials, (b) TAG’s weekend drop-in programmes and trials by non-GroundBreakers artists, and (c) TAG’s capability development programmes. Researchers recorded field notes as well as took photographs or video recordings during each observation to capture the content of these programmes, and also any interactions amongst the artists or between artists and the audience. In total, 40 observations of artists were conducted, totalling a duration of 43.5 h. Of these 40 observations, 11 were of programmes or trials by the seven GroundBreakers artists from 2018 and 2019, 30 were of weekend drop-in programmes and trials by non-GroundBreakers artists, and 2 were of TAG’s capability development programmes—a Professional Development Workshop by Sensorium Theatre in 2018, and INHEPI Lab by Alex Desebrock in 2019. Table 2.4 provides a breakdown of the number of observations by the primary art form featured in the programmes or trials. Surveys with families. Within the visual arts space, children were also surveyed on their experiences with the use of an iPad (refer to Appendix C for a sample of the survey form). The purpose of the survey was to understand the deep engagement levels children experienced when they were immersed in play at the visual arts space, and how that form of engagement carried resemblance to Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) theory of flow—a psychological state in which “people are so involved in an

30 Table 2.4 Breakdown of the 38 observations by the primary art form featured in artists’ programmes or trials

C.-H. Lum et al. Art form featured in the programme or trial Visual arts Dance and movement

Number of observations 3 12

Music

4

Theatre

10

Others

9

Note These 38 observations exclude the two observations of TAG’s capability development programmes, as those were focused on creative processes rather than being specific to any art form; participants in those programmes came from various disciplinary backgrounds

activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it” (p. 4). All four items in this survey were created by the research team. They were informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and extant flow research such as Custodero’s (1998) research on flow indicators in children and Payne, Jackson, Noh and Stine-Morrow’s (2011) Activity Flow State Scale. A majority of the children who go to TAG are aged 0- to 7-years-old. Although there was no official statistic collected to show the age groups of the children who visited TAG, it had been acknowledged by the TAG team that the children’s arts space was more popular and attractive to younger children rather than those above 8-years-old. Participants for the survey were randomly selected but due to the larger population of very young children present in the visual arts space, many of the respondents were below the age of six and they had limited oral and visual literacy abilities. Survey questions were therefore read aloud to the children and further elaborated or explained by the researchers, the children’s caregivers when necessary. Children then selected their answers on the iPad. In cases where the child was too young to comprehend the questions, or if the caregivers decided that the child was unable to articulate their responses, the caregivers would interpret the child’s behaviours in the space and answer the survey questions based on their tacit understanding of the child. 180 participants were surveyed in total, with 99 respondents during Hullabaloo, 71 respondents during Wild Rumpus, and 10 respondents during Happy Homebodies. Table 2.5 provides a breakdown of the number of surveys conducted by the age range and gender of the children. Surveys were also conducted with caregivers who had accompanied children to participate in a weekend arts programme. The intention of the survey was to understand the children’s engagement and learning experiences. Researchers handed out hardcopy survey forms (refer to Appendix D for a sample of survey form) to caregivers as they exited the WhiteBox when the programme ended. For each of the programmes, at least 50% of caregivers whose children had participated in the

2 The Research Context

31

programme were surveyed. 92 participants were surveyed in total. Table 2.6 provides a breakdown of the number of surveys conducted by the age range and gender of the children in question, and Table 2.7 provides a breakdown of the number of surveys conducted by the primary art form featured in the programme. Interviews with children and their families. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in addition to the surveys and the observations of the children engaged in the visual arts space and the weekend programmes. Interviews with the children’s caregivers were conducted to provide alternative perspectives and depths to the surveys administered and observations completed on particular children whenever possible. Children who were older and articulate would be interviewed instead. A sample of the interview questions can be found in Appendix E, and the questions examine the following two areas of engagement at TAG: Table 2.5 Breakdown of the 180 surveys conducted by the age range and gender of the child

Age range of child 0- to 2-years-old

7

4- to 6-years-old

87

6-years-old and up

86

Gender of child

Number of surveys

Female

110 70

Age range of child

Number of surveys

0- to 2-years-old

32

2- to 4-years-old

30

4- to 6-years-old

22

6-years-old and up

Table 2.7 Breakdown of the 92 surveys conducted by the primary art form featured in the programme

0

2- to 4-years-old

Male

Table 2.6 Breakdown of the 92 surveys conducted by the age range and gender of the child in question

Number of surveys

6

Gender of child

Number of surveys

Female

54

Male

38

Art form featured in the programme

Number of surveys

Visual arts

11

Dance and movement

27

Music

16

Theatre

0

Others

38

32 Table 2.8 Breakdown of the 240 interviews conducted by the age range and gender of the respondents

C.-H. Lum et al. Age range

Number of interviews

Adults

274

Children

138

0- to 2-years-old

32

2- to 4-years-old

30

4- to 6-years-old

22

6-years-old and up

6

Gender

Number of interviews

Female

256

Adult

177

Children Male

79 156

Adult

97

Children

59

• participation in the weekend programmes, and • immersion in the visual arts space. 240 interviews were conducted, totalling a duration of 12 h. Table 2.8 provides a breakdown of the interviewees by age and gender. Interviews with artists. Interviews were conducted with artists and arts groups who were involved in one or more of the following: • provision of weekend arts programmes at TAG, • designing of visual arts spaces, • developing of new works through TAG’s GroundBreakers artist incubation programme, and • capability development programmes organised by TAG. These interviews were conducted at the beginning, midway and towards the end of the above processes or programmes, whenever possible. The unstructured interviews focused on understanding the artists’ backgrounds, creative processes, perceptions of and experiences with TAG and its programmes. Interviews were conducted individually with each artist, with the exception of artist groups in TAG’s GroundBreakers programme, for which group interviews were conducted with the artists in that specific group. Each artist was interviewed approximately twice on average, and the maximum number of interviews we had with a single artist or artist group is 4—this was with Melissa Quek from The Kueh Tutus, as the group was part of the GroundBreakers programme in both 2018 and 2019. The average length of an interview was approximately 70 min. In total, 35 faceto-face interviews and 1 email interview were conducted with 23 different artists. Table 2.9 provides a breakdown of the artists interviewed by their primary affiliation with TAG and their primary art form.

2 The Research Context Table 2.9 Breakdown of the 23 interviewed artists by their primary affiliation with TAG and their primary art form

33 Artists’ primary affiliation with TAG

Number of artists

Artist-in-Residence GroundBreakers

1 11

Weekend drop-in programmes and trials

7

Visual arts space Artists’ primary art form

4 Number of artists

Visual arts

5

Dance and movement

5

Music

3

Theatre

8

Others

2

Interviews with The Artground team. Interviews with TAG team were conducted at the beginning, mid-point and at the end of the research study. The interviews, conducted at specific junctures, were intended to examine and explore the development of TAG and the key stakeholders’ decision making processes in relation to the directions of TAG. 6 members of TAG team were interviewed individually in a semi-structured manner. All of the interviews were audio recorded and thereafter transcribed for analysis. Each interview lasted between one and two hours. In total, 17 interviews were conducted with TAG team across three junctures: (a) September to October 2018, (b) July 2019 and (c) February 2020. Each TAG team member was interviewed three times apart from Assistant Marketing and Programming Officer Kimi Vynan, as she only joined TAG in 2019. Appendix F lists the different sets of questions used as a guiding framework for these interviews with TAG team.

Data Analysis The children’s observation log drew from McInnes and Elpidoforou’s (2018) Toddler’s Play in Museums Taxonomy (To.P.Mu.T; Appendix G) as well as Parten’s (1932) social play taxonomy (Appendix H). Following each observation, the data was coded based on these play taxonomies as well as the type of engagement (with medium or with persons) and social interactions (who the child interacted with). These codings can be seen in Appendix B, Fig. 2.2. This coding of the data later allowed for inferences to be made regarding the children’s engagement, learning and flow experiences (for more detailed explanations on the chosen social play taxonomy and analysis, please refer to Chap. 4). Children’s levels of engagement were self-reported through a 4-item survey created by the research team, based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), represented by a range of emoticons. Data were analysed using SPSS,

34

C.-H. Lum et al.

generating descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations for each of the four items. To determine relationships between the four items, correlational analyses were conducted. The follow-up short informal interviews were collated and analysed for emergent themes using flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) as analytical lenses. The survey responses from caregivers regarding TAG’s weekend programmes were manually open-coded, guided by the key research questions on the children’s engagement and learning. All the interviews with children and their families, artists and TAG team were audio-recorded and thereafter transcribed in full. Analysis of the interview transcripts and the observation notes began with manual open-coding guided by the key research questions of the research project. A collection of coding methods, such as descriptive, narrative and in vivo coding and possible filters drawn from Saldaña’s (2009) coding manual for qualitative arts researchers, were also used to approach this inquiry. Emergent themes that came out of the coding process were then carefully chunked and presented as findings speaking to the specific research objectives of the project. The research findings were presented to TAG team at different stages of the research project to facilitate further dialogue between the research team and TAG team. These dialogues proved useful for TAG team in critically reflecting on their ongoing processes and programmes at TAG, fueling a robust and dynamic exchange between research and practice: It has always given us more food for thought… . it [the interviews] actually allows each of us to have our own … thinking out loud processes… . And then when you guys [the research team] do present those findings to us [TAG], then, you know, it also gives the team another learning opportunity… . I think it actually has changed and impacted some of the ways we do things like, you know, the fact that we now have an open call for [an artist to create the] visual arts [space] was also because … [the research team] had that conversation with Jia En [TAG’s visual design and exhibitions manager] about the artists that she choose and picks and you know, is that transparent enough … is that an open enough process? Is [sic] there any other ways to do it? (L. Poh, personal interview, February 26, 2020)

Appendices Appendix A The three visual arts spaces examined in this research and the artists involved Hullabaloo (August 30, 2018 to January 6, 2019) is an explosion of colours, patterns and shapes which beckon children’s exploration and discovery. This whimsical landscape invites children to crawl into tiny spaces to uncover quiet hidden realms and run around structures of brilliant hues. Taking cues from the natural environment, Hullabaloo encourages children to see the space from different perspectives, imagine a world of magic, and immerse themselves in the kind of fun that beats at the heart of creativity. (The Artground, n.d.-b)

2 The Research Context

35

Hullabaloo was created by Nur Aida binte Sa’ad, also known as ‘Yellow Mushmellow’, a visual artist. Hullabaloo “draws inspiration from the expressive and colourful drawings” by Aida’s sister Aisha, who is on the autism spectrum. She [Aida] graduated with a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Visual Communication from the Nanyang Technological University School of Art, Design and Media in 2014, and has since worked with a variety of brands such as Starbucks, Uber and Red Bull. Many relate easily to Aida’s work which reflect fun and interesting points of view from everyday observations and personal experiences. Aida is widely featured on various media platforms such as Berita Harian (2010–2018) and The Straits Times (2017) for her illustration, comics and ideas that bring the mundane to life. (The Artground, n.d.-b)

Wild Rumpus (January 24 to May 5, 2019) is an invitation into an imaginary world of creatures big, small, furry or gentle, and to make friends whoever is hiding behind the corner. Embrace the world of tactile material and feel what it is like to hug, cuddle and squeeze into something out of the ordinary. (The Artground, n.d.-c)

Wild Rumpus was created by Adeline Loo, who quit her job as a paralegal to pursue her interest in fibre arts, and she seeks to create works which are immersive and textural. Adeline is drawn to personal experiences, stories, and practises craftivism to express herself. Working mainly with waste fabric, upcycled materials and other industrial detritus, Adeline is currently exploring sculptural processes with knitting and weaving techniques. She is also the founder of It Takes Balls, which seeks to challenge and redefine the traditional notions of knitting and domestic crafts. When not crafting, she can be found in Neil Gailman’s world and is well liked by most cats. (The Artground, n.d.-c)

Happy Homebodies (May 23 to September 15, 2019) features creativity in the simplicity of everyday life. Make new discoveries about common objects at home which are beautifully transformed into an uncommon experience. Crawl through a washing machine, slide down a bed and jump into a laundry basket. The magic of this exploration is that it shows children new ways of looking at ordinary objects around us. From a simple dot to the intricate lines that characterise the different parts and objects in a house, journey through the little spaces which open up new possibilities for imagination and innovation! (The Artground, n.d.-a)

Happy Homebodies was created by Gracie Chai, a self-taught artist, maker and illustrator, who has also recently picked up a full-time gig with the running job title of “Meltdown & Tantrum Negotiator”; otherwise more popularly known as “Mum”. Prior to raising children, she dabbled in textile fabrication and clothesmaking and has sold her handmade dresses and creations in various parts of the world, with her work featured in international and local publications. When not crafting or working on commissions, she enjoys spends her time at home frolicking with her kids, which she documents under her Instagram handle @graciechai; mostly reshuffling furniture around the house to create for them their own private playgrounds or making simple effective toys out of otherwise overlooked household objects. (The Artground, n.d.-a)

36

C.-H. Lum et al.

Appendix B Base template for recording down observations of children’s behaviours (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2).

Fig. 2.1 Collection sheet for participant info (Copyright 2018 by authors)

2 The Research Context

37

Fig. 2.2 Empty observation log, with details as to the various codes used in each category (Copyright 2018 by authors)

Appendix C Sample survey form to understand children’s engagement levels and state of flow (Figs. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9).

Fig. 2.3 Introduction to the survey (Copyright 2018 by authors)

38

C.-H. Lum et al.

Fig. 2.4 Explanation of Part 1 of the survey, and the first two questions (Copyright 2018 by authors)

2 The Research Context

39

Fig. 2.5 Third and fourth question of Part 1 of the survey (Copyright 2018 by authors)

Fig. 2.6 Explanation of Part 2 of the survey, and the two questions in Part 2 (Copyright 2018 by authors)

40

C.-H. Lum et al.

Fig. 2.7 Explanation of Part 3 of the survey, and the first 4 questions (Copyright 2018 by authors)

2 The Research Context

Fig. 2.8 The next 3 questions of Part 3 of the survey (Copyright 2018 by authors)

41

42

C.-H. Lum et al.

Fig. 2.9 The concluding notes of the survey, and indication of IRB approval for the research project (Copyright 2018 by authors)

Appendix D Survey form for parents who had attended a weekend programme at TAG (Fig. 2.10)

Appendix E Interview questions for children and their caregivers For the purposes of interviewing the children, the researcher would ask as many of these questions as age-appropriate: • • • • • • • • • •

Who did you come here with? What programme did you attend? Did you enjoy the programme? What do you like about the programme? What do you not like about the programme? Do you want to come again? Why do you want to come again or why don’t you want to come again? What do you like to do here? If you come here again, what would you like to do? Would you tell your friends about this place and ask them to come too?

2 The Research Context

43

Fig. 2.10 A screenshot of the survey form for parents who had attended a weekend programme at TAG (Copyright 2018 by authors)

Some if not all of the following set of questions were asked of caregivers where needed to supplement collected data: • What programmes did your child participate in today? • Why were these programmes selected? • How did you find out about these programmes?

44

C.-H. Lum et al.

• Do you find out the programmes beforehand and decide to visit? Why or why not? • What do you enjoy about the programmes your child had attended today? • What improvements do you think could be made to the programmes your child had attended today? • Which other spaces did your child spend time at besides the programmes attended? • Why did your child spend time at these spaces and what did he or she do there? • How do you think your child felt when they were playing in the space? • What do you think could be changed or included in this space to make the visit even more enjoyable? • What do you think are the benefits to having a space like this for children? Is there anything your child can learn from coming to this space? • Would you introduce this space to your friends? How would you describe it to them? • Are you aware that a learning resource kit is available? Is this something that you would purchase (S$5 for activity booklet and craft kit) and guide your child to complete? • Has your child come home with more questions and comments about the topic or activity done in the programme, or after playing with the visual art space at TAG? Please elaborate. How often does this happen? • Do you notice a difference in your child in general after attending the programmes in TAG? • Looking at the art works that your child has done and brought home after the programmes at TAG, do you observe any change in the way your child creates an art work? • Has your child ever brought home some of the skills or techniques learnt from the programmes at TAG and replicated or explored it further at home? If yes, please elaborate on the specific art skill or technique as well as the occasion.

Appendix F Interview questions for TAG team over the course of the research study The following set of questions were used as a guiding framework for the first set of semi-structured interviews with various members of TAG team: • Why or what made you interested in creating a purposive built space for children to engage in the arts? • How did you envision TAG at the initial stages of conception prior to being awarded the contract? • Did those plans change during the planning or proposal writing phase before bidding for the project? If they did, how? • How were the plans for TAG conceptualised? • Was there a specific model or example that shaped the conceptualisation of TAG?

2 The Research Context

45

• Was there a team involved in the conceptualisation of TAG? If so, who were they and how were they selected? • What were the marketing plans of TAG and how were they carried out? • How did you envision the intended consumers of TAG to interact with the space? What did you want them to be able to do in this space? This second set of questions were used as a guiding framework for the mid-point semi-structured interviews with various members of TAG team: • How has the space been used by the intended consumers in the past six months? • What kinds of programmes have been running in the last six months? Why were these programmes selected? • Which are the popular programmes or activities in TAG in the last six months? • Have your plans or visions for TAG changed since it started? How and why? • What are the upcoming plans for the next six months? • How do these plans align to the initial vision and intentions of TAG? This last set of questions were conceptualised as a guiding framework for conducting semi-structured interviews with various members of TAG team a year after the research commenced, to serve as a final check-in before concluding data collection for the study: • How has the space been used by the intended consumers in the past six months? • What kinds of programmes have been running in the last six months? Why were these programmes selected? • Which are the popular programmes or activities in TAG in the last six months? • Has the planning and curation of programmes in the last one year been affected by feedback from the consumers and the NAC? • How did TAG team evaluate the programmes to decide which ones in the last one year have met the intentions of this purposive built space? • Have your plans or visions for TAG changed since it started? How and why? • What are the plans and programmes for the coming year? • How have these new plans or programmes been affected by the events and feedback from the last year? • How do these plans align to the initial vision and intentions of TAG?

Appendix G McInnes and Elpidoforou’s (2018) Toddler’s Play in Museums Taxonomy (To.P.Mu.T.) (Table 2.10)

46

C.-H. Lum et al.

Table 2.10 Toddler’s Play in Museums Taxonomy (To.P.Mu.T.) Name

Description

Examples

Ego play

Children use their senses to discover their body

Touching, sucking, moving body parts and looking at a mirror

Exploratory play

Children use the senses to explore Hitting objects, throwing, stirring, the environment and surrounding diving objects under the water objects

Active play

Children engage in gross motor movements and physical exercise

Running, climbing, kicking, jumping

Communication play

Verbal and non-verbal communication in a playful way

Jokes, singing, mime, humorous use of voice

Creative play

Children create something new Use of blocks, wooden sticks, from scratch for its own sake. The loose parts, paints child is in control and led by their imagination

Imaginative play

Children play the role of an object Pretending to be a tree, or has an or a being that is a part of our imaginary friend or holds an reality but is not physically invisible telephone present or is impossible to happen

Symbolic play

The use of symbols to replace objects- feelings-thoughts-beings that are not there or obvious

Pretend play

Children engage in representations Children might play what of everyday life. Play out happened in the morning at school incidents of their social life or at home, pretend to phone someone, eat food or repeat what the teacher said in school

Role play

Children pretend to be someone else. They experience the feeling of being with different identity and try future roles of their lives

Playing archetypes, such as the role of the mother, teacher, baby, soldier

Problem-solving play

Children engage in activities that require a solution

Puzzles, riddles, quizzes

Mastery play

Children will try to control the four elements of nature and the qualities of the physical environment

Build shelters, light fires, control water, open holes and use the wind to spin the mill

Dramatic play

Children play out roles from TV, Play a character from a TV series theatre, films and events discovering their identities. Usually has not experienced in the past context of play

Fantasy play

Children play out fictional roles that have been retrieved from the world of fantasy

The use of a pencil to represent an airplane, drawing a line to represent a snake, holding a brush as a telephone

Fictional character, super hero, has super powers (continued)

2 The Research Context

47

Table 2.10 (continued) Name

Description

Rough and tumble play Children pretend that they are fighting. The participation of a play-mate is essential

Examples Pushing, hitting, lunging

Note Adapted from “Investigating and Learning From Toddler Play in a Children’s Museum,” by K. McInnes and M.-E. Elpidoforou, 2018, Early Child Development and Care, 188(3), p. 407 (http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1223073). Copyright 2016 by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Appendix H Explanation of Parten’s (1932) social play categories (Table 2.11). Table 2.11 Parten’s (1932) social play categories Name

Description

Unoccupied play The child does not appear to be playing, but “occupies himself with watching anything that happens to be of momentary interest” (Parten, 1932, p. 249). The child may be playing with his or her own body, standing around, following someone around or sitting and glancing around the space Onlooker play

The child is watching other children play, often talking to these children as well. The child may ask questions or provide suggestions, but “does not overtly enter into the play himself” (Parten, 1932, p. 249). The child remains within speaking distance of the children he or she is observing to keep up with what is going on

Solitary play

The child “plays alone and independently” (Parten, 1932, p. 250) with toys that differ from those used by other children around him or her. The child “pursues his own activity without reference to what others are doing” (Parten, 1932, p. 250) and does not attempt to approach other children

Parallel play

The child plays independently but alongside other children, using similar or the same toys. He “plays with the toy as he sees fit and does not try to influence or modify the activity of the children near him” and “plays beside [emphasis in original] rather than with [emphasis in original] the other children” (Parten, 1932, p. 250)

Associative play The child plays and talks with other children, while engaged in the same or similar activity. The child continues to do as he or she may wish, but may borrow play materials from others, follow another child around or copy what another child is doing Cooperative play The child “plays in a group that is organized for the purpose of making some material product, or of striving to attain some competitive goal, or of dramatizing situations of adult and group life, or of playing formal games” (Parten, 1932, p. 251). There is a distinct sense of belonging to the group and the group’s activity is controlled or directed by one or two members

48

C.-H. Lum et al.

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Poh, L. (2020, February 26). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources The Artground. (n.d.-a). Happy homebodies. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://www.theart ground.com.sg/va/happyhomebodies/. The Artground. (n.d.-b). Hullabaloo. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://www.theartground. com.sg/va/hullabaloo/. The Artground. (n.d.-c). Wild Rumpus. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://www.theartground. com.sg/va/wildrumpus/. Brown, R., & Jeanneret, N. (2017). Research, practice, and policy connections: The ArtPlay case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.120 1027. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Custodero, L. A. (1998). Observing flow in young children’s music learning. General Music Today, 12(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/104837139801200106. McInnes, K., & Elpidoforou, M.-E. (2018). Investigating and learning from toddler play in a children’s museum. Early Child Development and Care, 188(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03004430.2016.1223073. Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074524. Payne, B. R., Jackson, J. J., Noh, S. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2011). Activity flow state scale [Database record]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t06855-000. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage.

Chee-Hoo Lum is Associate Professor of Music Education with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Chee-Hoo’s research interests include the examination of issues towards identity, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, technology and globalisation in music education, children’s musical cultures, creativity and improvisation, and elementary music methods. He is currently the Co-editor of International Journal of Music Education (IJME) and on the editorial board of Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and Research Studies in Music Education (RSME). He served as a Board Member of the International Society for Music Education) (ISME) and the Asia-Pacific Symposium for Music Education Research (APSMER) and has previously been an associate editor with the International Journal of Education and the Arts (IJEA). Chee-Hoo has published three edited books: (1) Arts Education and Cultural Diversity: Policies, Research Practices and Critical Perspectives; (2) Contextualized Practices in Arts Education: An International Dialogue on Singapore and; (3) Musical Childhoods of Asia and the Pacific; three coauthored academic books: (1) Semionauts of Tradition: Music, Culture and Identity in Contemporary Singapore; (2) Teaching Living Legends: Professional Development and Lessons

2 The Research Context

49

for the 21st Century Music Educator and; (3) World Music Pedagogy: School-Community Intersections; general music textbooks, and academic book chapters, refereed journal articles, and made numerous conference presentations at local and international settings. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development. Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim is a Research Assistant with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She graduated from the Singapore Management University with a Bachelor of Social Science, having majored in both Psychology and Arts & Cultural Management. Prior to joining the NIE research team on The Artground research project, Jesslyn had worked with children and youth audiences at the Esplanade—Singapore’s national performing arts centre, The Artground and The Red Pencil. She is currently a Project Manager with Unseen Art Initiatives, a socially engaged arts platform that partners social service organisations and schools to present arts programmes and produce artworks together with artists, youth, and adult participants with visual impairment. Gua Khee Chong/ 张月崎 is a Singapore-based Theatre Director and Performance Maker who also takes on research projects. She is often engaged as a Facilitator or Dramaturg as well, in projects that span different disciplines such as visual arts and dance. At this moment, Gua Khee’s research interests are connected to issues around socially engaged art, architectures of care and resilience, conversational infrastructures, and also ways of generative resistance. She graduated from the University of British Columbia, Canada, with a Psychology (Honours) and Theatre (Major) degree.

Part II

The Visual Arts Space

Children sliding down a slide within the Happy Homebodies visual arts space, alongside visual artist Gracie Chai and her children. From “Happy Homebodies,” by The Artground, n.d. (https://theartgro und.com.sg/va/happyhomebodies/). Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission.

Chapter 3

Designing for the Visual Arts Space at the Artground: Perspectives from Contemporary Playgrounds Chee-Hoo Lum and Jennifer Wong

Abstract This chapter focuses on the design aspects of the visual arts space at The Artground (TAG), examining particular design principles and features that have emerged since TAG’s inception in 2017. Two of the visual arts spaces that have been presented at TAG—Hullabaloo by visual artist Nur Aida binte Sa’ad and Wild Rumpus by yarn artist Adeline Loo, are used as examples to discuss these design principles and features. The chapter begins by examining the research literature on the design of playgrounds and engages with them as critical frameworks to discuss and reflect upon the visual arts spaces. Next, it examines the creative process of designing and creating the visual arts space, including the collaborative relationships between TAG team and the various visual artists. Lastly, the chapter proposes recommendations for considerations to bear in mind when designing and creating visual arts spaces for children, as well as the fostering of a community of artists and arts programmers who are motivated to create play experiences for children through the arts. Keywords Playground · Design · Children · Play

To cite: Lum, C.-H., & Wong, J. (2020). Designing for the visual arts space at The Artground: Perspectives from contemporary playgrounds. In C. H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 53–77). Singapore: Springer. C.-H. Lum (B) · J. Wong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_3

53

54

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Interviews with The Artground (TAG) team and the artists who had created the visual arts spaces revealed that curiosity and playfulness in children were encouraged and enabled beyond the young visitors of the space. The collaborative process between the artists and TAG team to develop the visual arts spaces was anchored in the spirit of exploration and experimentation, both of which rely heavily on being curious and playful. Michelle Tan, the programmes manager at TAG, reflected that the working relationship between TAG team and the various artists they work with had fostered a sense of community between the two groups. This chapter focuses specifically on the design aspects of the visual arts space at TAG, examining particular design principles and features that have emerged since TAG’s inception in July 2017. Two visual arts spaces in particular—Hullabaloo by visual artist Nur Aida binte Sa’ad and Wild Rumpus by yarn artist Adeline Loo – will be used as examples to discuss these design principles and features. This chapter starts by examining the research literature on the design of playgrounds, and then engages with them as critical frameworks to discuss and reflect upon the visual arts spaces. Next, it examines the creative process of designing and creating the visual arts space, and the collaborative relationships between TAG team and the various visual artists. Lastly, the chapter proposes recommendations for considerations to bear in mind when designing and creating visual arts spaces for children, as well as the fostering of a community of artists and arts programmers who are motivated to create play experiences for children through the arts.

Design Principles and Elements Gathered from Playground Literature Research literature on the history, design and function of playgrounds serve as a possible entry point to critically examine the visual arts spaces created at TAG. The design of structures and equipment in conventional playgrounds were rooted in the 1890s sentiment of “improving a child’s moral and physical functioning with little regard being given to children’s intellectual and social needs” (Krohe, as cited in Woolley & Lowe, 2013, p. 56). These playgrounds were characterised by fixed play equipment similar to what one would see at indoor gymnastic training spaces— providing multiple physical mobility possibilities but “not supporting exploratory, movable and imaginative play” (Woolley & Lowe, 2013, p. 56). While the value of play in child development was recognised, the design and manufacturing of playground equipment has more often than not been motor-based and functional, rather than open-ended and facilitative of multifaceted aspects of children’s play—which has naturally occurring variations when ‘free’ play is allowed (Frost, as cited in Blackford, 2004, p. 231). In more ‘contemporary’ designs of playgrounds over the last two decades, there is more focus on the sculptural quality of structures, creation of multi-functional structures and abstract coloured structures known as superstructures (Woolley & Lowe,

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

55

2013). However, although often artistically pleasing, the contemporary approach could be awkward for children to engage with. Thus, though this approach aimed to provide a stimulating environment for physical, intellectual and creative play, such ‘contemporary’ playgrounds were considered to fall short of providing real opportunities for these play types (Arnold, as cited in Woolley & Lowe, 2013; Eriksen, as cited in Woolley & Lowe, 2013). This is a significant point to consider when designing for playground and play spaces—that is, having artistically pleasing structures designed in playgrounds or play spaces do not necessarily equate to children engaging and playing with these structures in creative and imaginative ways. Ideally, a play space should contain a variety of physical and environmental elements to allow for manipulation, social interaction and control of the total environment (Heseltine & Holborn, 1987; Stine, 1997). The play environment should be inviting, stimulating, flexible, challenging and comfortable (Wilson, 2007), and enable the user to engage with different types of play (Woolley & Lowe, 2013). More than five decades ago, which remains relevant in today’s context, Moore (1966) had already concluded in his study of an experimental playground in Boston that playground environments should be “in part complex, and highly sensuous, often continuous, manipulable and open-ended, providing for many choices simultaneously” (p. 3). Moore (1966) also emphasised that the design of playgrounds should cater for a wide range of physical challenges alongside considerations for creative and imaginative play. Günter Beltzig, a veteran playground designer who has designed playgrounds for over 40 years, “derived his rules from decades of listening to children and watching them play” (Jakat, 2012, para. 9). Beltzig’s golden rules include having a playground space that: (a) invites people to linger; (b) gives room for exploration; (c) offers visible, manageable risks; (d) caters for different groups and moods; and (e) makes specific bans unnecessary, because there would already be consideration of differentiated play zones for younger and older kids, as well as meeting points for parents (Jakat, 2012). Adding on to this list, Shackell et al. (2008) spoke to how successful play spaces: (i) offer movement and physical activity; (ii) stimulate the five senses; (iii) are good places for social interaction; (iv) allow children to manipulate natural and fabricated materials; (v) offer children challenge (p. 15). Specific elements of play have also been suggested by Murdock (2019) that could help children in their cognitive, adaptive, social and emotional development in playground activities. These include: (a) swinging, (b) sliding, (c) climbing, (d) brachiating, (e) spinning, (f) balancing, and (g) having a sensory-rich playground. In terms of functionality, a well-designed play space should consider the following design principles: (i) Accessible to all children; (ii) Safe distance between levels; (iii) Variety of inclines; (iv) Partially-closed spaces; (v) Complex and stimulating; (vi) Interconnected play areas; (vii) Strong materials—Quality construction (Bowers, 1988, p. 45). Other considerations to bear in mind include: (i) are ‘bespoke’; (ii) are well located; (iii) make use of natural elements; (iv) provide a wide range of play experiences; (v) are accessible to both disabled and non-disabled children; (vi) meet community needs; (vii) allow children of different ages to play together; (viii) build in

56

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

opportunities to experience risk and challenge; (ix) are sustainable and appropriately maintained; (x) allow for change and evolution (Shackell et al., 2008, p. 13). In sum, the research literature suggests that a quality play space might consider having the following characteristics: (a) accessibility to children of different age range and needs, (b) provides a wide range of play experiences, (c) allows children to explore and manipulate natural and fabricated materials, (d) provides manageable risks and challenges, (e) stimulates the five senses, (f) provides good spaces for social interaction, (g) is sustainable and appropriately maintained, (h) allows for change and evolution, and (i) meets community needs. In terms of skills and knowledge needed for play space designers, beyond having good imagination, Shackell et al. (2008) have the following to suggest: i. ii.

iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

skills in place-making and an understanding of the idea of a ‘sense of place’ skills in landscape design, to create a variety of play environments within one site which together form an attractive place for children, young people and their carers, and offer appropriate scope for usage by other members of the community understanding of children and play, and an understanding of how they will respond to their physical environment knowledge and experience of practical and technical issues relating specifically to surfacing and equipment and more generally to landscape design knowledge and experience of site administration and contract management, including preparation of contract documentation ability to develop and implement a design concept so as to enhance the play value of the scheme, not overwhelm or ignore it ability to work with community groups and potential users to develop a scheme which will meet community needs understanding of regulations and guidance about play provision including inclusive design; designing in risk and challenge; and industry standards (p. 40).

With these thoughts in mind, the chapter now focuses on TAG team and the artists’ journeys in creating the visual arts spaces. TAG team collaborates with different artists from conceptualisation to the final set-up of each visual arts space. This chapter examines in particular the designing and creating of Hullabaloo and Wild Rumpus, but the creation journeys of other artists that have influenced the designing and making of the visual arts space will also be discussed, as a way of highlighting how the ecology of creating the visual art spaces at TAG flows seamlessly across different artists and their works.

Exploring a Design Vocabulary for Children’s Play Spaces In TAG’s approach to their visual arts space, a key aspect is the sense of openendedness, so as to encourage children to explore different ways of playing in the

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

57

visual arts space. The intention is for the young visitors of the visual arts space to influence the play methods and behaviours of the other young people in the space through playing. The visual arts space also encourages children to take ownership of their interactions within the space and experiment with different ways to make meaning of their play. The rationale for this is as highlighted in the section introduction—so that children can physically touch, sense and play, and be inspired “within an artistic environment and context” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). This vision to enable curiosity and encourage playfulness was also evident in TAG team’s working relationships with the artists who created the visual arts space. This is perhaps because TAG hopes to be a physical and artistic space not only to develop an appreciation of interactive arts amongst young audiences, but also to grow a community of artists to create interactive artworks with the purpose of engaging children. As TAG’s Executive Director Luanne Poh explained, TAG team believes that the development and engagement of audiences and artists “should happen in tandem and grow so that they will support each other” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). To support the growth and learning of the young audiences, TAG provides age-appropriate and engaging artworks, as well as space to explore the artworks through play. As for the artists, they are engaged and developed through TAG’s provision of opportunities for them to make artworks that encourage young audiences to explore and be curious about. However, there are no preconceived notions of how the development or engagement of both the children and the artists are going to happen. It is deliberately left as an organic and fluid process, with audience development feeding artists’ development and vice versa. When I first came in, the team was calling it [the visual arts space] a visual arts exhibition . . . . but [a] visual arts exhibition is really an entire thing on its own [i.e., a specific category] and this [the visual arts space] is definitely not [an exhibition] . . . . so every time when they [other members of TAG team] put in [or use the word] ‘exhibition’, I will always change it to ‘play space’ . . . . we work with artists to come up with the play area [i.e., the visual arts space]. (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018)

TAG’s Visual Design and Exhibitions Manager, Yap Jia En, is a designer by training. She was hired in 2018 to programme for the visual arts space situated within TAG, and she is now the key personnel from TAG who works very closely with each of the artists to constantly question as well as give feedback about how the artists’ concept for the visual arts space might better facilitate curiosity and playfulness amongst the young audiences. From the conceptualisation phase to the co-designing, co-creating, maintenance of the space once it is open to the public and eventually to the dismantling of the space, Jia En is constantly in communication with the artists creating the visual arts space for TAG. The intense working relationships between Jia En and the artists foster a co-learning and co-creating environment that result in TAG’s visual arts spaces constantly evolving and changing in response to the play patterns and behaviours of the children. The learning journeys that the artists travel together with Jia En have enabled a heightened level of sensitivities in the artists towards creating works for children. It is important to note though, that while Jia En had experiences working within the visual arts exhibition and presentation field prior to joining TAG, she did not

58

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

have specific experiences designing interactive artworks for children. However, Jia En fortuitously joined TAG at the point when they were working on their third visual arts space, which was Rolling@TAG by Daiya Aida. Daiya is a Japanese artist whose work at the Yamaguchi Center for Arts and Media (YCAM) included being responsible for education and outreach, as well as the planning of community participation programmes, media workshops and outdoor installations. Having had extensive experiences designing play spaces for children in Japan, Daiya’s ideas for practicable play structures were already well-developed. From this first instance of working alongside Daiya, Jia En was able to immediately appreciate how children’s play spaces could: (a) be more than just a space for children to run around and play; (b) have elements for children to explore their different senses; and (c) have minimal or no rules, and to just be an open concept for children to discover and explore in community play. From Jia En’s subsequent experiences on the job with each following artist, her design vocabulary and knowledge of children’s play behaviours also grew and expanded. We didn’t have, truly at that point—at the very beginning, a community and access strategic plan so to speak, we knew that we wanted to keep our doors open and we wanted to always, at the very least, say, ‘Our doors are open, please let me help you, come in and enjoy the space and then let’s figure out how we can help you enjoy the space to the best of our abilities’. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

Being open and starting from a place without boundaries is crucial to how TAG team wants to work with artists. Luanne explained that “every artist that we [TAG] have engaged with, we told them it would have to be an open conversation and dialogue because we are figuring it out as we go” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). TAG team values transparency in communicating with the artists, and sees this as key in exploring multiple pathways and possibilities to create the visual arts space. The mutual understanding that both TAG team and the artists are still in the exploration and experimentation stage of their practice in art making for young audiences provides insulation for either party to try different ideas and accept failures more easily. Michelle explained that this process is taken in both parties’ strides because there is a common understanding that “everyone [TAG and the artists] is still in development [i.e., still developing their practice in this field]” (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018). Such support from TAG team for the artists regardless of the success of the visual arts space enables an open environment for exploration and experimentation. This view is echoed by Luanne when she elaborated that TAG’s open conversations, with honest but constructive feedback and questions, provided a “kind of transparency and openness [that] has actually really helped us [TAG] develop this relationship with the people that we want to engage with” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Viewing this from a different lens, artists who have particular ways of viewing and making their art, and have fixed rules about how to engage with their artworks might feel their rights as the artist being compromised due to the dialogical way TAG team wishes to work. The lack of rules to what the art making or artworks should be means that TAG team encourages artists to think through the creative process together with them.

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

59

Aida, the artist responsible for Hullabaloo, explained that she enjoyed the freedom to propose artworks which she thought might be suitable for a children’s visual arts space like TAG. Her desire to have an “explosion of rainbow colours” (N. A. Sa’ad, personal interview, September 22, 2018) was met with a cautionary reminder of the limited budget available for each visual arts space, but feedback and suggestions from TAG remained supportive and constructive to help Aida realise her design. TAG team’s understanding of the children who patronise the visual arts space, coupled with their constant interaction with the parents and the young audiences, also means that they have a good grasp of the play behaviours and families’ expectations of the space. This understanding and the acute observations that TAG team carry out on a daily basis result in a tacit understanding of the needs of the families in the space. This dialogue between TAG team and the artists is invaluable, enabling the creation of a community of art makers and programmers who have a joint vision of making art spaces in which children could interact and experiment with different ways of playing. Michelle explained that TAG team strives to work alongside the artists in the creation journey by being “very willing . . . to give [i.e. share] what we feel or what we think . . . what [we believe] would be good for the audiences here” (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018). At the same time, the artists and TAG team also build on their individual capabilities when they plan and design for the free access visual arts space, by complementing each other’s strengths and artistic intentions. The willingness and propensity to enjoy an open and collaborative working relationship between TAG team and the artists suit the selection of artists who are new to making visual arts spaces for young audiences. McWilliams et al. (2014) suggest that besides talent and energy, artists should possess communicative skills that are crucial to the thorough preparation to their art presentations. The communication and mutual support between the artists and TAG as the home of the visual arts space is critical to a successful collaboration. Both TAG team and the artists understand that the process of making art spaces that enable playfulness and exploration in children is a new experience to both parties, and neither has entered the process with more knowledge than the other. Therefore, the brainstorming and constant conversations between the two parties become a crucial means to “understand and decipher together what is best for this installation [i.e., the visual arts space], for the children” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018).

The Artground as a Safe Test Bed There is a very limited pool of local artists that have ventured into the design of children’s visual arts spaces. Jia En thus actively approached artists from different backgrounds (e.g., illustration, fibre art, multidisciplinary) that she felt had interesting ideas, to propose that they work with TAG to create these spaces. In collaborating with these selected artists for each new space, Jia En defined her role as an experiential designer, co-creating with different artists and “carving out from scratch an experience that we would like to bring to the adults, children, families that come to our

60

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

space” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Through these collaborative efforts, Hullabaloo, Wild Rumpus, Happy Homebodies and The Curious Sky were created (The Artground, n.d.-a). TAG therefore takes on the role of a safe test bed for artists who have little to no prior experience designing and creating visual arts spaces for children. To a large extent, TAG functions similarly to a makerspace where artists are encouraged and supported to freely experiment with the creation of artworks in the space provided, an aspect Sweeny (2017) considers as extremely important to ensure learning takes place. Besides the limitations of the physical space caused by the locations of existing structures and fixtures that cannot be removed to accommodate new structures, artists are encouraged to free their imagination and experiment with possibilities. Apart from TAG team’s own observations of how the children interact with the visual arts space, they also often receive suggestions from the children’s caregivers, which address vital and critical issues related to making the space more interactive, engaging or safe. In turn, TAG team then shares these observations and feedback with the artists. The openness in the collaboration between TAG and the artists means that feedback is not embargoed or censored, but is instead framed in more constructive and reflective ways as needed, which helps to advance the artists’ practice. This is an important aspect in the collaborative relationship and promotes the building of trust between the two parties. TAG’s deliberate collaboration with emerging artists, or artists who have not created visual arts spaces for children previously, has not only provided opportunities for artists who are interested to explore this trajectory of creating works, but also enabled a safe environment for artists to take risks with guidance and support from both TAG and trial audiences. This form of experimentative collaboration benefits artists as the expertise from TAG team complements the artistic ideas of the artists. This is similar to Sweeny’s (2017) suggestion of “cultural experiences that are quite unique” (p. 356) being combined together to enable the artists to make art for an intended audience. Hullabaloo’s artist, Aida, thinks that TAG’s set-up has made it safe for emerging artists as it is not as established as national institutions like the Singapore Art Museum (SAM), so artists are not pressured to present artworks that guarantee success. The young artist commented that TAG is “so open” to ideas, which fostered an environment for exploration and experimentation for her (N. A. Sa’ad, personal interview, September 22, 2018). Similarly, Adeline, the artist who created Wild Rumpus, explained that the opportunity to create a visual arts space at TAG was invaluable as it “was challenging for me because I never did it before and then I felt like someone’s paying for me to try something new and it was great” (A. Loo, personal interview, March 5, 2019). Adeline further explained that besides providing the platform to try new ideas, there was a process of mentoring available to artists through the working relationship with Jia En. The learning for the artists began from the conceptualisation phase, with initial conversations between Jia En and them. Aida explained that her lack of structural design knowledge did not compromise the creation of the space because Jia En, a visual designer by training, was able to fill in the gaps during the design process. With the experience of watching children interact with the different visual

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

61

arts spaces, and the journeys she has travelled with different artists creating works at TAG, Jia En has amassed a substantial body of knowledge and intuition to know how to marry artistic intentions with practicality. Brown, Jeanneret, Suda and Andersen (n.d.) termed this knowledge and intuition as “pedagogical tact” (p. 356), a tacit knowledge acquired through constant feedback from and observations of the audience interacting with artworks and exhibitions. This is crystallised by Adeline’s remarks about the communication pathways between Jia En and herself once they had decided to work on the visual arts space together. Adeline explained that “there were [sic] a lot of communication back and forth” (A. Loo, personal interview, March 5, 2019) at the conceptualisation stage when Jia En advised Adeline on the feasibility of her ideas, which facilitated better understanding of the possibilities of the space and the needs of the families in the space.

Realising Artists’ Intention and Aesthetic Expression Each visual arts space is borne out of an artist’s intention and aesthetic expression. As articulated by Gracie, the artist who designed Happy Homebodies, if I weren’t an artist, maybe . . . I would think of it [the visual arts space] as a play space for kids. [But] I [still] wouldn’t call it a playground. . . . it’s [a playground] not linked in with an artist’s intention. . . . The artist is trying to say something . . . [whereas a] playground is really just . . . for children to load their energies off. . . . [which is unlike how] you can see the personality of the artist in these things [i.e., TAG’s visual arts spaces]. It’s [the various artists’ personalities] very clear. (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019)

In Gracie’s Happy Homebodies, the initial design inspiration came from Jia En. At the beginning, Gracie had actually sent Jia En emails with various ideas, including a “fruit playground” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). However, when they met to discuss these ideas, Jia En realised that Gracie was feeling like “the inspiration is just not there. [That] she’s [Gracie] just a bit stuck” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). Jia En then revisited her original impulse to approach Gracie to design the visual arts space, which was her sense that there was “something in her [Gracie] that I [Jia En] knew would resonate with a lot of families. . . . [and that] the things that she did at home was very amazing” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). From this, Jia En suggested, “Why don’t we just do something about home? . . . it [the suggestion] just lit something up in her [Gracie] and then that [suggestion] continued [i.e., was subsequently further developed]” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). For Gracie, in recalling her own childhood—pushing furniture together to create a playground for herself, her sister and her cousin—she felt that she wanted to “create this fantasy world where if you entered in, it looks like a home, in a sense that you get your kitchen, your beds” but in different proportions and transformed as a space, to “inspire them [parents] to use stuff at home to you know, create a playground for the children. . . . [go back home [after visiting Happy Homebodies] and do some stuff, draw inspiration from it” (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019). She wanted:

62

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong To show parents and children that you can make beautiful things together with household objects . . . so ziplock seals all your paints, you don’t have to worry about mess . . . just chuck a bunch of paints, get the children to [press down and squish things around] . . . then you take it out . . . voila, what a beautiful thing! (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019)

It was heartening when Jia En overheard one weekend in the visual arts space, a mother saying in jest that the family could stop buying toys for the child in future, as they could just give the child toilet rolls to play with (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, February 12, 2020). The remark affirmed Jia En and Gracie’s design intentions of Happy Homebodies to allow families to “make new discoveries about common objects at home which are beautifully transformed into an uncommon experience” (The Artground, n.d.-c). Gracie wanted to “push the boundaries of what parents could do at home with the children [i.e., the parents’ own children]” (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019), and so Happy Homebodies tapped on what “children love to do but are not allowed because of safety at home regulations” (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019). At the same time, she was also mindful of the contentions that the public or caregivers might have if she pushed her imaginary world too far, potentially neglecting safety issues that could have adverse effects if children transferred how they played at the visual arts space to their homes, such as climbing onto window sills or house grilles. Observing that the two visual arts spaces that took place before Happy Homebodies (i.e., Hullabaloo and Wild Rumpus) were colourful and that children seem to be stimulated and respond well to colours, as an illustrator, Gracie wanted additionally to challenge that notion. Hence, she decided that her design palette would be “all black and white . . . [with] all line drawings as well” (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019). Gracie reflected that “kids are actually more sophisticated than we give them credit for. . . . they can be brought on along with the idea that you execute” (G. Chai, personal interview, October 7, 2019). We’re just going to do a play space that is inspired by the weather and I think it’s just my fascination with the weather . . . in its entirety . . . I think the rain, it’s a beautiful thing. Thunderstorms are really cool. . . . [the design of The Curious Sky was about] playing around with the magical elements of it [the weather]. (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019)

For Fongyee, the artist who designed The Curious Sky, her fascination with elements of the weather was the key concept behind the design of her visual arts space. The theme was thus decided as “The Curious Sky” as she collaborated with Jia En and the fabrication team to realise the visual arts space. Fongyee’s intention was to create a visual arts space that allows for “meaningful engagement in the sense that it relates to their [the children] own environment, whether it’s like an immediate environment or . . . at large” (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019). Fongyee acknowledged that she only has “graphic design background. So most of the things that I’ve done, they’re all very small scale. So the challenge really was like . . . how do I scale that and then apply it appropriately in space” (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019).

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

63

In the beginning, I was very fascinated with soft sculptures. . . . for most parts, they [TAG] have always had very big and very solid structures in their play spaces [i.e., TAG’s visual arts spaces]. . . . [I was thinking] what if the whole place was just like large beanbags. . . . stitched together . . . like big clouds and children can just climb, roll, jump on it? (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019)

Fongyee’s idea of only having large soft sculptures was met with questions from Jia En about how it might sustain the interest of children playing in the space, and if there were other structures needed to engage children further. Fongyee trusted Jia En’s experiences in creating visual arts spaces: They’ve [TAG and Jia En in particular] done this so many times . . . and they know how, like what are the touch points for the kids and also what they [the children] are really drawn to. . . . I’m going to trust her [Jia En’s] foresight . . . trust that obviously she knows—like the spatial awareness and things like that much more than I do. (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019)

She thus started to think about including other structures that would allow for children to engage in diverse ways while keeping the weather theme intact. Practical decisions like “having to baby proof stuff, having to make accommodations for kids with special needs . . . how to choreograph . . . the kids’ interactions and the flow [of the play structures]” (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019) were other considerations that were new to Fongyee in the design journey. At the end of the day, Fongyee wanted children to be immersed and have fun in the visual arts space, to “just see the weather in a slightly different way [after engaging in the visual arts space] . . . . I’m not expecting them to think a lot and suddenly love the thunderstorms? But you know . . . just to see a bit differently” (F. Ng, personal interview, July 29, 2019). Jia En, in collaboration with each artist, tries hard to practically realise the artist’s intentions into aesthetic expressions in the form of three-dimensional structures within the visual arts space. Of course, as Eriksen (as cited in Woolley & Lowe, 2013) and Arnold (as cited in Woolley & Lowe, 2013) critiqued, having artistically pleasing structures does not naturally equate to children engaging and playing with these structures in creative and imaginative ways. Jia En has thus, through her previous experiences and cumulative knowledge, put in other processes in the collaborative creation of these visual arts spaces to allow the artists and herself to reflect further about issues of engagement for young audiences. These include considerations in place-making, landscape design, an understanding of children at play and their responses to play structures, and practical issues in designing children’s spaces. These considerations have also been highlighted in the playground literature in the earlier section, such as by Shackell et al. (2008) regarding the skills and knowledge needed for play space designers beyond having good imagination. Another critical question to probe deeper perhaps is the issue of responsible interactivity as children engage with the play structures within the visual arts space, to ensure that the interactive experiences are authentic to our [artistic] content and to the creative process . . . go [sic] beyond gratuitous interactivity that on the surface may be fun but lacks depth or does not lead the viewer to make emotional or intellectual connections to objects and experiences. (Adams et al. 2003, p. 43)

64

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Observing children at play. Jia En learned that Daiya, the artist for Rolling@TAG, has a working process that was very much grounded in close observations of children and their caregivers in context as well. Jia En reflected that when Daiya and his team arrived in Singapore, “they just wanted to spend the whole day to explore other children play spaces in Singapore . . . they would sit there and analyse how Singaporean children play” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). These observations of local play behaviours in children could then lead to changes in design of the play spaces to adapt to different contexts and environments. For instance, it was noted by Daiya that in Japan, “parents don’t actually bring them [children] to the centres. The children are very independent. They will just go by themselves” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). In Singapore, “parents need to bring the kids and will always like hover over them when they walk” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Due to this observed difference, Rolling@TAG was subsequently designed with the “[mindfulness] to have like seats along the corner so that parents would sit down and look at their child as compared to just . . . standing behind them and holding them along the way” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Research work that Daiya has done over the years in Japan (Aida et al., 2017) also observed that children have a strong preference towards hiding at play. Thus, his designs oftentimes feature “little holes and they [children] just crawl into it and then they just get cardboard and . . . they [would] put like [a] fence up and make their little tent” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). This design feature was subsequently utilised by Jia En and other artists in the creation of their visual arts spaces. Hidden spaces. Jia En and the artists learned from observing children at play in the visual arts space some key characteristics that the young people are drawn to. Firstly, children gravitate towards small hidden spaces—“they just like to hide. . . . [one of the hiding spots within the visual arts space] was one of their favourite places” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Thus, the creative process of designing different manifestations of hidden spaces for children became a key vocabulary in design to be thought through. This design characteristic has also been noted by playground designers, observing that, “children embrace moments of ‘encapsulation’, areas (tunnels, cubbies, playhouses) of secret worlds away from parental eyes” (Brown & Burger, as cited in Blackford, 2004, p. 231). Slopes, slides and catering to different age groups. In addition to hiding places, children also enjoy playing on slopes and slides, “because of adrenaline and stuff, kids really like it” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). There was a conscious effort on Jia En’s part to be creative and try not to put in slides and slopes after Rolling@TAG, challenging herself to think out of the box. However, as there were often climbing structures within each visual arts space, there needed to be ways through which children could descend from these structures, leading back sometimes to the inevitable slide. Jia En therefore explored having different sizes and shapes of slides to cater to the different age groups. She was also conscious of the limitations of slides as a play structure, reflecting that “there’s only so many things you can do with a structure like that” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018).

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

65

The advantage Jia En and the artists found in designing slides for the older age group, such as in Hullabaloo, was that it encouraged the younger ones to try sliding down as well with help from their parents or older siblings. The slide structures were purposely built higher so that the younger children were not able to access it unless parents assisted. This encouraged parents’ participation for younger children who wish to play with these structures and at the same time ensured the children’s safety while engaging with the structures. Having play meetings. During the development of Rolling@TAG, the idea of play meetings for children was also mooted by Daiya. Play meetings basically gathered a few children who had played within the visual arts space to share “whatever they wanted to add to the space through drawings and presentations” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). It got children to think about design, critically stretching their imagination about what they want in the space coupled with the practical realities of whether their ideas can be implemented. Jia En felt that the play meetings were beneficial for TAG team in communicating with children and understanding their thoughts and perspectives of the visual arts space. Besides promoting the co-ownership of the space with the young visitors, this information is also helpful when designing spaces for children, having had first-hand interactions with them. Jia En is of the view that facilitating future play meetings when appropriate with children would continue to benefit the design of visual arts spaces, but is also mindful that the facilitators would need to develop more skills to actively engage children in these meetings in fruitful ways. There are also considerations to engage the children through an informal gathering to solicit feedback about each new visual arts space. Inclusion of tactile materials and having a designated space for babies and toddlers. In working with different artists, listening to comments from parents and observing babies at play on the Baby Stage, Jia En noticed that “they [babies] really love sandpaper for some reason . . . . squeaky things that make sounds and stuff like that” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Inclusion of tactile materials on the Baby Stage then became standardised, with a range of such items included within each new visual arts space design. Loose sensory items are made available for babies to play with. After a few iterations of the visual arts space and having received feedback from parents and observing children at play within the space, TAG decided to create a designated space that they called ‘Baby Stage’, cordoning it off from the rest of the space with a low wall and safety gate within the visual arts space (Fig. 1.1), so that parents with babies and toddlers do not have to worry about possible disruptions from older children, especially when they might be engaging in rough and tumble play. The designated Baby Stage still remains accessible to older children if they wish to enter the space, but it seemed from observations by Jia En that caregivers would self-monitor their older children. For instance, they might tell these older children that the area is “for babies,” and so the children would naturally move on to other areas to play or “behave themselves when they are around younger kids” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). As Jia En noted, “so far, I think it has worked. We’ve seen a lot more babies and toddlers up on [the Baby] Stage. And it really

66

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Fig. 1.1 The Artground’s baby stage (Copyright 2019 by authors)

creates a better environment for them” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). While Moore (1966) spoke to the design of playground to cater to all age groups, he was also of the view that there should be a separate play area for the youngest children from the rest of the environment, which is in tandem with what TAG has done here. Safety concerns. Because all the structures within the visual arts space are meant for children to interact and play with, considerations of design need to ensure that the materials used are durable or easily replaceable if damaged due to constant wear and tear. Jia En, taking on Luanne’s reminder, would always highlight to the artists that “we [TAG team as well as the artists] cannot be too precious about all the things that they’ve built . . . [the various] play structures . . . these are really just [going to go through] wear and tear” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Jia En even jokingly articulated in her interview that after going through a number of design iterations, she is able to easily tell artists where to purchase cheap and safe tactile materials to replace items on the Baby Stage. TAG engages a safety officer after the initial set-up of each visual arts space, to inspect and check through it regarding safety concerns. Test sessions with children are also organised, allowing children to test out the structures and play on them while the team at TAG observes. Refinements to the structures are then made based on feedback and finalised before the opening of the visual arts space to the public.

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

67

Jia En is of the view that if time allows, the testing period should be longer so that better refinements can be done without everyone having to rush through the process. After the official launch of each visual arts space, TAG team does the tidying up and simple maintenance each day, prior to opening and at closing times of TAG. At times when the visual arts space gets too crowded, particularly during weekends, TAG will put out a ‘maximum capacity’ sign and regulate the number of people that enter the space. They will also make a public announcement to appeal to parents to look after their children in the play space. A first-aid box is always available on hand and one third of TAG team have had training in first-aid for infants and preschoolers. There has also been projection for Jia En to attend a playground safety course as part of her professional development. All these measures will serve to better the safety of the visual arts space. Emerging a work flow. After a few experiences in creating visual arts spaces at TAG, Jia En articulated an emerging work flow that she feels is a workable process moving forward. The initial theme or intention for the visual arts space would first surface from Jia En before she searches for and approaches an artist she would like to work with. As Jia En remarked, “I know what we’ve done . . . [and] I just want to . . . move into a different dimension, to try out things that we haven’t done before” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019), ensuring there are new themes or intentions and experimentations with each new space created. Jia En gathers her ideas and looks out for different artists’ work at local visual arts exhibition openings and other platforms, and then when she discovers artists with the “same kind of vibe [to TAG] . . . I will just approach them” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). Jia En also gets design inspiration from other spaces she views on Instagram and other online platforms. Once the artist comes on board, TAG will first invite them to conduct observations of how caregivers and children engage with the visual arts space at TAG at that point, to get a sense of the context. As Jia En mentioned, I would sit in [the visual arts space] with them [the artist]. So as the kids move around . . . we really have to identify like the flow of . . . when people come in . . . what is it that you [the artist] want them to see, how- what is the direction of the flow in the space, how would the kids interact and experience the entire thing . . . just to trigger them [the artist] and then they would sit and observe . . . after that we will come up with drawings. (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019)

Brainstorming between the artist and Jia En will then ensue, either through “a mood board or . . . I will always start a Pinterest board with them and then we will just throw in ideas” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019), allowing for the artist to come up with their own trajectories in executing the theme or intention within TAG’s framework. Admittedly, Jia En mentioned that this initial stage can be a longdrawn process to decide on the ‘right’ ideas. The creative process involves constant questioning and feedback between the artist and Jia En and also time figuring out practicalities, like the best way to ensure the durability of materials and structures. After the ideas have been decided upon, the translation into design is often Jia En’s job, particularly for artists who do not work within a 3-D format. Jia En will

68

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

also be the main liaison between the contractors and the artist. Jia En is thankful that TAG was able to find like-minded contractors willing to fabricate the visual arts spaces with a limited budget—a young team of contractors willing to sit down with Jia En and the artists to work through and “come out with ideas” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). There are also considerations about reusing or re-purposing existing structures within the space due to budget constraints and for sustainability purposes. After a number of experiences in managing the creation of each interactive visual arts space, Jia En feels she now has a better grasp of time management, extending the set-up time to three weeks and also doing a lot of back-end work with the artists prior to setting up.

The Artground as an Intermediary A result of the close working partnership between TAG and the artists is the interest expressed by external organisations and institutions that have requested for artists that have worked with TAG to create work for their venues. Luanne reflected that TAG has managed to establish themselves “as some sort of an intermediary” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018), helping to link artists that have worked with TAG to these other organisations. She elaborated that “one of the fears was that they [the artists] are developing work that stays within The Artground” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). TAG intends for the artists to be able to eventually develop work that “can go to black boxes, that can go to the Esplanade and now the Singapore Chinese Culture Centre, and the [National] Gallery [of Singapore], and the museums” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Adeline echoed this desire to bring her work to venues outside of TAG and suggested that the experience of creating work for young audiences in TAG helped, such that “if I [Adeline] ever did it [i.e., a visual arts space] again, I know like how to plan better . . . so that we don’t waste time” (A. Loo, personal interview, June 10, 2019). The experience from TAG supports an artist’s learning not only because it is an opportunity to try creating for a new audience, but also because the collaboration with Jia En to materialise the visual arts space is invaluable in providing a safe and supportive environment to artists trying out this new trajectory in their art making. Clearly, TAG serves as both a test bed for the artists to try out ideas and as an intermediary where the ideas of the created visual arts spaces can be refined and repurposed for a different venue and audience. In addition, artists working on visual arts spaces are also offered the opportunities to meet with fellow artists and cross-pollinate ideas and artworks, similar to Barniskis’ (2014) recommendation for arts spaces to “offer opportunities for creators to connect and share their craft” (p. 9). Adeline recalled her collaboration with Aida who had returned to work on parts of Wild Rumpus. The two artists offered opinions and feedback to each other’s work, and the collaboration between artists also resulted

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

69

in them co-creating parts of the exhibition for each other. Adeline said during the interview that Hullabaloo’s artist, Aida, came back to help me for mine. She helped with the Baby Stage wall . . . we continue this tradition and possibly like Gracie [the artist for Happy Homebodies, which was exhibited after Wild Rumpus] was gonna help whoever is coming next. (A. Loo, personal interview, June 10, 2019)

Similarly, Aida was given the opportunity to observe another artist’s process before she started thinking about her visual arts space. She expressed that observing the creation process from beginning to end helped to shape and kickstart her creation process. The artists saw it as a means to extend the tradition and learning process by working on the visual arts spaces before or after their own. Lastly, artists are offered the opportunity to take inspiration from other art makers’ works. Adeline articulated this opportunity as an availability of space to be inspired, noting that “it’s just we have the space, this is what other people are doing in this space and then you see what other people are doing and you’re like, ‘hey, I can do something that fits this area’” (A. Loo, personal interview, March 5, 2019). Aida was invited to observe children interacting with Rolling@TAG, which was exhibited before hers. When she was setting up her visual arts space, Adeline was invited to co-create a part of the space with Aida and subsequently, Aida returned to paint the walls at the Baby Space during the set-up for Adeline’s visual arts space. At the same time, Gracie, the artist who was planning her space after Adeline’s, was invited to observe Adeline’s process. The openness in the working process for each visual arts space has provided artists with new inspirations and motivations to make artworks that they might not have previously thought possible. TAG team has intentionally removed parameters and issues with permissions for artists to work in and outside of TAG. Artists are not bound by copyright laws which prevent them from presenting the same visual arts space in a different venue, but they are instead encouraged to bring their artworks outside of TAG. The team feels that it is important for TAG to serve as a germination ground for new works, and also for building networks and links between the artists, and between artists and external institutions or organisations. TAG team links artists who are emerging in the field, who have limited or no experience working in art projects intended for young audiences with artists who have the relevant experiences. The aim is to develop the capability in the field and to “grow the pool of artists that we have, if possible” (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018). Therefore, the need to build relationships between the artists and form a community so that they are able to learn from each other and inspire further collaborations is an added expectation they have of the artists’ work within the children’s space.

70

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Discussion Observing and Listening to Children Thus far, in the creation of the visual arts spaces at TAG, Jia En and the artists have gathered a number of useful design principles and elements. Key among these design decisions is the need for artists to be grounded through close observation of children’s play, taking note of how children engage in different play experiences with different structures, also noting the general flow of the visual arts space and how children and adults interact in-between structures and spaces. Adeline reflected that the opportunity to watch children at play with Wild Rumpus made her realise that the young people had different interpretations of her visual arts space. She remarked that her artistic intentions for the visual arts space was served with a “completely new application” (A. Loo, personal interview, March 5, 2019) when the children interacted with the structures. Aida echoed similar observations. She noted that children played with one of her structures differently from what she had expected as the young people “[climbed] it instead of crawling [through it]” (N. A. Sa’ad, personal interview, September 22, 2018). More direct feedback can also be gathered from having play meetings or informal chats with children in context, listening intently to their experiences with the visual arts space and their suggestions. As one of the strategies for TAG is to act as a test bed for emerging artists, opportunities to listen directly to the voices and opinions of the young audiences are always made available. The platform to speak with the visitors to the space to understand their perspectives about the visual arts space is valuable as an opportunity “to ask audiences for feedback . . . and work out [potential safety concerns or otherwise with the visual arts space] through their feedback” (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018).

Safety, Durability and Sustainability An open concept in the design of the visual arts space for children to discover and explore, and possibly a separate area for babies and toddlers (still accessible by older children) are also currently suggested through the experiences that Jia En and the artists have gathered. This is in-line with Bowers’ (1988) thoughts about designing play structures that are interconnected. Research literature (Moore, 1966; Shackell et al., 2008; Woolley & Lowe, 2013) also spoke to the need for design of play spaces to include manageable risks to challenge children at play. This could be another more deliberate consideration for TAG team and the artists as they think about the designing of subsequent visual arts spaces. In terms of design elements, creating hidden spaces, a variety of slides and slopes for different age groups, and the provision of tactile materials for babies and toddlers seem to be significant in encouraging more engaged play in children. Durability and

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

71

sustainability of materials need also to be carefully considered for budgetary, safety and environmental concerns. For the very young (0–3 years), perhaps more deliberate considerations of play opportunities that involve babies and toddlers’ developing skills in crawling, walking, standing, climbing, jumping and balancing, can be incorporated into the play design as well, which can involve the creative use of sound, small spaces, loose parts and/or plants (Gürdo˘gan et al., 2019). Before the new visual arts space is accessible to the public, safety checks with a safety officer and test sessions with children are very helpful in refining the set-up and structures to ensure a better play experience for children and their carers. Having a free-access indoor changing visual arts space that looks and functions differently from a typical playground—being conceptualised and designed by artists—and being ‘Instagrammable’ are viewed by Jia En and the team at TAG as good strategies in attracting new and repeat visitors to the space.

Attracting New and Repeat Visitors to the Artground We [TAG] are sort of . . . different from the other places [playground and play spaces] . . . the fact that we always change our installation [i.e., TAG’s visual arts space] . . . it’s quite up and coming . . . we are the place to be watched. . . . I’d like to think that we are quite trendy. (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019)

In this technological age of influencers and trend setting, Jia En spoke to how “people always want to find nice places and nice things, Instagramable things” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). Having an ‘Instagrammable’ visual arts space became a factor to consider when designing each new space. While Jia En fully understands the value of the arts in creating each visual arts space, she feels that there is no harm making things look aesthetically attractive and photogenic as well, to attract visitors to TAG. Jia En also noted that galleries and museums are gravitating towards: Interactive immersive spaces. Things that engages [sic] your senses, that looks [sic] different from a typical playground. . . . visual artists, instead of presenting works that are more 2-D or flat, now they are also thinking about how you experience the entire space . . . when you first enter. (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019)

These observations translate to how the visual arts space at TAG changes up its presentation styles, where texts for instance do not just appear on walls, but could be on the floor or placed on fabric that is then hung up. To attract repeat and new visitors, TAG team felt it necessary to change out the visual arts play space, commenting that parents “have a certain expectation. . . . ‘Oh it’s new again.’ They look forward to actually doing that [revisiting the visual arts space]” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Due to budget constraints however, from 2020, the changeover will only be done bi-annually.

72

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Play Behaviours While the consideration for physical play in the design of the visual arts space is important, there is also a need to take into account how children will be able to explore the visual arts space involving their five senses, suggested also by Shackell et al. (2008), and how the space makes provisions for social, cooperative, creative and imaginative play (reiterated by Jakat, 2012; Moore, 1966; Murdock, 2019; Woolley & Lowe, 2013). As TAG serves its role as a germination ground for artists to explore and experiment in art making for young audiences, it also becomes a testing bed for the artists to learn about how their works inspire different play behaviours in children. The freedom to test and evaluate the intentions of their works propel more critical thinking in the art making process for the artists, as this is not a platform that is made available in other arts venues. Michelle added that the opportunities to observe the young audiences interacting freely with the visual arts space, and the children providing feedback about the way they are engaging with the space are added layers of benefit TAG provides for artists. The researchers are in agreement with Shackell et al. (2008) though, that perhaps there is a need for TAG team and the artists to consider more deliberately the designing in of risk and challenges in the visual arts space—within safety limits, to further the engagement levels of children within the space. This has thus far been mostly left to chance, without any emphasis from the beginning of the design process.

Moving Forward Becoming Formulaic It would seem from the researchers’ observations that the design of each new visual arts space is starting to become predictable and formulaic in terms of some common features, like having slides and hidden nooks. Jia En is of the view that TAG is still getting new visitors and that it has only been a few iterations of the visual arts space that has been created. While she would like at some point to think more out of the box, “the crowd [visitors to TAG] is not stable enough for us to be more experimental right now” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019).

Open Call When the researchers spoke to Jia En in 2019, the thought for an open call for artists to create the visual arts space was in the pipeline but Jia En was of the view that it was still premature for TAG to do so. She felt that TAG needed to first “have a particular vision in mind” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019) for the visual

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

73

arts space. More observations on how “parents interact with the children, how the children interact with the space” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019) needed to be done, and also more experiences in collaborating with artists and executing the design needed to be accrued. After such discussions and internal preparations by TAG, an open call for the interactive visual arts space was actually launched at the start of 2020. The call describes the visual arts space as: the body [emphasis in original] of the arts centre [i.e., TAG]. It is a space where children and their families feel comfortable to visit, explore and expose themselves to quality arts experiences. It aims to bridge the gap between arts and play, while the child develops physical, social and communicative skills through their interactions with the space and with one another. This is also a communal ground which supports and encourages the exchange of shared arts experiences between young families. The arts space should capture children’s imagination through various artistic avenues, allowing them to seek creative explorations within the space. The space should be a safe, interactive and immersive experience for children from birth to 9 years old. (The Artground, n.d.-b)

The call also articulated clear objectives for the visual arts space and the beginnings of a design vocabulary for children’s visual art spaces, stating that there should be: “(1) structures that have an artistic expression; (2) sensory and tactile elements; (3) spaces that encourages individual exploration, while evoking that sense of curiosity and spark; (4) interactive concepts that involve cause and effect; and (5) an accessible space for all” (The Artground, n.d.-b). Jia En sees herself as an advocate for the design and implementation of visual arts spaces for children through her experiences in the earlier installations, noting that “I [Jia En] think that I can be quite a strong voice for that” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, February 12, 2020). She also wants to ensure that the design of the visual arts space caters to the engagement of the child through the various objectives articulated, while also keeping an open mind for new ideas to emerge. The bottom line is, “would a child appreciate [these other forms of engagement] . . . rather than [focusing only on] how it looks good” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, February 12, 2020). Moving forward, a fundamental question to critically reflect upon by the artists and TAG team is perhaps also whether the creation of the visual arts space should be understood as an interactive arts experience, as opposed to “an artistic playground” (Adams et al., 2003, p. 50). An equally significant continued consideration is the intimate relationship between art and play, as “creatively linking them to physical design processes based on cultural, aesthetic and spiritual, rather than just functional, elements, they can enhance the quality of urban space experiences” (Percy-Smith & Carney, 2011, p. 33).

74

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Creating a Collaborative Community It has been noted by the researchers that the visual artists working with Jia En on the visual arts space get limited and arguably ad hoc opportunities to meet up or speak with the other artists offering workshops and interactive programmes within the WhiteBox at TAG. Thus far, only Cherlyn Mark from art@home, a visual arts educator who has been conducting arts and crafts weekend workshops at TAG, has voluntarily drawn on ideas from the visual arts space for her programmes. Jia En had also commented that perhaps for Hullabaloo, the weekend workshops could have had some links or catered to the special needs community, since the inspiration for the visual arts space stemmed from the artist’s sister who is on the autism spectrum. TAG did consider possible connections between the visual arts space and the weekend workshops and programmes, but given the lean full-time team working at TAG and thus the lack of human resource and time in coordinating various programmes every week, these thoughts are in the back-burner for now. As Jia En mentioned, “I really don’t think we have explored that idea at all. . . . but I think it is definitely a good direction” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019). The GroundBreakers (discussed in Chap. 6) and other artists doing weekend programmes at the WhiteBox have indicated interest in establishing more connections with the visual artists, in terms of interaction and perhaps establishing collaborative opportunities. The researchers feel that after a number of iterations working with different artists, TAG can possibly create a community of practice bringing together Jia En, the different artists, as well as practitioners keen in designing and developing visual arts play spaces to share with each other about their experiences on a regular basis and document these sharings as a way to further this emerging field.

Building that Ecology TAG also serves, in Jane’s words, as “an epicentre that connects educators, artists, parents and children . . . so that they can co-play and co-create” (J. Choy & L. Poh, personal interview, September 20, 2018). The art making process for the target audience is built on the understanding and principle that every one of the stakeholders influence the way the visual arts space is created and how the structures are used in the playing process for the children. TAG team prides itself in being non-prescriptive in their manner of art making with the artists, and similarly, in their first two years of operation, they refrained from using pictorial or text signages to suggest ways of playing for the young audiences. Jane articulated that TAG is “a shared space for children, artists, parents . . . [and] educators” (J. Choy & L. Poh, personal interview, September 20, 2018), and therefore the sharing of the physical and artistic space means that everyone has the responsibility to co-own and co-create the artworks that are created and built for the people it serves. Luanne

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

75

separately echoed that everyone who uses the physical and artistic space in TAG “will always [be] able to contribute back to this conversation, whether you were a patron or an artist” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). The team at TAG enables the sharing by encouraging openness in the conversations while they serve as conduits between the audiences in the space and the artists who are creating the artworks, and between artists to encourage cross pollination of ideas and generation of new ways to making art. The wish is thus for everyone to be accepting and open to ideas and feedback. Michelle elaborated that TAG team tries to always keep conversations open, in hopes that both the artists as well as TAG team themselves are amenable enough “to act [on feedback] . . . to take . . . criticism. . . open communication is important” (M. Tan, personal interview, October 10, 2018).

Conclusion At the time of writing this chapter, TAG has completed a number of visual arts spaces. This translates into intense and rigorous working relationships and experiences working with artists with different backgrounds, levels of expertise and artistic intentions. TAG team would have matured in their approaches to support artists who are exploring the trajectory of visual arts spaces for young audiences with the rich experiences they have gained over the number of iterations. With the growth in knowledge and experience after each visual arts space, it is timely for TAG team to consider how they might structure a working model with artists to ensure practices that encourage reflective but curious and playful art making, without compromising freedom to create. The model of collaboration would also be useful to other organisations that have been inspired to present visual arts spaces for particular communities.

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Chai, G. (2019, June 18). Personal interview. Chai, G. (2019, October 7). Personal interview. Choy, J., & Poh, L. (2018, September 20). Personal interview. Loo, A. (2019, March 5). Personal interview. Loo, A. (2019, June 10). Personal interview. Ng, F. (2019, July 29). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Sa’ad, N. A. (2018, September 22). Personal interview. Tan, M. (2018, October 10). Personal interview. Yap, J.-E. (2018, September 28). Personal interview. Yap, J.-E. (2019, July 11). Personal interview.

76

C.-H. Lum and J. Wong

Yap, J.-E. (2020, February 12). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources Adams, M., Moreno, C., Polk, M., & Buck, L. (2003). The dilemma of interactive art museum spaces. Art Education, 56(5), 42–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194042. Aida, D., Suganuma, K., Jo, K., & Kazunao, A. (2017). The KOROGARU park series: Three features of the park of the future. IDC ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 379–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079738. Barniskis, S. C. (2014). Makerspaces and teaching artists. Teaching Artist Journal, 12(1), 6–14. Blackford, H. (2004). Playground panopticism: Ring-around-the-children, a pocketful of women. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 11(2), 227–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/090 7568204043059. Bowers, L. (1988). Playground design: A scientific approach. In L. D. Bruya (Ed.), Play spaces for children, a new beginning: Improving our elementary school playgrounds (pp. 29–48). Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Brown, R., Jeanneret, N., Suda, L., & Andersen, J. (n.d.). Sharing stories we know. Engaging families in museums: A resource for museum staff. http://museumsvictoria.com.au/media/4740/ mccoyreportfamilyengagement.pdf. Gürdo˘gan, B., Gürdo˘gan, S., & Thomsen, G.T. (2019). Istanbul95 studies: Playground ideas for 0–3 years. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from https://bernardvanleer.org/publications-reports/pla yground-ideas-for-0-3-years/. Heseltine, P., & Holborn, J. (1987). Playgrounds: The planning, design and construction of play environments. London, United Kingdom: Mitchell. Jakat, L. (2012, November 8). How to design the perfect playground: Veteran playground designer Gunter Beltzig reveals his golden rules for a successful children’s play area. The Guardian. http:// www.theguardian.com. McWilliams, M. S., Vaughns, A. B., O’Hara, A., Novotny, L. S., & Kyle, T. J. (2014). Art play: Stories of engaging families, inspiring learning, and exploring emotions. Young Children, 69(2), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2017.1368288. Moore, R. C. (1966). An experiment in playground design. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations database (Identifier No. 25919423). Murdock, J. (2019, March 21). Does your playground include the 7 elements of play? Blog post. Retrieved December 31, 2019, from http://www.playgroundprofessionals.com/playground/playst ructures/does-your-playground-include-7-elements-play. Percy-Smith, B., & Carney, C. (2011). Using art installations as action research to engage children and communities in evaluating and redesigning city centre spaces. Educational Action Research, 19(1), 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.547406. Shackell, A., Butler, N., Doyle, P., & Ball, D. (2008). Design for play: A guide to creating successful play spaces. Nottingham, United Kingdom: DCSF Publications. Stine, S. (1997). Landscapes for learning: Creating outdoor environments for children and youth. New York, NY: Wiley. Sweeny, R. W. (2017). Makerspaces and art educational places. Studies in Art Education, 58(4), 351–359. The Artground. (n.d.-a). About visual arts space. Retrieved January 1, 2020, from http://theartgro und.com.sg/va/. The Artground. (n.d.-b). Arts space open call. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://theartground. com.sg/artists/vaopencall/. The Artground. (n.d.-c). Happy homebodies. Retrieved January 1, 2020, from http://theartground. com.sg/va/happyhomebodies/.

3 Designing for the Visual Arts Space …

77

Wilson, R. (2007). Nature and young children: Encouraging creative play and learning in natural environments. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2013). Exploring the relationship between design approach and play value of outdoor play spaces. Landscape Research, 38(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/014 26397.2011.640432.

Chee-Hoo Lum is Associate Professor of Music Education with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Chee-Hoo’s research interests include the examination of issues towards identity, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, technology and globalisation in music education, children’s musical cultures, creativity and improvisation, and elementary music methods. He is currently the Co-editor of International Journal of Music Education (IJME) and on the editorial board of Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and Research Studies in Music Education (RSME). He served as a Board Member of the International Society for Music Education) (ISME) and the Asia-Pacific Symposium for Music Education Research (APSMER) and has previously been an associate editor with the International Journal of Education and the Arts (IJEA). Chee-Hoo has published three edited books: (1) Arts Education and Cultural Diversity: Policies, Research Practices and Critical Perspectives; (2) Contextualized Practices in Arts Education: An International Dialogue on Singapore and; (3) Musical Childhoods of Asia and the Pacific; three coauthored academic books: (1) Semionauts of Tradition: Music, Culture and Identity in Contemporary Singapore; (2) Teaching Living Legends: Professional Development and Lessons for the 21st Century Music Educator and; (3) World Music Pedagogy: School-Community Intersections; general music textbooks, and academic book chapters, refereed journal articles, and made numerous conference presentations at local and international settings. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development.

Chapter 4

Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim and Jennifer Wong

Abstract This chapter examines how children and their families who visit The Artground (TAG) have responded and reacted to its visual arts space in terms of play engagement. The chapter begins by scanning the research literature to understand the significance of play in early childhood and child development, along with different theories of play and play behaviours from the likes of Parten, Piaget and more. It then embarks on a discussion of how children play within TAG’s visual arts space and what their families’ perceptions of the visual arts space are. Finally, it examines impacts of the different play behaviours that are enabled by the visual arts space and the implications of the study’s findings on play. Keywords Children · Play · Engagement The Artground (TAG) views play for children as “unbridled enjoyment” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018) and therefore the children’s purpose-built arts space seeks to enable and encourage playfulness through the structures in the visual arts space. TAG emphasises that play is a natural process through which children interact with and learn about the world, so it is imperative that children are given the freedom to explore the visual arts space through playful behaviours. TAG’s Executive Director Luanne Poh explains that one of the ways TAG ensures that the visual arts space invites playful behaviours in children is to remind the visual artists who are designing and creating for the space understand that their works will not remain “behind gallery doors and glass cabinets, but it will be an artwork that will have the touchpoints, because we want the children to engage with it, [and] we want them to go through, over and under” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Furthermore, artists are encouraged to be playful and experiment with To cite: Lim, J. H. L., & Wong, J. (2020). Playing in The Artground’s visual arts space. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 79–108). Singapore: Springer. J. H. L. Lim (B) · J. Wong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_4

79

80

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

different ways to interpret play for children, and how they wish the young audiences would interact with the structures. The artists’ creation process for the visual arts space and the collaborative relationship with TAG is discussed in Chap. 3. In light of TAG’s intentions to encourage learning and curious dispositions in children through playing in the visual arts space, this chapter examines how exactly children and their families who visit TAG have responded and interacted with the space. It firstly scans the field and understands theories of play and play behaviours before embarking to discuss how children play at TAG and what are their families’ perceptions of the visual arts space. It then goes on to examine impacts of the play behaviours enabled by the visual arts space and the implications of the study’s findings on play.

Understanding Play and Play Behaviours Play is recognised as a significant part of child development and learning. McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) note that for children, “development and learning may be used interchangeably and encompasses changes in understanding, skills and/or knowledge” (p. 400). They further emphasise that “whilst playing, children make sense of their world and their place in it, and they learn to problem-solve, socialize, communicate and be creative” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 400). Blasi, Hurwitz and Hurwitz (2002) echo this view and argue that play is the way children make sense out of the complicated and complex world in which we live. Play is [also] the medium children use to take risks, to challenge themselves both physically and mentally, to create something new, to deal with fears, and to enjoy the moment as they construct new meanings. (p. 101)

Thus, “while play may seem like a frivolous activity, it is an important medium for young children’s learning. It is a significant contributor to the child’s cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development” (Blasi et al., 2002, p. 101). There are many definitions of play or what behaviours constitute play (Bergen, 2015; Saracho & Spodek, 2003; White, 2012). As play covers a wide range of behaviours, it cannot be sufficiently understood by working upon a singular definition. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) suggest discussing play in relation to flow and learning. Flow, “a state of optimal pleasure—is more likely to occur when the learner is intrinsically motivated. Since play is intrinsically motivating, children are more likely to be open to learning during play” (Krakowski, 2012, p. 54). Play is therefore understood to promote the experience of flow in children, which in turn facilitates their learning. Similarly, Erikson (1985) and Hurwitz (2003) echo White’s (2012) statement that “having control over the course of one’s own learning, as in free play, promotes desire, motivation, and mastery,” helping children “develop a lasting disposition to learn” (p. 8). There are different theories and frameworks that exist, each providing a unique lens or perspectives for understanding what constitutes play. Each theory and framework is often based either upon a set of criteria or different types and categories for

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

81

play. Inevitably, each definition or set of criteria has its own advantages and disadvantages when applied to the investigation of play in children. For example, Krasnor and Pepler (1980) propose that play exists on a continuum and that ‘play’ can be observed through the following four criteria: • Play is intrinsically motivated, with children engaging in play for its own sake rather than being subjected to external demands or rules; • Play is enjoyable for children; • Play is non-literal, involving an element of pretend or make-believe; and • Play is flexible, it can vary in form and content. Saracho and Spodek (2003), in tracing the different theories of play that have emerged over time, emphasise similar criteria such as the element of pretend and the intrinsical or “free and inherent motivation” (p. 2) that underlies it. Using such criteria to observe play, however, does present some challenges. For example, non-literal behaviour cannot be observed in toddlers and can be difficult to observe even in older children. Other researchers and theorists have thus proposed additional criteria for examining play. Smith and Vollstedt (1985) adds a fifth criteria to Krasnor and Pepler’s (1980) model, suggesting that children should be more interested in the process, rather than the outcome of play. Further criteria proposed include that play should actively engage children (both physically and mentally) and be freely chosen (i.e., it must be spontaneous and voluntary) (White, 2012). This freedom is emphasised by Wood (2014), who stresses that play should be “free from adult intrusion and direction, enabling them [children] to exercise agency, selfregulation, ownership, and control, and to direct their own learning” (p. 1). Parten’s (1932) seminal research on social participation among children led to the development of social play categories that were identified based on her observation of pre-schoolers. These categories are unoccupied, onlooker, solitary, parallel, associative and cooperative (see Chap. 2, Appendix H). According to Parten (1932), children progress sequentially along these different stages of social play as they get older, with each stage increasing in the degree of social participation. At about two years old, children begin engaging in solitary play and start to play cooperatively with others by the time they are about four and a half years old (White, 2012). To date, Parten’s categorisation of social play is the only one available that looks at or focuses on play’s social aspect (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018). Another theory or framework that has been strongly influential is Piaget’s developmental model of play, presented in his book Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood published in 1951 (as cited in Casby, 2003). Piaget suggests that “various ordered stages [of play] developed during the first 4 years of life” (Casby, 2003, p. 163) and these stages or types of play are: (a) practice play, (b) symbolic play, and (c) games with rules (Casby, 2003; Yawkey & Silvern, 1977). Stage 1, practice play, occurs from approximately two months of age till 18 months (Casby, 2003) and involves simple and repetitive motor actions such as “looking, sucking, opening and closing of the hands, and other physical actions” (Yawkey & Silvern, 1977, p. 4). Infants repeat these actions many times simply for the pleasure experienced from practicing them (Casby, 2003; Yawkey & Silvern, 1977). Stage 2, symbolic play,

82

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

then begins at about two years of age as children “make the transition from sensorimotor schemes to mental operations/representation” (Casby, 2003, p. 164). This stage therefore involves symbolic or make-believe play. Finally, Stage 3, games with rules, begins to develop after the age of 4 (Casby, 2003). This is a “cognitively more advanced form of play,” with games and rules of play arising “spontaneously from the peer group” (Yawkey & Silvern, 1977, p. 5). As two of the earliest theories on play, both Piaget’s work from 1951 (as cited in Casby, 2003) as well as Parten’s (1932) share some similarities. They are both based on the concept of children progressing sequentially through these stages of play as they age, with the highest levels or stages perceived as more advanced forms of play. However, some researchers (Fromberg & Bergen, 1998) have questioned this developmental perspective on play and whether children do indeed move through the identified stages systematically, or whether certain stages are more advanced or ‘better’ forms of play than others. Research (Fromberg & Bergen, 1998; Xu, 2010) provides findings that seem to indicate otherwise, particularly when considering individual, social, environmental and cultural differences. For example, Bergen et al.’s (1997) study on memories of childhood play report the importance of pretend play beyond the early stages of a child’s development. Pretend play in the later stages of childhood typically occurs in more private settings—as opposed to public settings in earlier stages of childhood—but remains prevalent. Solitary play is also observed in both younger and older children, albeit in varying immature and mature forms (Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg, as cited in Fromberg & Bergen, 1998). Play researchers and theorists have gone on to identify many other types of play in different domains. Generally, the broad types of play include physical play, object play, pretend play, games with rules and social play (White, 2012; Whitebread, 2012). Each type of play has a “main developmental function or focus” but they all “support aspects of physical, intellectual and social-emotional growth” (Whitebread, 2012, p. 18) and are thus equally important. Each type of play also includes other subsets; physical play for example, includes rough-and-tumble play as well as fine-motor practice (Whitebread, 2012). It is important to note that these different categories of play may overlap. For instance, social play can occur at the same time as symbolic play—as is socio-dramatic play (Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990). In their observation of toddler play within a museum, McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) utilised a comprehensive play taxonomy devised by McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018), who analysed and synthesised the different terms found across play literature. In this Toddler’s Play in Museums Taxonomy (To.P.Mu.T.) (see Chap. 2, Appendix G), McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) also devised terms that were applicable to toddler play, but that were not yet found in the literature. In addition to these types of play, McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) also incorporated Parten’s (1932) social play taxonomy in their observation of children to examine the social interaction between them during play. This research conducted at TAG thus adapted McInnes and Elpidoforou’s (2018) framework for observing children at play, given its comprehensiveness and considerations for toddler play and social play. A further reason for adopting McInnes and Elpidoforou’s (2018) framework is that it was conducted in a children’s museum, which is a setting that is similar to TAG’s context.

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

83

In their research, McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) note that play has been observed to influence children’s development from the infancy stages, as babies begin to “engage in repetitive sensory and motor behaviours which may be viewed as play” (p. 400) from as young as one month old. As infants grow older, they progress to different forms of play that become “more varied and interesting to [them]” (p. 400), including pretend play, dramatic play, imaginative and creative play (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018). Through engaging in these different forms of play, young children continue to learn and develop cognitively, physically, emotionally and socially. For example, children engaging in pretend play with their peers may learn to problem-solve, think creatively and communicate more effectively. In addition, children derive enjoyment through the playing process and that contributes to the physical, emotional and social well-being of a child. Play is intrinsically an enjoyable activity for children and is thus not only a means to an end, but an important end in itself. Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that it is a child’s right “to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities” (p. 44). Despite the importance of play and its role in supporting child development, “the actual time children spend playing continues to decrease” (White, 2012, p. 5). Rivera and Tonsgard (2018) remind us that changes in educational and familial setups and expectations have resulted in “reduction in child-directed, playful learning due to increasing academic pressures and families’ overscheduled lives” (para. 2). The lack of play is particularly acute for children living in urban cities, where there is an “increase in the control of young children’s space and time” (Cobb et al., 2005, p. 19). Similar concerns have been echoed by parents and other caregivers, evidenced through a survey study of over 1,000 parents and caregivers conducted by the Minnesota Children’s Museum (2016). The study found that, despite agreeing that play helps children develop essential skills, 70% of the parents and caregivers surveyed responded that children do not get enough time to play. 93% also stressed that child-directed play is crucial to their child’s development. The study revealed that the top three factors cited by parents for limited play time were: (a) busy family schedules, (b) a lack of nearby playmates, and (c) concerns about safety. The lack of sufficient play time for children despite its importance suggests the value of continuous and further research in play and particularly, play in today’s modern world. Having examined play and play behaviours, the next section now focuses on discussing the types of play and play behaviours observed at TAG, as well as caregivers’ perceived impacts of this form of interaction.

Play and Play Behaviours at the Artground In order to understand the types of play and play behaviours of the children as they were interacting with the structures in the visual arts space at TAG, the researchers observed 71 children and conducted 70 interviews with their caregivers over a year.

84

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

The observations discussed in this section were triangulated with interviews with children or caregivers to form a deeper understanding of how children play at TAG. The nature of the visual arts space attracts children to engage in active play. However, it is important to note that while the children were heavily involved in active play, other forms of play were happening concurrently, either as a result of active play or in conjunction with active play. This section first explains the types of play observed in the children, followed by the results of these play behaviours.

Active Play Active play occurs when children “engage in gross motor movements and physical exercise” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407), like running, climbing or jumping. It is associated with many physical benefits such as muscle growth and the development of strength and coordination, but also associated with cognitive benefits such as the improvement of self-regulation and executive functioning (White, 2012). Active play was one of the most frequently observed types of play within TAG’s play space, along with exploratory play. This overall trend was consistent across observations conducted in the play space for three different visual arts spaces, Hullabaloo (August 30, 2018 to January 6, 2019), Wild Rumpus (January 24 to May 5, 2019) and Happy Homebodies (May 23 to September 15, 2019). The trend was also consistent across all ages of children, although the forms of active play observed varied between the age groups. It was expected that children of different ages would be engaged in different forms of active play, given their varying stages of development. Theories of play from the likes of Krasnor and Pepler (1980) also stress the flexibility of play in form and content. At TAG, babies from 0- to 2-years-old were observed to be crawling around, climbing up or through different play structures. One of the caregivers interviewed articulated that her baby was more active at TAG and seemingly more motivated to crawl than when the infant was at home (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J10, personal interview, September 5, 2018). This caregiver’s view is consistent with the observations made by the researchers as babies were witnessed to be frequently exploring the Baby Stage through physical movements in the space (see Fig. 4.1 for a photo of Baby Stage). However, it is important to stress that the babies’ exploration of the space through physical movements was not limited to the Baby Stage. The very young children were also observed to be physically exploring the visual arts space by attempting to climb into the various structures designed for older children. This observation was made more often with structures that were more easily accessible to the babies (see Fig. 4.2 for example). For structures that were inaccessible or more challenging to the infants and toddlers, caregivers were seen providing assistance to their young children. Toddlers from 2- to 4-years-old and older children from 4-years-old and up were observed to be running around, sliding, climbing up onto and jumping off different

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

85

Fig. 4.1 The Baby Stage during Hullabaloo (August 30, 2018 to January 6, 2019) by Nur Aida binte Sa’ad. From “We are super proud to present to you HULLABALOO, designed by local artist Nur Aida Sa’ad (@yellowmushmellow) [Facebook status update],” by The Artground (2018) (http:// www.facebook.com/theartground/posts/705299329804090). In the public domain

Fig. 4.2 A baby crawling up a structure meant for toddlers to play on. From “Hullabaloo,” by The Artground (n.d.-b) (http://theartground.com.sg/va/hullabaloo/) (Copyright 2018 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

86

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Fig. 4.3 The slide featured in Hullabaloo (August 30, 2018 to January 6, 2019) by Nur Aida binte Sa’ad. From “Hullabaloo,” by The Artground (n.d.-b) (http://theartground.com.sg/va/hullabaloo/) (Copyright 2018 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

play structures within the space. Sliding, in particular, has observed to be a popular play activity at TAG, with one caregiver commenting too that “slides are always popular” (Caregiver of J195, personal interview, March 8, 2019). TAG explains that the slides have become a means for them to engage the children (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, July 11, 2019) and therefore, in the three visual arts spaces observed during the research period, each artist presented a slide as a part of their structures (see Figs. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5). Children were observed to be continuously climbing up the different structures to experience the pleasure or thrill associated with sliding back down repeatedly. One of the caregivers echoed this observation, noting that “they [the children] are very active, they are running around, playing with the slide” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J8, personal interview, September 5, 2018). It is also important to note that the children engaged in the active play on the slide attempted variations of play spontaneously. Some of the children were observed to make slight modifications to the repeated pattern of going up the structure and sliding down. For example, some attempted to slide down on their belly instead of on their bottoms or on their backs. Some children took risks and jumped off from the height of the slide before climbing back up. The risks taken by the notably older children were understood as attempts to challenge themselves and “[push] their physical boundaries” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, J267, & J268, personal interview, April 13, 2019). This element of risk-taking is crucial to play, as stressed by Blasi et al. (2002).

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

87

Fig. 4.4 The slide featured in Wild Rumpus (January 24 to May 5, 2019) by Adeline Loo. From “Wild Rumpus,” by The Artground (n.d.-d) (http://theartground.com.sg/va/wildrumpus/) (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

Fig. 4.5 The slide featured in Happy Homebodies (May 23 to September 15, 2019) by Gracie Chai. From “Happy Homebodies,” by The Artground (n.d.-a) (http://theartground.com.sg/va/happyhome bodies/) (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

88

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Exploratory Play Exploratory play occurs when children “use the senses to explore the environment and surrounding objects” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407). Exploratory play allows children to practice both fine and gross motor skills when they play with smaller and larger objects respectively (White, 2012). In exploring and learning about objects around them, they also develop their creativity, problem-solving skills and foundational skills for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (White, 2012). Exploratory play was frequently observed to take place together with active play within TAG. Children were seen examining the fixtures in the visual arts space, while physically being engaged in active play. For example, children were observed to be touching and feeling the different textures present in the structures as well as pulling, pressing on or playing with small objects built into the structures (see Figs. 4.6 and 4.7). Babies and toddlers, in particular, were observed to be frequently engaged in exploratory play. This finding is not unexpected as they are in a developmental stage that predisposes them to be inclined towards exploratory play through touch and observations. As McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) remind us, play behaviours can emerge in children as young as one month old, as they try to make sense of their world. One caregiver commented that “even as young as 4 months, she [their baby] really loves the pom poms… . That whole sense of touch is … really, really good. It goes together really well with the visuals” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J5, personal interview, September 2, 2018). Exploratory play was observed frequently in the visual arts space Wild Rumpus, for which structures were crafted using various textural materials such as yarn, via the processes of knitting, weaving and crocheting.

Fig. 4.6 A child pressing on night lights on the Baby Stage. From “Wild Rumpus,” by The Artground (n.d.-d) (http://theartground.com.sg/va/wildrumpus/) (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

89

Fig. 4.7 A child playing with clothes pegs on the Baby Stage. From “Instagram photos [Facebook status update],” by The Artground (2019) (http://www.facebook.com/theartground/photos/a.598 645173802840/935867046747316). In the public domain

Caregivers suggested the colourful and textural elements of the structures stimulated different forms of exploration for the children as “there’s a lot of things to take in terms of the colours, the lights, the sounds” (Caregiver & J238, personal interview, March 28, 2019) and “it’s quite stimulating for the children” (Caregiver of J198, personal interview, March 10, 2019). The caregivers especially appreciate that these play needs of their babies can be met at TAG, with one caregiver explaining that they would recommend [TAG] to … those [families with] young babies. Because… For older kids they have a lot of toys in different places. They have really, many [other] places to go. But not for the young ones. It’s [TAG] very safe… clean… and colourful… So I think it’s [appropriate] for toddlers. For babies. (Caregiver of J26, personal interview, October 6, 2018)

Another caregiver echoed that in Singapore you really can’t find many spaces for babies. There’s a lot of stuff [places and activities] for like toddlers or kids, like above two years old. But I think for [children] below two and babies especially, you can’t really find like places where you want to bring your babies to… . So this [TAG] is actually a very good space to bring them. (Caregiver of J196, personal interview, March 9, 2019)

90

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Imaginative Play and Fantasy Play Imaginative play occurs when children “play the role of an object or a being that is a part of our reality but is not physically present or is impossible to happen” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407). They might be pretending to talk to an imaginary friend or hold an invisible object such as a telephone (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407). Fantasy play shares an imaginative element but refers more specifically to children “[playing] out fictional roles that have been retrieved from the world of fantasy” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407), like pretending to be a superhero. These forms of play are vital to the development of children’s creativity, language and literacy, executive functioning, emotional regulation and socialisation skills (White, 2012). Imaginative play and fantasy play were observed at times within the visual arts space, more typically amongst older children aged 4-years-old and up. This is expected based on Piaget’s developmental theory of play (as cited in Casby, 2003), which highlighted such forms of play as being more ‘complex’ or ‘advanced’. As children grow older, they develop the cognitive capacities to engage in these forms of play either by themselves or together with their peers. There were several instances of imaginative and fantasy play at TAG, as observed by the researchers and shared by caregivers. One caregiver who was interviewed shared their amazement that “they [the children] can spend such a long time here… Especially when they come with friends. You know, their imagination, they start like pretending, role play, they go on. Like [for] three, four hours” (Caregiver of J141, personal interview, February 13, 2019). Another shared that their children “get to imagine stuff and play stuff [at TAG]. Like [for example, the children pretend] they’re on a ship, [or that] they’re on a boat” (Caregiver of J22, personal interview, September 29, 2018). The caregiver had even been invited to join them aboard their ‘ship’, in their game of pretend. There were, in particular, many instances of fantasy play observed in the visual arts space Wild Rumpus, with children observed to be pretending as monsters. Children were seen running around the space while ‘roaring’ with their hands up in the air (observation, 8 February 2019, 7 April 2019). Two children were also observed to be engaging in imaginative play while sitting atop one of the monster structures (see Fig. 4.8). They pretended that the structure was a bus and pretended to be driving it together, picking up ‘passengers’ along the way (observation, 8 February 2019).

Communication Play and Creative Play Communication play refers to verbal or non-verbal communication that occurs “in a playful way” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407), such as joking, singing or miming. Creative play occurs when “children create something new from scratch for its own sake” with the child being “in control and led by their imagination” (McInnes

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

91

Fig. 4.8 A ‘monster’ structure featured in Wild Rumpus (January 24 to May 5, 2019) by Adeline Loo. From “Wild Rumpus,” by The Artground (n.d.-d) (http://theartground.com.sg/va/wildrumpus/) (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

& Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 407). They could be using blocks to build a structure, drawing or painting. These forms of play are associated with the development of creativity, language and literacy. In all three of the visual arts spaces, drawing and reading were commonly observed. The presence of chalk boards and shelves stocked with books that were easily accessible to visitors allowed children to write and doodle (see Fig. 4.9) or have quiet reading moments with their caregivers (see Fig. 4.10), in addition to being actively engaged in the visual arts space. Caregivers had expressed their appreciation for these chalk boards and reading corners doubling up as a “quiet place” where children could “quiet down” after a bout of active play (Caregiver & J209, personal interview, March 17, 2019). Younger and older children were both observed being read to, with infants engaging in other forms of communication play with their caregivers as well, such as playing peekaboo or being sung to. Other caregivers appreciated that these activities provided the children with a creative outlet to express themselves in a different way. As one caregiver shared, there’s “a lot of things [at TAG] for them [the children] to draw [on]… you know, scribble on the walls. It’s not something that they often get a chance to do. So [it’s a] good space to be free” (Caregiver, J213 & 214, personal interview, March 17, 2019). Children were observed to be drawing on the chalk boards within the visual arts space and creating their own ‘artwork’ (see Fig. 4.11).

92

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Fig. 4.9 A child drawing while in the visual arts space, using chalk (Copyright 2018 by authors)

Fig. 4.10 A caregiver reading to a child. From “Wild Rumpus,” by The Artground (n.d.-d) (http://the artground.com.sg/va/wildrumpus/) (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

Social Play Social play is “defined as play that occurs in the interaction of children with adults or other children” (White, 2012, p. 9). Parents are typically “children’s first play partners” (White, 2012, p. 9), initiating play with children from their infancy via simple games like peekaboo. As children grow older, they begin to initiate their own

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

93

Fig. 4.11 A child’s ‘artwork’ drawn on a chalk board (Copyright 2018 by authors)

play activities, and parents remain involved by commenting or prompting (White, 2012). The interaction with parents prepare children for social play with their peers, through which they further learn how to plan, negotiate or cooperate with others (White, 2012). Children were frequently observed to engage in social play at TAG, in the forms of parallel play and cooperative play. Based on Parten’s (1932) theory of play, parallel play occurs when children play independently but alongside other children, using similar or the same toys. Cooperative play occurs when children play “in a group that is organized for the purpose of making some material product, or of striving to attain some competitive goal, or of dramatizing situations of adult and group life, or of playing formal games” (Parten, 1932, p. 251). The young visitors at TAG engaged in social play with other children who were either siblings or friends, or children whom they had just met at the visual arts space. Toddlers and older children (between the ages of 2- to 11-years-old) had been observed to participate in activities such as drawing, sliding or playing with other children. The children negotiated with each other to create rules for the games they were playing collaboratively (see Fig. 4.12) in the process of engaging in social play. Caregivers interviewed noted the interactions amongst the children and mentioned that

94

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Fig. 4.12 Children playing a game of tic tac toe together on a chalk board (Copyright 2019 by authors)

“they [the children] play together in groups,” during which they engage in behaviours of “sharing [and] taking turns,” perhaps “because there’s a lot of kids of all different backgrounds, size … age [at TAG]” (Caregiver of J224, personal interview, March 22, 2019). The caregivers felt that “it’s always good for kids to mix with other children, because they don’t necessarily [do so], you know, outside of their classes or in school” (Caregiver of J204, personal interview, March 16, 2019). It helps that there are different forms of activities within the visual arts space that are suited to children of all ages. This view was shared by several caregivers and corroborated with the researchers’ observations. “It’s a balance of having a baby space and some areas for older kids… and for kids who … doesn’t [sic] like to play much, they [TAG] have this area [i.e., the reading corner]. So … it [the visual arts space] pretty much covers every children’s [sic] preference” (Caregiver of J255, personal interview, April 6, 2019). A caregiver noted that the visual arts space felt “not really age-specific” and spoke with appreciation about how “big kids, small kids, they all seem to enjoy [the visual arts space]… cohesively … [and] they can play together” (Caregiver of J243 and J244, personal interview, March 29, 2019). This makes the visual arts space “a nice place for children and parents [or other caregivers] to gather … [because] it’s suitable for kids of a variety of age[s]” (Caregiver, J143, & J144, personal interview, February 16, 2019).

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

95

Results of Play As a result of the various forms of play that occurred amongst children at TAG, other behaviours and platforms for learning emerged. The following subsections discuss the impacts of the young people and their adult companions’ engagement in TAG on the development of various skillsets and literacies.

Opportunities for Social Interaction The active playing complemented by the social play at TAG resulted in children forming play relationships with other children within the same space. Parten (1932) noted that children typically begin to engage in cooperative play from the age of 4 and a half years old. Caregivers who were interviewed made similar observations that children typically like to play with others of the same age, “especially when they are at this age group, about five [years old] … [they want] to be together with their own age group to play around” (Caregiver of J201, personal interview, March 14, 2019). Playing at TAG made available the opportunities for children to engage in cooperative play with peers either of similar ages or of different ages because the visual arts space was intended to cater to children between 0 and 12 years of age.1 Baby Stage is an area that was specially meant for babies and toddlers in order to provide a safe environment to encourage exploration and curiosity through active play, but older children were not prevented from entering the area if they wished to. A caregiver articulated their approval for the social mixing that takes place at TAG, noting that the interaction between ages was uncommon in “certain indoor playground[s] … [as] they [the playground management team] will segregate the toddlers, the big kids and the small kids” (Caregiver & J146, personal interview, February 16, 2019). An additional benefit of the social mixing was that the children engaged in cooperative and parallel play across ages, although it was noted that the older children then had to be more careful and sensitive towards the young children amongst them. A caregiver explained that “it’s [the mixture of ages] good for them … I think it helps… the older ones learn how to behave around littler kids” (Caregiver of J222, personal interview, March 21, 2019). Clearly, the interaction between the ages enabled learning opportunities for the older children in terms of their ability to play responsibly in the same space with young children. At the same time, these interactions are also beneficial for the younger children, as they could model play behaviours after their older peers. As a caregiver shared, “she [their child] likes to watch other kids play so I think that’s where she learns” 1 TAG’s

establishment arose as a response to the National Art Council’s (2016) open call for “a partner to pilot a children’s arts centre” to engage with “young audiences (children aged 12 and below)” (p. 2) and hence TAG initially specified that they were interested in reaching out to children from birth to 12 years of age. From 2020 though, after discussions with the National Arts Council, TAG has since revised this age range to be from birth to 9 years of age instead.

96

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

(Caregiver of J140, personal interview, February 10, 2019). Another caregiver further shared that “the main reason that we [the family] come” to TAG is because it allows their child to “be able to observe other [children]… like the older kids, how they play and then she will try to imitate” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J17, personal interview, September 16, 2018). The views of these caregivers support the perspective of researchers like Blasi et al. (2002) and McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018), who stress the value of play in contributing to children’s social development. Despite the importance of social play, parents and caregivers typically struggle with a lack of playmates for children, as showed by data from the Minnesota Children’s Museum (2016). However, TAG’s visual arts space facilitates play amongst both children who know each other—siblings, relatives or friends—and children who do not know each other. As the visual arts space caters to a range of ages, many caregivers like to recommend TAG to their friends or organise playdates at TAG, with the assurance that all children can be engaged in some form of play regardless of their age. This is important because for “this new generation [of children] they don’t really have that much opportunity [to interact or play with others]… . that’s one reason why we bring him [their child] there as well” (Caregiver of J194, personal interview, March 8, 2019). Apart from being able to play with children of different ages, children also get to play with children “from every culture” (Caregiver of J30, personal interview, October 17, 2018) and of different abilities.

Opportunities for Development and Learning Krakowski (2012) stresses play as an integral activity to learning and being in flow for children. Chapter 5 of this book discusses the children’s phenomenal experiences of playing at TAG and draw connections between the observations of play with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) flow theory. The learning that occurred at the interactive visual arts space was not prescriptive and intended to be open-ended. The artists who worked with TAG to design the visual arts space did not conceptualise the artworks because they had learning objectives to meet. Instead, the learning that occurred while children of all ages were engaged in the playing and exploration were tacit and reflective. Caregivers interviewed acknowledged that “as they [children] play, they also learn” (Caregiver of J21, personal interview, September 29, 2018). They perceived TAG as “a place where children can find themselves by exploring things,” and where they are “free to explore” and indulge their desire to be “curious to know what’s here, what’s there” (Caregiver of J161, personal interview, February 23, 2019). This is crucial as “they [children] learn from how they play. They learn from exploring” (Caregiver of J161, personal interview, February 23, 2019). In terms of concrete takeaways for the children though, one caregiver remarked that the “most obvious one [form of learning at TAG] is in terms of the physical play because you do see them running around quite a bit” (Caregiver of J154, personal interview, February 17, 2019).

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

97

Observations of children playing at TAG concur with the caregivers’ views. Children were observed to be engaging in active play most frequently at TAG and through the physical exploration and interaction with the structures and with other children, the young audiences were “having fun, enjoying themselves,” which serves as “some physical activity, physical exercise” (Caregiver of J24, personal interview, October 5, 2018). Such activity and exercise in turn “help[s] in their [children’s] psychomotor skills… . [and] give[s] them confidence in their psychomotor skills” (Caregiver of J242, personal interview, March 29, 2019), which facilitates their “gross motor development” (Caregiver of J9, September 5, 2018). The different types and levels of physical obstacles inherent in the visual arts space were intended to challenge and encourage physical efficacy in the young people. One of the caregivers commented that “it’s [TAG] really different in terms of the type of play that they [children] can do. So you have crawling in a tunnel, you have like the bridge, so different motor skills that is targeted at her [their child’s] stage [of development]. So, [that’s] quite useful” (Caregiver of J223, personal interview, March 22, 2019). The gradated levels of physical engagement promoted the development of motor skills that commensurate with the ages of the children exploring through play. For babies, one of the main ways to learn is through exploratory play, which offers new sensory experiences, exposure and stimulation for them. From as young as one month old, babies begin to explore and learn about the world around them by using their senses, observing and touching objects found around them (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018). A caregiver pointed out that artworks presented at the visual arts space stimulated the babies to learn through multi-sensory means. The caregiver explained that “they can learn, especially you know [with] those different materials, all these different textures and everything, it’s something new to them … so I think they benefit most from this” (Caregiver of J132, personal interview, January 26, 2019). It is important to highlight that the older children benefit from multi-sensorial exploratory play as well, although they might gain more from communication play activities such as reading that are better suited for their age. One caregiver commended TAG’s use of text to accompany the play structures in Wild Rumpus as it encouraged older children to engage with reading while immersed in the visual arts space. She explained that older children “have to try to start learning how to read, so that’s quite useful” (Caregiver of J154, personal interview, February 17, 2019). The reading corners included in the various visual arts spaces also became useful platforms to encourage literacy amongst the children. One caregiver suggested that their child really loved the reading corner “because [at her age] now she appreciates books” (Caregiver of J255, personal interview, April 6, 2019). However, it is also interesting to note that for some caregivers, learning is not a key priority for their child’s experience at TAG. The engagement with the structures at TAG through play was more critical because they felt that “kids their age just want to play” (Caregiver of J152, personal interview, February 17, 2019) and therefore the need to be concerned about what learning had taken place was unfounded (Caregiver & J153, personal interview, February 17, 2019). One caregiver emphasised that they just

98

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong want them [their children] to have a good time and ya, that’s it… . I don’t expect them to do math or anything, I just want them to run around. And I like all those things [structures within the visual arts space] where they have to be a bit careful about what they do, not to pull here and there … And this I find good for them. About their learning… who knows right? (Caregiver of J147, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

Opportunities for Positive Risk-Taking The idea of exposing children to a level of risk or physical challenges that are suited for their age and capabilities, is perceived by caregivers as being key in their children’s learning. White (2012) reminds us that children are spending less time at play because of social, educational and familial changes and expectations. The acknowledgement from parents and other caregivers that play is important to children did not result in children engaging in play often enough (Minnesota Children’s Museum, 2016) and children therefore lack platforms and opportunities to practise decision making and risk-taking behaviours. One of the caregivers interviewed echoed similar opinions and advocated the need for children to be “exposed to some kind of danger? So the children themselves can learn new experience[s], [and have] new adventures” (Caregiver of J2, personal, September 1, 2018). Hullabaloo was cited as one of the “more adventurous” visual arts space at TAG that really “encourage[d] the kids to explore, to be more daring. It’s also more challenging … [but] you can see they’re [the children] having fun” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J12, personal interview, September 8, 2018). Risk-taking and active play occur when children get to “climb through, over and under” (The Artground, n.d.-c). The opportunity to engage in positive risky behaviours is distinct from art installations or exhibitions for children “at other museums, [where] they get told off and they’re told like, not to touch [the artworks], [and to] be quiet” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J13, personal interview, September 8, 2018). The embodied form of learning through physical engagement and activities at TAG allow the children to learn about themselves and their capabilities. A caregiver suggested that children learn “about their own bodies … [and] the capacity of what they can do themselves” (Caregiver of J258, personal interview, April 8, 2019), while another remarked that exploring the visual arts space at TAG enable children to “gain confidence in climbing stairs and things like that … and then also [when they interact with] a high element, when they play [with the] slide … it give [sic] them confidence in their psychomotor skills” (Caregiver of J242, personal interview, March 29, 2019). Such opportunities to learn through physical engagement were also beneficial to babies. One caregiver shared that they visited TAG many times before their child started walking, as “it [TAG] was a good space for her [the child] to move around and practice her gross motor skills and things. I find it quite hard to find places in Singapore with this much room for them to run around” (Caregiver of J222, personal interview, March 21, 2019).

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

99

Opportunities to Exercise Creativity The play structures within TAG’s visual arts space are open-ended, with no prescribed ways of interacting with them. “Everything is very free form, it’s … very open [for] interpretation” (Caregiver & J238, personal interview, March 28, 2019). Other caregivers echoed this, noting that the space is “not so structured,” and therefore “lets the children explore… [and] figure things out themselves” (Caregiver & J188, personal interview, March 2, 2019), which facilitates different forms of play such as imaginative or communication play: Here [at TAG] … [it’s] really for them [children] to be more creative. So there was one time where they had … a lot of big cushions on the floor? So that time we came in [to TAG] … we’re like playing, [pretending to perform] dragon dance… . So it [how the family plays at TAG] really depends on how the kids wanna play [rather than being bound to play in a specific manner]. (Caregiver & J151, personal interview, February 17, 2019)

This is distinct from other play spaces where the activities are more “cookiecutter” (Caregiver of J22, personal interview, September 29, 2018): Usually we go to places where there are different tasks so … she [the child] usually asked [sic] me, “Mama … what should I do with this?” … [However, at TAG] you need to use your imagination and … every little kid plays differently with the same equipment. So I like this place [TAG], because they [the children] need to use their imagination. (Caregiver of J135, personal interview, February 8, 2019)

Another caregiver echoed this sentiment, remarking that at “other playgrounds … they [the children] are too distracted … with the toys that they can get. It’s predetermined what you can do with it [toys and structures in those playgrounds]. But with spaces like this [i.e., TAG], they can be more creative” (Caregiver of J255, personal interview, April 6, 2019). At TAG, caregivers witness their children getting more creative. One caregiver said “you can see what they’re actually interested in, you know, and how they make use of different exhibits in a different manner all the time” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J134, personal interview, February 8, 2019). Another caregiver commented, I think they [children] can learn how to just like keep playing with the same thing, but in different ways … it’s always changing. And they’re always being entertained. Here they kind of create their own fun… . I think at this age, like creating their own world and making meaning of that is like important to them. (Caregiver of J279, personal interview, April 26, 2019)

Opportunities to Be Immersed in an Arts Space TAG offers its audiences an environment that is steeped in artists’ expressions and artistic outcomes. Some caregivers are aware that the play structures in the visual arts space are designed by an artist and the children are exploring and playing in works created by artists. The artistic environment therefore becomes an opportunity

100

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

for children to learn about artistic elements and art making. Caregivers interviewed articulated that they enjoyed “the artistic element of it [the visual arts space]. Like the children can see how colours … can create a playground… . [or how] the different elements of arts [come together to create the space]” (Caregiver, J276, & J277, personal interview, April 14, 2019). Providing exploratory and play experiences in an arts rich environment means that children can “learn, and acknowledge and appreciate [the artists’ work]” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, J206, & J207, personal interview, March 16, 2019). At the same time, they develop literacies such as “spatial intelligence … [and] visual intelligence” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J23, personal interview, September 29, 2018) as they “familiarise themselves with colours, creativity” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J5, September 2, 2018). This may be especially so for children who frequent TAG and witness the changeovers of the visual arts space, as the changes in the presentation of structures and the use of different materials in the creation of each visual arts space mean that the children potentially acquire artistic literacies through experiencing the different artists’ works. Some caregivers agree that the experience of playing in TAG “empower the children’s aesthetical perspectives” (Caregiver of J2, personal interview, September 1, 2018) and also “fosters creativity and imagination” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J5, personal interview, September 2, 2018). In particular, one caregiver interviewed highlighted that Wild Rumpus seemed to “spark a bit of their [children’s] imagination with monsters” (Caregiver of J202 & J203, personal interview, March 14, 2019) as they had observed their children engaging in playing a game of pretend as monsters. As a result of the artistic literacy enabled through the play and exploration in an arts rich environment, children and their caregivers were also able to engage in art making through creative play. One caregiver who was visiting Wild Rumpus suggested this was possible as “they [the children] get to observe… how artwork can be put together … just now [when the children were playing] I asked them to draw a monster playground [based on their experience at Wild Rumpus] … [and] they managed to do [i.e., draw] some very nice structures” (Caregiver, J276, & J277, personal interview, April 14, 2019). In addition, the use of different materials to construct the structures presented in the visual arts spaces sparked inspiration to caregivers and children (see Fig. 4.13). For instance, a caregiver reflected that “a lot of things that they [TAG and the visual artists] use [to create the visual arts spaces] are like, junk materials and materials that we can make ourselves as well,” and that this made them realise that “actually we [the caregivers] can use this and do something with the children [at home] next time as well” (Caregiver & J3, personal interview, September 1, 2018). Another caregiver echoed this desire to engage their child in art making sessions at home using materials they had seen being used for the visual arts spaces at TAG. The caregiver explained that “I really love it, how they [TAG] use different materials. It’s very creative… . Like it’s really everyday materials that they use, or even sometimes [materials with] very interesting … textures” (Caregiver of J239, personal interview, March 28, 2019).

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

101

Fig. 4.13 A structure created using pool noodles, featured in Wild Rumpus (January 24 to May 5, 2019) by Adeline Loo. From “Wild Rumpus,” by The Artground (n.d.-d) (http://theartground.com. sg/va/wildrumpus/) (Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

Discussion Some of the findings in this study resonate with McInnes and Elpidoforou’s (2018) research on toddler play in a children’s museum, with active play and exploratory play being the most frequently observed types of play. While the visual arts spaces at TAG have enabled a range of play behaviours in children as discussed above, it might be worthwhile considering how this dedicated children’s arts space is capable of facilitating more deliberate curious and exploratory behaviours as the young patrons engage in play. The section will therefore now shift the discussion to examine TAG’s visual arts space and how it could further influence different play behaviours in children, and the ensuing results of such behaviours.

Expanding Beyond Random Play Behaviours TAG intends to be a space where children engage in unstructured and free play, thereby allowing the young people to develop and learn at a pace that is meaningful and comfortable for them. The collaboration between TAG and the visual artists focus on creating visual arts spaces that encourage children to play on their own terms without prescribing learning objectives and outcomes. The results of these intentions, as indicated in this chapter, are the enablement of a range of play behaviours in an environment that is unrestrictive and immersive in the arts. Children and their caregivers have acknowledged that they are appreciative of the freedom to interact and engage in the visual arts space. However, it might be critical to consider that

102

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

freedom to play as they will does not have to equate with randomised behaviours that are repetitive in different visual arts spaces. Smith and Vollstedt (1985) remind us that the process of playing is more important to children than the outcomes of play behaviours while White (2012) adds that children should be actively engaged mentally and physically through play. The most observed forms of play at TAG are active play and exploratory play. Although other forms of play were observed at times over the course of the three visual arts spaces, they occurred less frequently. Each visual arts space at TAG could therefore be designed to enable significantly different processes of playing by including mental and physical challenges absent in previous spaces, or challenges that expand on the exploration of previous spaces. In this way, visual arts spaces at TAG could contain more intentionality to develop specific play behaviours without compromising the freedom to play, which would be beneficial for their visitors as each type of play has a “main developmental function or focus … [and] a balance of experience of each of these types of play is likely to be beneficial to children’s [physical, intellectual and social-emotional] development” (Whitebread, 2012, p. 18). It is impractical to suggest that every visual arts space enables the whole spectrum of play behaviours in children, but it might be worth considering specific play behaviours that could be foregrounded in different visual arts spaces with each new design. Over time, having such a diversity of visual arts spaces would enable children, especially those who regularly visit TAG, to engage in processes of play that do in fact span the spectrum of play behaviours. It is acknowledged that despite intentional inclusion and curation of play behaviours when designing an interactive visual arts space, other play behaviours might still emerge as McInnes and Elpidoforou’s (2018) research has reminded us. However, a space that is dedicated to enabling freedom in curiosity and exploration through play needs to avoid repetitive play behaviours that center around two forms of play only.

Making Space for Imagination and Creation Erikson (1985) and Hurwitz (2003) argue that it is critical to build motivated and selfinitiated learners in children and White (2012) suggests that one way to achieve that would be through the agency and control experienced by children when they play. Therefore, when children engage in free play, the act “promotes desire, motivation, and mastery” through the interaction within the activity and reinforces “a lasting disposition to learn” (White, 2012, p. 8). Bearing these arguments in mind, it is crucial to examine how the visual arts space at TAG provides the platform for children to build agency and control through the way they were engaging and interacting with the structures. This study suggests that children above the age of 4-years-old who were playing in the visual arts space at TAG engaged in imaginative and fantasy play, and these forms of play were expected due to their developmental stage. However, imaginative and fantasy play were more observed in the visual arts space Wild Rumpus than the

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

103

other two visual arts spaces, perhaps because it was designed to encourage children to imagine fantastical creatures such as monsters whilst engaging in play either with self or others. White (2012) informs us that imaginative and fantasy play are critical processes in the development of children’s creativity, language and literacy, executive functioning, emotional regulation and socialization skills. Creative and communication play, on the other hand, were observed in all three of the visual arts spaces as children were seen engaged in drawing and reading. The availability and easy accessibility of chalk boards and books invited both the caregivers and the children within the space to draw and read. McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) explains that creative play occurs when children engage in the process of making something, tangible and intangible from scratch, and being “in control and led by their imagination” (p. 407). It appears that the visual arts space at TAG promotes imagination and creativity, both having an inter-connected relationship with the other. When Wild Rumpus was created to remind children of the fantastical world of monsters, the young people engaging in the space were in turn more likely to participate in imaginative and creative play, immersing in pretend and make-believe. However, TAG might wish to consider consistently building imaginative and creative play opportunities into each visual arts space as these forms of play support the development of multiple literacies and skills discussed earlier, in addition to enabling positive sense of agency and self-motivation. The inclusion of imaginative and creative platforms in the visual arts space would also attract older children who appreciate such activities, and complementary to the active play constantly enabled by the activities within the space.

Designing Challenges to Encourage Risk-Taking and Problem-Solving The visual arts space at TAG promotes embodied learning in children through the physical activities of climbing, running, and jumping, amongst many other forms of movements. Hullabaloo was notably one of the most physically engaging visual arts spaces during the research period and many caregivers and children who were interviewed agreed that it was both physically engaging and challenging. McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) suggest that learning and development in children happen synchronously and “whilst playing, children make sense of their world and their place in it, and they learn to problem-solve, socialize, communicate and be creative” (p. 400). Blasi et al. (2002) remind us that play is the medium through which children learn to take risks and manage challenges. Therefore, the physical play at TAG is developmentally critical for children to acquire important life skills. As a purpose-built children’s arts space, TAG shoulders the responsibility of creating interactive and developmentally stimulating visual arts spaces that attract and sustain the attention of the children and their families. When children and their

104

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

caregivers are engaged in the process of negotiating challenges and risks, they develop further mental and physical capabilities to meet these new experiences. In addition, the risk-taking and uncertainties can serve to promote collaborative relationships between children, and between children and their caregivers. Therefore, such activities promote communication within the families at TAG, as well as foster analytical and risk assessment skills in the children, in addition to the other life skills mentioned earlier. The observations and interviews conducted with the caregivers and the children in this research corroborated to show that visitors to the visual arts space enjoyed and welcomed the challenges and risk-taking behaviours enabled in Hullabaloo. Caregivers interviewed felt that the embodied forms of learning supported the children’s understanding of risk and the young people developed an awareness of their bodies’ capabilities. Therefore, TAG could consider including age-appropriate risk-taking opportunities and challenges in the visual arts spaces to engage children across a spectrum of age and physical capabilities.

Connecting with Theories of Early Childhood Development McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) state that play has significant influence in children’s development starting from the infancy stages. Through the different forms of play, children learn and develop cognitively, physically, emotionally and socially. Leaning onto Parten’s (1932) theory of progression in stages of development through play discussed earlier, it is recommended that TAG considers a stronger connection between the understanding of child development and the design of the visual arts spaces, and thereby resulting in more concerted and deliberate interaction and engagement platforms for children of different ages and developmental stages.

Conclusion When caregivers who were interviewed were asked why they brought their children to TAG, many responded that it was for their children to play. This demonstrates the significance of the play experiences and engagement of children at TAG. The opportunities for children to indulge in various types of play at TAG unreliant on digital devices were important to caregivers. TAG also serves as an environment that encourages children to be immersed in an arts rich experience that is highly interactive and enjoyable. TAG’s attempts at providing varied forms of play and engagement in the free access visual arts space supported the diverse developmental and physical stages of the children who enter through the glass doors. Not all the recommendations in the discussion section of this chapter might be possibly enacted or implemented at the same time. However, TAG is encouraged to foreground some forms of play, or

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

105

points of engagements in different visual arts spaces more deliberately. In this way, children who are attracted to different ways of playing and learning could find specific visual arts spaces more engaging rather than having TAG predominantly being an environment that encouraged active and exploratory playing, and other forms of play incidentally featured in some visual arts spaces only. It is nonetheless, encouraging to witness the development of new spaces like TAG, that increase opportunities for children to engage in different types of play. The potential and benefits of creating such spaces for children has not just been recognised by families, but also companies, organisations and schools who have adopted the visual arts spaces. For instance, a private preschool adopted a structure from Happy Homebodies, while the Malay Heritage Centre and Singapore Science Centre adopted different structures that were part of Hullabaloo, prolonging the lifespan of these visual arts spaces outside of TAG. Companies and organisations have also approached TAG for their expertise in designing, conceptualising and building their own interactive arts spaces. With the attention and desires expressed by different stakeholders in making arts more interactive and accessible to children, it is hoped that more of such arts immersed and purposeful places will be made available to more children.

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J8. (2018, September 5). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J12. (2018, September 8). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, J206, & J207. (2019, March 16). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, J267, & J268. (2019, April 13). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J5. (2018, September 2). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J10. (2018, September 5). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J13. (2018, September 8). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J17. (2018, September 16). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J23 (2018, September 29). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J134. (2019, February 8). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J3. (2018, September 1). Personal interview. Caregiver, J143, & J144. (2019, February 16). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J146. (2019, February 16). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J151. (2019, February 17). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J153. (2019, February 17). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J188. (2019, March 2). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J209. (2019, March 17). Personal interview. Caregiver, J213, & J214. (2019, March 17). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J238. (2019, March 28). Personal interview. Caregiver, J276, & J277. (2019, April 14). Personal interview. Caregiver of J2. (2018, September 1). Personal interview. Caregiver of J9. (2018, September 5). Personal interview. Caregiver of J21. (2018, September 29). Personal interview.

106

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Caregiver of J22. (2018, September 29). Personal interview. Caregiver of J24. (2018, October 5). Personal interview. Caregiver of J26. (2018, October 6). Personal interview. Caregiver of J30. (2018, October 17). Personal interview. Caregiver of J132. (2019, January 26). Personal interview. Caregiver of J135. (2019, February 8). Personal interview. Caregiver of J140. (2019, February 10). Personal interview. Caregiver of J141. (2019, February 13). Personal interview. Caregiver of J147. (2019, February 16). Personal interview. Caregiver of J152. (2019, February 17). Personal interview. Caregiver of J154. (2019, February 17). Personal interview. Caregiver of J161. (2019, February 23). Personal interview. Caregiver of J194. (2019, March 8). Personal interview. Caregiver of J195. (2019, March 8). Personal interview. Caregiver of J196. (2019, March 9). Personal interview. Caregiver of J198. (2019, March 10). Personal interview. Caregiver of J201. (2019, March 14). Personal interview. Caregiver of J202 and J203. (2019, March 14). Personal interview. Caregiver of J204. (2019, March 16). Personal interview. Caregiver of J222. (2019, March 21). Personal interview. Caregiver of J223. (2019, March 22). Personal interview. Caregiver of J224. (2019, March 22). Personal interview. Caregiver of J239. (2019, March 28). Personal interview. Caregiver of J242. (2019, March 29). Personal interview. Caregiver of J243 and J244. (2019, March 29). Personal interview. Caregiver of J255. (2019, April 6). Personal interview. Caregiver of J258. (2019, April 8). Personal interview. Caregiver of J279. (2019, April 26). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Yap, J.-E. (2019, July 11). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources The Artground. (n.d.-a). Happy homebodies. Retrieved December 14, 2019, from http://theartgro und.com.sg/va/happyhomebodies/. The Artground. (n.d.-b). Hullabaloo. Retrieved December 14, 2019, from http://theartground.com. sg/va/hullabaloo/. The Artground. (n.d.-c). Interactive visual arts space. Retrieved December 14, 2019, from http:// theartground.com.sg/va/. The Artground. (n.d.-d). Wild Rumpus. Retrieved December 14, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/va/wildrumpus/. The Artground. [theartground]. (2018, August 30). We are super proud to present to you HULLABALOO, designed by local artist Nur Aida Sa’ad (@yellowmushmellow) [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/theartground/posts/705299329804090. The Artground. [theartground]. (2019, September 15). Instagram photos [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/theartground/photos/a.598645173802840/935867046 747316. Bergen, D. (2015). Psychological approaches to the study of play. American Journal of Play, 8(1), 101–128 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ1080018).

4 Playing in the Artground’s Visual Arts Space

107

Bergen, D., Liu, W., & Liu, G. (1997). Chinese and American college students’ memories of childhood play: A comparative educology. International Journal of Educology, 11(2), 109–127. Blasi, M., Hurwitz, S. C., & Hurwitz, S. C. (2002). For parents particularly: To be successful—Let them play! Childhood Education, 79(2), 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.105 22779. Casby, M. W. (2003). The development of play in infants, toddlers, and young children. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 24(4), 163–174 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ678709). Cobb, C., Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2005). Governance of children’s everyday spaces. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(1), 14–20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 67–78). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Erikson, R. J. (1985). Play contributes to the full emotional development of the child. Education, 105, 261–263. Fromberg, D. P., & Bergen, D. (Eds.). (1998). Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Hurwitz, S. C. (2003). To be successful–let them play! For parents particularly. Child Education, 79(2), 101–102 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ666678). Krasnor, L. R., & Pepler, D. J. (1980). The study of children’s play: Some suggested future directions. In K. H. Rubin (Ed.), Children’s play (pp. 1545–1558). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Krakowski, P. (2012). Museum superheroes: The role of play in young children’s lives. Journal of Museum Education, 37(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1179/jme.2012.37.1.49. McInnes, K., & Elpidoforou, M.-E. (2018). Investigating and learning from toddler play in a children’s museum. Early Child Development and Care, 188(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03004430.2016.1223073. Minnesota Children’s Museum. (2016). Play under pressure: Surveying parents about children and the state of play. Retrieved from http://mcm.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Play_Under_Pres sure_Survey_Report.pdf. National Arts Council. (2016, March 3). Open call: Children’s arts centre at the Goodman Arts Centre multi-purpose hall [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:2d9 228b6-6d3f-4efe-abed-6454a55d6ade. Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074524. Rivera, N. R., & Tonsgard, A. (2018, May 11). What’s play all about? Children’s museums weigh in [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/resources/blog/whats-play-all-about-childr ens-museums-weigh. Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2003). Understanding play and its theories. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on play in early childhood (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Smilansky, S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socioemotional and academic development in young children. Gaithersburg, MD: Psychosocial & Educational Publications. Smith, P. K., & Vollstedt, R. (1985). Defining play: An empirical study of the relationship between play, and various play criteria. Child Development, 56(4), 1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1130114. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly. White, R. E. (2012). The power of play: A research summary on play and learning. Retrieved from http://www.childrensmuseums.org/images/MCMResearchSummary.pdf.

108

J. H. L. Lim and J. Wong

Whitebread, D. (2012). The importance of play: A report on the value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/ files/1/david-whitebread---importance-of-play-report.pdf. Wood, E. A. (2014). Free choice and free play in early childhood education: Troubling the discourse. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760. 2013.830562. Xu, Y. (2010). Children’s social play sequence: Parten’s classic theory revisited. Early Child Development and Care, 180(4), 489–498 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ883049). Yawkey, T. D., & Silvern, S. B. (1977). Play and playing processes of the young child in early education programs: A piagetian analysis (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED144717).

Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim is a Research Assistant with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She graduated from the Singapore Management University with a Bachelor of Social Science, having majored in both Psychology and Arts & Cultural Management. Prior to joining the NIE research team on The Artground research project, Jesslyn had worked with children and youth audiences at the Esplanade—Singapore’s national performing arts centre, The Artground and The Red Pencil. She is currently a Project Manager with Unseen Art Initiatives, a socially engaged arts platform that partners social service organisations and schools to present arts programmes and produce artworks together with artists, youth, and adult participants with visual impairment. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development.

Chapter 5

Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s Phenomenological Experiences Through the Lenses of Flow Leonard Tan and Jennifer Wong

Abstract This chapter examines the phenomenological experiences of young children playing within the visual arts space at The Artground (TAG), focusing on Hullabaloo by visual artist Nur Aida binte Sa’ad. The children’s phenomenological experiences are examined through the lenses of flow using mixed methods approaches, with the findings discussed in rank order—how participants felt that it was fun first and foremost, and then wanting more of it, expressing that TAG was the best play space, and finally, feeling that it was challenging, but they could do it. Three main themes also emerged from the qualitative data: (a) environment, (b) enjoyment, and (c) evaluation. These three themes interrelate with each other to enable the phenomenological experiences of flow for the children—the environment plays a significant role in determining the level of enjoyment a child experiences, while evaluation of the challenges present in a space determines the length of time a child is prepared to invest in overcoming and conquering the obstacles. In turn, the direct relationship between evaluation of challenges in the environment and the level of enjoyment is critical in understanding how children’s spaces need to be designed to enable such phenomenological experiences. Keywords Flow · Play · Children Play is a four-letter word that psychologists largely avoid, at least in the polite company of other psychologists. I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because play is hard to define or is used in everyday speech to mean so many different things (so it’s avoided to avert a definition problem); maybe it’s because play is hard to pin down in controlled research studies (once you control it, it’s not fully play); maybe it’s because the word itself, at some level of our consciousness, connote triviality (and who wants to stake one’s reputation on something trivial?); maybe it’s because the larger culture doesn’t value play (so the culture is reluctant To cite: Tan, L., & Wong, J. (2020). Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining young children’s phenomenological experiences through the lenses of flow. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 109–132). Singapore: Springer. L. Tan (B) · J. Wong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_5

109

110

L. Tan and J. Wong

to fund research on it, and researchers themselves have grown up not valuing it). (Gray, 2015, p. 121)

Play. At some point in our lives, in one form or another, we have all played. Indeed, play “has long been a point of human interest, from the earliest philosophers to today’s researchers” (Göl-Güven, 2017, p. 248). Yet, as pointed out in the opening quote, play has received limited scholarly attention—“a four-letter word that psychologists largely avoid”. In reviewing the literature on child psychology, Gray (2015) noted that of the 79 chapters in the Handbook of Child Psychology (Damon & Lerner, as cited in Gray, 2015), none were about play. He further observed that even within the larger fields of humanistic and positive psychology, extant literature on play remains extremely thin. For example, both The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology (Schneider, Pierson, & Bergental, as cited in Gray, 2015) and The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (Snyder & Lopez, as cited in Gray, 2015) contained no chapters on play. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology published “just four articles with play in the title or as a keyword,” while the Journal of Positive Psychology had “just two articles with play in the title or as a keyword” (Gray, 2015, p. 122). The seriousness of ignoring play in research is exacerbated when we take a larger view of play beyond little Johnny playing catching with his friends, seemingly without any end goal in mind. A child bringing home a report card of bad grades may well be chided for playing too much, yet the very same word may be used with some of the most accomplished personalities. Michael Jordan plays basketball. Yo-Yo Ma plays the cello. William Shakespeare wrote plays. Clearly, what they do are not trivial; quite on the contrary, they require remarkable skills and artistry, so much so that people pay to watch Jordan’s basketball matches, Ma’s concerts, and Shakespeare’s plays. Why has the English language used the same word to describe young children running around, and people engaging with sports, music, and drama? To this list, we might add a host of other activities that use the word “play”, such as playing a game of cards, playing around with numbers, with legos, and so on. The list can keep going on. What makes play, play, or playful? For Gray (2015), an activity can be characterized as play, or as playful, to the degree that it is (1) self-chosen and self-directed; (2) intrinsically motivated; (3) guided by rules; (4) imaginative; and (5) conducted in an active, alert but relatively nonstressed frame of mind. (pp. 124–125)

Of the five points listed, Gray (2015) explained that the first four were drawn from the classic writings of Lev Vygotsky, Johan Huizinga, and Karl Groos. The fifth characteristic, “conducted in an active, alert but relatively nonstressed frame of mind,” was derived from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) construal of flow: a psychological state in which “people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it” (p. 4). According to Csikszentmihalyi (1996), flow is characterised by nine dimensions:

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

111

• concentration on the task, which refers to how a person is so immersed and absorbed while doing something that they are entirely free from any form of distraction; • transformation of time, which refers to how time appears to either slow down or quicken; • challenge-skill balance, which refers to how a person’s skill level is able to match the challenge required of an activity; • clear goals, which refers to how a person knows what their actions would lead to; • unity of action and awareness, which refers to how a person’s mind is completely focused on the action or doing of an activity; • sense of control, which refers to how a person does not fear failure and experiences a strong sense of being in control; • immediate feedback, which refers to how a person instantaneously knows how well they are doing; • loss of self-consciousness, which refers to how a person is no longer concerned with how they are perceived by others; and • autotelic experience, which refers to how a person engages in an activity for its own sake. From the list of nine dimensions above, the connection between play and flow is clear. For example, a child playing in a playground often appears to be completely focused on the activity (‘concentration on the task’), they might refuse to leave the venue even after spending more than an hour there (‘transformation of time’), and the activity is engaged entirely for its own sake without any extrinsic rewards (‘autotelic experience’). In fact, Gray (2015) went so far as to argue that flow experiences are inherently playful: Csikszentmihalyi contends that flow occurs not just in play, but I would suggest that all activities conducive to flow are to a considerable degree playful whether we call them play or not. To be in flow you must be controlling and directing your own actions, you must be focused on means more than ends (even if the ends are ultimately important to you), you must be following a set of mentally held rules and you must to some degree have separated yourself from other concerns of the real world around you. All that makes it play. (pp. 126–127)

Writing on children’s culture, Göl-Güven (2017) similarly highlighted the similarities between flow and play: “In childhood what could be the most engaging, enjoyable, and flowable if not play? When the concept of flow is compared with the concept of play, one can see plenty of commonalities” (p. 254). This may well explain why little Johnny playing catching with his friends, Yo-Yo Ma playing his cello, and Michael Jordan playing basketball are all described using the same word—because they may well be experiencing the same phenomenological state while playing (i.e., flow); this is all the more plausible given that young children, musicians and athletes appear particularly prone to flow (Akutsu, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi & Rich, 1997). In fact, Gray (2015) pointed out that Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) early work on flow explicitly sought to address the question, “Why is play intrinsically rewarding?”, further strengthening the connection between flow and play. Moving beyond the West, Zhuangzi presented the parallel concept of flow in Chinese philosophy, wuwei,

112

L. Tan and J. Wong

through the story of Cook Ding playfully butchering his ox (Tan, 2016). If Gray was right in the opening quote of this chapter that “play is a four-letter word that psychologists largely avoid,” flow may well be the other four-letter word that can help play to finally claim its rightful place and truly shine in the psychological literature. They illumine each other.

Statement of the Problem Notwithstanding the interconnectedness of play and flow established above, literature that examine the two simultaneously remain extremely thin. Given the tendency for young children to often be in flow (Akutsu, 2018), an examination of how young children may experience flow while deeply engaged in play may offer invaluable insights. Custodero’s (1998) observation of children’s flow experiences while playing music was followed by a small number of studies that used her “Flow Indicators in Musical Activities” or FIMA in short (Akutsu, 2018; Chen-Hafteck & SchraerJoiner, 2011; Issaka & Hopkins, 2017; St. John, 2006). Given our involvement in The Artground (TAG) research project, it became increasingly clear that an examination of young children’s phenomenological experiences through the lenses of flow while they engage in play would not only contribute to a closer understanding of TAG and the psychological benefits it confers, but also advance research on flow and play.

Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the phenomenological experiences of young children engaged in play through the lenses of flow. The focus was on the visual arts space Hullabaloo by Nur Aida binte Sa’ad, exhibited between August 30, 2018 and January 6, 2019, to understand the deep engagement children experienced when they were immersed in play at the visual arts space at TAG. It also aimed to examine how the engagement exhibited by the children resembled Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) notion of flow. The specific research questions were: • How did young participants and their parents or other caregivers construe the young children’s play experiences in TAG? • How did TAG facilitate deep engagement in play?

Participants The majority of the children who visit TAG are between the ages of 0- and 7-yearsold. Although there were no official statistics regarding the age groups of the children who visit TAG, it had been acknowledged by TAG team that the visual arts space

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

113

was more popular and attractive to younger children rather than those above 8years-old. Anecdotal evidence from TAG team also revealed that Hullabaloo was one of the most popular visual arts spaces at TAG during the period of the research study, due to its colourful structures and wider range of physical activities available. Adult caregivers to the children who were interviewed felt that Hullabaloo was particularly engaging and welcoming to both babies and older children due to its colourful nature. The visual arts space provided many points of engagement because there were opportunities for both physical and mental stimulation, while being “very safe … clean … and colourful”, as commented on by a caregiver (Caregiver of J26, personal interview, October 6, 2018). For the purposes of this chapter, participants were 99 randomly selected young children as well as their parents or other caregivers. They were first asked to respond to a short self-report survey informed by flow theory, following which they were prompted to articulate their experiences in Hullabaloo through short informal interviews. Among the sample of young children, the mean age was 5.81 years of age (range = 2–10 years of age), with notably more females than males (girls = 60.6% and boys = 39.4%). There were 83.8% Singaporeans, 4.0% Permanent Residents, and 12.1% ‘Others’,1 as well as 73.7% ethnic Chinese, 8.1% ethnic Malays, 3.0% ethnic Indians, and 15.2% ‘Others’. The vast majority of the participants were accompanied by their mothers (83.8%); 65.7% were additionally accompanied by their siblings, 54.5% by their fathers, 4.0% by their grandparents, 11.1% by other relatives, and 7.1% by their own friends or their caregivers’ friends.

Instruments While several validated self-report measures exist to quantify flow for adults and senior citizens (Jackson et al., 2010; Payne et al., 2011), none to the best of our knowledge exist for young children at play. Accordingly, prior to the data collection, we created a short self-report survey informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) to measure children’s level of engagement at TAG. To guide our choice of items, we consulted extant flow research and questionnaires (Custodero, 1998, 2005; Payne et al., 2011), eventually converging to a mutual agreement of four pithy items: • • • •

It was fun! I want more! This is the best play space! Challenging, but I could do it!

Given that the age group of the children who frequent TAG are often pre-primary children—as noted above, the mean age of our sample was 5.81 years old—the items were deliberately kept simple and relatable. The number of items was also 1 ‘Others’ refer to non-Singaporeans

holders.

and non-Permanent Residents, such as tourists or work permit

114

L. Tan and J. Wong

consciously capped at four to avoid burdening participants and detracting them from their play, which was arguably their main reason for being there. Rather than create a scale that can be summed up to measure a flow construct for young children, a process which would involve a far more extensive process of psychometric validation, we sought instead to design four simple items that could be examined individually and in relation to one another so as to illumine children’s experience of playing in Hullabaloo. Importantly, while the first two items focused on how they felt about the experience, the next two aimed to generate insights on what they thought about the space. All four items were informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Item 1 (“It was fun!”) relates to enjoyment, items 2 and 3 (“I want more!” and “This is the best play space!”) captures the degree to which children were absorbed and immersed, such that they wanted more of the experience or desired not to leave the space, while item 4 (“Challenging, but I could do it!”) serves a proxy for the challenge-skill dimension of flow theory. Participants responded to the four items through an iPad. In situations where a child was too young to articulate their responses, the caregivers were surveyed instead. The survey questions were read aloud to the children who were unable to read, and the researchers or the children’s caregivers further clarified the survey by elaborating or explaining the questions when it was evident that young respondents had trouble understanding. The children indicated their responses on a scale of 1 to 5 by selecting from the range of emoticons available (see Chap. 2, Appendix C). In cases where the child could not comprehend or answer the self-report survey, or if the caregivers sensed that the child was unable to articulate their responses, the latter would complete the survey by interpreting the behaviours of the child through tacit understanding. As Brown et al. (2010) suggest, parents have tacit knowledge of their children and are able to judge if their children are engaged and interested in particular activities. A short interview with both the caregivers and the children followed after the survey. As flow is au fond phenomenological and subjective, several interview questions used in research studies on flow have focused on how participants felt when engaged in a particular activity (Ascenso et al., 2018; Bailey & Davidson, 2002; Tan & Sin, 2019). In a similar vein, the interview questions we used in this study were: • For children: How did it feel when you were playing in the space? • For caregivers: How do you think your child felt when they were playing in the space? To garner qualitative depth and add richness to the data, extensive observational fieldnotes of the participants engaging in play were taken with the support of two full-time Research Assistants who were on-site at TAG throughout the duration of Hullabaloo. In what follows, we report quantitative findings before presenting the qualitative insights; the discussion that ensues makes connections between the quantitative and qualitative data for the purposes of triangulation (Berg, 2004).

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

115

Quantitative Findings Table 5.1 presents the means and standard deviations for each of the four items on the self-report surveys. On the whole, means were relatively high. Given a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (lowest), represented as a slightly smiling face, to 5 (highest), represented as a widely smiling face, participants largely indicated ratings between 4 and 5 (i.e., the top two highest ratings) for the first three items. The lowest rating was given for the last item, “Challenging, but I could do it!”, with a mean of 3.18. Collectively, the data suggest a relatively high level of engagement in Hullabaloo. In rank order, participants felt that it was first and foremost, fun; this was followed by them wanting more of it, expressing that this was the best play space, and feeling that it was challenging, but they could do it. Interestingly, as the means decreased down the row of items, the standard deviations increased, indicating somewhat greater dispersion of scores. Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 present histograms of frequency counts for each of the 5-point ratings in each of the four items. For item 1 (see Fig. 5.1), 66 participants Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics for self-report surveys

Variable

M

SD

1. It was fun!

4.40

1.097

2. I want more!

4.17

1.229

3. This is the best play space!

4.04

1.245

4. Challenging but I could do it!

3.18

1.567

Fig. 5.1 Frequency counts of ratings for item 1 on the self-report surveys

116

Fig. 5.2 Frequency counts of ratings for item 2 on the self-report surveys

Fig. 5.3 Frequency counts of ratings for item 3 on the self-report surveys

L. Tan and J. Wong

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

117

Fig. 5.4 Frequency counts of ratings for item 4 on the self-report surveys

rated Hullabaloo “5” while 21 participants rated it “4,” indicating that 87.9% of all participants gave the space the top two ratings in response to the item, “It was fun!” For item 2 (see Fig. 5.2), 57 participants rated Hullabaloo “5” while 22 participants rated it “4,” indicating that 79.8% of all participants gave the space the top 2 ratings in response to the item, “I want more!” As for item 3 (see Fig. 5.3), 52 participants rated Hullabaloo “5” while 19 participants rated it “4,” indicating that 71.7% of all participants gave the space the top 2 ratings in response to the item, “This is the best play space!” Finally, for item 4 (see Fig. 5.4), 32 participants rated Hullabaloo “5” while 10 participants rated it “4,” indicating that 42.4% of all participants gave the space the top two ratings in response to the item, “Challenging but I could do it!” Item 4 also stands out as the item with the highest frequency of participants indicating “1” (the lowest rating)—25 out of 99 of them (25.3%). By contrast, only 7 participants (7.1%) indicated the lowest rating for items 1 and 2, while only 6 participants (6.1%) gave the lowest rating for item 3. To summarise, most of the participants gave the two highest ratings (4s and 5s) for items 1 to 3 (87.9%, 79.8% and 71.7% respectively). Item 4 is the clear anomaly, with only 42.4% rating it 4s and 5s, and 25.3% giving it the lowest rating. Taken together, findings suggest a general consensus in Hullabaloo being fun, participants wanting more of it and feeling this is the best play space, but less so in terms of offering a balance between the challenge of its activities and the skills required to overcome the challenges.

118

L. Tan and J. Wong

Table 5.2 Pearson correlations among all items Variable

1

1. It was fun!

1.00

2. I want more! 3. This is the best play space! 4. Challenging but I could do it!

2 .327** 1.00

3 .242* .296** 1.00

4 .099 .259** .174 1.00

*p < .05. **p < .01

To determine associations between the four items, Pearson’s correlations were conducted (see Table 5.2). Small but significant correlations were detected between items 1, 2, and 3, indicating that participants who rated highly for each of the three also rated highly for the other two items. In other words, participants who found Hullabaloo fun, for example, were also likely to want more of it and find it to be the best play space—the three items go in the same direction, although it must be emphasised that the associations are all relatively small. Item 4, however, correlated only with item 2, indicating that those who want more of Hullabaloo were also more likely to think that it was challenging but they could do it, and vice versa. No significant associations were found between item 4 and items 1 and 3, suggesting that fun and being of the opinion that Hullabaloo is the best play space has no relationship with thinking that Hullabaloo offers challenge-skill balance. Reading the data through the lenses of flow theory, Hullabaloo offering the optimal level of challenge-skill balance may well allow it to further enhance optimal levels of engagement. Although claims of causality cannot be made, the significant though small correlation detected between items 4 and 2 suggests that offering greater challenge-skill balance may well be accompanied by an increase in the number of participants wanting more of Hullabaloo.

Qualitative Findings Three main themes emerged from our qualitative data: environment, enjoyment and evaluation. By environment, we refer to the visual arts space, Hullabaloo, where participants and their caregivers explored the artworks designed by artists working in collaboration with TAG. By enjoyment, we refer to how participants or their caregivers expressed that the experience was fun, engaging, and wanted the experience to continue—characteristics that resemble aspects of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) nine dimensions of flow. By evaluation, we refer to how participants assessed the level of challenge involved in each activity. In the thick and rich description below, we present each of the three themes in turn.

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

119

Environment Hullabaloo was designed to enable free play for the young people who entered the visual arts space. TAG had maintained in all their visual arts spaces the principle of non-prescriptive play to allow children to decide the levels of engagement and interaction they were comfortable with, while promoting agency and ownership of play methods. One of the caregivers interviewed noted that Hullabaloo had a “very open, lively design” (Caregiver & J55, personal interview, December 9, 2018) which encouraged multi-faceted ways of exploring that were not always present in the regular playgrounds. Another caregiver suggested that the colours and “the open, free play kind of space” attracted children to engage in “unstructured play, so they can just do whatever they like with all the set up that’s here [in Hullabaloo]” (Caregiver & J70, personal interview, December 16, 2018). Hullabaloo was aesthetically and intentionally created to support and challenge the different levels of engagement and interactions that were critical in play environments for children. For example, Yap Jia En, the visual designs and exhibition manager at TAG, explained in an interview that the slide built in Hullabaloo was bigger and steeper than the ones in previous visual arts spaces (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). The intention was to engage the older children, but they found that the younger children were equally excited to attempt the bigger slide. Caregivers interviewed felt that crucial skills were being developed when the children engaged in the visual arts space, and that the environment enabled a myriad of learning opportunities. One caregiver articulated that children’s “creativity is not limited because they can do whatever they want with the space” (Caregiver & J50, personal interview, December 6, 2018), while another felt that the visual arts space afforded different ways for the children to take ownership of the ways they wanted to play and engage with the structures (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J62, personal interview, December 15, 2018). Sensory experience through bursts of colours. Hullabaloo was one of the most colourful visual art spaces created by the time the research study concluded. In one caregiver’s view, it was the “most colourful and fun” with “more things to do” (Caregiver, J48, & J49, personal interview, December 6, 2018). The use of bright and strong colours of the rainbow attracted many young children to play in the visual arts space, while teenagers were drawn to visit the space to take photos for their Instagram feeds. When interviewed, Aida reflected that she “just wanted it to be like [an] explosion of rainbow colours” (N. A. Sa’ad, personal interview, September 22, 2018) when explaining the decisions behind the rainbow-themed design. She elaborated that her “first idea was to have a floor … [that is] completely colourful…. [as] kids naturally use forms or take cues from shapes and colours to play games” (N. A. Sa’ad, personal interview, September 22, 2018). The most commonly used vocabulary by children and their caregivers when they described the aesthetics of the visual arts space centred around “rainbows” (Caregiver & J34, personal interview, November 29, 2018; Caregiver & J36, personal interview, November 29, 2018) and “colours” or “colourful” (Caregiver & J35, personal interview, November 29,

120

L. Tan and J. Wong

Fig. 5.5 Children playing on the castle-like structure in Hullabaloo, which incorporated the biggest slide in the visual arts space as well. Hullabaloo was at TAG from August 30, 2018, to January 6, 2019. From “Hullabaloo,” by The Artground, n.d. (http://theartground.com.sg/va/hullabaloo/) (Copyright 2018 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

2018; Caregiver, J48, & J49, personal interview, December 6, 2018; Caregiver & J51, personal interview, December 7, 2018; Caregiver of J58, personal interview, December 15, 2018; Caregiver & J59, personal interview, December 15, 2018; Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J62, personal interview, December 15, 2018; Caregiver & J66, personal interview, December 16, 2018; Caregiver & J67, personal interview, December 16, 2018; Caregiver & J93, personal interview, December 23, 2018). The open-endedness of the visual arts space together with the colourful theme encouraged children to explore with different ways of playing. For example, children who were seen climbing up the castle-like structure (see Fig. 5.5) and sliding down were intrigued by the bursts of colours. One of the children imagined she was sliding down a “rainbow waterfall” (Caregiver & J41, personal interview, December 2, 2018) while a caregiver felt that her child’s “expressions are more free” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J62, personal interview, December 15, 2018) when they were playing in the space. One caregiver, however, suggested that the colours might have appealed to girls more. She commented that “such a concept motivates” (Caregiver & J35, personal interview, November 29, 2018) her daughters to attempt the play structures, as they are visually attracted to the colours and designs. This opinion is shared by one of the children interviewed. The young child felt that she enjoyed the castle-like structure in the visual arts space the most as “it’s rainbow colours and I like rainbow” (Caregiver & J36, personal interview, November 29, 2018). Presents different levels of challenges. Although the visual arts space was accessible to children between the ages of 0 and 12 years of age, Aida, in collaboration with TAG team, made a deliberate effort to design a slide that was intended for children who were older and physically bigger. The height and steepness of the biggest slide in the visual arts space proved to be a source of adrenaline rush for the older

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

121

children but at the same time, attracted the younger or physically smaller children to attempt the structure with the help of their caregivers. The different levels of challenges presented in the visual arts space were appreciated as “various touch points … [are] very good to help children with their development” (Caregiver, J85, & J86, personal interview, December 23, 2018). While it was not possible to observe emotional development in the children engaging through play in the visual arts space, and such developments were also not indicated to the researchers during the interviews, elements of cognitive, adaptive and social developments were evident. One of the caregivers suggested that Hullabaloo presented structures that were at “different levels and different things to interact with…. [a] combination of physical and mental” (Caregiver & J34, personal interview, November 29, 2018) which attracted young children’s attention and encouraged repeated attempts from the young people to overcome the challenges. Another caregiver noted that their child’s play patterns changed when they were at TAG. The caregiver reflected that the young child was motivated to attempt the more challenging aspects of play and would ask their caregivers to “help her try the more difficult ones first” (Caregiver & J54, personal interview, December 9, 2018). Once the child had built their confidence and efficacy, their caregiver noted that they would attempt the same challenges independently. It appears the child’s enjoyment was enhanced when they shifted from needing help to engage with the structures, to being able to independently conquer challenges. One caregiver interpreted the lack of safety features and openness to interaction within the visual arts space as a reflection of “a slightly different philosophy of play” (Caregiver & J51, personal interview, December 7, 2018). He felt it was advantageous as it helped children to build their capacities to assess and manage risks. However, another caregiver felt that safety was compromised in the space as the hard flooring was not suitable for children. The caregiver explained that the space and the structures lacked protection that could cushion falls, so if any child were to fall from the slide or any of the play structures, there could be serious impact on the child (Caregiver, J110, & J111, personal interview, December 30, 2018).

Enjoyment Imagination and ‘free play’. Besides being possibly the most colourful visual arts space presented at TAG, Hullabaloo also offered multiple levels of engagement that resulted in various aspects of play and exploration. The bursts of colours inspired some children to imagine they were playing in different contexts and spaces. One of the children likened the biggest slide to a “rainbow waterfall” (Caregiver & J41, personal interview, December 2, 2018) when she was sliding down and that imaginative play provided an additional dimension to the fun of playing in the space. While many caregivers appreciated the space available for children to run about, Jia En also spoke about ensuring that there were smaller spaces within Hullabaloo, as children “just like to hide…. [so small, hidden areas are] one of their favourite spaces” (J.-E.

122

L. Tan and J. Wong

Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). One of the caregivers reflected that the visual arts space was “free play … not instructional. He [the child] gets to do whatever he wants [in the visual arts space], versus being in school” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J62, personal interview, December 15, 2018). In a different instance, a caregiver remarked that “in a regular playground, they [the children] will just do the normal routes that they do. But here, they will try … to get on top [of the castle-like structure] using different ways” (Caregiver of J42, personal interview, December 2, 2018). The caregivers’ observations of the children’s behaviours enabled through the non-prescriptive visual arts experience fall squarely with the intentions of TAG to encourage “curiosity because that becomes a self-driven, motivated learning thing that will cascade into other things” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Children refusing to leave. In our observations of the young children at play, we often noticed how children who seemed to enjoy themselves refused to leave; accordingly, children’s refusal to leave became one of our observational indicators of enjoyment and engagement. In a similar vein, we also sought to ascertain children’s level of enjoyment and depth of engagement in Hullabaloo through the length of time the children and their caregivers spent in the visual arts space as a whole, and also with the individual structures. This way of interpreting the children’s level of enjoyment and engagement was similar to the caregivers’ method of trying to understand how their children were responding to the visual arts space. One caregiver commented that the children had been playing in the space for about two hours and “it’s considered too long already” (Caregiver & J44, personal interview, December 6, 2018) compared to the typical duration of the family’s play experience at other playgrounds or play spaces. Another caregiver concurred and explained that their children would “just go on and on [i.e., keep playing]” without showing signs of wanting to leave (Caregiver, J45, & J46, personal interview, December 6, 2018). One of the caregivers had difficulty getting their child out of the space. The caregiver explained that they had to “pull him [the child] out for his lunch. And he’s crying and crying” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J94, December 29, 2018). While the length of time children spent occupied at particular structures or their reluctance to leave might serve as concrete evidence of deep levels of engagement, it is worth noting that the caregivers’ perceptions and interpretations of their children’s interests and engagement similarly corroborated with our observations. The children and caregivers interviewed reported that the visual arts space was enjoyable because it was fun; some of the young people were reluctant to leave because they wanted to play some more (Caregiver & J38, personal interview, December 2, 2018; Caregiver of J42, personal interview, December 2, 2018; Caregiver & J51, personal interview, December 7, 2018; Caregiver, J102, & J103, personal interview, December 30, 2018; Caregiver & J112, personal interview, January 5, 2019; Caregiver, J116, & J117, personal interview, January 5, 2019; Caregiver & J122, personal interview, January 6, 2019). The researchers observed that most of the young children who visited the visual play space spent more than one hour engaging and interacting with other children in the space or on their own. Many children wanted to continue exploring and playing in the visual arts space despite their caregivers asking to leave.

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

123

Similarly, caregivers at TAG who were interviewed interpreted the level of enjoyment experienced by the children and judged the depth of engagement in activities by observing the speed at which the young people were attempting and repeating engagement with the different structures. These interpretations were made as a result of the adult companions’ tacit understanding of the children and their observations of the way the young people were engaged in the visual arts space. One of the caregivers commented that they saw their child jumping and “moving very fast, trying to go to the different stations. [So] then I know she’s enjoying herself” (Caregiver & J36, personal interview, November 29, 2018). This interpretation was based on the way the child was moving in the visual arts space and the frequency at which similar play patterns were observed. However, it should be highlighted that this interpretation does not take into account the play patterns of the other children in the space and if there is an effect on vicarious experiences where a child could be taking cues from the other children playing in the space, even though there might be no direct interaction between them. In addition, caregivers were interpreting enjoyment the children were experiencing by connecting the requests to stay or leave the visual arts space as indications of engagement. Therefore, the discussion of enjoyment experienced by the children in this section is reliant on the caregivers’ tacit understanding as well as their interpretations of the young people’s behaviours. Peers matter. One of the caregivers reflected that play partners are crucial in encouraging children to explore playing in different ways. The caregiver explained that “the experience is different when she [the child] comes with friends…. it’s who she plays with” that supports sustained engagement with the visual arts space (Caregiver & J36, personal interview, November 29, 2018). This caregiver’s reflection resonates with Buckworth’s (2017) suggestion that vicarious experiences are important because they “contribute to self-efficacy through symbolic construction that serves as a guide to behaviour and opportunities for social comparison” (p. 41). When children share the play space with peers, especially those they are familiar with, the experience of play and negotiating the different activities can be enhanced more positively. Separately, another caregiver agreed and suggested that “with friends around … she [the child] enjoy [sic] it more” (Caregiver, J45, & J46, personal interview, December 6, 2018). Buckworth (2017) explains that “social modeling is more effective when the subject is similar to you” (p. 41) because observations of other children negating challenges while at play are critical in supporting children’s vicarious experiences when analysing their own capabilities in meeting similar challenges. A caregiver suggested that the openness of the visual arts space encouraged children to socialise even though they might not be aware of it, as she had observed her child interacting with other children playing in the same space (Caregiver of J105, personal interview, December 30, 2018).

124

L. Tan and J. Wong

Evaluation The visual arts space encouraged and enabled the children to explore different ways of challenging themselves when playing and interacting with the structures within. As discussed in the ‘Enjoyment’ section above, some caregivers reflected that the free and unstructured forms of playing inherent in the tackling of different challenges built in Hullabaloo were unique to TAG. Artists working with TAG team in conceptualising and designing the visual arts space consciously made decisions to create structures that will challenge children to interact in multiple ways. TAG’s Executive Director Luanne Poh explained that “the idea was for them [children] to navigate and to actually not make it so easy so that they have to challenge themselves physically and [in terms of their] gross motor skill” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). This section furthers the discussion on the children’s engagement with Hullabaloo by looking at how young people playing in the visual arts space evaluated and negotiated the challenges presented in the visual arts space to enable deeper enjoyment. We observed that the children’s evaluation of the challenges, and the development of evaluative skills, were closely linked with the peer relationships and the vicarious experience of watching other children interact and play in the visual arts space. At the same time, the enjoyment of overcoming challenges further encouraged the children to develop evaluative skills to negate other difficulties they met in the space. Importance of play partners and vicarious experiences. The children interacting and engaging with the visual arts space during the period of Hullabaloo were frequently observed to be referencing what other children were doing in the space. A caregiver reflected that their child had always been shy and reserved when they entered a new space or encountered a new experience. However, when their child witnessed “her little friend was climbing up and doing stuff … that encouraged her [the child] to do it [as well]. So, now she knows she can do it and she’s kind of proud of herself” (Caregiver & J47, personal interview, December 6, 2018). Similarly, Jia En shared that when they first built Hullabaloo, TAG team thought the younger children “would be too scared to try [climbing up onto the castle-like structure], but after they see their siblings and their friends do it, they actually go up as well” (J.-E. Yap, personal interview, September 28, 2018). Enjoyment through challenges. Children who demonstrated enjoyment while engaging in the visual arts space had found pleasure because they had overcome challenges either through their own effort or with help from their caregivers. Besides being physically challenging, some parts of the visual arts space could have also been frightening to children because the young people could have feared consequences of failed attempts. One child commented that she was “scared of that swing there. But now I’m not scared anymore” (Caregiver, J87, & J88, personal interview, December 23, 2018). The challenges presented in the visual arts space also inspired behaviours that were out of the ordinary in some children. One of the caregivers watching their child play in Hullabaloo reflected that the child was attempting challenges that were initially

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

125

beyond their capabilities, and that their child was typically “not very adventurous” (Caregiver & J35, personal interview, November 29, 2018). However, in the visual arts space, the caregiver witnessed the child was becoming “quite daring, that she keep [sic] on trying” (Caregiver & J35, personal interview, November 29, 2018) to climb up onto structures that were quite high and difficult to get up onto. Another caregiver similarly spoke about how Hullabaloo provided different levels of challenges that helps to engage children, explaining that “they [their children] enjoy it and they had [encountered] some challenging parts, which they needed some help [with]. But I think with … repeated times [i.e., attempts] they managed to do it” (Caregiver & J37, personal interview, December 2, 2018). Risk-taking. The biggest slide in Hullabaloo (see Fig. 5.5) was the most popular structure in the visual arts space. It was also the place where risk-taking behaviours in children engaging in play was most evident. Many children referred to the speed of the biggest slide as a major determining factor of the thrill they experienced. Examples of the children’s words used to describe the sensations they experienced when going down the slide include “very fast” (Caregiver & J37, personal interview, December 2, 2018), “zoom down” (Caregiver & J44, personal interview, December 6, 2018) and “drop slide” (Caregiver & J53, personal interview, December 9, 2018). The children’s choice of vocabulary to explain and describe their experiences with the biggest slide in the visual arts space thus resonate with learning and development that were expected when young people engaged in risk-taking through play.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the phenomenological experiences of young children engaged in play at Hullabaloo through the lenses of flow. Three themes emerged from the data: environment, enjoyment, and evaluation. These three themes interrelate with each other to enable the phenomenological experiences of flow for the children in Hullabaloo—the environment provides the context for free play to happen, which led to participants’ enjoyment and their evaluation of the challenges involved. The findings in this study revealed that environment plays a significant role in determining the level of enjoyment a child experiences, while evaluation of the challenges present in a space determines the length of time a child is prepared to invest in overcoming and conquering the obstacles. In turn, the direct relationship between evaluation of challenges in the environment and the level of enjoyment is critical in understanding how children’s spaces need to be designed to enable such phenomenological experiences. With respect to environment, we found that TAG was purposively designed to facilitate free play. Importantly, participants who entered this space were treated to a sensory experience through bursts of colours, with colourful themes that encouraged children to explore with different ways of playing. Deliberate attempts were also made by TAG team to ensure that the space was adequately challenging to children right up till 12 years of age. As presented in our qualitative narrative, a number

126

L. Tan and J. Wong

of participants interviewed noted several merits to this space, such as noting how “creativity is not limited because they [children] can do whatever they want with the space” (Caregiver & J50, personal interview, December 6, 2018). These positive responses to the environment triangulated with the quantitative data, with 71.7% of all participants giving the space the top two ratings in response to the item, “This is the best play space!” With respect to enjoyment, we found strong evidence to suggest that many children were deeply engaged and enjoyed interacting with the visual arts space through imagination and free play. The qualitative data triangulated with the quantitative data in the self-report survey that found that 87.9% of all participants gave the space the top two ratings in response to the item, “It was fun!” As Brown and Jeanneret (2017) argue, a deep engagement has occurred when the participants of an activity “become disassociated from their surroundings and an awareness of time” (p. 43). In our qualitative narrative, we noted how children refusing to leave served as one of our indicators of enjoyment and engagement, and how there were many such stories, including that of the caregiver who had difficulties getting their child out of the space and had to “pull him [the child] out for lunch and he’s crying and crying” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J94, December 29, 2018). This triangulated with our quantitative data in the self-report survey that found that 79.8% of all participants gave the space the top two ratings in response to the item, “I want more!” With respect to evaluation, we examined how young people playing in the visual arts space evaluated and negotiated the challenges presented in the artwork to enable deeper enjoyment. Through our interviews, we found that TAG team and their artists consciously designed artworks that aimed to challenge children interacting in the space in multiple ways. Notwithstanding these intentions from TAG team, data from the self-report survey (see Fig. 5.4) found that roughly a quarter (25.3%) of participants gave the lowest rating in response to the item, “Challenging but I could do it!”, suggesting a possible disconnect between the team’s intention and actual perception by a quarter of the participants. This item had the highest percentage of the lowest rating and also the lowest mean ratings when compared against the other three selfreport items. In what ensues, we offer four implications for arts engagement through play in light of the findings. First, arts engagement spaces can consider how to further distinguish themselves from indoor playgrounds. Out of the 99 participants interviewed, 11 compared TAG to playgrounds they had previously encountered. While this number may not appear large, there is perhaps a need to differentiate how the children are engaging and interacting within the visual arts spaces designed by artists, as compared to the children’s experiences of playing in regular playgrounds. This may be done by drawing on Murdock’s (2019) argument that play supports children’s cognitive, adaptive, social and emotional development, and considering how arts engagement spaces may be able to fulfil these outcomes of play. One caregiver suggested that young children lacked discernment when they were playing (Caregiver & J51, personal interview, December 7, 2018), so having specific material or additional instruction to help caregivers or children understand that TAG space is an arts space could be useful in supporting their learning about the visual arts space and artists’ intentions. The

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

127

specific comparison of TAG with regular playgrounds is also rather worrying, given the intention for TAG to be a space where children engage with the arts through play behaviours and curious exploration, rather than a playground per se. However, caregivers and children interviewed in this research mostly identified the visual arts space as a play space, and used indoor commercial play spaces as their reference points in discussing TAG. These are implications to the identity of TAG which might benefit from additional thought and reflection. Second, further means of deepening arts engagement may also be considered. Blackford (2004) recommends empowering children to decide the levels of engagement and interaction they wish to invest in during play. While TAG promotes nonprescriptive play in an attempt to enable children to decide how they wish to interact and engage with the visual arts space, findings from this study suggest that more opportunities may be created for children to engage in the arts. One of the caregivers commented that the visual arts space lacked opportunities for children to explore art making, expressing that “there’s not much interaction here [at TAG]…. it [their experience at another children’s arts space] will last him longer time because of the interaction where he had to build something himself” (Caregiver & J33, personal interview, November 24, 2018). Blasi et al. (2002) remind us that it is critical to engender platforms and opportunities for children engage in risk-taking, challenging tasks and creative activities. At the point of the research study though, the interaction between the children and the visual arts space at TAG was limited to the different modes of playing, and did not allow young people to take inspiration from the visual arts space to explore art making on their own. Another caregiver compared their experience at TAG with a local museum. The caregiver reflected that at the museum, “there’s an opportunity for them [children] to create things,” such as activities where they could “draw on the screen … [so] it’s a bit more creative-driven [in comparison to TAG’s visual arts space]” (Caregiver & J109, personal interview, December 30, 2018). Besides physical engagement, the caregiver also felt that the visual arts space lacked intellectual and creative engagements. This feedback from caregivers support the theories that a play space needs to enable agency in the children to manipulate, socialise and take control of the environment and the levels of engagement invested (Heseltine & Holborn, 1987; Shackell et al., 2008; Stine, 1997; Woolley & Lowe, 2013). Third, arts engagement spaces may consider how a balance may be achieved between engaging younger and older children. Eight caregivers who brought children of diverse age groups commented that the visual arts space could not engage their older children. Four of the children above 6 years of age commented that the visual arts space was boring. The visual arts space thus appeared to appeal to children who were 6 years of age or younger. Despite the visual attraction, Hullabaloo’s engagement with children beyond the age of 6 appeared limited. One of the children commented that “it’s a little boring” and her caregivers substantiated that the visual arts space might be more appropriate for younger children (Caregiver, J39, & J40, personal interview, December 2, 2018). One child noted that there were not many areas that engaged older children. The visual arts space lacked challenges for older participants from a different cognitive and physical developmental stage. The child’s

128

L. Tan and J. Wong

caregiver shared the same observation and explained that “compared to other indoor playground [TAG’s visual arts space] is more simple … so for him, initially he felt quite bored … like [the space offered] nothing much [to the child]” (Caregiver, J63, & 64, personal interview, December 15, 2018). Another caregiver suggested that the visual arts space was better for pre-schoolers because “it’s not as exciting as those outdoor playgrounds…. for the older kids, I don’t think they will frequent here” (Caregiver, J74, J75, & J76, personal interview, December 21, 2018). Fourth, arts engagement spaces may consider ways in which optimal learning environments may be created with a range of activities that allow participants’ skills to match the perceived challenges of the activity. Challenge-skill balance is a central aspect of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) flow theory. When the challenge is greater than the skill, a person experiences anxiety. Conversely, when the skill is greater than the challenge, a person experiences boredom. Flow happens at the ideal ‘sweet spot’ where the skill of a person matches the perceived challenge. As noted in our quantitative findings, no significant associations were found between “Challenging, but I could do it!” and “It was fun!”, suggesting that challenge-skill balance and having fun were rather separate matters. In other words, one can have fun without being challenged. On the contrary, it is important to highlight that “Challenging, but I could do it!” significantly correlated with “I want more!”, suggesting that enhancements to the challenge-skill balance of TAG might in turn facilitate deeper and more immersive experiences so much so that participants might want more of it. Furthermore, our finding that “Challenging, but I could do it!” yielded the lowest means among the four items suggest that the challenge-skill balance aspect is one that might take the space to the next level—and distinguish it from other spaces so that it is not ‘just another playground’. As St. John (2006) noted, “an optimal learning environment, where perceived high skill matches high challenge, is flow-producing” (p. 239). Similarly, Almqvist et al. (2007) argued that “activities should be presented in such a way that children can experience flow and ultimately grow. If the environment does not provide the opportunities to engage in enjoyable activities, learning will not take place” (p. 11). Children’s play environments need to be aesthetically and intentionally created to support and challenge different levels of engagement and interactions (Wilson, 2007). One caregiver who was interviewed suggested that their child’s interest in the visual arts space lasted approximately 15 min because “it’s kind of … static … that’s the reason why he [the child] will get bored faster” (Caregiver & J33, personal interview, November 24, 2018). This caregiver frequently brought their child to different children’s arts spaces and therefore their child was well acquainted with the interaction and activities in such arts spaces. Hence, the lack of learning opportunities in art making or the explicit learning of new knowledge and skills curtailed the level of enjoyment for the child, and meant that the engagement with TAG’s visual arts space ended the moment they “run out of options” to explore (Caregiver & J33, personal interview, November 24, 2018). Another caregiver concurred and explained that “after they take [i.e., go down] the slide ten times, then they go to this [other] round slide, they take [it] five times, and they explore the rock wall, I think [after] about half an hour to 45 min” (Caregiver & J109, personal interview, December 30, 2018), the

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

129

children would have had enough. Therefore, it is important to consider how the visual arts space could sustain the interest and engagement levels of children and families who are familiar with other children’s spaces and have higher expectations of the depth of engagement. This might need to be considered in tandem with attracting and scaffolding the experience for children and families who are less familiar with arts environments. Before concluding, a number of limitations in this study must be acknowledged. First, as we did not want to over-burden our participants, we administered only four short self-report items. While these items have offered some insights, they were not able to capture all nine dimensions of flow as theorised by Csikszentmihalyi. Future research might build on our work and develop a comprehensive scale of flow for young children, and test for its psychometric validity through large samples. Second, our wording of the fourth item, “Challenging, but I could do it!”, was unable to capture if the challenges were overly easy or difficult. While our qualitative data suggest that it was likely to be the former, future research might develop items that distinguish both possibilities. Third, given our sample of 99, claims of over-generalisations ought to be cautioned. Future studies may involve larger sample sizes across different visual arts spaces. Finally, while our short informal interviews enabled us to interview a relatively wide pool of participants, the depth of responses might have been compromised. Future studies may purposively sample a small number of participants through stratified sampling for more extensive interviews to generate deeper, richer insights. Notwithstanding the limitations articulated, we hope that this study has made a rather novel contribution in examining play and flow amongst young children in a purpose-built arts space. The multiple sources of data through self-report surveys, interviews and observations triangulated and worked together to illumine flow and play, offering implications for arts engagement through play. Participants clearly found Hullabaloo fun and wanted more of it, so further consideration of the challenges it can offer to engage participants across a wider age range may well take it to the next level—and help to reclaim the rightful place of play among psychologists, arts education, and our lives.

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J62. (2018, December 15). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, & J94. (2018, December 29). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J33. (2018, November 24). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J34. (2018, November 29). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J35. (2018, November 29). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J36. (2018, November 29). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J37. (2018, December 2). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J38. (2018, December 2). Personal interview. Caregiver, J39, & J40. (2018, December 2). Personal interview.

130

L. Tan and J. Wong

Caregiver, & J41. (2018, December 2). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J44. (2018, December 6). Personal interview. Caregiver, J45, & J46. (2018, December 6). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J47. (2018, December 6). Personal interview. Caregiver, J48, & J49. (2018, December 6). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J50. (2018, December 6). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J51. (2018, December 7). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J53. (2018, December 9). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J54. (2018, December 9). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J55. (2018, December 9). Personal interview. Caregiver, J63, & 64. (2018, December 15). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J66. (2018, December 16). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J67. (2018, December 16). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J70. (2018, December 16). Personal interview. Caregiver, J74, J75, & J76. (2018, December 21). Personal interview. Caregiver, J85, & J86. (2018, December 23). Personal interview. Caregiver, J87, & J88. (2018, December 23). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J93. (2018, December 23). Personal interview. Caregiver, J102, & J103. (2018, December 30). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J109. (2018, December 30). Personal interview. Caregiver, J110, & J111. (2018, December 30). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J112. (2019, January 5). Personal interview. Caregiver, J116, & J117. (2019, January 5). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J122. (2019, January 6). Personal interview. Caregiver of J26. (2018, October 6). Personal interview. Caregiver of J42. (2018, December 2). Personal interview. Caregiver of J58. (2018, December 15). Personal interview. Caregiver of J59. (2018, December 15). Personal interview. Caregiver of J105. (2018, December 30). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Sa’ad, N. A. (2018, September 22). Personal interview. Yap, J.-E. (2018, September 28). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources Almqvist, L., Uys, C., & Sandberg, A. (2007). The concepts of participation, engagement and flow: A matter of creating optimal play experiences. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 37(3), 8–13. Akutsu, T. (2018). Observable flow experience in a two-year-old Japanese child’s violin playing. Music Education Research, 20(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2017.1409202. The Artground. (n.d.). Hullabaloo. Retrieved June 1, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/va/hul labaloo/. Ascenso, S., Perkins, R., Atkins, L., Fancourt, D., & Williamon, A. (2018). Promoting well-being through group drumming with mental health service users and their carers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-Being, 13(1), 1–15. Bailey, B. A., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Adaptive characteristics of group singing: Perceptions from members of a choir for homeless men. Musicae Scientiae, 6(2), 221–256. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/102986490200600206. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

5 Playing in Hullabaloo: Examining Young Children’s …

131

Blackford, H. (2004). Playground panopticism: Ring-around-the-children, a pocketful of women. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 11(2), 227–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/090 7568204043059. Blasi, M., Hurwitz, S. C., & Hurwitz, S. C. (2002). For parents particularly: To be successful—let them play! Childhood Education, 79(2), 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.105 22779. Brown, R., Andersen, J., & Weatherald, H. (2010). Exploring engagement at ArtPlay: What factors influence the engagement of children and families in an artist-led community-based workshop? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 35(3), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911 003500316. Brown, R., & Jeanneret, N. (2017). Research, practice, and policy connections: The ArtPlay case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.120 1027. Buckworth, J. (2017). Promoting self-efficacy for healthy behaviors. ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal, 21(5), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1249/FIT.0000000000000318. Chen-Hafteck, L., & Schraer-Joiner, L. (2011). The engagement in musical activities of young children with varied hearing abilities. Music Education Research, 13(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14613808.2011.553279. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 41–63. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow: Creativity and the psychology of discovery and invention New York. New York: Harper Collins. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rich, G. (1997). Musical improvisation: A systems approach. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity in performance (pp. 43–66). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Custodero, L. A. (1998). Observing flow in young children’s music learning. General Music Today, 12(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/104837139801200106. Custodero, L. A. (2005). Observable indicators of flow experience: A developmental perspective on musical engagement in young children from infancy to school age. Music Education Research, 7(2), 185–209. Göl-Güven, M. (2017). Play and flow: Children’s culture and adults’ role. Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 1(2), 247–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.24130/eccd-jecs.196720171230. Gray, P. (2015). Studying play without calling it that: Humanistic and positive psychology. In J. E. Johnson, S. G. Eberle, T. S. Henricks, & D. S. Kushner (Eds.), The handbook of the study of play (pp. 121–138). New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield. Heseltine, P., & Holborn, J. (1987). Playgrounds: The planning, design and construction of play environments. London, UK: Mitchell. Issaka, A., & Hopkins, L. (2017). Engagement with education: Music education in a paediatric hospital. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijer.2017.02.012. Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J., & Eklund, R. C. (2010). Short dispositional flow scale [Measurement instrument]. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden. Murdock, J. (2019). Does your playground include the 7 elements of play? Retrieved December 31, 2019, from http://www.playgroundprofessionals.com/playground/playstructures/does-yourplayground-include-7-elements-play. Payne, B. R., Jackson, J. J., Noh, S. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2011). Activity flow state scale [Database record]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t06855-000. Shackell, A., Butler, N., Doyle, P., & Ball, D. (2008). Design for play: A guide to creating successful play spaces. Nottingham, UK: DCSF Publications. Stine, S. (1997). Landscapes for learning: Creating outdoor environments for children and youth. New York, NY: Wiley.

132

L. Tan and J. Wong

St. John, P. A. (2006). Finding and making meaning: Young children as musical collaborators. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 238–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061854. Tan, L. (2016). Towards an ancient Chinese-inspired theory of music education. Music Education Research, 18(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2015.1122751. Tan, L., & Sin, H.-X. (2019). Flow research in music contexts: A systematic literature review. Musicae Scientiae. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864919877564. Wilson, R. (2007). Nature and young children: Encouraging creative play and learning in natural environments. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2013). Exploring the relationship between design approach and play value of outdoor play spaces. Landscape Research, 38(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/014 26397.2011.640432.

Leonard Tan is Associate Professor of Music at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research focuses on the philosophy and psychology of music education, often incorporating cross-cultural perspectives. He earned his Ph.D. from the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music, where his philosophical dissertation, written under the supervision of Estelle Jorgensen, was awarded the “Dean’s Dissertation Prize” for its “exemplary scholarship, brilliant execution and defense”. He has authored more than 50 publications and serves on the Editorial Boards of the Journal of Research in Music Education, Philosophy of Music Education Review, International Journal of Music Education, and Music Educators’ Journal. He is also Section Editor of “Aesthetic Education”, Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development.

Part III

Artists and Audience

Children participating in a theatrical production, Invisible Invincible by MySuperFuture Theatrical Productions, in the WhiteBox. From “About Us,” by The Artground, n.d. (http://theartground.com. sg/aboutus/). Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission.

Chapter 6

“Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works for Young Audiences in Singapore Chee-Hoo Lum, Marcus Cheng Chye Tan, and Gua Khee Chong

Abstract This chapter follows two iterations of the GroundBreakers artist incubation programme (2018 and 2019) at The Artground (TAG). Having drawn inspiration from various incubation programmes for developing works for young audiences— such as the programme at Starcatchers in Edinburgh, Scotland and the New Ideas Lab at ArtPlay in Melbourne, Australia—the Groundbreakers programme is a yearlong arts incubation programme that selects local artists through an open call to conceptualise, devise, and test out works for young audiences. Selected artists and arts groups are granted access to TAG’s space for development and devising, awarded a project stipend, given opportunities to present their work-in-progress to targeted age groups, receive feedback and responses from educators, parents and/or children at each stage of development of their work, and given opportunities to share and network with overseas artists. This chapter draws on a number of interviews and observations to examine the views and processes of artists and arts groups involved in the programme, while utilising current research literature surrounding arts incubation as a guiding frame for discussion. The chapter concludes with reflections from two Groundbreakers, Faye Lim from Rolypoly Family (Chap. 7) and Melissa Quek from The Kueh Tutus (Chap. 8). Keywords Artists · Incubation · Arts for young audiences · Children

“Donch Play Play!” is a colloquial term in Singlish commonly meaning ‘Don’t mess around with me’, in this context perhaps better interpreted as ‘something serious, not just to fool around with’. To cite: Lum, C.-H., Tan, M. C. C., & Chong, G. K. (2020). “Donch play play!” Incubating works for young audiences in Singapore. In C. H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 135–174). Singapore: Springer. C.-H. Lum (B) · M. C. C. Tan · G. K. Chong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_6

135

136

C.-H. Lum et al.

GroundBreakers at the Artground Our [The Artground’s] unique position seems to be that we have merged the two [being an arts company as well as a venue] … Like an arts company, we create content … through incubation and development. And as a venue, we provide audience to feed that development. I think we have started to emerge as some sort of an intermediary. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

The Artground’s (TAG) Executive Director Luanne Poh, in articulating the key priorities of what TAG does, clearly places emphasis on the incubation and development of works for young audiences by local artists. The GroundBreakers programme at TAG is a year-long arts incubation programme where local artists are selected through an open call to conceptualise, devise, and test out works for young audiences. Selected artists and arts groups will: (a) have access to TAG’s space for development and devising; (b) be provided with a project stipend of between S$3000 and S$5000; (c) be able to present their work-in-progress as developmental test-bedding programmes to targeted age groups at TAG and/or preschools; (d) be provided with feedback and responses from educators, parents and/or children at each stage of their development; and (e) have opportunities to share and network with overseas artists presented by TAG (The Artground, n.d.-c). Luanne in creating the GroundBreakers programme has taken inspiration from various incubation programmes for developing works for young audiences. She cited the artist incubation programme at Starcatchers in Edinburgh, Scotland, as a reference point, which is an organisation that specialises “in creating performances and exploring creative activity for babies, toddlers and young children aged 0-5 and the adults who care for them” (Starcatchers, n.d.). The New Ideas Lab at ArtPlay in Melbourne, Australia, was also referenced. The New Ideas Lab calls on artists to propose new artistic inquiries and new works that encourages “children and/or families as co-creators”1 (City of Melbourne, 2020). This research narrative follows the first two iterations of the GroundBreakers programme in 2018 and 2019, and examines the views and processes of artists and arts groups involved in the programme through a number of interviews and observations. Interviews were conducted at the beginning, midway and towards the end of the programme to get a sense of the artists’ and arts groups’ creative processes, trials, and performances, along with their views on any other interactions and programmes that they might have been involved in during their year in the GroundBreakers programme. Written field notes were also taken by the researchers at some of the artists’ and arts groups’ trials and performances, including incubation and networking programmes that the artists were involved in. All interviews were fully transcribed and open-coded for analysis alongside the field notes. Narratives were then created from the data set 1 Artists can propose a budget between A$10,000 and A$20,000 for the New Ideas Lab. The selected

artists and arts groups will have to fulfil the conducting of: (a) a minimum of four development workshops where the creative input of children are sought, and (b) a presentation of the project outcome at ArtPlay over a nine month period in partnership with the ArtPlay team (City of Melbourne, 2020).

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

137

and chunked as emergent themes to establish the findings. Current research literature surrounding arts incubation is utilised as a guiding frame for discussion. The GroundBreakers for 2018 were The Kueh Tutus, Rolypoly Family and MySuperFuture Theatrical Productions (MySuperFuture). The GroundBreakers for 2019 were Keryn Ng and Neo Yan Zong, Five Stones Theatre, The Kueh Tutus and Brocolily. More information about each Groundbreaker can be found in Appendix A.

Arts Incubation The GroundBreakers programme provides artists with an incubation space to develop works for young audiences. This chapter begins with a fleshing out of the concept of an arts incubator and utilises it as a frame for discussing the findings. Arts incubators emerged from the business incubator movement targeted at the creation of jobs through assistance in the growth and development of new businesses. Arts incubators are often defined by “facilities that create a nurturing environment for small and emerging arts organizations by offering low-cost or subsidized space and services” (National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies, 1995, p. 1), including assistance with organisational development through consultation and training. Their specific objectives are also varied dependent on the needs of the community they are serving, but the combination of “physical co-location of arts groups focused on organizational development, the shared resources, the intensive technical assistance over a multi-year period, and the emphasis on collaboration” identifies them as arts incubators (National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies, 1995, p. 2). Other characteristics of arts incubators include: (a) an emphasis on the development of artists, (b) supporting and empowering artists and organisations to implement both their business and artistic ideas in terms of development and sustainability, (c) providing space for creation, mentorship and networking, and (d) guiding artists towards independent establishment once artists leave the incubator (Fraser et al., 2014). In sum, arts incubators are characterised by the provision of: • low-cost spaces and services for artistic creation; • a nurturing (mentoring and networking) environment for artistic and business development of emerging artists and arts groups; • collaborative opportunities amongst artists and arts groups, as well as with other stakeholders; and • assistance towards organisational development. Linked closely with the encouragement of collaboration and artistic development is the concept of makerspaces. Makerspaces are “learning environments” that “serve as gathering points where communities of new and experienced makers connect to work on real and personally meaningful projects, informed by helpful mentors and expertise, using new technologies and traditional tools” (Hlubinka et al., as cited in Fraser et al., 2014, p. 43). The emphasis here is akin to a community of practice that

138

C.-H. Lum et al.

involves emerging and experienced artists working towards collaborative projects and learning from each other, while tapping on other industry experts and mentors.

Findings and Discussion Experimental Space for Emerging and Experienced Artists to Play, Think, and Create Artists involved in the GroundBreakers programme appreciate TAG team in giving them quite a lot of leeway in what they intend to do for the year. They also appreciate the fact that it is not about delivering a certain product or performance for young audiences at the end of the day, but instead allows for a continual process of experimentation and discovery. All GroundBreakers agree that the provision of physical and mental space for germinating ideas and rehearsals is invaluable. Rehearsal spaces that are affordable for arts groups are extremely limited in land-scarce Singapore. Bright Ong from Five Stones Theatre shared that even when he creates puppets, he has to take into consideration issues surrounding size and storage for these puppets. He laments that the puppets are often disposed although they “could have had second lives and second winds,” simply because of a lack of space (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). In a similar vein, Isabella Chiam also passionately spoke about how you must fight in Singapore to have space. Space not only to think but space just to be and not worry about money and working and all that … . You learn so much from what everyone else is doing. But because half the time we are so concentrated on trying to survive so that we can make our own art … [people become] very closed off to other people’s work. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

For artists new to the children’s arts scene in Singapore, TAG stands out as one of the go-to spaces for experimentation and creation. The National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC) was the first to point out to Keryn and Yan Zong about TAG being a space for children’s works, which is how they initially connected with TAG, before they then decided to apply for the GroundBreakers programme. Having recently returned from their studies in Contemporary Dance and Dance Education in Austria, Keryn and Yan Zong were keen on furthering their newly developed interest in creating interactive movement works for children, so having the opportunity to explore and experiment on these creative processes at TAG was invaluable to them. Keryn reflected that “the space really means a lot to us” as it allowed them to “focus on our research and also keep our dancing bodies developing” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019). As contemporary dancers who draw from contact improvisation as one of their dance practices, Keryn and Yan Zong truly value the space provided by TAG to concurrently work on their ideas and also refine their craft as dancers. Yan Zong explained that “if we don’t grow as … dancers physically and intellectually, I

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

139

feel like we cannot produce” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019). Likewise, veteran practitioner Ian Loy from MySuperFuture spoke warmly about how TAG is a great experimentation space for artists interested in creating works for children. He noted that the GroundBreakers programme provided him and his team with “time and space to explore … it [being at TAG] just makes me comfortable” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). The openness of the programme allowed artists to dream up “crazy ideas,” to have the courage along with other emerging or experienced artists to “do something very difficult. … something that … will put you [i.e., the artists] in a fix” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). The GroundBreakers programme has also allowed artists to germinate their ideas, to trial, reflect and rework over a sustained period of time. WhiteBox. Ian sees the WhiteBox as unique and “a very important meeting point between the artist and the audience … of what they [the artists] offer and then they [the audience] interact. … it’s like a brewing pot” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). He also feels that it is a welcoming space for children because of how it is used for TAG’s various workshops and performances, which he believes creates a sense of “friendliness or that kind of neighbourliness,” and a sense that the WhiteBox is a “launchpad for things to happen anywhere” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). Having said that, Ian noted that he “would love for them [TAG] to have more space [for artists to use, beyond the WhiteBox space],” even if it is “just a room” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). The nature of programmes set up by TAG team in the WhiteBox is such that they are typically half-hour slots with quick turnarounds, so artists and arts groups have to be mindful of the short set-up and teardown times. The WhiteBox is also not set up like a proscenium stage, but is instead more of a closed, intimate, white and open flat space. Because of these parameters, a number of artists have viewed the GroundBreakers programme as an opportunity to develop work that is ‘light’ or ‘flexible’ enough to allow for an easy set-up and tear-down in a venue, as this would facilitate the work travelling to different spaces. As Melissa Quek from The Kueh Tutus remarked, “it’s [the WhiteBox] a good space for practicing … if you think you’re going to try to make work that can tour. … because a lot of children’s programme [sic] use more intimate smaller spaces. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). The nature of The Kueh Tutu’s work also fits with a white space as our [The Kueh Tutus’] philosophy is the idea of bringing the community together. You don’t really need the dancers to disappear, like they can just be there and be seen. … [Also] the white [in contrast to a Black Box] is gentler. And so it works better for the babies as it’s … less scary I think. [Although it’s] not that all babies hate the dark. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Visual arts space. Having a visual arts space surrounding the WhiteBox creates an environment that not only invites children to play but activates adults and artists to want to play or be playful too.

140

C.-H. Lum et al.

Fig. 6.1 The Rolling@TAG visual arts space, which was at TAG from April 19 to August 19, 2018. From “Rolling@TAG,” by The Artground, n.d.-g (http://theartground.com.sg/va/rollingat tag/) (Copyright 2018 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission)

I think there is something special about being situated in a space that is meant for kids. … it helps you to allow yourself to be playful. … like [if] you just go into a … really serious space, you might tend to just immediately go there. But if you end up in a space that is meant for play, I think it does to some extent make it easier to be playful. … the other day, we were doing stuff [as part of a rehearsal] and halfway through, one of the dancers was like, ‘I am going outside to play’. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

As the artists play with the visual arts space, creative ideas can come about as well. The Kueh Tutus for instance were so inspired by the Rolling@TAG visual arts space (see Fig. 6.1) that they decided to create a movement piece in collaboration with a percussionist (see Fig. 6.2). They devised and rehearsed the piece on-site over several evenings, oftentimes having reflective dialogues in-between and after rehearsal sessions, questioning aspects as such: • who the intended audience the piece is meant to serve; • interaction points in the piece, how the piece can have children in mind more, and also how to interact through movement with the children during the piece; • improvisatory elements within the piece and how to increase unpredictability— perhaps by changing up the roles between dancers and the musician, for example; • the provision of more opportunities for children to have agency and power in the piece; • safety issues—the dancers move up the high wall of a structure in Rolling@TAG, so if children mimic the dancers’ movements after watching the piece, it might be dangerous; and • whether the piece had too many movement elements all at once, which can be overwhelming and distract from the intention of introducing certain elements.

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

141

Fig. 6.2 The Kueh Tutus performing within the Rolling@TAG visual arts space

The piece was eventually presented in a number of performances as part of the 100 & 100 More Festival for Young Audiences at TAG, where children and adults at Rolling@TAG watched the dancers and percussionist weave in and out amongst the audience and the structures in the visual arts space. While this collaboration was a little creative spark that The Kueh Tutus decided to pursue away from their proposed programme for the GroundBreakers, it was actually an important opportunity for the dancers to hone their movement and interaction skills with children as they danced for, with and amongst them—this subsequently informed them on ways forward for their actual GroundBreakers programme. Keryn and Yan Zong were also intrigued with the visual arts space, and decided to explore working in the visual arts space instead of within the WhiteBox in one phase of their development. Yan Zong reflected that: The space is fun for us also, even for adults. Especially the slide … in general we have never done something like this before. We are very new [to] … performing for young audience[s]. And also … [making] site-specific kind of performance[s] … we did do site-specific stuff [in the past], but it’s [that past work] like [in a] museum … this [TAG’s visual arts space] is like a playground … so it is very different … we want to see what we can do with the space. (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, August 5, 2019)

For Bright, who is passionate about design and fabrication work, it is exciting that artists are invited and challenged to create visual arts spaces for children at TAG, as this opens up the possibility of him encountering and working with other artists involved in this type of work at some point:

142

C.-H. Lum et al.

I need to build stuff and I’m a maker as well, I’m a fabricator. … I think for me, I’ve always dreamt about being able to work with designers from other areas. Industrial designer, product designers, people who see design and, you know, maybe like come up with a set or like come up with a bunch of elements. … and with The Artground, there is a possibility to do that. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

As an artist who loves puppetry and the “technical side of things” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 28, 2020), Bright subsequently applied for the 2020 GroundBreakers programme to experiment on set building and, letting the set dictate the story. … seeing what works, and also taking into consideration a lot of the work that I’ve seen around the world … what not to do and what to do for a touring show. So when I was building my set for this particular GroundBreakers [project for 2020], the way I was conceptualising everything was it has to flatpack, it has to sit in the van. How do I do that, you know? How can I set this up fast? How can I have the least number of screws involved, you know? Is it self-supporting. … it’s still evolving. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 28, 2020)

A safe space for taking risks. Some artists have articulated that in establishing programmes such as the GroundBreakers, TAG is doing pioneering work in encouraging and building up a local community of artists that create works for young audiences. Isabella feels that this allows “young theatre-makers … to fail … to experiment, but we also get to solidify our practice” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). This is made possible because TAG team has established a certain level of trust with artists. As Bright expresses: They’re [TAG team] amazing people. … they really have their hearts and their heads in the same place. … it’s such a joy for an artist, or for artists like us to walk in going, knowing these people got our backs. … they’re absolutely fine with the experimentation that we do … they’re okay with the process that we’re going to go through. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

This trust and safe space created within TAG in turn allows artists the freedom to take risks with their craft as a community. This is further complemented by TAG’s ability to provide trialling possibilities with children and families that are open to such ideas—“the right test audience” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019), as Bright suggests. “The keyword here is risk. The fact that … they [TAG] don’t mind taking risk [sic] with you” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). As an elaboration on that, Isabella shared that it is actually not easy to try something different in Singapore because our market is so small. … so a lot of times we would do things that we know is safe. But with places like The Artground or spaces where you are allowed to experiment with different things and the kids and families get exposed to different things then you are opening up possibilities for new things to happen in the scene. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

Bright also shared an earlier experience he had of developing a work at TAG prior to Five Stones Theatre’s participation in the GroundBreakers programme—TAG had supported trials of the work at TAG as well as at local pre-schools, and the work was eventually invited for presentation at a regional puppetry festival. To Bright, TAG’s support and space for experimentation was crucial in enabling the work to

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

143

grow, and he passionately remarked, “if not for spaces like this [TAG] to encourage us [artists] to move forward, it [the invitation from a regional festival] would never have happened. … you have to experiment in order to find new things” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019).

Trialling with Children and Gathering Feedback Initial pitch to a children’s panel. At ArtPlay, after an initial selection from the open call, short-listed artists and arts groups are invited to pitch their ideas to a panel that includes children, artists and ArtPlay staff. The panel’s job is to assess the idea based on the following criteria: (a) new work/new topic of artistic enquiry actively engaging children as co-creators; (b) well-articulated concept (including envisaged outcome); (c) original and high quality with potential for future presentation; (d) a feasible budget; and (e) allows time for planning, self-reflection and evaluation. (City of Melbourne, 2020)

In a similar way, artists and arts groups selected from the open call at TAG are asked to pitch their ideas in front of a children’s panel. The criteria of selection, however, are not stated explicitly like in the case of ArtPlay on their website. Artists and arts groups are also not required to submit a proposed budget but if successful, are allotted a S$3000–S$5000 budget by TAG. In reflecting on the interaction with the children’s panel at TAG, Keryn remarked that she and Yan Zong were “quite impressed by how they [the children on the panel] give their feedback to us during the pitch” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019). The artists and arts groups appreciated the feedback given to them by the children’s panel when they did the initial pitch of their creative proposals to be part of the GroundBreakers programme. The children spoke to the age-suitability of the artists’ pitch, and were candid about their physical and verbal responses when the artists presented their ideas. As Bright remarked, if “they [the children] don’t like it [what artists share] they’re gonna let you know” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). On the whole though, the artists liked that the children were very open and receptive to their ideas, and Isabella reflected that pitching to the children’s panel supported their development of “ideas that we sort of already had in mind … hearing it from the kids really validated that … we are on the right track” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). Trials with children at The Artground. Melissa of The Kueh Tutus has been actively creating movement and dance works for young audiences for a number of years now, and has had showings at different arts venues as well as been involved with children-related NAC programmes like the Teaching through the Arts (TTAP) programme. She is very much interested in creating works that involve movement in non-verbal ways that would allow the “imagination to run free” (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). A key part of her process is to test the work with actual children as her audience, but she had found it difficult to gather groups of children beyond turning to the children of friends and family. The opening of TAG was thus

144

C.-H. Lum et al.

pivotal for her, as TAG attracts children of various age groups, thus ensuring that there is a fairly consistent pool of children whom she could approach for trialling her works (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). For The Kueh Tutus, applying for the GroundBreakers programme with their proposal for Slinky Sticky Toys was a way of challenging themselves artistically, it was “about us discovering, figuring out a new way. … trying to challenge [emphasis in original] ourselves instead of working in ways we already understand” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). Due to TAG providing rehearsal space and, more importantly, facilitating the consistent trialling of the artists’ work-in-progress with the children that visit TAG, the artists were able to actively critique and develop their work as they observe how children react and respond in the trials. Some of the artistic questions for The Kueh Tutus were about how do you [as a performer] maintain communication with the kids and keep them involved. … how do I [Melissa as the choreographer] interweave…the moving and kids being actively involved with the moments when they’re watching performance, and when they are [emphasis in original] part of [the] performance? (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

The trials were thus invaluable opportunities for the artists to test out their ideas with live young audiences, to hone their skills in terms of deepening not just their artistic practice but how the practice interacts and connects with children in robust ways. The trials allowed The Kueh Tutus to “have the outlet to do it again and again,” to have “a really long run-up time,” and to rigorously workshop and rehearse their ideas (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). For The Kueh Tutus, the creative process happens in the moment of movement and rehearsal, so having a site-specific space to rehearse for long periods is paramount though rarely available—as Melissa asked rhetorically, “how often can this luxury happen for artists developing programs?” (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). TAG being a community space that attracts children of a range of ages has also been conducive for GroundBreakers in terms of experimenting to create work for different age ranges. As Melissa articulated, this range of ages amongst the children who visit TAG is “very exciting” for her, in terms of “trying to create works specific to different age ranges, and [also in terms of] trying to understand how far you [as an artist] can push the age range [of a work i.e., that the work would be enjoyable for a broad range of ages]” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). Clearly, being able to conduct trials with young audiences of different age ranges was key in allowing the artists to develop and tweak the same creative work for different age ranges and abilities. Likewise for Ian, trials have allowed him “to make artistic decisions in terms of … what works and what didn’t work” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018) for their piece Invisible Invincible. Ian was apprehensive at first when he tried out his ideas about presenting ‘invisibility’ onstage, thinking that it may not work with children in this day and age of robust technology. He worried that “dealing with invisibility is something that is like maybe … in the 1980s. You know, where I don’t have a lot of toys, I have to play with like invisible things” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). When MySuperFuture trialled the work though,

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

145

they discovered that the children responded strongly to “this one character [in the work], which is [performed by] myself [i.e., Ian], which is lonely, I need friends, you know, that kind of thing,” and that the children would “help me [i.e., Ian’s character]” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). Indeed, “the last few times [trials] where we [MySuperFuture] worked it out, they [the children] were very, very willing to imagine together with us” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018), which helped to assuage Ian’s initial concerns about the premise of the piece. The idea of trialling is also seen as trail-blazing in terms of what TAG is providing for the community of artists within Singapore (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). It attracts a known crowd of children of different ages and their parents or other caregivers into the space, who are willing to participate in such free trials and provide honest feedback. It’s [TAG] going to be an important space for young artists. Young artists in the sense that … they just want to try out. Or maybe it’s a ground for impartation. You know, to really grow the next generation of theatre makers who are interested to do works for young audience, to be able to fail and yet carry on. … I think there needs to be a space to be able to fail. (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018)

As a young artist eager to experiment with their ideas, Keryn articulated that the GroundBreakers programme would allow Yan Zong and herself the space and time to explore how to use space or lights or our physical cues, verbal cues, to, you know, direct children in space and not be like, ‘sit down, stand up’ … this kind of thing [i.e., more instructional language]. Like [how to] be much … freer and also to expose them [children] to abstract thinking as well. … we don’t want to underestimate a child’s understanding of art. (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019)

They would like to create works that provide children with greater agency in interpretation, and that build children’s capacity to think and reflect on more abstract ideas. Keryn and Yan Zong saw possibilities in their creative work to be interactive but also recognised the need to manage the interactivity when it happens, and felt that trialling their ideas at TAG with children would help them in reconfiguring what might work better as a creative performance. As Keryn remarked, something that is very clear for us is the interaction with the children that we really want to sort out within the performance. … does it make sense in our work, how much [do] we want to be watched or how much [do] we want them to be in our personal space. (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019)

For Odd Socks, Isabella as a physical theatre practitioner was looking to collaborate with a puppeteer who has experience in theatre making. Bright, having been exposed to non-verbal and multi-textural Theatre for Young Audiences (TYA) works while working with local and international practitioners, also wanted to explore and push artistically these notions with other practitioners. The both of them thus decided to apply for the GroundBreakers programme under the umbrella of Five Stones Theatre, an international collective of artists and arts managers that they are both a part of. Bright explained what their current creative inquiry and processes could further provide for children:

146

C.-H. Lum et al.

I believe that when we do very different and non-verbal style of TYA shows, what we’re also adding to the table is allowing them [children] to have agency to impose … and project and imprint their own sort of imagination upon the show. That way, you know, it becomes interactive … they are now part of the journey of the show. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

Bright and Isabella are of the view that the trials will allow them to gather feedback from children through having a question and answer session at the end of each trial. Isabella spoke of how they would be able to “take feedback from the children [at the trials] and then … see how we [she and Bright] can work in their feedback,” so as to reflect on how they manage and extend children’s agency in the performance through their “giving [of] parameters, facilitation. … giving them [children] a boundary in which they can play” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). Bright and Isabella also hoped to utilise the trials to work on their non-verbal communication, as articulated by Bright: “more like eye contact-based or something that’s a bit more textile-based. … you know you’ve hit it right when they [children] react with the same sort of level of empathy”. Isabella added, “it’s not just R&D-ing [research and development] of the piece but R&D-ing our facilitation of the piece” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). TAG team’s assistance during the trials for the GroundBreakers is also highlighted as a significant source of support. As Keryn articulated, we really appreciate it that they also pre-empt us … [on] how, what we can do for the trial and how they can help us. … even if it’s just a simple idea, they could also help us frame the session. So hearing this is really helpful. Because sometimes our ideas are not that concrete or it can just be a textural idea that we want to see a reaction [from the children]. So to have Luanne’s support or [support from] their [TAG] team … would be really great. (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019)

Trialling at pre-schools. Beyond TAG itself as a good trialling ground for the artists, TAG team also helps to provide connections between the artists and preschools keen on trying out arts activities and programmes, which has been really helpful. As Faye Lim from Rolypoly Family remarked, this saves a lot of time and effort for artists as “you [i.e., artists] don’t have to constantly be talking to the principal … [explaining] what’s the purpose … [through having had conversations with TAG] the school is already on board with the arts being key” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, September 10, 2018). Beyond these preparatory conversations and the actual link-ups of the artists and the pre-schools, Bernice pointed out that TAG team and Luanne in particular also supported the artists by making “a couple of comments during [Rolypoly Family’s] workshops with teachers that … helped them [teachers and schools] to understand how they might use the workshop … . that what we bring is of value” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Faye highlighted how Luanne is an “advocate for the work [of artists] and a firm believer [in their value],” and how it is evident that “she [Luanne] is invested in the growth of the project and … wants to help and offer [support]” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019, p. 25). Clearly, TAG plays an important role as a supportive partner to their artists, encouraging a burgeoning arts landscape for children in Singapore.

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

147

With TAG’s support, Rolypoly Family thus managed to trial their Sunny Islanders Project ideas with a number of pre-schools. Through these trials, they came to realise that providing teachers with music tracks and facilitation notes would not be enough to trigger and engage movement responses from the children. Instead, the teachers would also need to have a suitable facilitation style and have access to a conducive and safe environment for the creative dance sessions. Over the course of their trialling, the Underscore—a structure for mapping different movement states in improvisation that was developed by Nancy Stark Smith (http://nancystarksmith.com/underscore/) and utilised by contact improvisers—also surfaced for Faye and Bernice as crucial to undergird their creative movement activities in working with children, beyond the support of music and facilitation. Within the period of the GroundBreakers programme, Rolypoly Family thus spent extensive time and discussions on developing and questioning the Underscore, from which they eventually developed a system for facilitating the Sunny Islanders Project that they were comfortable with and that they felt worked with pre-schoolers. The system developed had elements of: (a) greeting, (b) safety strategies, (c) movement states (begins with children navigating their own movements before it gets more interactive—moving with other children or moving in spaces around other children), (d) Open Jam, (e) circle cool down, and (f) reflection (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). The utilisation of this system also moved Rolypoly Family away from the language of how a creative movement class is typically conducted, shifting more towards a structure of a jam where facilitation by the artists are suggestive but non-directive, and children can choose to follow or just go about their own imaginative movements if they so choose. Through the GroundBreakers programme, Rolypoly Family was thus able to push themselves artistically and create new grounds in creative movement programmes for pre-schoolers through utilising the Underscore system. This would not have been possible without the openness and expanse of time that TAG provided during the GroundBreakers programme for artists and art groups to repeatedly practice, trial and hone their craft. Responsible workshopping and gathering feedback from young audiences, caregivers and The Artground team. Oftentimes, the trials set up by the artists for young audiences are not intended to be fully ‘ready’ or ‘complete’ performances, but rather the experimentation of artists’ different exploratory ideas through a workshop. The Kueh Tutus came to a realisation through a number of such workshops that the artists need to be responsible and respectful to the young audiences that attend these workshops—artists still need to plan to give their audiences a full, curated experience, rather than expecting audiences to engage with a loose series of ideas that artists want to explore for their own developmental or artistic purposes. As Melissa reflected, your workshop must still be curated … to manage the arc of the piece … it has to be totally scaffolded from beginning to end. … workshopping isn’t about teaching kids something, it is about trying out ideas, but even in the trying out of your ideas, you still have to take care of your kids. … you are still leading them through an experience, and the experience has to be … a full one for them. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

148

C.-H. Lum et al.

However, gathering feedback from young audiences in trials has not been an easy task for the artists. The Kueh Tutus have found it difficult to gather verbal feedback from children at trials, as many of them are under 8 years of age and thus unable to articulate specific feedback to the artists. Melissa recalled that she would ask, “What parts did you like [about the trial performance]. … what do you remember, what moments did you see?” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018) but would hardly get any concrete feedback from children. Hence, Melissa’s means of getting feedback from the children were mostly through her own observations of their responses as they reacted to the performance: I get feedback by watching them. … I understand it by reading their body language, what worked, what didn’t work in the moment. Adjusting in the moment, so you file away in your head, this is what worked in the moment, I had to make this adjustment. And then later on … I put it into the piece. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Melissa would respond accordingly during or in the next iteration of the programme when she notices children’s reactions or non-reactions to the performances. She would also constantly question herself during and after The Kueh Tutus’ programmes, “Are the kids engaged and developing?” and whether “the interaction [with children] needs to be higher [i.e., more]” (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). Another means of gathering feedback at trials is through the caregivers who attend the trials with the children. Whenever possible, Melissa would invite parents who are educators, dancers, artists or fellow artist-educators to provide critical feedback which she found useful, particularly in terms of “what worked, [and] what didn’t” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). Melissa also thought about gathering a regular group of children for these trials, so that rapport can be built over time between the artists and the children, and feedback can be more candid and considered. Unfortunately, the logistics of this idea was not easily managed and it did not materialise. That being said, having such a regular group of children does have some drawbacks. According to Melissa, these children would become too “informed,” and so “they [this group of children] won’t give me the same kind of feedback as kids who don’t know [i.e., who are less accustomed to watching performances]” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018, p. 7). For Melissa, an additional source of feedback is through the group’s dramaturg. The Kueh Tutus has a dedicated dramaturg who works closely with them through their rehearsal and production process, providing the artists with valuable feedback and also helping to bounce ideas between group members, or between the group and TAG team. Other GroundBreakers have gathered feedback from caregivers and children after their trials through a simple written feedback form. TAG team would announce, prior to the admission of the free trials, to audiences about the intentions of the GroundBreakers programme to gather feedback for the artists in terms of improving their creative processes. These feedback forms are then usually handed out right after each trial session, and collected before the caregivers and children leave the WhiteBox. The feedback forms will subsequently be passed on to the artists or arts groups by TAG team, and a dialogue tends to ensue between the GroundBreakers

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

149

and members present from TAG team, which could also incorporate responses to the families’ written comments. The GroundBreakers consider TAG team as a helpful sounding board, giving them advice on logistical or facilitative ideas, or providing them with general feedback on what they have observed in terms of children’s and caregivers’ responses. The GroundBreakers were also able to hone some facilitation skills through the guidance and advice from TAG team, especially from Luanne. As artists concentrate on creating their work with young audiences, they often neglect or do not pay too much attention to the facilitation of their workshop and performances, particularly on what is said before, during and after. In Melissa’s words, “What do I [as an artist] need to do outside before they [children] come in … do we do the briefings outside … [or] inside? … As an artist, what do I need to do?” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). TAG team—in particular, Luanne and Programmes Manager Michelle Tan, also provide helpful feedback to the artists during the trials. While this is done more on an ad hoc basis, the artists have found their comments to be helpful, particularly in terms of TAG team’s observations about children’s reactions to the work. In some instances, Luanne has even helped in brainstorming and suggesting new creative possibilities— such as the idea to “play the set [in Slinky Sticky Toys] like an orchestra” as a way to transition from one section of the piece to another (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019)—for which Melissa is thankful for, as she feels that “their advice is invaluable” (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). It’s [what TAG team does] … just making space for things to happen … just holding it very lightly. The very fact that I can invite people to come in and watch the piece and give feedback without them having to pay … it’s already a big deal to me. … they [TAG team] really facilitate it … facilitate us rehearsing, and even though we ask [to use their space] … at least once a week. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

In Melissa’s second involvement as a Groundbreaker, she developed a vastly different work from the first iteration. Tech Playground involved collaborating with three graduating music students from LASALLE College of the Arts to develop a performance for young audiences aged 4 years and above to experience different kinds of technology for art-making and this included an interaction with a robot called ‘Sparky’. Upon reflecting on the process of doing this work, Melissa observed that suggestions given by TAG team were given freely and she did not feel at all compelled or obliged to take on any or all of these suggestions (M. Quek, personal interview, January 20, 2020). Tech Playground, from its first iteration to the last, saw significant changes particularly to do with the need for greater narrative structure and context, some of which can be traced back to the team’s close conversations with TAG team. The intimate feedback loop between the artist and TAG team proved to be professionally nurturing and also beneficial for the created work. Insights into child development. At times, the trials would be attended by TAG team along with some early childhood education specialists to provide additional feedback in terms of child development perspectives. “That was really interesting cause they were talking about [principles] like, ‘Don’t be prescriptive’ and you know

150

C.-H. Lum et al.

… ‘Allow [for] a lot more inference’” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). Some artists were also reading up on childhood development and child psychology to familiarise themselves with what to look out for as they plan their programmes (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). As a certified early childhood teacher and immersed in the teaching of children in a pre-school setting, Keryn also spoke about the benefit of being “closer to them [children] to understand what they are thinking” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019), subsequently translating this knowledge into the creative work that she and Yan Zong creates at TAG. TAG team, particularly Co-Founder Jane Choy who is familiar with Singapore’s early childhood education context, also provides artists with the necessary background information about pre-school curriculum requirements and assessment needs, allowing the artists to get a better understanding of how their workshops and programmes could fit within such contexts when they work with pre-schools. TAG’s learning journeys that cater specifically to school groups have also involved some of the GroundBreakers, and artists can propose programmes for these learning journeys as well as professional development workshops for teachers. Jane will then help the artists by working through with them the different requirements from schools, and how to find resonances between these requirements and the ideas that the artists have in mind.

Networking and Capability Development Programmes The GroundBreakers appreciated the range of overseas artists and companies that TAG team brought into Singapore, as well as overseas capability development programmes that some of the GroundBreakers managed to participate in along with other local artists. These range of activities and programmes allowed the artists and arts groups to experience works catered “from very young to something that older kids can enjoy” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). Talks were also organised where local artists were invited to attend to share and dialogue about their creative ideas and work-in-progress. Examples of more extensive interactions that some of the GroundBreakers have had with overseas artists include: (a) a 5-day intensive workshop with Swedish choreographer Dalija Acin Thelander, (b) INHEPI (International Network of Human Encounters in Performance and Installation) by Alex Desebrock, and (c) the E.P.I.C. (Exposure, Participate, Innovate, and Create) artist capability development programme. Intensive incubation workshop. With the 2018 GroundBreakers programme, the artists participated in a 5-day incubation workshop where TAG team invited Swedish choreographer, Dalija Acin Thelander, as facilitator to provide an intensive and critical opportunity for the artists to think and reflect deeply about their creative processes. Melissa really appreciated Dalija’s deep questioning of her work, particularly in probing the ‘whys’. The questioning included asking about key intentions of the

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

151

artists, of “what gaps is it [the artists’ project] filling, what is its purpose, or why is it there. … what else has not been done that you would be doing this? And just really ‘why’ this piece?” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). For The Kueh Tutus, deep questioning about the ‘whys’ in their creative processes is not common practice, although they would often grapple with the ‘hows’ in their creative work. After experiencing Dalija’s workshop though, they began to change their approach in subsequent works, to try and grapple with the fundamental ‘why’ questions whenever possible. Melissa shared that in their new approach, we [The Kueh Tutus] really sat there [during rehearsals] and thought. … [we] spent two, three rehearsals first … just answering these [‘why’] questions for ourselves. … the [subsequent] rehearsals for that [then] go really fast [i.e., the piece comes together quickly] because … all those [fundamental] questions were answered already. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Ian from MySuperFuture commented likewise, noting that the incubation lab was particularly helpful for his team members Venytha Yoshiantini and Ang Zhi Hui (also known as ‘Zeeaura’), as they were new to the directing process. To Ian, the lab supported artists in critically thinking through “why you want to do it? How you want to do it? … There’s a reason for everything that you do” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018), which sets up a strong foundation for emerging artists to think about their work. As an experienced artist attending the lab, Ian also found it useful as a reminder of the need to stay ‘obsessed’ with the creation of new ideas in order to challenge and push one’s art further and not be complacent about formulaic ways of doing TYA: This [lab] … reminded me … how this obsession can start and how this can help push your art even further. … because she [Dalija] is so thorough. … she keeps questioning you. … it’s harsh but it gets you to reflect and think. … the genuine care given through unfiltered words. (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018)

Ian noted that the way Dalija facilitated the incubation lab reminded him of a kind of apprenticeship he had experienced before, where the mentorship style was more authoritarian with deep questioning of processes in a firm way. He personally did not mind this style of working as he felt that working with artists in Singapore, “we all just tend to be polite to each other. … they [other artists in Singapore] will like [say] … ‘very good work’, but the work is shit” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). Having a third party—in this case, Dalija—that is not involved with the local arts scene was thus perhaps useful in facilitating rigorous discussions about artists’ work that go beyond being nice and polite to each other. As for Faye and Bernice from Rolypoly Family, they appreciated the time set aside to probe and reflect with fellow artists at TAG, but found that the intentions and expectations of the workshop could have been clearer. They felt that it would have been helpful if the incubation had taken place at the beginning stages of the GroundBreakers programme if the intention was to get at first principles of a project and deeply examine the ‘why’, ‘what’, and ‘how’ of the project. Faye and Bernice were under the impression that they would be able to test and trial music tracks that they had already created during the incubation lab, but “we couldn’t do that because

152

C.-H. Lum et al.

it wasn’t set up that way in the first place” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, September 10, 2018). When asked what TAG could have done differently, Faye and Bernice suggested a meet-and-greet with TAG team and fellow workshop artists prior to the workshop, as an opportunity for everyone to get on the same page with regards to the objectives of the incubation lab. Faye and Bernice also acknowledged that the incubation lab may have been more helpful for them if they had been able to fully commit to the full 5-day duration of the workshop; they were unfortunately unable to do so due to a concurrent contact improvisation gathering that they were attending. On the whole, the incubation lab was a good time and opportunity for artists to find out more about what other local artists are doing in the field. It was a time not only where everyone had a chance to articulate their work better through the intensive questioning, but also where everyone had the valuable opportunity of hearing comments from other artists of different disciplines about their works, which provided further germination ideas. Faye was also appreciative of the incubation lab for allowing certain topics that artists and arts groups were concerned about to surface as discussion in the large group. Faye for instance had the chance to propose to the group a brainstorming on safety and ethical concerns for children attending performances and workshops, and she felt that being able to broach the topic with fellow local artists was helpful as she and Bernice were concurrently developing their company’s child protection policy. Internship programme. Ian had an opportunity to work on a month-long internship in Australia with Dave Brown from Patch Theatre Company with the support of TAG. According to Ian, TAG wanted a Singapore artist to have a collaboration … to create that kind of work that is mentored by the Australian artist, which is Dave. … I think it’s a win-win … because … we get to interact with local [Australian] artists. … And then we also get to see how Dave work [sic]. … Dave also get to see how I work … I’m co-directing with him. So I bring a different feel to the brushstroke that he has created. (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018)

The show, Especially On Birthdays, which was the result of the collaboration, was subsequently featured in the inaugural 100 & 100 More Festival for Young Audiences that was organised by TAG in June 2018. Ian was thrilled that TAG provided him with such a learning opportunity and felt that TAG is really “bringing quality” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018) in terms of hosting international works and helping local artists to develop quality works.

INHEPI (International Network of Human Encounters in Performance and Installation) I find it [INHEPI] the most useful thing for my practice in terms of having the opportunity to create lots of small moments. … I was quite nervous about investing in [The] Artground artists … [through this] kind of … awkward collaboration-dating kind of thing. … So I proposed to [The] Artground [about] doing this [INHEPI] as part of my residency instead of the idea of working [directly] with the GroundBreakers. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

153

Alex Desebrock is an independent artist based in Perth and Melbourne, Australia, who connected with TAG through a career development grant and proposed INHEPI as part of her 3-week residency at TAG. INHEPI is essentially a creative platform for artists to come together to seed, make and play with new ideas; the ideas are then trialled with children, and artists gather feedback from children, caregivers and other artists in the workshop, as an ongoing process of investigation and research for the artists. The focus is not on a finished artistic product, but on ongoing experimentation and dialogue with different creative ideas, allowing for any emerging, organic, collaborative possibilities between artists to flourish beyond INHEPI. In this particular INHEPI, the seeding of ideas by artists was targeted for 6- to 12-year-olds. It was a condition set by Alex at the beginning of the 5-day workshop. As Alex pointed out, I didn’t want me facilitating [the creation of work for] … an age group I wasn’t familiar with … I kind of try to keep some things the same as what I knew [from prior experience] because … I knew that worked. … [this] doesn’t mean that a future one [i.e., an iteration of INHEPI] can’t be for younger children. … just that [for] this one [at TAG] I felt like I needed to work within the parameters I was familiar with. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

TAG’s interest is also to expand their range of engagement for children between 6 and 12 years of age,2 so the proposed INHEPI by Alex was seen as a good seeding opportunity for artists who are keen to come together to brainstorm and play with ideas meant for this age group. There was an open call for local artists to participate in INHEPI, and two of the GroundBreakers (Melissa as well as Cheryl Kuek from Brocolily) along with a number of local artists were eventually chosen to participate in the programme. Seeding, making and playing with new ideas. TAG’s Artist-in-Residence Serene Tan, better known as ‘Stan’, remarked that INHEPI “exercises your … creative chops. … challenge [sic] you to come up with something new everyday. … it’s been a long time since I had that” (S. Tan, personal interview, September 5, 2019). Unlike the GroundBreakers programme where artists have a sustained period of time to dig deep into their proposed creative ideas, to trial, reflect and rework, INHEPI provided an alternative way of challenging artists to collaboratively seed, make and play with new ideas. A key aspect of this alternative way of working is INHEPI’s rapid feedback loop for participating artists—from the second day of INHEPI till the last day of INHEPI, artists would trial their ideas daily in quick succession with children and adults. At the same time, these ideas were significantly framed as rough sketches rather than as polished or completed products, so audiences were asked to respond within this context, and to understand that these trials were part of a larger process for artists to critically reflect on and also to get feedback on these generated ideas, 2 TAG’s establishment arose as a response to NAC’s open call for “a partner to pilot a children’s arts

centre” to engage with “young audiences (children aged 12 and below)” (National Arts Council, 2016, p. 2), and hence TAG initially specified that they were interested in reaching out to children from birth to 12 years of age. From 2020 though, after discussions with NAC, TAG has since revised this age range to be from birth to 9 years of age instead.

154

C.-H. Lum et al.

in order to spur further thinking and collaborative efforts. As Melissa articulated, INHEPI offered a different way of working. … [where the] focus is just on seeding ideas. … generate, test a few times … generate and keep going [so it] was really exciting. … we needed to do more like that to generate good and interesting ideas … questioning, but in a playful way with very low stress. … rather than … ‘I have this one idea and I’m gonna see this through till the end’. … [but instead, thinking about] in future what would we do with it [the ideas that were seeded]. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

Stan similarly shared, I like that we get to create works every single day. That means that we need to push out [i.e., come up with] a … new idea and put it into a work by the end of the day to present to the children the next day. I also like that we have… children as audience [to test the works with]. (S. Tan, personal interview, September 5, 2019)

For Stan, INHEPI further allowed her to work through creative ideas she has had in practical ways with artists: It really makes you think and bring out ideas that you previously have. [Ideas that] you think you don’t [currently] have time to do or [that] you don’t know when you want to do, [in INHEPI] you [can] just bring out the idea, then do it and see whether it works, [and if so] then you can file it for [further exploration] next time. (S. Tan, personal interview, September 5, 2019)

INHEPI also provided the artists with a safe space to fail: It allows people to make work quickly and really test. … it’s okay to fail and it is okay for things not to work. … I think there’s very few spaces that allow that testing and it allows you to throw it [an idea that failed] away as well. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

For INHEPI at TAG, Alex was delighted that so much [emphasis in original] was seeded at the end. … I just really wanted it to be valuable for all of them as well, not just for me and for making work, but the idea with INHEPI is … that everyone [emphasis in original] has made something that they are interested in exploring further, or at least [discovered] tools [they want] to weave in [for their future work] or at least ideas to develop. And I’m really proud and pleased that that’s happened. … we did a thing at the end where … everyone identified works that they felt had ‘legs’, like, could be developed further … there were some key ones … [that everyone agreed] was really strong. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

Getting to know and work with other artists in practical ways There were … a lot of … theatre practitioners … dancers [attending INHEPI]. … everybody was interested or had already had experience working with children. … we all have the same goal, to create works for children, so we are all on the same page. … [but] the way you [each artist] approach … thinking of ways and methods to create works … is also different [because the artists come from varied disciplines and also create works for different age groups]. But it was also very interesting to see all the ideas they came up with. Like the dancers were very interested in movement … the educators were interested in … I don’t know, education? [Laughs]. Like [for] me I’m more interested in games, so everything I came up with was very game-like. … the Australians were very interested in giving the voice to the children

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

155

… to be very vocal, speak up … it’s all about asking them what they [children] feel … what they want to do … within the work itself, which is something in Singapore we seldom do. Because I think culturally it’s a bit difficult for them, for children [in Singapore] to open up. (S. Tan, personal interview, September 5, 2019)

Alex pointed out that the practical experience of making work with different artists at INHEPI really allowed her to know artists through doing. I find that more revealing than hearing about their work or listening … or having a conversation. I actually see in a better light which brains I connect with, or which aesthetic I connect with, or what I don’t connect with. … to kind of suss out where the ignitions [with different artists] happen. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

Visual artist Cherlyn Mark of art@home was particularly keen in learning about how other artists create. For her, “learning about the [other artists’] thought process. … like how they come up with things, the reason why they do this [i.e., make a particular choice]… that’s the most enjoyable part—seeing how other people think” (C. Mark, personal interview, July 9, 2019). INHEPI provided a great opportunity particularly for TAG artists to work collaboratively and to better understand each other creatively and artistically. They [TAG artists] kind of all got to meet … you know that meeting and connection thing? I think was really great. And I know as an artist I really value that and I loved being with all those different artists … to see how each other are [like] as artists and get to know each other’s practice a bit because it sounds like Stan hadn’t met Cherlyn before really or … you know, they are two like key artists at [The] Artground that hadn’t met … like hadn’t really had an opportunity to connect? (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019) The interesting thing is … half of us who worked at [The] Artground we don’t really work with each other. Like Cherlyn, Melissa … I see [them] quite a fair bit because they are the ones who do also like me [i.e., run programmes at TAG] like every other week or every week. … we just say hi and bye because we are always like, you know, running past each other. … one of the main takeaways [from INHEPI] was that I got to work with them. … got to know them better … these people are always at [The] Artground, and then when you work with them you feel like … I can click with this person … maybe next time I can do something with them … they are a familiar face, they know how [The] Artground kind of works, it’s much easier in a certain sense [to create work for TAG with these other TAG artists]. (S. Tan, personal interview, September 5, 2019)

For Cherlyn, INHEPI was a valuable opportunity for her to work with artists from other disciplines, as “I [Cherlyn] work alone a lot [as a visual artist] and I don’t get … many chances to work with artists from different … art forms. … [so applying to INHEPI was for her] a chance to interact with them [i.e., artists from different disciplines] and also learn something from there [i.e., the interactions] because … it will be useful for class [and other programmes by art@home]” (C. Mark, personal interview, July 9, 2019). In Melissa’s case, INHEPI for her also had the result of bonding people, really creating this nice community. … everyone there was really generous and really giving. … [because] if you are not generous then how’re you going to come up with ideas at all. … [during INHEPI, artists were] sharing ideas, not being precious

156

C.-H. Lum et al.

about it, but also acknowledging people’s contributions. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

The community spirit established in INHEPI further extends into the generosity with which the creative ideas generated by the artists can be shared across the entire group even after INHEPI at TAG concluded. As Alex elaborated, We all agree [sic] that we’re just gonna have good communication and also permission to drop out of a project, you know. And a generosity that if you don’t want to work on it maybe and somebody else does, like ask them if you can work on their idea. And because of the vibe that’s going on around, I feel like people will be happy to do that. I think also with any of the activities, just letting people to know, ‘Hey, can I use this in this other workshop that I’m going to run’, all those kinds of things [i.e., communicating and asking for any necessary permissions]. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

Some challenging issues. Alex acknowledged that perhaps she should have explained to the artists at the beginning of the programme about INHEPI’s structure, which is deliberately meant to be democratic and non-hierarchical: There’s a space for offering. … and it doesn’t matter what your experience [as an artist] is, there’s no hierarchy in this space. It’s actually you offering … and you following your own line of interest within the space rather than testing and getting an expert’s feedback. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

The lack of clarity in understanding the structure of INHEPI inadvertently led to emerging artists like Cherlyn to respond at the end of the programme that we [participants] definitely need a mentor. … She’s [Alex] just there to introduce the structure of INHEPI, but not actually guiding us. … I guess we need someone really, really experienced working with kids and [who] have [sic] … at least … dabble [sic] in all the different art forms a little here and there. … to be there and not part of the project [i.e., the making and trialling]. … I mean we get feedback from parents … kids, but we also need … professional feedback. And from each other [other participating artists], [but] it’s not good enough because I can’t judge whether the dance and music is good because I have no expertise at all. … I don’t know if my comment is constructive to all these [other] artists at all ’cause [sic] I can only tell them what I feel. (C. Mark, personal interview, July 9, 2019)

It also seems that some of the artists would have preferred if TAG had managed to gather more children to participate in the trials, along with better management of the overall logistics of INHEPI. Melissa remarked that “logistics … was an issue. Because you [the artists] kept moving between spaces,3 which wasted time, [and which was] not necessarily conducive for the testing of all the works … there weren’t enough kids to test everything [as well]” (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019). I want to do something … [on a] bigger scale that I can only do with more children. But then, we don’t have access to the number of children so there’s a limitation. That’s how all our activities had to be crammed like multiple activities had to be crammed within … 2 hours, 3 There

were some unexpected issues in communications around the logistics needed for INHEPI, so TAG wound up having to book a space outside of TAG for part of INHEPI nearly every day, which meant that Alex and the participants had to put aside time and effort during INHEPI to shift materials from this external space to TAG and vice versa.

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

157

including warm up and debriefing and the feedback. So each artist, each set of … [ideas to be trialled] they only get like 10, 15 minutes and some things have to happen concurrently and we don’t have all the kids … we can only work with … a very small amount of kids … so it didn’t really hit the purpose of what I want to try out with the kids. (C. Mark, personal interview, July 9, 2019)

The other practical problem is sorting out how TAG will be able to attract older children to come for the trials and eventually the programmes or performances that some of these artists might eventually create out of INHEPI. Thus far, the general demographics of children coming to TAG has been between 0- and 6-year-olds and much lesser in terms of children beyond 6 years of age. While it is a good strategic idea to organise INHEPI for older children as a way to engage with these older children who might not usually visit TAG, there will need to be more thought being put into how TAG will be able to attract a steady flow of older children into the space. Due to manpower shortages, TAG team was involved with INHEPI primarily as logistical and administrative support, which Alex felt was a missed opportunity for them to get to know the artists more intimately in terms of their artistic processes. As a result of not being present throughout INHEPI, particularly during the feedback sessions, “they [TAG team] miss out on some of those artist conversations” (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019), which could have generated deeper insights into TAG’s future creative endeavours with these artists. Also, as INHEPI was held shortly after the E.P.I.C. programme, not many of the GroundBreakers signed up or could commit to this ideas generation lab. Perhaps the intention of TAG was to open up different possibilities for other artists beyond the GroundBreakers to participate, much like with E.P.I.C., but in Alex’s opinion, there might be a need for TAG to think more deeply about their intentions and priorities. She noted that TAG staff member who was managing INHEPI is quite keen to do another INHEPI, [and] like the artists are quite keen to do another one, but the question there is how does that work and what’s that frame? Like do you make it for younger children? Do you have international artists come or is it just for Singaporean artists? Can we [INHEPI participants] take over the whole of the space [in TAG] for a week? … Do you [TAG] want to provide this incubation sort of thing, or do you want to take them on E.P.I.C. [where the emphasis is on exposure and networking]? … they [TAG] do different things but … that’s [i.e., these decisions around capability development programmes for artists] just about choice and priority. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

Some artists were also a little apprehensive about how the ideas germinated from INHEPI may dissipate without further prodding from perhaps TAG team, “as a platform for seeding ideas, it’s also about what’s going to actually emerge, how many people are really going to make something from what they experimented with [during INHEPI]?” (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019). There are some indications however, that artists have thought about furthering their working relationships and creative ideas with like-minded individuals they encountered at INHEPI—in Stan’s case, she shared that “I would like to work with Stacey and also come up with something with Cherlyn. … maybe [develop] the big game board thing [an idea that Stan and Cherlyn had worked on together during INHEPI]” (S. Tan, personal interview, September 5, 2019).

158

C.-H. Lum et al.

E.P.I.C. (Exposure, Participate, Innovate and Create). E.P.I.C. is a programme organised and curated by TAG offering tiered levels of capability development opportunities for arts practitioners and content makers across all art forms in the Arts for Young Audiences (A4YA) sector. In E.P.I.C. 2019, 10 artists, of which more than half were from the GroundBreakers programme, were selected from an open call. Together, they attended the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival that ran from May 25 to June 2, 2019, and also participated in activities that TAG and Scottish company Imaginate had co-curated specifically for them. During their time in Scotland, they: (a) attended talks, networking events and performances programmed by the festival; (b) had a workshop session by Christine Devaney from Curious Seed, alongside five Scottish A4YA artists; and (c) had meetings with Scotland-based artists (The Artground, n.d.-b). The programme was supported by the NAC. Experiencing and dialoguing about new works for young audiences. One of the key draws for artists to attend E.P.I.C. is the experience of watching a whole host of performances for young audiences during the period of the festival and having time and space to dialogue and discuss about these various works with fellow practitioners, gaining different perspectives and insights from each other. Melissa shared that for E.P.I.C. 2019, she had decided that rather than trying to “consciously network,” she would just focus on “the experience” of being able to “look at … good work … [and] talk about it” with the other participating artists (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019). In this respect, it was helpful that TAG had arranged for all the artists to live “in a house together … so we ate together or we chilled together … it was also the makeup of people [who were selected to participate in E.P.I.C.]. … there was a generosity I think [about sharing thoughts and perspectives]” (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019). From seeing the works at the festival, especially “works [that] we [the artists in E.P.I.C.] didn’t like,” the experience led to conversations and “questioning [of] how did they [these works] make it there [i.e., get programmed at the international festival] … [so] in terms of, okay, tourability, what do you really need … how do you get good photos? [Laughs]” (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019). Building network and establishing a community of practice. E.P.I.C. presented opportunities for artists on the trip to not just get to know each other better in terms of their practices and perspectives, but also allowed for a wider networking possibility for the artists to reach out to international practitioners and producers. Musician Natalie Tse from SAtheCollective reflected that she had decided to apply for the programme “to build a network amongst practitioners working in the young audience scene in the arts internationally … I’m still quite new to this area … there’s a lot to learn” (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019). Thoughts also surfaced among the local artists during the trip about how a closerknit community of practice could be formed amongst artists keen in creating works for young audiences, so as to support and provide critical feedback for each other’s works. As Natalie shared, one of the things that came about [through conversations] … is how do we maintain this E.P.I.C. network … and the idea of a community of practice came about. Maybe we could like watch one another’s performances … give each other critical feedback rather than just

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

159

say, ‘Hey, good show’ … ‘Well done’, that kind of stuff. … that’s one way we were thinking of continuing the relationships … that were forged while going on this [E.P.I.C.] trip. (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019) The post-sharing [of E.P.I.C. organised by TAG] … brings everyone together again. … after Edinburgh, two weeks later everyone comes together again. … then we had another barbeque where everyone came together to chat further. … [2019’s E.P.I.C. programme] seems to have seeded or spawned something that could potentially grow. … we’re interested to see where that goes in terms of how do we work together. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

Natalie added, “I do notice that some of us who have gotten closer over the trip do start to hang out a bit more and then we will start to talk about our practices. … small pockets of conversations will happen as well” (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019). Melissa remarked that there is a level of trust … similar philosophy or outlook. … people are generous and we all start trusting the generosity of people. … [knowing that other artists’] feedback is coming from a good place … you’re just sharing whatever [feedback] to be taken or not taken … as that kind of community of people who are just giving constructive feedback to each other grows, then we can push [for even more] things [to happen] … more showings to artists, not just to children … that may be helpful for us [to grow as artists making work for young audiences]. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

Lack of Asian representation. One of the glaring observations made by some of the E.P.I.C. artists during this 2019 trip was the fact that despite it being an international festival, there were no creative works from Asia represented. This brought about some lively discussion among the group: There’s really [emphasis in original] no Asian works there. … And that was interesting for us … what other difficulties that they are facing that they can’t bring Asian works, what would they need [emphasis in original] to have in place to bring the Asian work there? Especially when … you have [emphasis in original] a good number of delegates who are Asian and you’re saying this [programming at the festival] is international work. … is Asian work not good enough or was it [that Asian work] doesn’t translate? … we boiled it down to cost. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

According to Natalie, there was a sharing at the end of E.P.I.C. in which the participating artists were asked about their three main takeaways [from E.P.I.C.]. … the first thing I said was that I found that … the festival was too Euro-centric. They brand themselves as an international festival, but all the programs were European, Australian. … [Secondly,] there weren’t any works for babies … all their works were for two years and above. … I did actually ask the festival director why, then he said he just didn’t find any that he felt was suitable for this year. … I don’t think that is a good enough reason, but anyway. … the third thing I said was … building relations and relationships was very important for this sector. Not just amongst the artists but amongst … there’s a whole eco-system to it right? There are the parents, the children, the school teachers, the community, caregivers. … a whole community that I learnt [from Natalie’s own experiences creating such work] that needs to be involved for something like that [i.e., works for young audiences] to flourish. (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019)

160

C.-H. Lum et al.

Providing logistical and networking support. The artists were immensely grateful for the efforts made by TAG team and Michelle especially in scheduling and securing everyone’s tickets for the performances, as well as in arranging for accommodation for everyone in the same space, as that allowed for fruitful interactions to organically arise. Networking sessions were also specially arranged by TAG team for the artists to mingle and interact with international artists as well as international producers: She [Michelle] looked after us [the artists]. … she helped [book the housing and also] assign our rooms … she [emphasis in original] did up the schedule … [if there were] any update [sic] she had to go and coordinate. … to make sure everyone got to see all the shows. …. and then buying the food for the house. … coordinating, ensuring everybody got where they needed to go, handing out tickets. … she also arranged additional talks for us outside the programme with specific people. … facilitating conversations for us [emphasis in original]. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

Natalie echoed that, “they [TAG] did arrange … for us to meet with some artists, and during the process … Michelle actually got us to meet one of the [festival’s] previous artistic directors” (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019). However, some artists did comment that there were difficulties trying to reach out and communicate at the networking sessions. Natalie reflected that “if we [the Singaporean artists] didn’t have a prior relation with any of the European artists or producers right, it was [or could be] quite difficult to enter. … I think maybe because we are Asians and … most of us are pretty new” (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019). For emerging artists in the scene, perhaps the more experienced artists or TAG team could help to make more introductions or facilitate a bridging session to ease these artists into the fold of these networking sessions. Staying relevant in the industry. Some artists felt that having recurrent E.P.I.C. trips would be important for their capability development particularly in terms of keeping themselves abreast of what is going on in the international scene of works for young audiences. They saw this as crucial to staying relevant in order to keep growing the scene in Singapore and to also contribute to the larger international field. As Natalie articulated, as an artist of course I hope that there will continuously be programmes like that [E.P.I.C.]. Because it does give artists in different capacities and [who are] at various stages in their lives … the opportunity to gain some exposure and stay relevant to the industry. Well, that is the main aim … like the capability development of the artist … [but] I personally do find that there’s actually potential for a more ambitious growth [of the Singaporean scene through programmes like E.P.I.C., which provide opportunities for exchanges between Singaporean artists and the international scene]. … like how do we get Singapore on the international platform through these festivals and the relationships that we’ve built with these festival? How do we allow our artists and all the other stakeholders—NAC, MCCY [Singapore’s Ministry of Culture, Community & Youth], bigger institutions—come to realise the international impact that festivals like that have so that there is actually real support. Of course, money is always the one factor right, but other areas of support … volunteerism in this area, or education in this area. … all contribute to I think one main goal which is the well-being of children. … on the policy level … the government needs to see the value in that … this is necessary for a country to have, and then [The] Artground can act as the agent to allow for other things to happen, like more of such international exchange kind of programmes to go on. (N. Tse & A. Chia, personal interview, June 25, 2019)

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

161

Summing up this section on developing networking and capability development programmes at TAG, the incubation labs, such as those run by Dalija and Alex, as well as E.P.I.C. provide a span of possibilities for local artists to be critically and reflectively engaged in the breadth and depth of thinking about and creating works for young audiences, while also allowing for organic networking and collaborative efforts to emerge. Some GroundBreakers like Isabella are already thinking about making works that are “tour-able, smaller projects … giving us [Singaporean artists] a chance to have interaction and dialogue with people outside of Singapore … we [currently only] serve our own community [i.e., the scene in Singapore] when actually I think it will help us if we were to go outside” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). TAG can serve as a possible conduit to help broker local works outside of Singapore, connecting local artists to international networks and festivals. Luanne has in fact already articulated as much in terms of TAG’s projected trajectory for incubating local works, beginning with: (a) the GroundBreakers programme, (b) extending local artists’ international reach and networking through the E.P.I.C. programme, and (c) establishing possible residencies and presentation opportunities for local artists in future local and international festivals: So for me … we have the 101s, which is your GroundBreakers, and then the E.P.I.C.s and then you have the presentation or the residency possibility for a fest [i.e., festival]. … So I think if we [TAG] just build those foundations quite strongly we can possibly quite do that for the rest of our existence and I think that’s a pretty good place to be at. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

Grant Support Providing a budget to artists for research and development work is hard to find in Singapore and TAG stands out as a rare gem that artists appreciate, particularly with regards to this field of works for young audiences. The grant support given by TAG for the GroundBreakers programme while not a huge sum by any standards, was “enough for us [artists] to incubate, find the items we need and then to pay [other artists involved]” (I. Loy, personal interview, September 24, 2018). Isabella remarked, “it was that little bit of money that also allow me to … hire people and say, ‘I can’t pay you a lot but there is [at least] something’. … there is value in the things that they [performers and other artists that Isabella approach] do … I want to honour that” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). Artists recognise that TAG provides a momentum and pushes towards experimentation and the creation of new works, but that the onus for supporting the entire scene should not rest on TAG alone. As Isabella and Bright pointed out, The last thing that you would want to do is for artists to be [completely] reliant on [The] Artground. It is a good platform but it should serve as a way to just push you [artists] off, [like a] springboard for you to be able to go, okay, this is the way I [can] find money, this is the way I can … sustain my art rather than going, ‘Everything has to rely on The Artground’,

162

C.-H. Lum et al.

which I think is not very healthy. … you have to find your own way to make yourself selfsustainable and then move on. … to continue to build ties with your community. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

While artists who applied through the open call knew about the limited budget that TAG has in supporting the GroundBreakers’ projects as TAG’s website explicitly states that each project stipend will be between S$3000 and S$5000, some artists felt that there should be greater transparency as to how TAG arrived at the specific amounts allocated to each project. Yan Zong also pointed out his observation that we [artists] didn’t get to choose how much we would like for the stipend. … at least let us say how much we feel our work is worth and not you value it for us. … there was nothing related to budget [in the GroundBreakers application form]. So even if we want to talk about budget, like the questions [in the form] didn’t ask for it. (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019)

This is certainly an important point to consider for TAG team. Taking the application process of the New Ideas Lab from ArtPlay as an example, when artists apply for the programme, they are actually asked to propose a budget of between A$10,000 and A$20,000. It is true that the quantum of the stipend provided by TAG is small compared to the budget provided by the New Ideas Lab, but it could still be a useful exercise for artists applying to the GroundBreakers to articulate a breakdown of their anticipated expenses and fees for the project.

Building a Community of Artists for Learning and Collaborative Opportunities Ad hoc conversations happen as artists “bump into other artists” within TAG (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). This could lead to further chats about working together or collaborating, or just exchanging notes about each other’s works for young audiences. It also helped to build community and trust between artists, without the feeling of being judged (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). Sometimes as artists come into TAG to run a programme, they would find the opportunity to watch other artists’ shows before or after their own performances or workshops. On occasions, if the artists have time, they would also share about their reactions to each other’s works, asking questions and dialoguing with each other: We’ve [The Kueh Tutus] been wanting to go [and attend another TAG artist’s programme], so … [that weekend] we’re just like, ‘Hi hello, can we come in and watch yours?’ So we just sat there and looked, and it was just nice. I think it’s nicer when people are just open about their thinking, because I could just ask her [that TAG artist], ‘Oh, have you been changing it [the programme] every single time you do it, what’s going on for you with it,’ and hearing what people [other artists] are experimenting with. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Having GroundBreakers in and around TAG for a period of time also allowed the artists over time to “slowly starting [sic] to figure out people’s philosophy, like

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

163

… there’s a group with similar philosophy [to The Kueh Tutus] but we also have differences” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)—in thinking about these points of similarities and differences, Melissa notes that it really “helps you [artists] to place your own philosophy … [while] knowing that it’s [each artists’ philosophy] still changing” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). As an example, in The Kueh Tutus’ work, one of the key elements that Melissa was trying to negotiate and work with is the idea of agency and autonomy. As she worked with her own dancers and also through observing the works of other GroundBreakers and various artists that work with young audiences, Melissa tried to reflect on how these concepts are made or manifested by others and how she can negotiate these possibilities within her own work. In a similar vein, Bright commented that “the very fact that we [he and Isabella] get to see … their [other artists’] art and vice versa, and even talk to them. … it’s just a very nice sort of community space to come together and observe and learn” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). Some of the GroundBreakers who already knew each other prior to their participation in the GroundBreakers programme have also been involved in each other’s programmes for TAG’s weekend lineup. For example, Bernice and Faye from Rolypoly Family engaged Keryn and Yan Zong to assist and run their Dance Playground and Dance Party weekend programmes at TAG. In a sense, a community of artists interested in producing work for children is already in play, but TAG’s presence fuels more possibilities of closer encounters. The artists did point out though that they would like more opportunities for GroundBreakers to meet and share ideas, and as Keryn remarked, “help us [artists] understand the scene better” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019). The artists on their own initiative have created a chat group to try and organise some informal gatherings. This is seen as particularly helpful in terms of artists working along similar lines of inquiry and germinating cross-arts perspectives or future collaborations. The building of a community of like-minded artists also bodes well towards the critical sharing of ideas that would ultimately move the local children’s arts scene towards developing better quality works—as Bright and Isabella noted, it is not that there is a [specific] standard [that artists need to meet], but we all want to push the standard of what it is currently [being created] further and further. … Quality TYA … [means that the work needs to be] well thought out, you know, well researched. … done with a due process. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

TAG team has also been very open to artists proposing new ideas and programmes to work with children at TAG. As Faye gratefully articulated, They’ve [TAG team] been very open … we’ve gone to them with different programmes and … [to have] the possibilities of proposing [programmes and ideas to TAG team as and when]. … it is very comforting for me to have that as a place. … there’s a community there, the children are there [emphasis added]. (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Enveloping this openness is a strong dose of trust that the artists have with each other and with TAG team. As Bernice said, “if you want to say anything or propose

164

C.-H. Lum et al.

anything, it feels like we can just say it” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Ultimately, perhaps it is about a coming together of a community of artists that “felt right. … people who I thought … will engage with us and share and give that joy of [the arts] … to each other and to the community,” as Papermoon Puppet Theatre’s Co-Artistic Director Maria Tri Sulistyani, better known as ‘Ria’, said to Bright about her curatorial approach to the international puppet festival Pesta Boneka (as cited in I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019).

Conclusion and Implications With reference to the common characteristics of arts incubators (Fraser et al., 2014; National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies, 1995) fleshed out earlier: (a) (b) (c) (d)

low-cost spaces and services for artistic creation; a nurturing (mentoring and networking) environment for artistic and business development of emerging artists and arts groups; collaborative opportunities between artists and arts groups, or other stakeholders; and assistance towards organisational development;

The GroundBreakers programme at TAG certainly exhibited a number of similar characteristics particularly with regards to (a), (b) and (c).

A Safe Space for Artists to Experiment, Create and Discover It is without a doubt that the provision of free physical space for rehearsals and trials stands out as one of the key benefits of the GroundBreakers programme that artists truly appreciate. TAG is also one of the very few spaces in Singapore that allows artists the creative space and time to experiment and create works for young audiences without the burden of having a finalised product at the end of a designated timeline. TAG’s space itself—specifically, the WhiteBox and the visual arts space— also serves as a frame and touch point for the germination of creative ideas from the artists, resulting in further experiments and creation. TAG’s infrastructure for trialling is another key component that the GroundBreakers find immensely helpful for them to test out, discover and refine their creative processes. Time, space and effort is deliberately set aside by TAG team to assist artists in testing out their creative ideas, allowing for oral and written feedback from children, caregivers, TAG team, other artists and arts education specialists. These repeated trials at TAG and even out in pre-schools serve to continually refine the artists’ creative processes, with the aim of improving the quality of their creative outcomes. All the GroundBreakers agree that TAG has provided a trusting and safe space that allows artists the freedom to take risks with their craft as a community.

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

165

The programme has also facilitated artists’ recognition of their own strengths and weaknesses as an artist, yet provided opportunities for them to challenge these and re-think the possibilities of art making for young audiences. Melissa, for example, noted that the new technological forms she was experimenting with in Tech Playground posed certain parameters for the creative work, be it in terms of the team’s skills and budget for working with electronics, or the reliability and capability of these technologies. At the same time though, she felt that “there are benefits to that [having these parameters],” and she took them as “constraint [sic] that you put on yourself [as an artist], that forces you to try and come up with something [new and innovative]” (M. Quek, personal interview, January 20, 2020). In opening up a platform like the GroundBreakers programme for artists to create new works for children and also to trial these works or to present their final works as part of TAG’s ticketed weekend programmes, TAG has opened up new arts experiences by local artists for young audiences and their caregivers. As Isabella articulated, “as long as The Artground is around, the longer it’s around, the more families, the more people are exposed to a different kind of theatre. … this kind of thing [i.e., building arts literacy] takes accumulation over time” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). TAG’s commitment to presenting trials at no-cost and most completed works at the fairly low cost of S$10 per caregiver-child pair also ensure that these arts programmes are quite accessible for caregivers to bring children. In the long term, when the audience experiences local TYA in different ways and see that the children “are actually very engaged,” Bright also believes that “the parents’ perceptions [will then] slowly change on what theatre … can be for kids” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019).

Networking In terms of creating networking opportunities for the GroundBreakers, TAG team has certainly attempted to create local and international platforms for organic and planned interactions as well as collaborative opportunities to happen. Findings suggest that these platforms range from TAG’s space itself, where artists get to bump into and interact with each other from time to time, to more intensive interactions within incubation labs like those conducted by Dalija Acin Thelander and Alex Desebrock or during international exchange programmes such as the E.P.I.C. programme. The relationship between the GroundBreakers and TAG team was generally informal, and it seemed to be about what emerges organically rather than purposively creating dialogues between the artists. Some artists liked that informality, but other GroundBreakers shared that they had hoped that there would have been a little more deliberate networking and dialoguing opportunities facilitated by TAG team specifically for the GroundBreakers. As Faye summarised, what happened was that “we [GroundBreakers] didn’t … initiate it [a GroundBreakers gathering] and they [TAG team] also didn’t … organise” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019).

166

C.-H. Lum et al.

Outside of TAG, in terms of opening up dialogue and networking with international artists, producers and companies, other artists who were not as savvy would have also appreciated a little more assistance and guidance by TAG team who are more experienced in this area.

A Supportive Friend in a Symbiotic Relationship TAG team has been generous in attending and providing useful feedback for the GroundBreakers during their trials and the artists truly appreciated their input, particularly as it relates to TAG team pointing out children’s reactions during the trials, and their pointers on the facilitation and management of children and their caregivers. Most of TAG team members are not arts practitioners themselves though, so critical comments about artistic content were generally left to the artists, who then might seek artistic inputs from their own dramaturgs if they had one. At times, artists also actively invited other artists to watch their trials and to give them feedback, as TAG supported their artists bringing in observers for the artists’ own programmes. The overall impression from the GroundBreakers about TAG team is that they are always open to ideas and helpful, creating a gentle nurturing environment that promotes an organic coming-together of like-minded artists to form a community of practice in this field of arts for young audiences. Some artists see the relationship between them and TAG as a symbiosis, where the artists need the support from TAG, and TAG likewise needs continued support from the artists in terms of providing weekend programmes as well as school learning journey programmes. As Yan Zong articulated, If we don’t apply anymore or if many people stop applying then there is no basis for this GroundBreakers [programme] also. So it’s like a two-way thing. Like we help by doing what needs to be done in a sense, for them [TAG]. … I guess they have some KPI [i.e., key performance indicator] or something for NAC [since TAG receives funding from NAC] like each year you [TAG] need to fund how many people, you need to support how many projects. … we try to get the support from them, but I guess in a sense we also support them right? (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019)

Collaborative Opportunities While there are pockets of collaborative efforts emerging from the interactions between the GroundBreakers in organic ways, these collaborations are mostly at its infancy stages. INHEPI was perhaps one of the only deliberate collaborative platforms that opened up opportunities for artists to come together to seed, make and play with new ideas in different groupings in quick succession, to figure out in very practical ways which artists connect with each other philosophically and artistically, which lays the groundwork for collaborations to develop.

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

167

It might thus be helpful for TAG team to think about further iterations of programmes similar to INHEPI, so as to continue building a community of practice and encouraging collaborative possibilities among artists keen on creating works for young audiences. The notion of creating makerspaces (Hlubinka et al., as cited in Fraser et al., 2014, p. 43) with the GroundBreakers is definitely well worth a venture too, in terms of adding the dimension of mentors and industry expertise into the mix to strengthen the quality of collaboration as the artists work on meaningful projects.

Industry Development In speaking to the outcomes of the GroundBreakers programme, Faye sees the programme as “enhancing the capabilities of the artists” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019), although she notes that “the measure of success [of the GroundBreakers programme] is what happens to the [GroundBreakers] artists in the community” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Luanne expressed a similar view, noting that the copyright of works germinated at TAG by the GroundBreakers belong to the artists themselves, and that these works should be able to stand on their own and travel into other institutions and spaces. As Luanne articulated, one of the fears [of TAG team] was that … they [the artists] are developing work that stays within The Artground, which is not what we want. We want them to develop work that can go to black boxes, that can go to the Esplanade and now the Singapore Chinese Culture Centre, and the [National] Gallery [of Singapore], and the museums [i.e., the various major cultural organisations in Singapore]. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

In light of this, TAG team takes on the intermediary role whenever possible to connect and promote the artists and their works to various pre-schools and institutions, which helps to open up new business opportunities for the artists. This initiative of ‘marketing’ the artists and their works by TAG team to various institutions and spaces is crucially facilitated by how TAG itself has established its credibility as a key player in the field of works for young audiences. As Luanne noted, we [TAG] have … managed to position ourselves in a position where people actually trust in the programmes that have developed out of us, have trust in the artists that we have worked with, and have trust … that the objectives that the artist has been thinking about, can, and have been [trialled] at TAG, and is ok. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

The larger intertwined goals for TAG are to build a community of artists keen and passionate about developing works for young audiences, to raise the standards of local works, and also to generate business opportunities for the artists while attracting a growing pool of audiences that would appreciate quality local productions. Our [TAG] biggest kind of pat on the back for ourselves [would be] to know that artists [incubated at TAG] are able to find work outside and hopefully when these works are well received, then it will generate more interest with audiences, and then generate more work from institutions, and that overall the industry can then enjoy a better, higher quality of

168

C.-H. Lum et al.

work that has been developed in tandem with audiences, [and specifically] with [the] young audiences that they [these works] are designed for. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

This messaging was not as explicit to some of the GroundBreakers though, who were curious about the multiple identities of TAG and who questioned how artists are positioned within its larger vision. There was also interest to understand if TAG had intentions to provide artists with progressional possibilities in the wider ecosystem in Singapore and internationally. At the half-way mark of the research at TAG, Faye reflected that it [TAG] does feel very hybrid. Like the venue identity, and sort of producer identity and capability development, professional development, identity, kind of scope of work. And I suppose I don’t have a sense of which aspect … which parcel is actually the main track. (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, September 10, 2019)

To Faye, TAG is more of “a space for children, it’s the space where programmes are made for children but the sort of informal role [that TAG takes on] is [facilitating] professional development for artists who are working with children” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019).

Moving Forward—Organisational Development of the GroundBreakers Programme Compared with the first iteration of the GroundBreakers programme, the artists in the second iteration in 2019 were provided with a more structured frame of expectations by TAG. This provided a smoother organisational and logistical plan for the artists and TAG team for the duration of the programme. For example, the artists were tasked to carry out a number of trials in each quarter, and also had to submit to TAG team a simple report of their written reflections. For Keryn and Yan Zong, the written reflections were valuable for their creative thinking and processing: We like to talk about how we are moving forward … and having … set questions [for the written reflections] guides us in our development or how we reflect [on] our own things [i.e., aspects of their GroundBreakers project] with a different … eye. [It’s helpful] because we will ask different questions for ourselves … Luanne’s template pose other questions or put it in an angle that we didn’t think about. So we could use it [the written reflections] to continue going forward [and developing their project]. … [some of the questions were about] how you [artists] will move on from your current ideas? Did your ideas change … or not? … What were the challenges that you felt? … If she [Luanne] didn’t ask it like that … I wouldn’t think that our idea changed. I’ll think like we are still moving in the same way … because the approach [to developing the work] never change. … It [the written reflections] serves as a reminder. … Every few months … [it prompts us to recall] roughly what has happened. It’s like … an implemented diary entry … that you have to do, but it’s cool. (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, August 5, 2019)

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

169

As for the incubation labs and E.P.I.C. trips that took place in the midst of the year-long GroundBreakers programme, while they added immensely to the capability development of the GroundBreakers and other local practitioners who participated, the timing of such programmes have not always been ideal in the larger timeframe of the GroundBreakers programme. For instance, as some of the GroundBreakers have articulated, if the incubation labs were organised at the beginning stages of the GroundBreakers programme, it would have provided the artists with a more sequential logic to their creative germination process. The close proximity between E.P.I.C. and INHEPI was also not ideal, as many of the GroundBreakers were unable to commit to both programmes. While there is an understanding that TAG team has done their level best in terms of scheduling due to logistical and financial constraints, there might be a need to look into longer term organisation of what the Groundbreaker programmes might entail over its entire course to ensure that there is coherence between its programming and the rest of TAG’s programming. In that way, the GroundBreakers will not perceive these helpful capability development programmes as random or ad hoc, particularly if the more significant incubation labs or the E.P.I.C. programmes are made known to the artists the moment they come on board and scheduled in as GroundBreakers-related commitments for the year. Taking a leaf out of research literature on teachers’ professional development, Desimone (2009) proposed a framework of professional development that should consider: (a) content focus, (b) active learning opportunities, (c) collective participation, (d) duration, and (e) coherence. All five features as suggested by Desimone (2009) work in tandem to allow for an effective delivery of a good professional development programme. In the GroundBreakers programme, there were definitely opportunities for the artists to consider content focus and active learning opportunities through the multiple trials set up by TAG. As mentioned, TAG team provided helpful feedback to the artists particularly in terms of giving them advice on logistical or facilitative ideas, or providing them with general feedback on what they have observed in terms of children’s and caregivers’ responses. While this is definitely useful for the artists, the artistic development of the work is often not discussed, and this is an important consideration moving forward. At the start of 2020 though, artists from 2019’s E.P.I.C. programme formally came together with a few other artists and producers in the field of arts for young audiences to launch UP Collective (http://www.facebook. com/upcollectivesg/), and it is worth highlighting that TAG has since brought them on to be artistic mentors for 2020’s GroundBreakers. Another aspect for TAG to consider would be the provision of more formal feedback about the age-appropriateness of the arts content for the targeted age group. If there are educational or child developmental stage components embedded within the content, an arts education specialist could also be specifically called in to provide an additional layer of feedback. The GroundBreakers themselves should also be strongly encouraged to attend each other’s trials to provide feedback, as this will serve to build a more robust and trusting community as they collectively participate in each other’s development. We end this chapter with short written reflections from two Groundbreaker artists (Chap, 7 and 8) about their experiences working with The Artground.

170

C.-H. Lum et al.

Appendix A TAG’s GroundBreakers for 2018 and 2019 The Kueh Tutus “are a collaborative team of creatives (dancers, artists, musicians and designers) who dove into exploring dances and dance-based experiences for the young and very young” (The Artground, n.d.-h). Led by choreographer Melissa Quek, The Kueh Tutus proposed Slinky Sticky Toys, “a physical dance work of 30-45 min for children aged 5-10 years inspired by evergreen toys (such as the slinky, rubberband ropes and the expanding ball) that are still popular today [in Singapore]” (The Artground, n.d.-h). The key questions that Melissa wanted to investigate through the GroundBreakers programme were: “how to have high level of interaction [with children]? What is the difference between [the dynamics of a] performance and [against] a workshop in the way the program will be developed?” (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018); basically, “how to get children engaged in the process of performance rather than just attending the performance” (M. Quek, personal interview, May 16, 2018). Rolypoly Family proposed the Sunny Islanders Project, the creation of music resources for creative dance for pre-schoolers. The project’s intention is “to make local music that dance instructors, teachers and families are able to use in dance studios, classrooms and living rooms” when doing movement work with children (The Artground, n.d.-i). Rolypoly Family’s team of artist facilitators are “led by dance and teaching artists, Faye Lim and Bernice Lee” (The Artground, n.d.-i). MySuperFuture Theatrical Productions “is a pioneering arts and early years organisation based in Singapore specialising in performances and creative interactions for focused age groups of babies, toddlers and young children aged 0-12 and the adults who care for them” (The Artground, n.d.-d). Helmed by veteran theatre practitioner Ian Loy, the company proposed the interactive theatre piece Invisible Invincible for their GroundBreakers project, which sought to “explore the premise of invisibility” and to make it visible through the performers’ and audiences’ imagination, using “play, music, materials and interactions” (The Artground, n.d.-d). Keryn Ng and Neo Yan Zong proposed Don’t Starve IV,4 a dance performance piece that the duo had been working on at different platforms while pursuing their Bachelors in Contemporary Dance and Dance Education in Austria. The creative performance, originally not intended for children, was given feedback by audiences remarking that “it’s really fun, [a piece] like this can also be suitable for children” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019). These comments prompted the two artists to explore more about works for children, and they came to realise their interest in learning more about this field. Hence, after returning

4 The Don’t Starve series was inspired by Yan Zong and Keryn’s intense experience of playing the award-winning computer game of the same name, ‘Don’t Starve’, which is “an uncompromising wilderness survival game full of science and magic” (Klei Entertainment, 2020).

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

171

to Singapore, they decided to apply for the GroundBreakers programme, so as to continue pursuing this newfound interest. Their proposal of creating a Don’t Starve IV for children eventually developed into a piece they now call Anything Goes!, and is described as follows: We love that Anything and Everything goes. We go from getting stuck on the door, to dancing with the ocean. Listening to scary but funny sounds, to finding shelter from imaginary rain. Waking our sleepy friend, to racing like worms on the floor. From being audiences, to being performers on stage. Random people and ideas find their way to exist together in this special realm we have created! (The Artground, n.d.-a)

Isabella Chiam and Bright Ong proposed Odd Socks under Five Stones Theatre, “an international collective made up of artists who are dedicated to pushing the creative boundaries of theatre and dance for the young and young at heart” (The Artground, n.d.-e). Odd Socks was conceptualised by Isabella a few years prior to the application to the GroundBreakers programme. However, she was unable at that point to realise the exploration due to a lack of funding and space. The GroundBreakers open call was thus a perfect opportunity for Isabella to develop this idea that is basically about people discovering new ways of playing with them [odd socks] and seeing them in a new light. … encouraging them to go ‘what can I do with my imagination? What can I do with creativity?’ … not seeing that odd sock as something that is useless. (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019)

Brocolily is “a collective of practitioners from varied fields of performance” who came together as a result of their desire to create “an inclusive experience for the little ones and to encourage parents to engage in conversations about the issues raised” (The Artground, n.d.-f). Their initial proposal was to create a drama production “to bring awareness to the choices we make on a daily basis with regards to the current environmental crisis” (The Artground, n.d.-f). This eventually manifested as Outside, a play that told the story of an “unusual forest with two mystical friends,” and how “a little trickle from a nearby block [a science laboratory] may change the way the river [in the forest] flows” (The Artground, n.d.-f). The Kueh Tutus’ proposal for the GroundBreakers programme in 2019 was Tech Playground, which sought to combine technology and the arts through ‘Sparky’, a robot that the team created. In their eventual piece, audiences could “meet Sparky, dance with Sparky, make music and new friends” (The Artground, n.d.-j).

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Chiam, I., & Ong, B. (2019, February 16). Personal interview. Chiam, I., & Ong, B. (2020, February 28). Personal interview. Desebrock, A. (2019, June 17). Personal interview. Lim, F., & Lee, B. (2018, September 10). Personal interview.

172

C.-H. Lum et al.

Lim, F., & Lee, B. (2019, February 22). Personal interview. Loy, I. (2018, September 24). Personal interview. Mark, C. (2019, July 9). Personal interview. Neo, Y.-Z., & Ng, K. (2019, February 15). Personal interview. Neo, Y.-Z., & Ng, K. (2019, August 5). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2018, May 16). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2018, September 10). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2019, July 25). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2020, January 20). Personal interview. Tan, S. (2019, September 5). Personal interview. Tse, N., & Chia, A. (2019, June 25). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources The Artground. (n.d.-a). Anything goes! By Keryn Ng and Neo Yan Zong. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/anythinggoes/. The Artground. (n.d.-b). EPIC. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from http://theartground.com.sg/ epic/. The Artground. (n.d.-c). GroundBreakers—Artist incubation programme. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from http://theartground.com.sg/groundbreakers/. The Artground. (n.d.-d). Invincible invisible by MySuperFuture theatrical productions. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/invisibleinvincible-mysuperfuture/. The Artground. (n.d.-e). OddSocks by Five Stones Theatre. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://the artground.com.sg/oddsocks/. The Artground. (n.d.-f). Outside by Brocolily. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://theartground. com.sg/outside/. The Artground. (n.d.-g). Rolling@TAG. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/va/rollingattag/. The Artground. (n.d.-h). Slinky Sticky Toys. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://theartground.com. sg/slinkystickytoys/. The Artground. (n.d.-i). Sunny Islanders Project: Music resources for creative dance (preschoolers). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/sunnyislandersproject/. The Artground. (n.d.-j). Tech Playground. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from http://theartground.com. sg/techplayground/. City of Melbourne. (2020). New ideas lab expressions of interest. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/arts-and-culture/artplay/artists/ideas-lab-eoi/ Pages/default.aspx. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0013189X08331140. Fraser, B., Hendrixon, D., Ott, C., Wang, B., Wedesky, E., & Westin, L. (2014). Arts incubators and makerspaces: An application in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Michigan: The Southwest Michigan Planning Commission. From “Instagram photos [Facebook status update],” by The Kueh Tutus, 2018 (http://www.facebook. com/thekuehtutus/photos/a.1680948332002796/1690089394422023/). In the public domain. Klei Entertainment. (2020). Don’t starve. Retrieved from http://www.klei.com/games/dont-starve. The Kueh Tutus. [thekuehtutus] (2018, May 27). Instagram photos [Facebook status update]. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from http://www.facebook.com/thekuehtutus/photos/a.168094 8332002796/1690089394422023/.

6 “Donch Play Play!” Incubating Works …

173

National Arts Council. (2016, March 3). Open call: Children’s arts centre at the Goodman Arts Centre multi-purpose hall [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:2d9 228b6-6d3f-4efe-abed-6454a55d6ade. National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies. (1995). An introduction to arts incubators. Monographs, 4(3), 1–16. Smith, N. S. (n.d.). The underscore. Retrieved June 24, 2019, from http://nancystarksmith.com/und erscore/. Starcatchers (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from http://www.starcatchers.org. uk/who-we-are/.

Chee-Hoo Lum is Associate Professor of Music Education with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Chee-Hoo’s research interests include the examination of issues towards identity, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, technology and globalisation in music education, children’s musical cultures, creativity and improvisation, and elementary music methods. He is currently the Co-editor of International Journal of Music Education (IJME) and on the editorial board of Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and Research Studies in Music Education (RSME). He served as a Board Member of the International Society for Music Education) (ISME) and the Asia-Pacific Symposium for Music Education Research (APSMER) and has previously been an associate editor with the International Journal of Education and the Arts (IJEA). Chee-Hoo has published three edited books: (1) Arts Education and Cultural Diversity: Policies, Research Practices and Critical Perspectives; (2) Contextualized Practices in Arts Education: An International Dialogue on Singapore and; (3) Musical Childhoods of Asia and the Pacific; three coauthored academic books: (1) Semionauts of Tradition: Music, Culture and Identity in Contemporary Singapore; (2) Teaching Living Legends: Professional Development and Lessons for the 21st Century Music Educator and; (3) World Music Pedagogy: School-Community Intersections; general music textbooks, and academic book chapters, refereed journal articles, and made numerous conference presentations at local and international settings. Marcus Cheng Chye Tan is Assistant Professor of Drama at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is the Author of Acoustic Interculturalism: Listening to Performance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), Performing Southeast Asia: Performance, Politics and the Contemporary (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), book chapters and articles in journals such as Theatre Research International, Contemporary Theatre Review, Performance Research, and TDR. His research specialisations include intercultural theatre, for which he has been described as one of the principal scholars in the "Third Wave" of intercultural theatre scholarship (The Methuen Handbook of Interculturalism and Performance, 2020); music theatre; performance soundscapes and social acoustemologies. Marcus also researches on social–political performativities and virtual theatres. He is currently examining performativity in immersive virtual environments as means of empathic learning and perspective taking, as part of a research grant awarded by Singapore’s Ministry of Education. Marcus is also a Consultant and Collaborator with the National Archives of Singapore on "SoundscapeSG", a sound archive and sound map. Marcus is also the Associate Editor of the Journal of Interdisciplinary Voice Studies, SecretaryGeneral (Communications) of the International Federation for Theatre Research, Co-convenor of the Music Theatre Working Group, International Federation for Theatre Research and Online Content Editor of Theatre Research International. Gua Khee Chong/ 张月崎 is a Singapore-based Theatre Director and Performance Maker who also takes on research projects. She is often engaged as a Facilitator or Dramaturg as well, in projects that span different disciplines such as visual arts and dance. At this moment, Gua Khee’s research interests are connected to issues around socially engaged art, architectures of care and

174

C.-H. Lum et al.

resilience, conversational infrastructures, and also ways of generative resistance. She graduated from the University of British Columbia, Canada, with a Psychology (Honours) and Theatre (Major) degree.

Chapter 7

Reflection 1 on Chapter 6 Faye Lim

The Artground (TAG) has become a mainstay in the arts landscape since we last spoke with the research team. TAG’s partnerships with diverse local arts groups, such as the Different Abilities Dance Collective (DADC; http://www.mayadance theatre.org/news/diverse-abilities-dance-collective-dadc) and Access Path Productions, set them apart from other children-focused venues I am aware of in Singapore. Since then, Rolypoly Family has developed some new performance works with TAG, such as language-based Letters Come Alive1 and English-Malay bilingual show Gerak ABC. Because of these opportunities, we were able to take these works to the Esplanade (http://www.esplanade.com)—Singapore’s national performing arts centre, and SAFRA2 (http://www.safra.sg) respectively. I still value, very much, TAG’s role in building up the capabilities of local artists who make works for children, and in providing a vibrant community and physical space for the works to animate and serve who they are meant to serve. I strongly believe that TAG will continue to be integral and stay relevant by harnessing relationships—with children, families, artists—and by being a leading, critical voice in areas that impact the children of Singapore today, such as environmental sustainability, gender and racial equity, and technological advancement. 1 Letters Come Alive is a “whimsical dance show that introduces the building blocks of the English

language”, through “movement, rhythm, storytelling and play” (http://www.rolypolyfamily.com/ performances). 2 SAFRA is “the go-to destination [in Singapore] for all social, recreational, sports and educational facilities for NSmen [National Servicemen] and their families”, with “a network of clubs located at Jurong, Mount Faber, Punggol, Tampines, Toa Payoh and Yishun” (http://www.safra.sg/aboutsafra). To cite: Lim, F. (2020). Reflections. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds.), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 175–176). Singapore: Springer. F. Lim (B) Singapore, Singapore © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_7

175

176

F. Lim

With TAG as a partner, advocate and sponsor, there is so much more artists can do with and for children. I imagine longer term partnerships with private funders and donors could open up growth possibilities for TAG, which will benefit its community of children, families and artists.

Chapter 8

Reflection 2 on Chapter 6 Melissa Quek

Since I began presenting work at The Artground (TAG), I have come to realise that my initial instinct to approach the audience as a community and to view the performance as a community building event has become a foundation of my practice. The real work is creating communities that can be sustained and perpetuated. This has made TAG integral to the development of my dancers and my own artistic development. The basis of communities is relationships. Being part of TAG communities and the resultant relationships push me to question my approaches and challenge my perception of these relationships. If I were to distill it, I would say that the basis of the audience-audience relationship is a shared experience, the audience-performer relationship is based on a shared goal and the artist-artist relationship is about common interests and needs, or maybe even a common plight. Perhaps the community of Arts for Young Audiences (A4YA)— consisting of artists, producers, managers, etc.—became a community because they identify with the same uphill battle, and hold similar beliefs and dreams for the sector. I have found that developing my practice relies on developing these relationships in the community. Because I engage with both these temporary communities and the more fixed community within TAG, I am able to safely experiment with and question my creative process and strategies of engagement within my works. The benefits I experience by having these communities around me and the ability to develop at my own pace is why I was drawn to be part of the Up Collective (http://www.facebook.com/upcollectivesg/). The forming of a community of A4YA practitioners who could support each other and push one another to a higher standard of work is precisely what the Up Collective is about. As mentioned in Chap. 6, having met as participants of TAG’s E.P.I.C (Exposure, Participate, Innovate, and To cite: Quek, M. (2020). Reflections. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds.), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 177–178). Singapore: Springer. M. Quek (B) Singapore, Singapore © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_8

177

178

M. Quek

Create) artist capability development programme in Edinburgh, Scotland, we came together to be a close community for each other, and to provide that same support to others in the scene—especially to young performers and creators who are just starting out. So the Up Collective is working with TAG to provide a wider base of artist support, and develop engagement sessions and activities that will be beneficial for artists’ development. As a community of practitioners, we hope to be a sounding board for each other, to share feedback and constructive criticism, to question together and develop new working methodologies. I am interested to see whether, by developing a strong community of artists who challenge each other and explore together, a Singaporean approach to A4YA will emerge.

Chapter 9

Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts for Young Audiences at The Artground Gua Khee Chong and Jennifer Wong

Abstract This chapter focuses on the emergence of pedagogical approaches from artists and arts groups from the first two cohorts of the GroundBreakers artist incubation programme (2018 and 2019) at The Artground (TAG). TAG welcomes artists and arts groups to trial work for young audiences by providing them with the physical space and audience for programme development and feedback. The accessibility of space and audience has resulted in the fostering of an environment in which both artists and arts groups engage in a constant and cumulative process of exploring, trialling, and reflecting about the work they are making for young audiences. This chapter discusses the work created and presented by the artists and arts groups at TAG, framing it against recent literature in the field of arts for young audiences on guiding principles and philosophies from both practitioners and scholars in this area. The chapter concludes with implications of the findings for arts spaces such as TAG to consider. Keywords Arts for young audiences · Arts pedagogies · Philosophies The Artground aims to be a space where all artists, young and younger, can be curious about discovering different ways of artmaking, and create works that are delightful for their audiences. We believe that all children deserve aesthetic experiences that are thoughtfully designed and considered. The Artground will provide the space, literal & figurative, for artmakers to conceptualize, to devise, to test and to design these experiences in order to break new ground in this field. (The Artground, n.d.-b)

The Artground (TAG) welcomes artists and arts groups to trial work for young audiences by providing them with the physical space and audience for programme development and feedback. The accessibility of space and audience resulted in the fostering of an environment in which both artists and arts groups engage in a constant To cite: Chong, G. K., & Wong, J. (2020). Emergent pedagogical approaches to arts for young audiences at The Artground. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 179–198). Singapore: Springer. G. K. Chong (B) · J. Wong Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_9

179

180

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

and cumulative process of exploring, trialling, and reflecting about the work they are making for young audiences. For example, The Kueh Tutus—an arts group from the 2018 GroundBreakers programme, developed a variety of performances such as Grow With Me and The Painter’s Waltz, in addition to their initial proposal of Slinky Sticky Toys (later renamed Slinky Stretchy Toys). This chapter focuses on the emergence of the artists’ and arts groups’ philosophies and pedagogical approaches from the first two cohorts of GroundBreakers in 2018 and 2019.1

Clarifying Terminology Three-five years would be Theatre for Infants; six-twelve Children’s Theatre, and twelvesixteen Theatre for a Young Audience, or Adolescents’ Theatre …. There is, however, [also] Theatre for the Family that addresses all ages. (Schonmann, 2006, pp. 23–24)

When examining the field of works for young audiences, it is immediately evident that there is a variety of terminology used to signal the categories of works presented. These terminologies are interpreted slightly differently across geographical contexts as well as across time. For instance, Schonmann (2006) uses the term ‘Theatre for Young People’ as a broad category while highlighting that there are “special terms … [that] correspond with [the] age of the audience” (p. 23). However, Eluyefa (2017) uses the term ‘Children’s Theatre’ when referencing literature on works with young audiences, and explains that “there are several theories as to what constitutes children’s theatre,” and that “there is no universal agreement within academic discourse on the parameters in which the term should be defined” (p. 79). Various professional networks and festivals across Asia, such as the Asian TYA Network and ricca ricca*festa, however use the term ‘Theatre for Young Audiences (TYA)’. The decision to use the term TYA resulted in the Asian Children’s Theatre Alliance (ACTA) to be renamed as the Asian Alliance of Theatre for Young Audiences (ATYA) in 2009 (Asian Alliance of Festivals and Theatres for Young Audiences, n.d.). The struggle with terminology is also evident in other arts organisations. The International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People (ASSITEJ) uses the term ‘theatre for children and young people’ while its National Centre in the United States of America calls itself ‘TYA/USA’ (TYA/USA, 2018), pointing to the prominence of this particular term amongst artists worldwide. At the same time, ASSITEJ is also careful to highlight that they use the term ‘theatre’ “in its broadest sense to mean the performing arts for young audiences encompassing dance, puppetry and visual mediums, live art as well as text based theatre” (ASSITEJ, n.d). The lack of common terminology to refer to work produced for young audiences is also evident with the artists incubating their works at TAG. Choreographer Melissa Quek, who leads The Kueh Tutus, explains that artists who see themselves producing 1 For more details on the GroundBreakers programme as well as the artists and arts groups involved,

please refer to Chap. 6.

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

181

work that falls outside of the ‘theatre’ category are more likely to struggle somewhat with the term. Specifically, when asked if she sees herself “as a TYA person,” Melissa replied, “Are we focusing on the ‘T’?” (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019). She then elaborated, I take the view that when people said ‘T’ they also mean ‘D’ …. I’ll just take it as allencompassing cause [sic] it’s just a term that’s just more used right? Like you don’t hear ‘DYA’ [Dance for Young Audiences] and you don’t hear ‘DEY’ [Dance for Early Years, a riff-off from the term ‘Theatre for Early Years’, which refers to performances for children under the age of three] either …. So … I assume people are just taking it as all encompassing. But usually when we write blurbs and everything [i.e., any publicity material], to me, it’s really important that dance is central, [and that The Kueh Tutus] don’t take it for granted because that is also what makes us different. (M. Quek, personal interview, July 25, 2019)

In light of a lack of consensus from the practitioners and scholars in the field of arts for young people, this chapter adopts the more generic term of ‘arts for young audiences’ in reference to all age groups and art forms. This term reflects the variety of disciplinary and interdisciplinary work that takes place at TAG, ranging from participatory performances to the creation of visual arts spaces for a range of age groups.

Understanding the Field of Arts for Young Audiences This section provides a survey of the field of arts for young audiences and focuses on recent literature to distill the guiding principles and philosophies of practitioners and scholars in this area, before moving the discussion to the work created and presented by the artists at TAG. At this point, it is important to acknowledge that while the focus of this chapter is on arts for young audiences, many of the developments that took place in this field can be traced back to broader shifts in societal discourse around notions of ‘childhood’ and ‘the child’. When looking at the beginnings of arts for young audiences, for instance, it has been noted that “the idea of a theatre for children in the sense of performances directed toward a young audience is a fairly new phenomenon” which emerged only in the nineteenth century (Ward, 1950; McCaslin, 1971 and 1978; Cory, 1974; Goldberg, 1974; Davis & Evans, 1987; England, 1990; Swortzell, 1990; Gronemeyer, 1996; as cited by Schonmann, 2006, p. 31). In turn, to better understand this ‘phenomenon’, one can look to the reconceptualisation of childhood per se between the late nineteenth century and the beginning of World War One, during which children began to be perceived as sentimental figures that needed to be protected from hardship and illnesses (Steedman, 1990; Gittins, 1998). Similarly, the early emphasis on the potential for theatre as a means to educate young audience can be understood in the context of discourses around childhood in that period, and specifically the ‘tabula rasa discourse’ of John Locke whereby: the child is always in the process of becoming an adult-in-the-making with specific educational needs that adults should take seriously. It is the responsibility of adults to provide the

182

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

appropriate education and control to enable children to develop into mature and responsible citizens. (Kehily, 2009, p. 5; for a further discussion of discourses around childhood, see Montgomery, 2003; Sorin & Galloway, 2006)

The influence of such discourses around childhood on early practitioners of arts for young audiences cannot be underestimated. In an echo of Locke’s discourse, Gomes and Aquino (2019) noted that in 1944, when the Brazilian ambassador and actor Paschoal Carlos Magno appealed to the Brazilian public to support “the creation of theatrical performances for children performed by adults” (p. 4), Magno cited the following reasons: the unavoidable need for educating children [emphasis added], fostering their interest in art, awakening their appreciation for studying, evoking courage and patriotism, practicing chivalry, and finally, contributing to everything that could develop the physical, moral, and spiritual being of the Brazilian of tomorrow. (p. 4)

In Australia, an early key figure in the history of children’s theatre was Rosemarie Benjamin and Theatre for Children (1937–1957) in Sydney, and McIntyre (2018) makes a similar observation about Rosemarie Benjamin’s work: “Benjamin’s fervid advocacy gave to her theatre the character of an educational cause. She publicised the [then] new ideas about child development, mobilising public support through newspapers and talks and forging alliances with cultural figures” (p. 218). Over the years, even as arts programmes and works for children have developed in scale and sophistication, it can be seen that education and learning remain important elements for people involved in creating or publicising work for young audiences. For instance, publications from the past decade have variously looked at how work for young audiences can promote communication and disclosure of suicidal ideation (Keller et al., 2017), or how efficacious such work can be in building cultural confidence (Carner, 2018). In Singapore, the Esplanade, which is Singapore’s national performing arts centre, also currently publicises their children’s theatre programmme PLAYtime! as “an opportunity to spark your child’s creativity and encourage learning through the performing arts [emphasis added]” (The Esplanade Co Ltd, 2020a). Indeed, one of two programmes in 2020 explicitly highlights that the story is about “learning to care for the world and people around us” (The Esplanade Co Ltd, 2020b). David Craig, a renowned Canadian playwright for young audiences points out that “when the art is created, our education director tells us how it is educational and of course it always is” (as quoted in Swartz, 2008, p. 50), thereby underscoring the deeply entwined relationship between arts for young audiences and education. At the same time, there are increasingly more practitioners and organisations that are interrogating or resisting the perspective that work for young audiences is simply a vehicle for education, against the backdrop of a much wider social change in cultural understandings about children’s nature, needs and role in society. Conventional discourses of the innocent child, the irrational and sinful child, and the developing child, have been displaced in part by a new discourse of the child – as a rights-bearing citizen, expressed most powerfully in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (Lansdown, 2001 as cited in Kehily, 2009, p. 23)

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

183

As an example, Johanson and Glow (2011) found that across three case studies of arts companies that created work for families and school groups (two in Australia and one in Denmark), “all [three companies] experienced (or engineered) a shift from productions focused on explicitly educational goals to productions that are more concerned with aesthetic aims and have a view of the specific needs and interests of children and families as audiences” (p. 64). For such companies and practitioners, one measure of quality offered is the extent to which the works “engage the mind, body and spirit of the audience, [and] that help children understand human behaviours” (Swartz, 2008, p. 48). In the field, there is also the subset of Theatre for Early Years (TEY), which is intended for children under 3 years of age, but “in practice … often extends beyond this three-year period, and may include performance experiences for foetuses … or productions which cover a wider age range but overlap with the under-threes” (Fletcher-Watson, 2016, p. 1). For many TEY practitioners, this belief in the inherent value of such work to children can be seen to go one step further. In his research with 26 Scottish TEY practitioners, Fletcher-Watson (2018) found that not only did the TEY practitioners disagree with “the instrumentalist or pedagogical points of view common in the previous century,” but they also generally felt that while “there may be educational, health, or other benefits to children (and indeed their carers) from attending theatre …. these are intrinsic to the experience, bound up within it rather than being deliberately applied from outside” (p. 6).

Pedagogical Approaches in Arts for Young Audiences Children’s engagement in arts programmes are crucial as these experiences become a means to build a range of capabilities (Nicholson, 2011). Artists and arts organisations adopt different pedagogical approaches when creating arts programmes for young audiences. The approaches are employed to meet educational outcomes by engaging young audiences as well as their parents or other caregivers, and oftentimes, the approaches are complementary in nature so as to meet a range of needs. FletcherWatson (2018) highlights that these practices “are not individually distinctive, as they occur frequently in other artistic genres” (p. 7) but given how they are often combined together, it seems that a coherent and sound approach for arts for young audiences is starting to develop. While there is no prescribed pedagogical methodology in published literature that will enable artists and arts organisations to design and create educational programmes, there appears to be similarities in the guidelines adopted by different arts groups and artists when considering work for children. Fostering communication. Communication in children’s programmes can exist in multiple ways and formats. For example, Braem (2019) recommends the inclusion of songs, music, conversation and other nonverbal communication methods when engaging young children and their caregivers. Communication with the audience can extend beyond the duration of the programme and therefore prolong the period of engagement between the artists and the audience through dramaturgical mythologies.

184

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

Artists and arts groups can consider the use of pre- and post-programme materials in the form of posters, lobby displays, talks and discussions, and situating artists within the classroom to further the arts experience and engagement (Fletcher-Watson, 2018; McLauchlan, 2017; Woods-Robinson, 2018). Encouraging personal responses. Penny’s (2013) study into the pedagogical approaches of Theatre Direct, a theatre company based in Toronto, revealed that one of the guiding principles of the arts group is the focus on using theatre as “an opportunity to witness someone’s pain and through that process to unlock that empathetic capacity in the child” (p. 17). One of the key aims of the theatre company is to enable its audiences and participants to look at issues from different and multiple perspectives while building their personal responses to the narratives presented. Similarly, Joosa (2008) urges educators and artists to reconsider children’s capabilities in making personal connections and forming independent opinions. She suggests that “instead of taking a ‘deficit’ perspective on children’s development (i.e., considering children’s thinking as immature, benchmaking it against adult standard), researchers are now looking at what children can do [emphasis in original] and how their thoughts and feelings are expressed” (Joosa, 2008, p. 3). Audience engagement. One of the key guidelines of audience engagement proposed by Oily Cart (Braem, 2019), a London-based company that “aims to reimagine theatre for young audiences to make it more inclusive” (Oily Cart, 2020), is to ensure that the programme is age and interest appropriate. However, it must be highlighted that adult audiences who accompany the children should not be neglected in audience engagement. Braem (2019) argues that it is important to consider the roles of the accompanying adults who continue the conversations after the engagement with the children before and after each arts programme. Drawing on Theatre Direct’s work, Penny (2013) adds an additional consideration when engaging adults in children’s arts programmes. She explains that it is less about “pleasing the adults and [instead] more concerned with coaxing them into the role of witness [emphasis in original]” (p. 17) to see how the experiences in the arts programmes could impact and possibly alter the way young audiences are engaged. Multi-sensory engagement. In creating “theatre for young people with complex disabilities or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)” (Braem, 2019, p. 36), Oily Cart especially emphasises the importance for programmes to provide multi-sensorial engagements. This guideline applies suitably to most children’s programmes as McInnes and Elpidoforou (2018) remind us that children learn through their various senses and develop cognitively, physically, emotionally and socially through different forms of engagement. Braem (2019) explains that Oily Cart’s artists focus on creating works for children that provide a 360-degree theatre experience which engages multiple senses. Examples of these sensorial stimulations and engagements come in the form of touch, by simulating wind using a hand fan and the spraying of scented water into the air to engage both the sense of smell and touch. This provision of a multi-sensorial environment requires artists to invest in thorough preparation before each show or workshop. Thought must be given to every aspect of the production. Interaction and personal engagement. Braem (2019) suggests that arts programmes for children should be up-close and interactive to facilitate better

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

185

connection between the audience and the artists, but in a way that still allows for distancing where pauses, silences and stillness pepper the interaction between the two. Fletcher-Watson (2018) agrees and posits that there is a need to resist theatrical conventions, such as actor-audience divide in arts programmes for young audiences. Instead, a deeper engagement could be fostered when audience are steeped in familiar settings and scenarios, and yet subverted and surprised by the unexpected ways of interaction. It is therefore important for artists working on children’s programmes to be able to stimulate responses from the audience while having the ability to read these reactions and reciprocate accordingly. Concurring, Ackerman (as cited in Stokrocki, 2010) suggests that children’s engagements are “deep and rich when it contains uncertainty, illusion, fantasy, and when it includes role exploring or risk-taking, thereby developing its own life” (p. 70). This introduction to the development of children’s arts programmes and a quick examination of the considerations underpinning pedagogical approaches adopted by different artists and arts groups in this section have provided some insight into arts for young audiences. The next section considers the emergence and development of pedagogical approaches to arts for young audiences at TAG.

Findings As mentioned in this chapter’s opening quote, TAG’s vision is to “let art do, what art does” (The Artground, n.d.-a) and their emphasis for the GroundBreakers is to create “aesthetic experiences that are thoughtfully designed and considered” (The Artground, n.d.-b). This indicates TAG’s desire to create arts experiences for young audiences without preset parameters or rigid learning outcomes. The organic way of working and a lack of prescribed objectives means that both the artists creating arts programmes and TAG team itself experiment with different ways of working before they arrive at an understanding of what the arts does for young audiences and their caregivers. Jane Choy, the co-founder of TAG, reflects, previously … we always get a bit confused like does the learning come first or the arts … [but now] it’s very clear that arts is primary, learning is secondary, in the sense that the learning is woven in with whatever that we get from the artist. (J. Choy, personal interview, February 25, 2020)

The recognition that the arts experience is fundamental in all engagements with young audiences and each child may achieve different learning outcomes indicates that artists create works that are open-ended in nature and may impact and affect every child differently. Without prescribed objectives and pedagogical guidelines, it is therefore important to examine the creative processes of the artists and consider what the programmes do for young audiences. This next section analyses the emergent frameworks observed as the artists and arts groups incubate their respective arts programmes as GroundBreakers.

186

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

Encouraging Communication That Leads to Children’s Agency Common to the various artists creating work at TAG is a conviction of the need to enable agency for young audiences to decide their degree of participation in these arts experiences. Agency connotes the amount of power an individual perceives to have when assessing the level of influence they can make to situations or events (Bandura, 1982). Artists offering programmes at TAG respect the diverse backgrounds and experiences children who are participating in their programmes possess. Therefore, artists inherently built into their pedagogical frameworks opportunities for different degrees of investment by the children. Faye Lim, from Rolypoly Family, explains that to them, all children “have their own experiences that may … help them decide that they don’t want to join in [the activity],” and also that “emotions and feelings are facts and that we [the artists] want to honour what the children are feeling” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Similar to Braem’s (2019) advice in allowing distance and space for better levels of connection, artists refrain from cajoling children and persuading them to join in the various activities during the programmes, but instead remain at a respectful distance while maintaining a welcoming stance at all times so that children feel safe to watch from a distance as well as participate when they feel ready. However, artists also recognise that there is a need to balance agency of the children as they decide the degrees of participation and the potential chaos differing levels of engagement and investment could bring to the programmes. Melissa posits that it is a delicate balancing act the artists often find themselves negotiating as they try to provide meaningful and engaging arts experiences. She explains the challenge confronting artists could be knowing how to create a safe space for both the artists and the young audiences because it’s not free agency either … the experience for everyone can be destroyed if you give too much freedom or too much agency … but just struggling to negotiate that and making sure there is space for it, I think, is important. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Similarly, Ian Loy from MySuperFuture Theatrical Productions (MySuperFuture) echoes this sentiment when he explains how the negotiation between inviting the children to participate and moments when young audiences should remain as spectators is a challenging one. To find a healthy balance, the amount of control an artist has during moments of engagement is important because “if everybody [acts like it’s a] free for all, then this is just an animated classroom,” which is problematic to Ian as he “still want [sic] it [the performances he creates] to be theatrical [emphasis in original],” such that “people can watch it and be transported to another place, to see, to be the third eye of this show” (I. Loy, personal interview, May 20, 2019). The principles and strategies articulated by the artists resonate with FletcherWatson’s (2018) argument of resisting theatrical conventions in order to foster deeper engagement with young audiences while still respecting the agency of the children. However, it appears unclear how much resistance to traditional methods can be

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

187

afforded in order to deliver meaningful and engaging programmes without the artists sacrificing control in their facilitation. Artists at TAG have also found that when they include communication with the audiences before the beginning of the programme, they were better prepared for the arts experiences. Similar to the methods of communication (Fletcher-Watson, 2018; McLauchlan, 2017; Woods-Robinson, 2018) discussed earlier, the GroundBreakers created opportunities to tune their audiences into participating and engaging in the programme by having pre-show talks and setting up posters outside of the WhiteBox where the arts programmes typically happen. These inform caregivers about what the young ones can expect. Melissa explains that they have now built pre-show briefings into their performances and she had used one of her trial sessions to find out if there is a way to incorporate … a safety workshop briefing session in a fun way for the kids … like … ‘You will get freedom if you know the rules, so I need to teach you the rules, then you can do whatever you want, within the rules’. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Melissa elaborates how “the spiel … whatever I said at the beginning is super important. And how I lead them [the children] in is very important as well” in helping The Kueh Tutus establish the balance between autonomy and chaos in their work (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019). Braem (2019) suggests that communication with the adults is especially useful for art programmes intended for young children. The adults play a significant role in influencing the behaviours of the young audiences and expand the impacts while affecting the arts experiences before and after the engagement. The impact of communicating with caregivers was observed at TAG as Melissa notes that when she briefed the caregivers about the arts experience and how babies and toddlers had the agency to explore during the show, the caregivers became more confident in allowing the young audiences to take charge of how they wished to be engaged. The young audiences became “really social. Like the kids were really just playing with each other a lot” (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019). In contrast, the display of agency was sharply lacking in the young audiences when the communication outside of the arts experience with their caregivers was absent. It appears that communication methods outside of the programmes benefit the young audiences as the caregivers are guided to facilitate richer arts experiences together with the artists. Melissa recounts that “there were times … [when The Kueh Tutus] don’t [sic] give the spiel, [then] they [the children] are all held back a lot [by their caregivers]” (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019).

Encouraging Personal Responses from Children The artists at TAG have emphasised that it is integral to their creative processes to be open and gentle (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019) so that children feel safe to respond in and contribute to the arts experiences. For example,

188

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

MySuperFuture’s Invisible Invincible, a theatre piece for children aged 2- to 6-yearsold, seeks to encourage imagination and creativity in its audience. The artists invited the young audiences to interact with the invisible stimuli, such as a ‘cat’ cradled in a performer’s arms. In these moments, the direction of the programme relies heavily on the children’s responses. The performers could smile at the child gently stroking the ‘cat’, or the performers could appear shocked and pull the ‘cat’ away if the child was too rough. Similar to Penny’s (2013) study of Theatre Direct’s work, the narrative of Invisible Invincible was not fixed but was instead dependent on the contributions of the young audiences in this immersive theatre experience. The children therefore owned the narrative that was performed and the artists built into their pedagogies ways to encourage the young audiences to contribute freely. Children’s responses and contributions to the arts experiences were also welcomed during the creation phase. Artists felt that children could become co-authors of arts programmes because the young people would be able to advise how to build connections between the arts experiences and their audience. Isabella Chiam from Five Stones Theatre proposed an interactive co-creation workshop with young audiences at one of their trial sessions at TAG as a way of crafting a narrative that would resonate with children. Isabella’s aim was also to test the capability of the performers to “see whether or not it’s within the means of the actors to actually facilitate the process without it getting too crazy” (I. Chiam & B. Ong, personal interview, February 16, 2019). This idea evolved subsequently and became the Odd Socks Lab where children were invited to work with sock puppets as well as to draw their own sock puppet monsters, and to share their imagination of various attributes of their puppet monsters, such as how it sounds, what its name is, and whether it is a ‘day time’ or ‘night time’ monster (observation, March 30, 2019). Children’s responses to the arts programmes were valued and integral to the arts experiences, either during the programme or in the development phase, and this forms a pedagogical approach many of the artists at TAG adopted. Melissa explains that this mutual response, before and during the arts experience, is about “trying to form a community. You’re trying to communicate with the kid … it’s a structure in which it was [sic] open enough to be able to take what the kids are offering you, use it [i.e., respond to it], and move on” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018).

Engaging and Enlisting the Assistance of Caregivers TAG artists interviewed echoed Braem’s (2019) claims on the influence of the adults in children’s programmes. Ian referred to the caregivers as the “gatekeeper[s]” who have within them a lot of power to decide if they “will want to, have the trust to, bring the children back to your show again” (I. Loy, personal interview, May 20, 2019). However, the influence of the caregivers is not limited to whether they would purchase the tickets for the next show again. Instead, artists and arts groups find the need to build opportunities within their programmes to engage caregivers so that they in turn become a means of support to the artists who are facilitating the arts experience.

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

189

For example, artists have highlighted the importance of engaging caregivers’ help to maintain theatre etiquette or to encourage their children’s participation in interactive and immersive programmes. Brocolily similarly spoke about the need to enlist the support of caregivers (Z.-H. Ang, C. Kuek, & M. Neo, personal interview, March 8, 2019). One of them had a particularly deep impression of how parents and other caregivers at a children’s arts festival in Brisbane took an active role in maintaining theatre etiquette: when the house [lights] goes to 50%, the children automatically keep quiet and there’s a child was like trying to … talk to the parent and the parent just go, ‘The show is starting.’ And the children just kept quiet … they [the caregivers] actually taught the children all these. (Z.-H. Ang, C. Kuek, & M. Neo, personal interview, March 8, 2019)

The caregivers’ assistance to the arts experience has become a key aspect that artists consider when they create work for young audiences. Instead of having formulaic methods of engaging caregivers, the artists explored different modes of involving and engaging the older audiences. In Dance Party for instance, a dance and movement programme by Rolypoly Family for children aged 2-years-old and up, Faye noted that “the more the adults join in the more the children will [too] … we do want the adults to have fun with that [moving and dancing] as well” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). However, artists also recognised that there is a delicate balance between the benefits of engaging the adults as a means to encourage young audiences’ involvement in the interactive and immersive arts experiences, and the restraints adults can place on children from responding freely as they should. In Dance Jambo, another dance and movement programme by Rolypoly Family, Faye notes that the emphasis was for the children to “have their own discoveries and it’s [the programme] not to the pace that we might be expecting all the children to be moving at the same, you know, in the same way” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Therefore, in this programme, the artists actually encouraged the adults present to “step back a bit, you know, what if they just … let the kids do their thing for a bit” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Similarly, TAG’s Artist-in-Residence, Serene Tan, who also goes by ‘Stan’, noted that she had to negotiate between caregivers’ enthusiastic responses to the arts experience and allowing room for the young audiences to have time for exploration. Stan recounted, for adults, we … because we are able to understand and see things and react to changes so fast we kind of expect the child to be able to do that. But actually the child is not as fast … I really wish that the parents [would] let the child have the time to take everything in. So in Cardboard City [an installation by Stan that only admits crawlers] there have been a few instances where a child is so enamoured with something. So she [the child] spent 10 min at the same place, touching the same thing, and the mom was getting very stressed. ‘Why you don’t go other place? You know, why are you here only? Got thirty minutes only you know. Why don’t you go somewhere else?’ (S. Tan, personal interview, September 11, 2018)

The artists agree that this balance between keeping the adults at a distance to allow the young audiences freedom to enjoy the arts experience at their own pace, and the need to engage the adults as partners in the arts experience so that they can facilitate

190

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

specific behaviours, requires further thinking. On one hand, having caregivers to encourage the young audiences to participate and enjoy the arts experiences can mean that artists have allies to help engage the children at deeper levels during the arts experience. On the other hand, when the caregivers interfere with the children’s organic interactions and exploration during the experience, it might be better to have the adults at the sidelines. The benefits of both approaches and the artists’ conundrum is succinctly summarised by Melissa: sometimes it’s really nice to have the parent yelling at the side? Like go go go, do this thing … it gets the parents very involved. But then also sometimes we’re like, okay, parents, let your child figure it out on their own. And that also has benefits. So we are not so sure yet how. (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019)

Balancing Energy Dynamic Braem (2019) suggests that arts programmes need to consider their structures in order to balance the energy and intensity of the room, advocating especially the importance of “processing time, commonly referred to as wait time in education, [in order] to allow participants to soak in and process the experience” (p. 39). This notion of balancing energies amongst audiences during the programme also emerged in the pedagogical frameworks of the artists at TAG, but it can be seen that each artist and artist group pursued slightly different strategies. For instance, Ian notes that his theatre group MySuperFuture is “quite sensitive” about the “energy [that to them] is called performance dynamic” (I. Loy, personal interview, May 20, 2019). Hence, they would deliberately structure the programme to avoid having “too many highs in the show” (I. Loy, personal interview, May 20, 2019). They are also careful to think about the performance dynamic when introducing props during the performance. As an example, Ian noted that “if it’s a very intimate moment then suddenly you [the artist] bring out … bubbles! The show is gone” (I. Loy, personal interview, May 20, 2019). As for Melissa, though she similarly echoes that “if we [the artists] build too much [in a performance] it’s chaotic energy and … it actually impedes enjoyment” (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019), she pointed to not just the structure of the performance, but also the performers’ facilitation in the moment that work together to balance the energy of the room. For example, she shared that in one moment of a piece by The Kueh Tutus, we introduced so much stimuli that … they [the young audiences] were really getting quite excited about each other. And so what was really nice is the music sort of soften [sic] and then the ocean drum came in and the dancers started moving really slowly and that was a really good moment that they all kind of settled and looked at her [the dancer] … and it was necessary because you could see that they were getting a little bit overly distracted and overly stimulated and that helped calm it [the energy in the room] in and refocus [the audience] again. Which brings to a better close. (M. Quek, personal interview, February 12, 2019)

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

191

Notably, this recognition of the need to balance energy levels as well as the development of The Kueh Tutus’ own strategies to do so only emerged over the course of them trialling various programmes at TAG. This was also true for several other artists, who were able to discover and develop pedagogical approaches towards balancing the energy in their own work only through the process of trialling their programmes at TAG. For instance, Faye together with Bernice Lee went through an extensive process of testing several different iterations of a music playlist for Dance Party before they settled on the version that they now use, with Faye noting that “energetically we arc-ed it [their current playlist] like there’s … two waves” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). Finding this particular energy arc was important to them, as some of their earlier playlists actually “couldn’t hold them [the attention of the audience],” and in fact on one occasion “when we tried to do like more of a lull in the middle … it was hard to pick [the energy] back up [for the remainder of the performance]” (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019). At the same time, Bernice remarked that while the music playlist for Dance Party “is more or less fixed now, [and also] there’s choreography in some parts,” each performance continues to be somewhat different each time, as the performers observe the room’s dynamics from moment to moment before making decisions about when to demonstrate movement [and have more control over the energy of the room] and then when to pay attention to kids who are doing their own thing and following them, when to demonstrate less and just … be one of the crowd. (F. Lim & B. Lee, personal interview, February 22, 2019)

In a similar manner, Keryn Ng and Neo Yan Zong learnt that they needed to balance the energy of the participation level from the children through their facilitation. The pair recalled that in one of the sessions of Anything Goes! (then still known as Don’t Starve IV ), the energy levels of the young audiences were higher than expected. During the interactive portion of the programme, the children rolled across the performance space as they were asked to, but the high levels of excitement meant that there was a risk of accidentally kicking each other. From moments such as this, both Keryn and Yan Zong thus realised that they needed to build into their pedagogical framework a way of facilitating the interactive parts of the programme to maintain the high energy levels of the children without compromising safety. The duo’s acknowledgement of a gap in their programme delivery method resonates strongly with Prendergast and Saxton’s (2013) stand that a facilitator’s presentation of self is one of the key ways of arousing interest and sustaining engagement in the audiences or participants, in addition to maintaining the safety in the environment for exploration and risk taking. The incubation of arts programmes at TAG provided the physical and experimental space for the artists to think and rethink their creative and pedagogical approaches in engaging young audiences, and allowing the art to do what it does. As the artists and arts groups continue to trial their programmes in and outside of TAG, new or refined pedagogical approaches continue to emerge. At this juncture, having had an insight into the emerging pedagogical approaches at TAG, the discussion will now

192

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

turn to examining how these strategies fit into the ecology of TAG to build artistic capacities in both the young audiences as well as the artists and arts groups as they continue to experiment.

Discussion All [emphasis in original] my dancers keep asking … [why] we’ve been [working] at this [The Kueh Tutu’s GroundBreakers project] for so long, why is this one slow [to be completed] … Like, you [i.e., Melissa] [have] finished how many other pieces, and this one you still cannot finish. And that was the whole purpose of this one right, that this one was about us discovering, figuring out a new way. This one we’re trying to challenge [emphasis in original] ourselves. Instead of working in ways we already understand. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

TAG is a safe physical and artistic space for artists to experiment with new or alternative ways to make and present art works for young audiences. Besides physical spaces like the WhiteBox and the visual arts space, artists are provided with time and a stipend to conceptualise and create works, and trial their programmes with young audiences before going back into the safe space to think and rethink. The time and stipend are critical in providing safety nets to the artists to grow in their practice and formulate pedagogical guidelines and principles that guide their work as highlighted earlier. This section will therefore examine how the ecology at TAG will further support the development of pedagogy in arts programmes for young audiences.

Focus on Fun and Engagement TAG and the artists offering programmes for young audiences maintain that the key focus of the arts experiences is on fun and interactivity. For example, Cheryl Kuek, also known as ‘Cheryl Kjm’, acknowledges that although Brocolily’s work is “quite educational,” they emphasised that “at the same time, we don’t want it to be just purely … educational. We want it to be fun [emphasis in original] and interactive and at the same time … it stays with them” (Z.-H. Ang, C. Kuek, & M. Neo, personal interview, March 8, 2019). Brocolily’s emphasis on fun echoes Blasi, Hurwitz and Hurwitz’s (2002) view that children learn best when they are engaged in enjoyable activities where they can learn to “take risks, to challenge themselves both physically and mentally, to create something new, to deal with fears, and to enjoy the moment as they construct new meanings” (p. 101). At the same time, Brocolily’s pedagogical direction falls squarely in line with TAG’s emphasis on programmes being “positive arts experiences” for children, and to “let art do, what art does [emphasis in original]” (The Artground, n.d.-a). Luanne Poh, the executive director of TAG, further elaborates that educational objectives through the arts need not be

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

193

explicitly articulated or planned because the learning is tacit and inherent through the engagement. She argues that we never question why nutrition is important, why do you have to feed a child, why do you have a shelter and house a child … so … then we should also get to a point where we don’t have to justify the arts … arts engagement in itself is important and we shouldn’t have to justify anymore. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

While Jane has clearly articulated that the team is focused on allowing the learning to be “woven in” (J. Choy, personal interview, February 25, 2020) with the arts, it is perhaps still important to consider the objectives of the arts programmes and the finding of a suitable pedagogy that will help to deliver the arts experience meaningfully. Nicholson (2011) reminds us that children’s engagement in the arts may not necessarily be intended to make artists out of them. However, she argues that experiences in the arts help to build young people’s sense of identities and abilities to be receptive to different perspectives. McInnes & Elpidoforou (2018) concurred and emphasise that “children make sense of their world and their place in it, and they learn to problem-solve, socialize, communicate and be creative” (p. 400) when they play or engage in activities that bring joy to them. It is, therefore, critical that artists developing and delivering arts experiences to young audiences consider how each of the arts programmes at TAG affect the children and their caregivers as they leave the purpose-built children’s arts space. The effects might not be specific learning objectives or tied to academic or developmental milestones, but it should not be accidental. With clearly thought through and articulated objectives and intentions of the arts programmes, it might be helpful to the artists when they consider the pedagogical approaches and strategies to include in the delivery of the arts experience.

Challenges and Gaps in Developing Alternative Pedagogies The GroundBreakers explain that they continue to struggle with trying to develop their respective pedagogical approaches even though they are able to articulate clear strategies and pathways during the interviews. One struggle they faced while trialling their programmes was the difficulty of getting verbal feedback from younger children, especially the under-fives, which some artists see as at odds with the acknowledgment of the agency of the children. As Melissa notes, I get feedback by watching them [the children]? … I understand it by reading their body language, what worked, what didn’t work in the moment … But in terms of- when we say giving them a voice, it’s actually really hard. I haven’t figure [sic] out how to get them to actually tell me … what they want more of. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Therefore, it might be useful for artists wanting to create works for very young audiences to have a basic understanding of early childhood developmental milestones, so that they are able to better interpret the responses of these younger children

194

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

and compensate to a degree for the children’s limited ability to give verbal feedback. Besides the need to solicit feedback from both young and adult audiences to address pedagogical gaps, artists might consider engaging in more concerted reflective practice as a way to understand their own art works and how arts experiences could be developed further or differently. Larrivee (2000) suggests that reflective practice allows the practitioners to “move beyond a knowledge base of discrete skills to a stage where they integrate and modify skills to fit specific contexts, and eventually, to a point where the skills are internalized enabling them to invent new strategies” (p. 294). Artists working at TAG can develop various methods to reflect on the creation and delivery of arts programmes as a complementary tool to the feedback from the audiences. The reflections would serve as additional lenses that look at these pedagogical gaps over a period of time. Schön (1983) explains that reflective practice is not bound by a definite timeline but instead it depends on the “pace of activity and the situational boundaries that are characteristic of the practice” (p. 62). In this aspect, it could be helpful for TAG and other organisations to consider ArtPlay’s model. Visiting Australian artist Alex Desebrock shared that ArtPlay to her was very good at providing opportunities that really question [an] artist’s practice and make them [artists] reflect a lot, like … every artist needs to do [a written] reflection after their workshop, so that they [ArtPlay] … could get feedback about what went wrong [regarding how the ArtPlay team managed the workshop] … but also to provide the artists with an opportunity to reflect on how they challenged children, what do they learn from children, what do they learn about themselves. So there was that reflection mentality. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

At the same time, Alex observes that ArtPlay was also careful to include a fee for such reflective practice in artists’ contracts, which she felt was “really important” (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019), as engaging in such reflection also takes time and effort. Having such a reflective space also meant that ArtPlay was subsequently able to ask “the regular artists to write their kind of expert advice in a document” (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019), which is then helpful for other artists in the field to learn from. As an additional challenge, TAG struggles to attract older children. TAG is intended as a space for children 0 to 9 years of age (previously 0 to 12 years of age) but most of their visitors fall between the age range of 0 and 6 years of age. Artists interested in working with older children are therefore typically not able to get enough audience members during trial sessions. Without suitable older audiences, the performance trials became wasted opportunities for artists to test if their programmes are indeed age-appropriate for these older children, or to clarify strategies and pedagogies for engaging these older children. For instance, Ang Zhi Hui, also known as ‘Zeeaura’, notes that there were no older children for one of Brocolily’s trials in which they had hoped to engage children to “design the set” for their final performance (Z.-H. Ang, C. Kuek, & M. Neo, personal interview, October 1, 2019). She explains, “we [Brocolily] wanted [as the trial audience] children aged about five and above? But that day the audience that we had was [were all about] three and four [years of age], so it [the trial] became a movement workshop” (Z.-H.

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

195

Ang, C. Kuek, & M. Neo, personal interview, October 1, 2019). As a result, Zeeaura remarks that they “didn’t get to test much,” (Z.-H. Ang, C. Kuek, & M. Neo, personal interview, October 1, 2019) and so were unable to gather sufficient design concepts from the children to weave into their final set for their GroundBreakers performance. Brocolily subsequently arranged with TAG to be linked up with pre-schools for the rest of their trials, but in the long-term, unless TAG can find a way to attract children from a wider age range, artists creating works for older children would continue to struggle with developing pedagogical frameworks for their programmes.

Conclusion and Implications Looking at the approaches to work for young audiences that have emerged from the artists over the course of their involvement with TAG, there are some clear overlaps with the current discourse in the fields of TYA and TEY. For instance, the TAG artists’ emphasis on the agency of children and their corresponding approach of welcoming what the children offer is similar to how TEY practice views children as equals (Fletcher-Watson, 2018). Likewise, there is an emphasis on repeated trials over the course of developing a work. What is particularly notable at this stage of articulation about their pedagogies is that the priority of the artists seems to be about thinking through how they engage with the children in the work, rather than about what ‘quality’ work for young audiences means to them. While this could be due to children being a newer audience group for the artists, this direction is arguably perpetuated by the focus of the TAG team on engagement rather than the artistic experience—in an interview, Luanne shared that to her, “ultimately it’s not about the arts per se, it’s not about the show I watched, it’s about the feeling I got … and that comes from the relationship, so I think that is the most important” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). The staff at TAG consists mainly of arts managers rather than practicing artists, so this raises the question of whether or not TAG is only able to provide logistical support but not artistic mentorship or guidance to artists creating work at TAG. This is unlike ArtPlay in Australia, which is one of the organisations TAG modelled itself after, and whose staff are “all practicing artists that also get commissioned to programme” (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019). Indeed, Alex notes that there seems to be a difference in focus between the two organisations—from her past experiences with ArtPlay, she felt that at ArtPlay, it was about artists exploring practice with children. Whereas I feel like at [The] Artground it’s more about delivering a workshop or delivering an experience to the children. Not that ArtPlay didn’t do shows, we did shows … but the core, the bread and butter of ArtPlay was [to] try and support artists to explore things. So we would make sure that we work with artists that have a real interest in working with children. We also work with artists that had really high-quality practice that we thought would be interesting to try and get them to co-collaborate something with children. So that’s stepping into the unknown and stepping … really trying to use the children’s skills to create something, which I think … I’m not seeing that at [The] Artground as much. (A. Desebrock, personal interview, June 17, 2019)

196

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

At the same time, TAG’s developing expertise in arts management for children’s programmes can actually be a key area to leverage on in the future, since this field is at its nascent stage in Singapore. It might be generative for TAG to grow this strength in arts management and position themselves as a key leader in arts management for children’s arts experiences, even as they continue their efforts to provide professional development and exchange opportunities for artists and arts groups to develop their practice and pedagogies. At the present moment though, it could be helpful for TAG team to take time to clarify their immediate priorities for TAG’s development, taking into consideration the available resources that they have—is it sustainable for the team and TAG’s finances to continue being an open space for both artists and families, or should TAG streamline certain operations so as to focus more on supporting artists’ practice and the creation of high-quality work for young audiences?

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Ang, Z.-H., Kuek, C., & Neo, M. (2019, March 8). Personal interview. Ang, Z.-H., Kuek, C., & Neo, M. (2019, October 1). Personal interview. Chiam, I., & Ong, B. (2019, February 16). Personal interview. Choy, J. (2020, February 25). Personal interview. Desebrock, A. (2019, June 17). Personal interview. Lim, F., & Lee, B. (2019, February 22). Personal interview. Loy, I. (2019, May 20). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2018, September 10). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2019, February 12). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2019, July 25). Personal interview. Tan, S. (2018, September 11). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources The Artground. (n.d.-a). About us. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground.com.sg/abo utus/ The Artground. (n.d.-b). GroundBreakers. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from http://theartground. com.sg/groundbreakers/ Asian Alliance of Festivals and Theatres for Young Audiences. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from http://atyafests.net/about-us/ ASSITEJ. (n.d.). Our mission. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from http://www.assitej-international. org/en/assitej-in-the-world/our-mission/ Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.

9 Emergent Pedagogical Approaches to Arts

197

Blasi, M., Hurwitz, S. C., & Hurwitz, S. C. (2002). For parents particularly: To be successful—let them play! Childhood Education, 79(2), 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.105 22779. Braem, W. R. (2019). Hop on the Cart: Making theatre the Oily Cart way. Southern Theatre, 60(2), 36–39. Retrieved from International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text. Carner, N. (2018). Building national identity and cultural confidence in the National Theatre of Scotland’s theatre for young audiences. Youth Theatre Journal, 32(2), 138–146. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08929092.2018.1520769. Eluyefa, D. (2017). Children’s theatre: A brief pedagogical approach. ArtsPraxis, 4(1), 79–93. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from http://research.steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/cl1 097/D_Eluyefa_-_Childrens_Theatre.pdf. The Esplanade Co Ltd. (2020a). Esplanade presents PLAYtime!. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from http://www.esplanade.com/festivals-and-series/playtime/2020. The Esplanade Co Ltd. (2020b). PLAYtime! Karung Guni Boy. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from http://www.esplanade.com/festivals-and-series/playtime/2020/karung-guni-boy?FestivalN ames=2020&Start=20200428. Fletcher-Watson, B. (2016). “More like a poem than a play”: Towards a dramaturgy of performing arts for early years. PhD Thesis, Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and University of St Andrews, Scotland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10023/8974. Fletcher-Watson, B. (2018). Toward a grounded dramaturgy, part 2: Equality and artistic integrity in theatre for early years. Youth Theatre Journal, 32(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08929092. 2017.1402839. Gittins, D. (1998). The child in question. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Gomes, S. S., & Aquino, J. G. (2019). A brief genealogy of theatre and education in Brazil: Theatre for children. Revista Brasileira de Estudos da Presença (Brazilian Journal on Presence Studies), 9(1), 1–26. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbep/v9n1/en_2237-2660-rbep-901-e82416.pdf. Johanson, K., & Glow, H. (2011). Being and becoming: Children as audiences. New Theatre Quarterly, 27(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266464X11000054. Joosa, E. (2008). Teaching art to individuals with a disability. In S. Wright, L. Cohen, & K. Poon (Eds.), Special education perspectives in Singapore (pp. 24–37). Singapore: Pearson Education. Kehily, M. J. (2009). An introduction to childhood studies (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press. Keller, S. N., Austin, C. G., & McNeill, V. (2017). A theater intervention to promote communication and disclosure of suicidal ideation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1320569. Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. McInnes, K., & Elpidoforou, M.-E. (2018). Investigating and learning from toddler play in a children’s museum. Early Child Development & Care, 188(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/030 04430.2016.1223073. McIntyre, J. M. (2018). New education beyond the school: Rosemarie Benjamin’s theatre for children, 1937–1957. History of Education Review, 47(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/HER11-2017-0021. McLauchlan, D. (2017). Playlinks: A theatre-for-young audiences artist-in-the-classroom project. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(1), 130–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X. 2017.1283998 Montgomery, H. (2003). Childhood in time and place. In M. Woodhead & H. Montgomery (Eds.). Understanding childhood: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 45–74). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley/The Open University. Nicholson, H. (2011). Theatre, education and performance. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Oily Cart. (2020). About. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from http://oilycart.org.uk/about/.

198

G. K. Chong and J. Wong

Penny, R. (2013). “Just for them”: Lynda hill on diversity and theatre for young audiences. Alt.theatre: Cultural Diversity & the Stage, 10(2), 15–19. Retrieved from International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text. Prendergast, M., & Saxton, J. (2009). Applied theatre: International case studies and challenges for practice. Bristol, United Kingdom: Intellect Books. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schonmann, S. (2006). Theatre as a Medium for Children and Young People. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Sorin, R., & Galloway, G. (2006). Constructs of childhood: Constructs of self. Children Australia, 31(2), 12–21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200011081. Steedman, C. (1990). Childhood, culture and class in Britain: Margaret McMillan 1860–1931. London, United Kingdom: Virago Press. Stokrocki, M. (2010). Understanding adolescents’ identity formation through arts-based research: Transforming an ethnographic script into a play. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 28, 70–86. Retrieved from http://libservy.nie.edu.sg.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/login.php?url=//searchproquest-com.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/docview/1037026791?accountid=28158. Swartz, L. (2008). Quality theatre for young audiences, featuring an interview with playwright David Craig. Canadian Theatre Review, 133, 47–52. TYA/USA. (2018). About TYA/USA. Retrieved March 23, 2020 from http://www.tyausa.org/abouttyausa/. Woods-Robinson, J. (2018). Audience engagement in theatre for young audiences: Teaching artistry to cultivate tomorrow’s theatre-goers (Masters dissertation). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5861.

Gua Khee Chong/ 张月崎 is a Singapore-based Theatre Director and Performance Maker who also takes on research projects. She is often engaged as a Facilitator or Dramaturg as well, in projects that span different disciplines such as visual arts and dance. At this moment, Gua Khee’s research interests are connected to issues around socially engaged art, architectures of care and resilience, conversational infrastructures, and also ways of generative resistance. She graduated from the University of British Columbia, Canada, with a Psychology (Honours) and Theatre (Major) degree. Jennifer Wong is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She coordinates the Drama programme in the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group in NIE and she teaches drama education, applied theatre, and arts research courses in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Before joining NIE, she spent ten years in Singapore Polytechnic where she was one of the key members who designed and launched the Diploma in Applied Drama and Psychology. Jennifer enjoys working with children and youth to make theatre and she frequently partners social service organisations and schools to create participatory theatre programmes to complement youth development and support work. Her research interests include participatory arts, arts education, and child and youth development.

Chapter 10

Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming at The Artground Gua Khee Chong and Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim

Abstract This chapter sets out to examine strategies and approaches to audience development that are employed by The Artground (TAG). Since its establishment in 2017, TAG has drawn innumerable families and children to visit it, despite being located a distance away from the city centre. Even more remarkably, this has occurred in the absence of any large-scale marketing efforts. Instead, TAG’s marketing efforts mostly take place via online platforms and word-of-mouth. Using existing audience participation models as a framework, this chapter discusses some of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of TAG’s approaches, so as to provide insights into audience development for other arts centres or arts companies in Singapore and beyond. Keywords Audience development · Audience participation · Arts spaces · Arts for young audiences · Children Audienceship is a perennial concern for arts companies worldwide, and Singapore’s arts scene is no exception. In the recently released publication Our SG Arts Plan 2018–2022 (2018) by the National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC), some of the identified gaps in the current scene are that of “providing access and opportunity” (p. 10) and “growing audiences” (p. 11). Specifically, the Arts Plan noted that while “more Singaporeans are now participating in arts-related events… more can still be done to provide greater access to arts experiences so that the arts truly become a part of every Singaporean’s life” (NAC, 2018, p. 30). At the same time, NAC (2018) also highlighted in the Arts Plan that a key challenge to growing audiences is that there is “increasing competition for audience attention, especially from entertainment and lifestyle activities” (p. 31). Hence, even as “more arts activities result in a more vibrant arts landscape,” having more arts offerings “could cannibalise the same audiences if interest in the arts does not grow” (p. 31). In To cite: Chong, G. K., & Lim, J. H. L. (2020). Tiered approach to audience development: Programming at The Artground. In C. -H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds.), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 199–220). Singapore: Springer. G. K. Chong (B) · J. H. L. Lim Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_10

199

200

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

light of this, NAC (2018) noted that “the arts community must therefore be supported in efforts to engage existing audiences, and to grow new audiences. [And that] these audiences should include those who value the arts through paid attendances” (p. 31). Accordingly, one of their eight priority areas for 2018 to 2022 is precisely this— “increasing our focus on growing audiences” (NAC, 2018, p. 36). In turn, the Arts Plan proposes the following approach: Strategies for sustained audience development must be developed to cater to the needs, preferences and lifestyles of varying demographics, including students and youths, families with young children, the elderly and persons with disabilities. These strategies will need to be developed based on robust research and data analytics, especially to cultivate ticket-paying audiences. Our efforts will have to consider not only accessibility and inclusivity, but also whether our programme content is relevant for the intended audience so that they will want to come back for more. (NAC, 2018, p. 36)

In particular, the Arts Plan highlights that “arts for young audiences and arts education efforts will continue to be a priority as nurturing audiences of the future starts when they are young,” and hence NAC (2018) intends to work with key partners in order “to extend the reach of the arts to as many schools, teachers, parents and children as we can” (p. 36). Further down the document, NAC (2018) also specifically names “The Artground, Esplanade and arts companies with a focus on children” as key examples of organisations that are developing capabilities in creating content for young audiences through “experimentation and new design approaches” (p. 60). Clearly, NAC sees The Artground (TAG) playing an important role in growing new audiences in Singapore’s arts scene through its outreach to families and children, as well as its development of quality content for this demographic. In many ways, TAG can be seen to have lived up to or even surpassed some of these expectations. Since its establishment in 2017, TAG has drawn innumerable families and children to visit it, despite TAG being located a distance away from the city centre and also being somewhat inaccessible by public transport. Even more remarkably, this has occurred in the absence of any large-scale marketing efforts. Instead, TAG’s marketing efforts mostly take place via online platforms and wordof-mouth. Nonetheless, they continue to be visited by new audiences, as TAG’s Executive Director Luanne Poh shared shortly after TAG’s second-year anniversary: I was still amazed by the number of new audiences that comes in through our doors in the weekends. We’re [TAG team] constantly like … ‘All these people don’t know [what TAG is] … You know, they all drop in … [and] they want to pay [entrance fees] at the reception, and then [the reception staff has to tell them], ‘No need, no need’.… So then … we [realised that we] cannot take for granted that just because we’ve been here for two years, people know us and they know what we’re about. Actually, they don’t, and it’s great because it means that we are still reaching new people. (L. Poh, personal interview, July 29, 2019)

On one hand, this clearly points to a deep desire in Singapore for such spaces. After all, TAG itself emerged as an organisation as a result of an open-call process by NAC for a children’s arts centre, which in of itself points to the prior lack of such a space in Singapore. On the other hand, TAG’s sustained popularity and growth since its establishment also indicates that there is definite merit to TAG’s own efforts and strategies to engaging with families and children.

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

201

Hence, this chapter sets out to examine TAG’s strategies and approaches using existing audience participation models as a framework. Through this examination, the chapter will highlight some of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of TAG’s approach, so as to provide insights into audience development for other arts centres or arts companies in Singapore and beyond.

Audience Participation Models In McCarthy and Jinnett’s book A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts (2001), they proposed a behavioural model of an individual’s decision-making process regarding arts participation, and noted that: The key to our model is the recognition that there are several separate considerations, or stages, embedded in an individual’s decision making process and that different factors affect each stage.… there are four stages [in the model]: a general consideration of whether to consider the arts as a potential leisure activity (background stage), the formation of an inclination toward the arts based on an assessment of the benefits and costs of participation and where to obtain those benefits (stage 1), an evaluation of specific opportunities to participate (stage 2), and the actual arts experience followed by a reassessment of the benefits and costs of the arts (stage 3). These stages link background factors to attitudes, attitudes to intentions, intentions to actual behavior, and past behavior to future behavior. (pp. 23–24)

McCarthy and Jinnett (2001) additionally note that “frequent positive [arts] experiences can stimulate a person to participate more often and in more ways,” with “the most committed participants … [being] likely to become immersed in a community of aficionados who view the arts (and perhaps a specific arts institution) as an essential component of their identity” (p. 28). In other words, though there are a number of factors that influence an individual’s initial decisions to participate in the arts, it seems that when an individual has experienced the arts positively a number of times, they are able to sustain their own participation in the arts. Apart from proposing this model, McCarthy and Jinnett (2001) further suggest a number of strategies and tactics that organisations can adopt to increase arts participation. However, Wiggins (2004) later identified two factors that make it difficult for organisations to actually use this model to guide their strategising for increased arts participation, one of which is that this model “does not allow for the possibility that multiple factors can interact to influence the inclination of a potential arts participant” (p. 22). In order to address these shortcomings and provide a more practical framework to inform organisational marketing strategies, Wiggins (2004) therefore proposed a reconceptualisation of McCarthy and Jinnett’s model by drawing on “a model from the consumer behaviour literature, the Motivation/Ability/Opportunity model” (p. 23). In the Motivation/Ability/Opportunity model, a central premise as Wiggins (2004) notes is that “consumers experience barriers to action because they lack the motivation, the ability or the opportunity to act, or some combination of the three” (p. 27). Thus, when translated to the context of audience participation,

202

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

motivation is defined as the desire to attend arts events, ability as the absence of individual barriers to attendance (such as unaffordable ticket prices or inability to speak English) and opportunity as the absence of situational barriers to attendance (such as difficulty travelling to the venue). (Wiggins, 2004, p. 28)

Programming at The Artground Since TAG’s establishment, TAG has consistently worked towards a ‘tiered’ approach in their programming for families and children, and Luanne explains the team’s reasoning as follows: We [TAG team] feel like everybody comes in with different culture capacities, and your cultural capacity and your willingness to engage in it [arts and culture] could differ from day to day. So you [a parent] could have like, a brilliant day—your child slept through the night, you managed to get them through the door without fuss and when you come to The Artground and you are playing … you [could] think … ‘Today seems like a great day, I think my child is going to sit through [an arts programme]’.… You could have a brilliant session today and next day you come back [and think], ‘Oh I’m going to try this thing again’ … [but] your child didn’t sleep through, you couldn’t get them out of the house and then you lost this and misplaced that and when you finally got here [to TAG], you’re so harassed, you just want to lay back and let your child run around so that you could have 30 min of calm and quiet, so that’s your cultural capacity for that day like, you know, it could differ and that day you just didn’t want to engage in anything else.… So I think for us, we design The Artground to be a space where people can feel comfortable to engage in whatever level that they can, at the level that they want to, with the openness that helps them absorb it. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

The First Tier For the first tier of TAG’s approach, they have a fully operational visual arts space that features interactive structures designed by visual artists. From time to time, the visual arts space undergoes ‘changeovers’, the rationale being to ensure that there is always “a certain sense of new-ness and excitement [for families] about going back [to visit TAG]” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). This visual arts space is free-of-charge to enter as well—with the exception of Mondays and Tuesdays when TAG is closed, anyone can visit and spend time in this space. In its second year of establishment, TAG began to strengthen their messaging about the need for visitor donations, but their reception staff is consistently friendly and cheerful to everyone who steps in, regardless of whether a donation is made. Indeed, TAG sees it as absolutely critical that this space feels open and welcoming to families and children of all needs and backgrounds. As Luanne explains, this visual arts space is for TAG the “most basic tier that everybody should be able to access, which is why we [TAG team] fight so hard to keep it free access” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018).

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

203

As much as possible, TAG also strives to cater to the needs of visitors who are differently abled. TAG’s Co-Founder Jane Choy shared that this has been a consideration for the TAG team from the very initial stages.… in the planning of the [first round of renovations to create TAG’s current] space, I think when we talked about inclusivity, so you know whether it was someone who was visually impaired or on wheelchair also, I think that’s when Lekker Architects came in like really as part of the very initial team that conceptualised Artground. (J. Choy & L. Poh, personal interview, September 20, 2018)

As a result of having these concerns in mind, TAG’s visual arts space now has a builtin ramp that leads to a raised part of the space (the Baby Stage), enabling wheelchair users to access this area with ease. When working with different artists for new installations at TAG, Yap Jia En, TAG’s visual design and exhibitions manager, also ensures that there is a 1.5 m clearance between structures. That being said, Luanne is careful to caveat that TAG will never really say we’re accessible, [but instead] we always just say that we have a very open door policy, and we just try to be as welcoming as we can to what needs … you have and then we just try to accommodate. Because I don’t think we can and have [been fully accessible to differently-abled visitors] and certainly, we don’t have the budget. (L. Poh, personal interview, July 29, 2018)

Nonetheless, broadly speaking, TAG sees it as crucial that the visual arts space appeals to a wide variety of families and children, since it is the very first tier that they are likely to engage with. Conceptually, this “first level must be bigger and broader, so that more people can be [comfortable] before we create the other tiered levels for selective people to go into” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). In fact, Luanne even asserts that ultimately if we [TAG] could, we’d open 7 days a week. We can’t now … but we hope to eventually be able to go to that point, so that even more people can access us daily [and become comfortable with TAG], to get to the point that they can access us during days where there are [ticketed] programmes [i.e. the other tiers of TAG’s programming]. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

Just by looking at numbers, it could be said that TAG has indeed been very successful in appealing to the public. Within their first 2 years of operation, TAG welcomed more than 100,000 visitors to the visual arts space (The Artground, 2018, 2019). From a preliminary scan of visitor numbers in the first nine months or so, TAG also found that “of the nearly 32,000 people that came through … about 45% came from the east [where TAG is located].… so that itself gave us a few clues that yes, people just came because of proximity,” but there were nonetheless a significant percentage of “about 11 to 12% [of visitors who] came from the west … [which] is quite far [from TAG]” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Clearly, even in its early days, TAG was sufficiently appealing enough to families that a number of them were willing to spend time and effort to travel to TAG. This can be attributed in part to the basic logistics of the visual arts space. For instance, in interviews with visiting families, several expressed their appreciation

204

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

for the comfort and convenience afforded by TAG’s visual arts space, given that it is indoors and air-conditioned. This meant that “regardless of weather, children can still come here and play, explore” (Caregiver of J161, personal interview, February 23, 2019). Families also pointed to the regular changeovers in TAG’s space as a key factor that drew them back to visit TAG, suggesting that this strategy employed by TAG is quite successful: The best part is that they [TAG’s visual arts space] did not stay on one theme, they change every… like few months then they change.… So it’s quite fun actually. Like almost whenever they change we come, to just experience the new theme [in the visual arts space]. (Caregiver of J161, personal interview, February 23, 2019)

Beyond these factors though, many visitors also shared about their appreciation for having such an arts space for families in Singapore. A caregiver who was interviewed noted that “as parents, we just need places to go on weekends. And we would like it not to be malls and indoor playgrounds all the time” (Caregiver 1 & Caregiver 2 of J5, personal interview, September 2, 2018). Echoing this sentiment, another caregiver commented that in “Singapore there’s so much academics going on and not enough arts, right? So this [being at TAG] is one of the immersion that they have… it will actually immerse them in some arts” (Caregiver of J32, personal interview, November 17, 2018).

An Intermediate Step “Besides audience development, The Artground is equally vested in artists’ development” (The Artground, 2018, p. 11). As part of TAG’s commitment to developing artists, they often host work-in-progress trials by artists to provide artists with the valuable opportunity to test ideas with the age group they have in mind and get feedback from audiences. These trials generally take place on quite an ad hoc basis—being dependent on the artists’ progress—which is perhaps why TAG does not explicitly highlight them as part of their tiered approach. Nonetheless, TAG clearly still considers these trials a means by which they can engage their audiences. Firstly, these trials are typically scheduled as one of TAG’s half-hourly programme slots on weekends, and sometimes also on weekdays during school or public holidays. These trials are also entirely free by registration, albeit audiences are kept to families with children that fit within the artists’ stipulated age range. This way, families that might either have reservations about paying for TAG’s ticketed programmes or have financial constraints can still experience an arts programme, in addition to exploring TAG’s visual arts space. Furthermore, although these trials take place at different stages of the artists’ process and can therefore vary a bit in the level of ‘readiness’ in terms of design elements and other aspects, TAG is notably quite careful to work closely with the artists to still provide a positive experience for trial audiences. For example, 2019

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

205

GroundBreakers Keryn Ng and Neo Yan Zong shared that at the start of the GroundBreakers programme, TAG took time to “pre-empt” them and help them understand “what we [the artists] can do for the trial and how they [TAG] can help us,” which they felt was “really helpful” as their ideas for a trial “[may] not [be] that concrete or it can just be a textural idea that we want to see the [audience’s] reaction [to]” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019). They also noted that TAG had offered to help them “frame the [trial] session” for the audiences, ensuring that even if the artists are just testing out “a simple idea” (Y.-Z. Neo & K. Ng, personal interview, February 15, 2019), audiences will likely be able to manage their own expectations and just enjoy being part of the raw development process for the work, rather than perhaps thinking that they might experience something more polished. In turn, TAG’s commitment to the audience’s experience can be seen to influence how the artists conceptualise their trial sessions as well. During her 2018 GroundBreakers process, Melissa Quek from The Kueh Tutus reflected that she was learning that the trials are about trying out ideas, but even in the trying out of your ideas [as an artist], you still have to take care of your kids. So that’s why you’re still scaffolding, that’s why you’re still leading them through an experience, and the experience has to be a full one for them. I mean it’s for [emphasis in original] them as well. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Clearly, while these sessions are intended as a space in which artists can explore and experiment with ideas, there is still attention and effort being put into ensure that the audience’s experience is being taken care of. This care can be seen to be warmly reciprocated by the audiences. Across the 10 trials observed over the course of the research, families consistently stayed back after the end of the trials to help fill in TAG’s feedback forms about their experience, pointing to how they were indeed engaged and invested in helping the artists develop their ideas through these trial sessions. They also spoke about the quality of these sessions, despite them being trials rather than full performances. After a trial of the 2019 GroundBreakers project Odd Socks by Five Stones Theatre, “a fun and quirky physical theatre production about being just a little different” (The Artground, n.d.-d), a child shared that he found the session to be “very interesting and … very entertaining” (Caregiver & J353, personal interview, August 24, 2019). In a similar vein, the child’s caregiver affirmed the artistic value of these trial sessions, sharing that “we [the caregivers] try to expose them to more arts and cultural stuff.… I think this is where we can get our arts and cultural fix, this place [TAG]. And it’s [the programmes are] kids appropriate” (Caregiver & J353, personal interview, August 24, 2019). The child’s caregiver also reflected that Odd Socks “might have been their [the children’s] first time being exposed to a more like, abstract … not so literal kind of theatre. So I think we [the caregivers] will be chatting with them more [about the session]” (Caregiver & J353, personal interview, August 24, 2019). Clearly, these trial sessions can offer a valuable opportunity for families and children to be exposed to art forms and styles that they might not otherwise experience, and have the potential to pique audience’s interest to then join one of TAG’s ticketed programmes.

206

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

The Second Tier As TAG’s formal second tier of arts access for families and children, TAG runs half-hourly programmes on weekends and occasionally on weekdays during school or public holidays—either within the WhiteBox, their indoor performance space, or at the Good Garden, their outdoor urban food garden. These programmes take place on a drop-in basis. 10 min before each programme, TAG team will make announcements about what the programme is and the age group that it is suitable for. This arrangement is deliberately intended to minimise stress for caregivers. As per the opening quote from Luanne for this section, TAG’s belief is that “everybody comes in with different culture capacities, and your cultural capacity … could differ from day to day,” depending on the mood of the caregivers or the children (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018). Hence, by having programmes available on a drop-in basis, caregivers do not have to worry about buying tickets beforehand and not being able to attend on the day itself, should the child be having a bad day. Instead, they can simply make the decision when they are actually at TAG, knowing that there will be spaces available if they register their interest when they hear the announcement about the programme being made. Within this tier of programming, prices are deliberately kept at a fairly accessible cost of S$10 per caregiver-child pair, although this actually translates to a financial loss for TAG. TAG’s Programmes Manager Michelle Tan noted that these programmes are understood to be loss-making, and even if TAG hopes that ticket sales can “meet at least say 70% of what you [the programming team] pay out to the artists,” they actually have no real means to ensure that (M. Tan, personal interview, February 14, 2020). Still, even as TAG team keeps “thinking of ways that we [TAG] can … raise ticket prices” for these programmes, their priority is clearly the audience’s convenience, in addition to financial accessibility. As a result, TAG wound up deciding against raising the S$10 ticket price to S$12, as they felt that having to find small change or handle multiple notes with a child or children in hand is “so leceh [i.e., inconvenient]” and “difficult for the parents” (M. Tan, personal interview, February 14, 2020). Another consideration that TAG team works with for this tier of programming is the diversity of art forms and other activities offered. To ensure that families are exposed to a variety of art forms and art-inspired forms, TAG tries as far as possible to feature a range of artists and art forms. Hence, audiences can typically expect to be able to attend “performing arts workshops and performances, storytelling sessions, gardening-inspired art workshops and art & craft activities” (The Artground, n.d.-a) on any particular weekend. An especially unique offering by TAG has been the gardening-inspired art workshops by Cultivate Central, which present a unique fusion of arts and nature. One such workshop is the long-running Worms Love Coffee! programme, which was initially presented in conjunction with TAG’s first visual arts space, Down the Rabbit Hole. Due to the enthusiastic response from caregivers though, Worms Love Coffee! subsequently became a standalone programme that is now regularly presented at TAG. In this workshop, children learn about the diet

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

207

of worms, how worms particularly enjoy recycled coffee grounds, and interact with some worms as well. Following this, the children are invited to observe the ringed bodies and movement patterns of the worms, and are then guided through a process of creating wax resist paintings, using recycled coffee grounds rather than paint. In speaking to caregivers about their experience with Worms Love Coffee!, one caregiver shared that their child really enjoyed it because there’s texture, there’s taste, there’s smell as well … she tends to be a little bit more … I think aware of what she eats and what she smells sometimes. And she gets it, you know? Oh, the coffee smell. She’s able to identify it, for example. It’s not something that we do it at home every day. I don’t drink coffee at home at all. So she’s able to play with that, and I think being able to touch live worms… [to] see and touch live worms, that also gives them another avenue of exploration. (Caregiver of J29, personal interview, October 14, 2018)

For her child, learning clearly took place during the programme through the multisensory experience of experimenting and playing with the recycled coffee grounds and worms. More importantly, it can be seen that the programme offered unique novel experiences for this child that she might not otherwise have encountered elsewhere during the family’s daily life. The value of these diverse programmes at TAG was also affirmed by the caregiver, who shared: I think because of the variety [of activities and programmes] that’s available [at TAG], both outdoor and indoor … it gives the child a little bit more perspective in terms of things and being able to really … touch, see, feel. Quite a number of things. (Caregiver of J29, personal interview, October 14, 2018)

As part of offering diverse programming, TAG is also careful that their range of programmes caters to the various age groups that frequent TAG. In other words, they do consciously try to ensure that be it older children, babies and toddlers, or siblings of different ages, there are opportunities for them to attend programmes that are interesting and age-appropriate. One way that TAG has attempted to do so is by working closely with their Artist-in-Residence, Serene Tan—also known as ‘Stan’. For instance, when TAG team realised that there were very few artists creating programmes for babies and toddlers, they approached Stan to develop programmes for “specific audiences that we [TAG] would like to target” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018), such as children from 0 to 12 months, or children from 12 to 18 months. Subsequently, Stan did end up developing programmes for this younger age group, including Cardboard City, an installation that only admits prewalking babies and their caregivers. Within such an environment, babies are able to freely explore stimuli together with other babies in a playful but safe manner, which is highly appreciated by families. As one caregiver shared, they really enjoyed the availability of the space [in Cardboard City] for the kids to just free roam and free touch and the sensory thing … I think it’s … quite cool. So you have all these different materials, different things that are safe for the kids to just touch and explore themselves. (Caregiver of J258, personal interview, April 8, 2019)

In addition to their close relationship with Stan, TAG team also has a close relationship with many of their other artists. Hence, it can be seen that these other artists

208

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

are also happy to create specific programmes for TAG to support its efforts in reaching out to their young audiences. For instance, Melissa shared that when The Kueh Tutus realised that “no one has [sic] come for [their programme] Here, There, Where?,” they had spoken to Michelle and asked her directly “what age group do you [TAG] need [programmes for]?” (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018). After Michelle had then shared that the baby programmes at TAG were very popular, they thus decided to make a baby Here, There, Where? … we [The Kueh Tutus] used our half hour workshop time where nobody showed up, to start brainstorming, and we came up with something, and then we started developing it and then we started trialling it, so actually that one now has become something that we do quite a bit at [The] Artground. So, now, it’s A Little Here, A Little There [a multi-sensory dance piece for crawlers aged 5 to 11 months]. Which we created for them [TAG]. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Since then, The Kueh Tutus have in fact gone on to create other programmes at TAG for babies and toddlers, such as The Painter’s Waltz, a multi-sensory dance piece for crawlers aged 5 to 16 months, and Grow With Me, an intimate dance performance for crawlers aged 12 to 30 months. These have been warmly welcomed by TAG’s audiences, pointing to the clear gap that TAG is filling by supporting and enabling a variety of programmes that are suitable and age-appropriate for the very young. Indeed, in speaking with a caregiver after one of The Kueh Tutus’ performances, they shared that “it’s not our [the family’s] first time actually [attending this performance], with this dancer [Melissa from The Kueh Tutus]. I think she’s really very good… the stimulus that was used was also very creative and also very baby-friendly” (Caregiver of J196, personal interview, March 9, 2019). Similarly, another caregiver shared that: We’ve been attending Kueh Tutus’ programmes. Because my daughter enjoys it a lot.… they always [have] … a variety of performances. So that’s really very good and especially they target like the really young kids.… a lot of like art performances are for older kids. So they [The Kueh Tutus] actually cater for like kids as young as like 6 to 10 months, so it’s very good because she [their child] has been attending [performances by The Kueh Tutus] since like, [when she was] about one years [sic] old? (Caregiver of J223, personal interview, March 22, 2019)

Apart from accessibility and diversity though, TAG is also conscious that their programmes need to be of a certain quality. Hence, when TAG had first opened, all of the artists and arts groups that they had initially approached to run programmes were highly experienced artists. As an example, one can consider Kamini Ramachandran, a master storyteller with over 25 years of experience. In speaking with Kamini, she shared that TAG had approached her to run storytelling sessions for TAG’s official launch in 2017, as well as other media visits to TAG’s space. Following the warm reception of these sessions, TAG had then asked Kamini to continue working with them to run regular storytelling sessions as a S$10-tier programme, which Kamini noted was in fact “something that I [she] have been waiting for, because my whole advocacy for storytelling is, it cannot be for free” (K. Ramachandran, personal interview, September 18, 2018). At this point though, Kamini was already working with younger storytellers in hopes of growing the next generation of storytellers, and thus she counter-proposed

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

209

the following to TAG—she would draw on her expertise to design a storytelling programme customised to the needs of the younger demographics at TAG, and also customised for TAG’s WhiteBox space, but this programme would be run by these young storytellers instead. However, they would be mentored by Kamini herself to ensure the quality of their storytelling. In the spirit of valuing artist development as much as audience engagement and therefore supporting artists’ ideas as much as possible, TAG had agreed to her proposal. Since then, Kamini and her company The Storytelling Centre Limited have been running weekly sessions of Terrific Tales at TAG, a storytelling programme that is described as “the perfect introduction to the art of storytelling especially for little listeners by Young Storytellers” (The Storytelling Centre Limited, 2020). As a result of this trust and openness with their artists, TAG has arguably helped to pioneer a new approach to the art form of storytelling in Singapore. Prior to Terrific Tales, storytelling in Singapore had tended to take place on an ad hoc basis and was also typically programmed as a free event that is open to the public—rather than being a ticketed work. Hence, TAG’s decision to programme Terrific Tales as a regular weekly session that audiences have to pay for was a major milestone for the storytelling scene in Singapore. As Kamini notes: What The Artground has provided is something that I never had in my entire career, you know, this weekly, regular place to build your repertoire, to test your work, to hone your skills, to educate the public, the audience, to show them that a story told, like a song sung will always sound and feel different. (K. Ramachandran, personal interview, September 18, 2018)

To contextualise Kamini’s comments, it should be noted that over her numerous years of practice as a storyteller, Kamini has proposed a residency-style model of storytelling to a number of major organisations as she believes that this model is crucial to growing the next generation of storytelling audiences, but these proposals had not been adopted. However, after Terrific Tales proved itself to be a “sustainable and successful model” (K. Ramachandran, personal interview, September 18, 2018) that is popular with families, Gateway Theatre1 has notably set up the Gateway Kids Club ‘Once Upon A Time’ storytelling sessions, which take place three Saturdays in a month. Similarly, family mall Cluny Court now also runs regular storytelling sessions each month. In both cases, these sessions are run by The Storytelling Centre Limited. Clearly, by committing to their artists’ development in tandem with programming quality work, TAG has had an impact beyond their own audiences and has opened up new perspectives for artists and other organisations to further engage audiences in Singapore in fresh and exciting ways. With Terrific Tales, TAG has also notably been able to develop audience literacy with regards to storytelling. For instance, as Kamini noted, the families that attend Terrific Tales regularly are now well aware that “if they hear Jeremy tell ‘Tikki Tikki Tembo’ last week, and Daisy is going to tell ‘Tikki Tikki Tembo’ this week, it will be different.… they [the audiences] have learnt that it’s not verbatim, it’s not 1 Gateway

Theatre is a creative arts space in the Bukit Merah neighbourhood of Singapore (http:// theatre.gateway.sg/about/about-gateway-theatre).

210

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

rehearsed [and memorised]” (K. Ramachandran, personal interview, September 18, 2018). However, this is again only possible as a result of the strong quality of the programme, which is what draws audiences and attracts them to return for subsequent sessions. Indeed, families at TAG have nothing but praise for Terrific Tales, with one interviewed caregiver noting that “the storytelling sessions are usually very, very good” (Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, J267 & J268, personal interview, April 13, 2019). Another caregiver shared that “we’ve [the family] done [i.e., attended] a few storytelling [sessions], so he [their child] became quite familiar with the storytellers, Jeremy and the bunch.… he really enjoys the storytelling” (Caregiver of J195, personal interview, March 8, 2019). At this point, Terrific Tales has grown to have quite a strong following of regulars, with many interviewed families expressing that it is one of their most frequented or most enjoyed programmes at TAG. In fact, one caregiver had recently enquired about hiring Jeremy specifically as the storyteller for their child’s birthday party, as both their children were fans of Jeremy’s storytelling sessions (M. Tan, personal interview, July 25, 2019). This is a strong affirmation of the quality of the young storytellers and the strength of their relationship with the families who attend Terrific Tales, but also a statement that speaks to the success of TAG in engaging their audiences in the arts. In looking at Terrific Tales, another crucial aspect of TAG’s programmes is discernible—an emphasis on performer-audience interactivity. In the example of Terrific Tales, the storytellers regularly engage both adults and children in song and dance, and would also invite them to perform or take on the role of different ‘characters’ in the story. In turn, with the encouragement of the storytellers—whom one caregiver noted was “very good [at] connecting and communicating to the audience” (Caregiver of J235, survey, March 24, 2019)—even adults and children who were more shy and reserved at the beginning could be seen to gradually relax as the programme progressed, and to respond more actively to prompts by the storytellers. This interactivity is highly appreciated by families. In a survey conducted after a Terrific Tales session, 17 out of 17 caregivers (100%) said “yes” in response to whether they had enjoyed the programme and 76% highlighted its interactive nature as what they liked most about it. In their elaboration, caregivers shared that they felt that it is “excellent for that group of children of that age.… to get the freedom.… to be themselves, to express themselves” (Caregiver & J20, personal interview, September 23, 2018). They also noted that interactivity is important for children because it helps to keep them engaged in the programme. As shared by one caregiver, the programme “becomes more interesting or interactive for her [the child] because … she [is] willing to participate so it gets her attention” (Caregiver of J192, personal interview, March 3, 2019). Another caregiver commented that “it [the programme] was nice and fun. He [the child] generally doesn’t sit through storytelling, so I’m surprised he sat through it” (Caregiver of J199, personal interview, March 10, 2019). Clearly, by featuring more interactive programmes that are able to sustain children’s attention, TAG is able to build confidence in families that their children can meaningfully engage in arts experiences.

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

211

The Third Tier For its third and final tier to date, TAG presents highly professional work by local artists or international artists, so as to offer audiences the opportunity to engage in deeper and more complex artistic experiences—as compared to TAG’s S$10 programmes. In turn, given the more extensive production and manpower costs of these programmes, they are priced higher than S$10. For instance, from 2017 to 2020, TAG presented a piece by Swedish choreographer Dalija Acin Thelander called Baby Space. Described as a 35-minute “multisensory installation designed for pre-walking babies.… where contemporary dance, music and visual arts meld together to form an immersive encounter with the arts” (The Artground, n.d.-b), each session of Baby Space had two live performers and a maximum of 14 carer-and-child pairs, enabling the possibility of multiple intimate and playful interactions between the performers and audience members. Baby Space also had an incredibly elaborate set that was custom-made for TAG’s WhiteBox. A reviewer describes her first impression of it as follows: [The performance area was] a pristine white space that had a dreamlike quality to it. From top to bottom, everything was covered in a white stretchy material that divided the room into two, one with a tent like structure with holes and the other, a room with white tulle fabric hanging down, as if it were mimicking white fluffy clouds. There were also white cushion like objects of various shapes that mummies and daddies promptly took to letting their little ones rest on. (Seow, 2017, para. 4)

At the end of the performance, audiences were given 15 min to linger in the Baby Space tent “for free play and photo opportunities” (Peatix, 2019). During this time, the above-mentioned reviewer noted that while “the kids enjoyed exploring the space and climbing through the various holes and space they could,” “you might say that the adults enjoyed it more, lying on the soft cushioned flooring and listening to the light background music” (Seow, 2017, para. 7). Indeed, from the reviewer’s observations, it can be seen that the entire experience of Baby Space was special for both caregivers and babies: Most of our fellow mummy audience members were [similarly] lingering around [the Baby Space tent] and told us [the reviewer and their family] that they were surprised that their usually fidgety babies were engaged for as long as they were and were really smiley throughout the entire performance. (Seow, 2017, para. 7)

In turn, this heightened arts experience was also more expensive than TAG’s regular S$10 programmes. In its most recent iteration in 2020, Baby Space tickets were priced at S$32 for one pre-walking baby and an accompanying adult, and any additional accompanying adult or baby had to purchase another ticket at S$32. Notwithstanding this significantly more expensive ticket price, Baby Space sold out its runs very quickly after registration opened. Clearly, there is an appetite for such programmes. There have also been programmes that have transitioned from being presented as a free trial session or a S$10 drop-in programme, to a ticketed programme within the third tier of TAG’s approach. One such programme is Grow With Me by The Kueh

212

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

Tutus, as mentioned above—first developed through trial sessions with audiences at TAG, Grow With Me was then presented as a S$10 drop-in programme, and finally, in its most recent staging, as a third-tier programme that cost S$22 per ticket for a child and an accompanying adult, and S$12 for any additional accompanying adults. By having the flexibility to stay at a particular tier of TAG’s programming for as long as they needed, including presenting Grow With Me multiple times as a S$10 drop-in programme, The Kueh Tutus were able to take the time to fully develop and refine their design as well as the performers’ approach to and means of interacting with the very young audiences. As such, the final work that was presented as a ticketed programme at TAG is a strong dance performance that features an elaborate garden set, mesmerising lighting effects and intimate interactions with the young audiences (Peatix, 2020). As one caregiver shared, “she [their child] enjoyed [it] a lot” and they too personally enjoyed “seeing her [their child] dancing around, following the music and with the light change … she can follow the tempo” (Caregiver of J197, personal interview, March 9, 2019). Families’ enjoyment of Grow With Me was reflected in its consistent popularity at each of its developmental stages—despite the increased ticket prices when it became a third-tier programme, tickets for Grow with Me sold out very quickly for each run, similar to families’ response to Baby Space. At the same time, the popularity of programmes at this tier is not limited to baby programmes, which are arguably a popular offering at TAG regardless of the tier within which they are offered. Other international programmes that TAG has brought in, such as Oddysea by Sensorium Theatre (Perth), or local programmes such as Invisible Invincible by MySuperFuture Theatrical Productions (‘MySuperFuture’) are similarly warmly received and appreciated. In fact, a caregiver who had attended a performance of Invisible Invincible shared that the performance had shifted his attitudes towards attending such arts programmes: I’ve never really done anything like [that] with my son before, so we didn’t really know how he was going to take it but I was quite impressed that he actually got quite immersed into it.… A play isn’t something I’d normally think about [attending], but seeing how he interacted with it and how immersed he was in it, it’s [attending similar programmes in the future] definitely something I would consider. (Caregiver of J325, personal interview, July 27, 2019)

Notably, this family also shared that they were frequent visitors to TAG’s visual arts space, but they had never thought prior to that day about stepping into the WhiteBox for a programme, or about attending any arts programme with or for children. This thus suggests that there is indeed a connection between TAG’s broad first tier and families’ interest in attending other tiers of programming. At the same time, this also highlights that with TAG’s decision to freely offer different programme tiers to their visitors and the public, families have a lot of flexibility to ‘jump’ from tier to tier and attend programmes based on their interest, rather than being constrained to access the tiers in a strictly linear manner.

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

213

Audience Participation Through The Artground’s Programming Within each individual tier, a lot of thought and effort has clearly been put into ensuring variety and quality, and it is evident that caregivers and children alike do respond positively to each tier of TAG’s programming. However, what is arguably most special about TAG’s programming is how the various tiers come together. Drawing from the Motivation/Ability/Opportunity framework by Wiggins (2004) that was earlier outlined, it can be seen that TAG’s tiered approach does address quite extensively the Ability and Opportunity aspects for audiences. Specifically, ability is defined by Wiggins (2004) as “the absence of individual barriers to attendance (such as unaffordable ticket prices or inability to speak English)” (p. 28). It can be seen that TAG is very careful in their tiered approach to ensure that the first tier is in fact free, such that no family would be turned away due to tight finances. Even in their second tier, which comprises of paid programmes, TAG charges a relatively accessible fee of S$10, even though this is actually loss-making for them. As for opportunity, which Wiggins (2004) defines as “the absence of situational barriers to attendance (such as difficulty travelling to the venue)” (p. 28), it is undeniable that TAG’s location in the east of Singapore and outside of the city centre does affect visitorship. As mentioned above, in the first nine months of TAG’s establishment, nearly half of its audiences came from the east, while only slightly more than a tenth of its visitorship came from the west of Singapore. However, once families are at TAG, there are multiple opportunities for them to encounter the arts. Apart from being able to regularly encounter new visual arts spaces by different artists, TAG also offers drop-in programmes that families can immediately sign up for. As Luanne remarked, while you [visiting families] are here [at TAG] playing, we offer you different opportunities to engage further in the arts, so [from hour to hour] we will [make announcements] like ‘Hi everyone … in 10 minutes’ time, we’re going to have storytelling for [children] 3- to 7-years-old, so come and join us if you like, it’s S$10 per child’. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

In other words, throughout their time at TAG, families would be alerted to the many opportunities that there are to participate in additional arts programmes. Furthermore, given TAG’s efforts in programming a diversity of art and art-inspired forms, there are also sufficient opportunities for families to find something that suits their needs and preferences—be it a quieter activity like storytelling, or something more active such as dance or movement workshops. Access across the different tiers are also not restricted in any way, allowing families to easily and flexibly engage with different tiers and the corresponding programmes as per their own needs and desires, even if these change from time to time. As Luanne noted, parents who come [to TAG] … can kind of tier up or down, you know, they can come to the free [visual arts] space. [And] if they wanted to pay for [a] S$10 programme, they could. If

214

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

they wanted to pay for [a] S$20 programme, they could.… they could [also] go back to [the] S$10 [programmes] or free [trials]. (L. Poh, personal interview, February 26, 2020)

As a result, TAG is better able to ensure that not just children, but adults as well, have a positive arts experience. This allows for a holistic experience for the entire family unit. In terms of motivation though, which Wiggins (2004) explains as “the desire to attend arts events” (p. 28), the effectiveness of TAG’s approach is somewhat less apparent. Though TAG did indeed attract over 100,000 visitors in their first 2 years of operation, fewer than 10,000 visitors actually participated in their ticketed programmes. In other words, less than a tenth of their total number of visitors engaged with TAG’s other tiers (The Artground, 2018, 2019). This suggests that while visitors do see the value of TAG’s visual arts space and therefore want to visit TAG and engage with it, they are not as interested in the arts programmes that are offered in the WhiteBox or the Good Garden. Part of this lack of engagement is perhaps due to awareness. For instance, one of their visual artists noted that I never knew that they had programmes. I always thought that it’s just a play space … until Jia En [TAG’s visual design and exhibitions manager] told me personally [during their process of working together].… there’s actually very neat programmes [at TAG], but maybe not so broadcasted or they could do better I guess in terms of marketing? … [the programmes are] quite cool and it’s only S$10. (G. Chai, personal interview, June 18, 2019)

Similarly, although TAG does make on-the-spot announcements about the programmes that are offered, some families have noted that they were not sufficiently aware of what the programme was about or sure if their children would enjoy it. As one caregiver shared, I’m not sure which of the programmes … is [sic] fun, because I think one of the problems is that, it’s [the WhiteBox] really too enclosed. So there’s no way to know what is it [the programme] about. For example, I was reading about the programme [on the schedule displayed outside the WhiteBox, which includes descriptions of each day’s programmes] just now… [but] I don’t know what they’re trying to do. (Caregiver & J151, personal interview, February 17, 2019)

This suggests that if TAG is able to address the lack of awareness with regards to the arts programmes that they offer, existing visitors and the public alike might be more motivated to engage and participate in them. Another possible reason for the lack of motivation is that while TAG attempts to ensure diversity in their programming, their lineup does not offer a clear progression or ‘curriculum’ for families and children to follow over time. Instead, the same programme may be repeated regularly “once a month, [or] once every two months” (M. Tan, personal interview, February 14, 2020), which regular visitors might get bored with. This is in part because when TAG works with artists, they want to respect that everyone works at a different pace—if the artists want to keep trying out ways to improve and refine the programme, it is also important to TAG to support that, and “we [TAG] also don’t want to … keep [asking the artists to be] churning out new programmes” purely for the sake of having quantity (M. Tan, personal

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

215

interview, February 14, 2020). As a result, there may be a gap once children outgrow and exceed the recommended age range of certain programmes. Even if families are interested to pursue more arts programmes with TAG, there is a ceiling to the available opportunities that TAG can offer, although TAG team themselves hope that the children could transition into other programmes designed for older age groups. Anecdotally there does indeed appear to be some audiences who stop attending programmes at TAG for this reason. For instance, TAG team observed that there was a particular family that attended Baby Space as well as regular sessions of the music programme Baby Beat, which is suitable for children from 8 to 36 months of age. However, at one point TAG team realised that this family had stopped attending Baby Beat or any other programmes at TAG, which the team hypothesised was because “they’ve [this family] outgrown it [Baby Beat] … in that sense.… after Baby Beat, you know, there isn’t another [programme for that age group], we [TAG] don’t have an ongoing baby-ish [sic] programme” (L. Poh, personal interview, July 29, 2019). However, it is worth noting that some families are sufficiently motivated to continue following TAG’s lineup of programmes, and do return for programmes as and when appropriate for their child’s age. For instance, TAG team observed that the abovementioned family did return to attend other baby programmes as TAG increased their repertoire. These additional baby programmes include TUG, a third-tier performative play session intended for children from 18 to 30 months of age. In reflecting about their return, Luanne noted that “it was great because that for me [is] proof that the parents came back even though we sort of lost them a little bit.… [so] I would like to think that parents do come back” (L. Poh, personal interview, July 29, 2019). Echoing this hope, it would seem that motivation to attend arts events is generally quite high amongst the small pool of families who have engaged with TAG’s programming beyond the first tier of the visual arts space, as there are a number of anecdotes to suggest that some of them do ‘tier up’ over time. As Luanne remarked, the “funny thing is now we [TAG] actually have some parents we only see during the … S$15type … ticket programmes [i.e., the more expensive, third-tier programmes], and not so much for the S$10 ones [i.e., the second-tier programmes]” (L. Poh, personal interview, July 29, 2019). This is in line with TAG’s hopes that “the positive experience that they [families] have [at TAG] as a unit … would then empower them and encourage them to do more and hopefully again, outside of The Artground” (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018), including attending programmes at more formal settings such as Esplanade, Singapore’s national performing arts centre: If they [families] have never been to the Esplanade, after they have come here [to TAG] a few times and attended a few storytellings and this or that [other programmes], they might be able to think, ‘Ok maybe next time we can go to an Esplanade [programme] and … maybe now my child will sit through it because he has done it [before]’. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

It would seem that a number of families have indeed been exploring programmes outside of TAG, albeit perhaps specific to programmes created by TAG artists and arts group. For instance, one arts group told TAG team that “we [the arts group] saw this family [at TAG] and they were [also there] at the Bedok library with us” when the group performed there (L. Poh, personal interview, February 26, 2020).

216

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

Another direction that TAG had hoped to nudge audiences towards is the incorporation of the arts as part of the family’s own routine at home and in their daily lives: We want to create this experience here at The Artground where everybody has a positive experience to then encourage them to do more outside in their daily lives. So if they came here and they did an arts and craft and they make a pompom shooter together with one of our artists, they can go back at home—they don’t have to go back to the Esplanade, they can go back home and they will then engage in an arts activity at home. (L. Poh, personal interview, September 19, 2018)

Specific to Happy Homebodies, a visual arts space by Gracie Chai that “features creativity in the simplicity of everyday life” and that invites audiences to “make new discoveries about common objects at home which are beautifully transformed into an uncommon experience” (The Artground, n.d.-c), it would seem that TAG has been fairly successful. In an interview with Gracie following the end of Happy Homebodies, she shared that she had received “a lot of good feedback” over the duration of the installation, and also had “a lot of dialogue happening with … moms on Instagram” (G. Chai, personal interview, October 7, 2019). For instance, she shared that there were some caregivers that had “never thought of … using … say the sponges or … the scrubs [scrubbing brushes i.e., items that were featured in Happy Homebodies] as toys, and [after visiting the visual arts space] they’re like, ‘Oh wow, my kids actually really enjoyed this particular thing’, and … it inspired them to do more things at home” (G. Chai, personal interview, October 7, 2019). Clearly, Happy Homebodies had a positive impact on families’ motivation to pursue arts activities in their own time at home. From these anecdotes, it would seem that for the small group of families that have engaged with TAG’s second and third tier of programmes, TAG’s tiered approach arguably helped to scaffold motivation to pursue the arts and arts-going both within and outside of TAG. This echoes McCarthy and Jinnett’s (2001) observation that “frequent positive [arts] experiences can stimulate a person to participate more often and in more ways” (p. 28). At the same time, as Luanne acknowledged, right now “there is no real way for us [TAG] to be able to track it [the journey of families through the tiers]. So I [Luanne] cannot … confidently say that they definitely are moving through the tiers” (L. Poh, personal interview, July 29, 2019). Indeed, the large numbers of visitors to TAG that do not engage beyond TAG’s first tier of the visual arts space warrants further investigation. Specifically, to properly assess the longterm impact of TAG’s tiered approach on audience participation and engagement, more systematic and longitudinal data needs to be collected. Nevertheless, with one of TAG’s plans moving forward from 2020 to 2022 being precisely that of data collection and analysis (L. Poh, personal interview, February 26, 2020), it seems likely that TAG would be able to articulate more clearly over the next few years the extent to which audience attitudes and motivations towards the arts and arts-going have shifted as a result of their interactions with TAG.

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

217

The Ecology of The Artground’s Tiered Approach In this chapter, the key focus has been on how TAG’s tiered approach has enabled and encouraged audience participation amongst families and children. However, it is important to highlight that TAG’s work is equally concerned with growing and developing the community of artists in Singapore that create work for young audiences. From this perspective, although several sections have touched on how the tiers relate to TAG’s work of artist development, it is useful to take some time to draw together further threads of how TAG’s tiered approach serves to support artist development in tandem with growing arts participation. Firstly, a key benefit to TAG artists of having a broad first tier that attracts a constant flow of families and children is that artists have immediate access to a wide pool of audiences who can be ‘test audiences’ for any artist’s trialling of works. This is true for the visual artists who conduct ‘crash tests’ of their visual arts spaces for safety prior to its official opening to the public, as well as for the artists and arts groups in TAG’s GroundBreakers programme. Melissa noted that: What is special I guess about The Artground is the consistency of trialling. So I can just keep trying and … make change[s] … [or] try something different, try something else and keep going… so that’s what’s really good about it [TAG]. Like knowing that you can do it [trials] consistently, that is, once a month or something.… it’s very frustrating [to Melissa as an artist] not to be able to try something… because of the work you- we [artists] make right, if there are no kids there, I really [emphasis in original] don’t know how it’s gonna be, like I really [emphasis in original] need those kids. So … I think without The Artground or without those linkups … it will be hard … even if I were to go out and linkup with schools, it’s also hard to get that kind of consistency, cause you can’t always- you definitely can’t keep going back to the same kids … [also] how do you make sure it happens within the curriculum time, [if] one of my dancer [sic] cannot make it during preschool time, so … definitely for us, The Artground space … just [emphasis in original] the fact that it is The Artground, like it’s a space for children … makes a big difference. (M. Quek, personal interview, September 10, 2018)

Secondly, the tiering of programmes also means that TAG can present artist programmes at different stages of readiness that correspond with audience expectations. As mentioned earlier, Invisible Invincible by MySuperFuture is one programme that has been developed progressively at TAG, having first been created for their GroundBreakers proposal in 2018. The theatre piece was initially presented as trial sessions at TAG, before being presented as a S$10 drop-in programme following MySuperFuture’s completion of the GroundBreakers programme. It was then presented briefly as a S$15 programme under TAG’s third tier and is now part of MySuperFuture’s repertoire of works, so any organisation can hire them in future to restage this work. In other words, even as a tiered approach provides a trajectory of sorts for audiences to follow, the approach also provides a clear trajectory for artists to track the development and growth of any piece of theirs. Of course, as with the families and children, there are no requirements from TAG for artists to follow through and keep ‘tiering’ up their programmes. Rather, it is the artists and arts groups’ prerogative to decide which programmes they would like to feature, and hence The Kueh Tutus do

218

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

in fact rotate through different programmes of theirs, as well as remove or reinstate certain programmes for the purposes of their own artistic development. From this overall perspective, it should thus be apparent that TAG’s tiered approach sets up multiple synergies between audience participation and artist development, which feed into each other and support a holistic growth of this emerging field of work for young audiences in Singapore. However, from this macro lens, there is also a key question of its financial sustainability in the long-term, given that this tiered approach is largely loss-making for TAG. In fact, it is worth noting that due to budget constraints, TAG has plans to cut back on its arts programming from 2020 onwards, which will undoubtedly affect the quantity and diversity of arts programming that TAG can offer to visiting families. As for their weekend programming, Michelle explained that: Now we [TAG] do roughly about five [programmes] per Saturday, five per Sunday. We’re going to reduce it down to two to three per Saturday, and two to three per Sunday. So we’ll likely do … the 10:30 [a.m.] slot in the morning, 11:30 [a.m.] slot in the morning and probably do those as drafting programmes [free trials, i.e. TAG’s second tier]. And then, if we have ticketed programmes, we might put them a little bit later, say 2:30 [p.m.] depending on [the] availability of the artists. (M. Tan, personal interview, February 14, 2020)

Concurrently, to help with their finances, TAG has plans to take on other kinds of commercial programmes in their portfolio, such as space rentals for “corporate events, birthday parties, private stuff” (M. Tan, personal interview, February 14, 2020), but also more design work with corporate entities and schools. On one hand, this can be seen as diverting the attention and efforts of TAG team away from the arts and the artists. On the other hand though, these could perhaps help to diversify the income streams of TAG and their artists, as TAG can help to introduce the arts and the artists to these other organisations. As an example, for the birthday parties that they have hosted to date, TAG would “always try to recommend ours [TAG’s arts programmes] first” (M. Tan, personal interview, February 14, 2020). Ultimately though, as Luanne noted: It’s a very fine balance. I think… we are all grappling with it … [this is] a new sort of organisational challenge that we will have to rise up to … for the next few years. Because we actually do need to bring in these alternative sources of income.… whilst our core business is still with the artist and with the families, but we also need to be quite practical in the sense that we need these alternative sources of income to continue to fund what we do … so the bigger sort of question is … [the] tango that we have to do … with the programming mix. So that you don’t feel like any [of] … the corporate stuff takes over The Artground’s identity as a space for artists and for families. (L. Poh, personal interview, February 26, 2020)

This new direction will likely only bear fruit after a few years, so it is still early to say as to whether TAG will succeed in balancing its need to sustain itself financially with the needs of its core stakeholders—artists and families. Still, it is worth noting that TAG’s overall approach is quite unique in its holistic approach, and there are certainly aspects to learn from in terms of how they have managed to create this synergistic ecosystem that fulfils the needs of both audiences and artists. Thus, if TAG manages to find a way to be financially sustainable in the years to come, their

10 Tiered Approach to Audience Development: Programming …

219

operation model would indeed be a useful one to study as to how to sustainably grow audiences, artists, and the overall work for young audiences ecology.

References Primary Sources (Interviews) Caregiver 1, & Caregiver 2 of J5. (2018, September 2). Personal interview. Caregiver 1, Caregiver 2, J267, & J268. (2019, April 13). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J20. (2018, September 23). Personal interview. Caregiver of J29. (2018, October 14). Personal interview. Caregiver of J32. (2018, November 17). Personal interview. Caregiver of J161. (2019, February 23). Personal interview. Caregiver of J192. (2019, March 3). Personal interview. Caregiver of J195. (2019, March 8). Personal interview. Caregiver of J196. (2019, March 9). Personal interview. Caregiver of J197. (2019, March 9). Personal interview. Caregiver of J199. (2019, March 10). Personal interview. Caregiver of J223. (2019, March 22). Personal interview. Caregiver of J258. (2019, April 8). Personal interview. Caregiver, & J353. (2019, August 24). Personal interview. Chai, G. (2019, June 18). Personal interview. Chai, G. (2019, October 7). Personal interview. Choy, J., & Poh, L. (2018, September 20). Personal interview. Neo, Y.-Z., & Ng, K. (2019, February 15). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2018, September 19). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2019, July 29). Personal interview. Poh, L. (2020, February 26). Personal interview. Quek, M. (2018, September 10). Personal interview. Ramachandran, K. (2018, September 18). Personal interview. Tan, M. (2019, July 25). Personal interview. Tan, M. (2020, February 14). Personal interview.

Secondary Sources The Artground. (n.d.-a). About Us. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/abo utus/. The Artground. (n.d.-b). Baby Space. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/ event/baby-space-end/. The Artground. (n.d.-c). Happy Homebodies. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://theartground. com.sg/event/happyhomebodies/. The Artground. (n.d.-d). Oddsocks by Five Stones Theatre. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from http:// theartground.com.sg/oddsocks/. The Artground. (2018). Annual report 17/18. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from http://theartground. com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Annual-Report_1718_Lowres.pdf.

220

G. K. Chong and J. H. L. Lim

The Artground. (2019). Annual report 18/19. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from http://theartground. com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Annual-Report_1819.pdf. McCarthy, K. F., & Jinnett, K. J. (2001). A new framework for building participation in the arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monogr aph_reports/2005/MR1323.pdf. National Arts Council, Singapore. (2018). Our SG Arts Plan (2018–2022): Excellence that Inspires Our People and Connects Our Communities. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from http://www.nac.gov. sg/dam/jcr:d8c447f2-078f-4566-b722-10e750c5495b. Peatix. (2019). Baby Space 2020. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://babyspace-tag-2020.peatix. com/. Peatix. (2020, March). Grow with Me by The Kueh Tutus. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from http://gro wwithme-mar20.peatix.com/. Seow, K.-L. (2017). Review: Baby space at The Artground. Mummyfique. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://mummyfique.com/review-baby-space-artground/. The Storytelling Centre Limited. (2020). Terrific Tales. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from http://storyt ellingcentrelimited.com/site/programmes/terrific-tales. Wiggins, J. (2004). Motivation, ability and opportunity to participate: A reconceptualization of the RAND model of audience development. International Journal of Arts Management, 7(1), 22–33. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41064828.

Gua Khee Chong/ 张月崎 is a Singapore-based Theatre Director and Performance Maker who also takes on research projects. She is often engaged as a Facilitator or Dramaturg as well, in projects that span different disciplines such as visual arts and dance. At this moment, Gua Khee’s research interests are connected to issues around socially engaged art, architectures of care and resilience, conversational infrastructures, and also ways of generative resistance. She graduated from the University of British Columbia, Canada, with a Psychology (Honours) and Theatre (Major) degree. Jesslyn Hui Ling Lim is a Research Assistant with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She graduated from the Singapore Management University with a Bachelor of Social Science, having majored in both Psychology and Arts & Cultural Management. Prior to joining the NIE research team on The Artground research project, Jesslyn had worked with children and youth audiences at the Esplanade—Singapore’s national performing arts centre, The Artground and The Red Pencil. She is currently a Project Manager with Unseen Art Initiatives, a socially engaged arts platform that partners social service organisations and schools to present arts programmes and produce artworks together with artists, youth, and adult participants with visual impairment.

Part IV

Epilogue

Children participating in a dance and movement programme, Dance Playground by Rolypoly Family, in the WhiteBox. From “Arts Programming,” by The Artground, n.d. (https://theartgro und.com.sg/events2/programmesdirectory/). Copyright 2019 by The Artground. Reprinted with permission.

Chapter 11

The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does Neryl Jeanneret, Robert Brown, and Jennifer Andersen

Abstract This chapter gathers critical perspectives about the written chapters in this book (Chapters 1–10) about The Artground (TAG) from three arts education researchers (Neryl Jeanneret, Robert Brown and Jennifer Anderson) at the University of Melbourne. The researchers, who were deeply involved in research and documentation work at ArtPlay in Melbourne, Australia, discuss the interconnected aesthetic, social, cultural, creative and educational dimensions of TAG in terms of (a) philosophy, (b) place, and (c) practice. Keywords Arts spaces · Arts for young audiences · Children · Families Located in a quiet suburb and nested within an arts and culture compound, The Artground has a modest presence. Funnelled through a small entrance, The Artground dramatically expands into a multi-dimensional space filled with colour, light and possibility that invites, prompts and even demands playful engagement. Within this unique environment, children and their families experience something special, something different, something specifically designed for them.

We come to this chapter as researchers of another dedicated arts space for young children and families in a different time and place, and this initial study has taken us on a journey of investigating engagement, pedagogy and learning for a number of organisations and cultural institutions. We bring diverse backgrounds as arts practitioners, researchers and educators across the spectrum from early childhood to tertiary settings, and as brief observers of The Artground (TAG) in situ. It is with this lens that we offer the following commentary on this internationally relevant study. The significance of TAG is in its name: it is a place for art and this research helps to articulate the interconnected dimensions of such a phenomenon that resonate with both local and global audiences. These dimensions have emerged as that of place To cite: Jeanneret, N., Brown, R., & Andersen, J. (2020). The Artground: Where we let art do, what art does. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds.), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 223–234). Singapore: Springer. N. Jeanneret (B) · R. Brown · J. Andersen The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_11

223

224

N. Jeanneret et al.

and arts practice, which are underpinned by views and beliefs grounded in current thinking in this area. When the National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC) first appointed The Ground Co Ltd (TGCL) to develop and manage a children’s arts space, they attempted something new for Singapore with TAG. There was no template to draw on that would automatically fit the local context, nor was there a pre-existing group of artists with experience in creating the types of arts environments and encounters that TAG was intending to offer children and families. TAG recognised that audience, programme and artist development would need to go hand-in-hand. Instead of a delivery model, in which artists would be hired to respond to a fixed brief, TAG has positioned itself as a learning space. It involves artists, staff, children and families in a shared learning process of making and experiencing art, while the organisation develops pedagogy, artists’ professional learning, programmes, audiences and creative practices, and engages in formal research. It brings in artists as co-developers of new ideas and approaches, fostering curiosity, experimentation and play amongst them, all of which are key goals the organisation also has for children and families. This has established a positive, creative climate with a shared sense of purpose. A key time to research spaces such as TAG, is in fact, right at the beginning, at the foundation. It is at this point that values and practices are emergent and non-fixed. This is also the time when research can embed and inform an ongoing commitment to reflection, consultation and inquiry, and the support for this research project in its early days is forward thinking, with the capacity to generate long term, positive impact and sustainability. To understand the complexity of this phenomenon, the research leadership has generated a comprehensive analysis and documentation of the experiences of artists, children, parents and the staff at TAG.

Dimensions of The Artground Charged with a broad mission that includes aesthetic, social, cultural, creative and educational dimensions (McCarthy & Jinnett, 2001), arts organisations such as TAG are mandated to engage visitors from all walks of life, offering experiences that are accessible, enabling and enriching. To achieve this mission, TAG has had to establish itself as a special place for artful play and arts practice. Like any cultural institution, TAG wants children to not only enjoy their visit but to leave with vivid and positive memories that will motivate them to return. For this to happen, children need to experience engagement. This can be defined as a positive affective and cognitive state of self-motivated involvement characterised by initiation, sustained dedication and absorption (Brown et al., 2019). When children are engaged, they are receptive to learning (Hyson, 2008; Munley, 2012; Packer & Ballantyne, 2016; Piscitelli et al., 2003) which is a significant motivation for family visits to cultural institutions. An aspiration for child and family engagement is central to the mission of TAG and researchers have rightly explored the concept of ‘flow’ as a way of evidencing deep engagement (Chap. 5). Children gravitate to free play but without

11 The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does

225

challenge, engagement may soon wane. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) connects the level of engagement a protagonist experiences with the sense of discovery and creative challenge afforded. Whilst motivated to take up the novel activities on offer, what we learnt at ArtPlay1 is that sustained and deep engagement is more evident when children have opportunities to problem-solve and transform, often collaboratively. To engage families and artists, TAG has fostered a strong sense of ‘place’. ‘Place’ is a rich word that can mean location, physical space or environment. It also has overtones of belonging, which has been significant to TAG’s success. The public programmes and artist development initiatives operate from a place of generosity and openness that is designed to encourage people to engage with the arts in the way they feel comfortable to do so and according to their current creative capacity. As a welcoming and creative place that fosters a sense of belonging amongst children and artists, TAG has realised another aspiration—that of being a place of experimentation and artistic risk-taking. The environment nurtures and supports the artists’ creativity by offering freedom and flexibility, as well as time and space to explore. It provides a reduction of stress in a safe place where trust is established for risk-taking that allows “artists to dream up ‘crazy ideas’” (Chap. 6). Constructive feedback from TAG team and participating families frequently validates the artists’ ideas and, in turn, builds trust between the artists and their potential audience. TAG provides opportunities for children and families to work directly with artists in a safe and stimulating environment, and to spend quality time together. TAG also provides unique experiences for babies and infants, allowing broad nurturing of the family unit. With a growing interest amongst artists to work with children, TAG not only provides a space for this to happen, but the opportunity to develop their knowledge, skills and career trajectory as well as fostering membership of a larger community of artists. Dedicated to artful experiences, TAG—and the NAC—present a strong message to the community that artists and the arts are valued. TAG offers play and arts encounters that are different from that which children are exposed to in formal learning contexts and at home, and the nature of these unique experiences is a result of the interconnection of space, time, materials, interactions and relationships. Core to the environment is the knowledge and sensibility of the artist whose focus on creative exploration and aesthetic awareness make these encounters particularly special. The combination of the interactive visual arts space and the WhiteBox gives families opportunities to engage at different levels and in different ways that suit their individual needs. This is especially important for families with very young children seeking safe, playful, and sensory-rich experiences, and wanting to build deep relationships with their children. TAG also provides time and space for artists to test and refine new work supported by feedback from other artists and TAG team. TAG offers diverse opportunities for child-led play afforded through interactive, artist-designed visual arts spaces and programmes. Immersed at the site, the researchers have clearly evidenced that the arts space is a place for play in many 1 ArtPlay is a permanent community arts facility in Melbourne, Australia, on which the authors had

conducted an extensive research study over a period of 4 years (Jeanneret & Brown, 2013). ArtPlay has been referenced by the NAC and TGCL as a model in the development of TAG.

226

N. Jeanneret et al.

forms including physical, sensory, social, exploratory, communicative and creative (Chap. 4). Catering for this diversity is crucial as children have play preferences determined by their individual developmental proclivities and family life experiences. Understanding how to design environments to afford play experiences that are safe, accessible to all and also open to possibilities is something playground designers have long grappled with. As the researchers have clearly shown, TAG invites children to find play experiences that suit their interests. What we know, and is further confirmed in this research, is that children can gravitate to known ‘tried and true’ play experiences such as riding on a slide or chasing a friend. Beyond providing safe and familiar forms of play, TAG aims to prompt connections between play experiences to generate unexpected and creative combinations of play, and to stimulate curiosity through opportunities for artful and imaginative play. What is less clear is how the artist-designed visual arts spaces explicitly prompt making, responding and creative arts processes. As the researchers state, “having artistically pleasing structures designed in playgrounds or play spaces do not necessarily equate to children engaging and playing with these structures in creative and imaginative ways” (Chap. 3). What the researchers have identified is for TAG to be more than a safe ‘playground’ and to instead be a place that affords opportunities for interactive and exploratory play. In doing so, it can animate children’s curiosity, prompting them to notice, imagine and create. These are the qualities of an artful experience. Guided by their personal pursuit of creative process and innovative outcomes, artists have a mindset well-suited to promote engaging, artful play. Unbounded by any particular views of what young children are capable of doing and knowing, artists are prepared to provoke children to inquire and imagine through embodied, cognitive, affective and sensory processes. We are familiar with artists wanting to challenge children to experience things differently and personally, linking play with art. By deliberately offering unusual and aesthetic encounters in the arts space, artists can prompt children to imagine, notice their surroundings, pay attention to aesthetic qualities and relationships, and be creative. In doing so, children are more likely to explore and represent artfully their ideas and affective responses through materials, interactions and narratives. The researchers have identified that the inherent arts focus of the visual arts space at TAG could be presented more obviously to families. Children may rely on their parents to direct what they notice and what challenges they take on in an unfamiliar public environment. Thus, to stimulate an experience that is both artful and playful, TAG may want to consider employing artists to interact in the visual arts space at times, similar to ‘playworkers’ (Kilvington & Wood, 2010), informally modelling how children may interact in and transform the environment through making, arranging, moving and acting out in the space. Placed incongruously within the visual arts space, the semi-transparent large WhiteBox stimulates families’ interest and encourages them to join in the programmes featured in this space. The WhiteBox provides an important “smaller space” where “a very important meeting point between the artist and the audience” can occur (Chap. 6). The artist-led programmes in the WhiteBox clearly aim to engage children in artful play, though here the experience involves structured, rather than free play. What is worthy

11 The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does

227

of further investigations is the connection between the WhiteBox and the visual arts space. TAG wants families to engage deeply with the programmes, but TAG team recognises that not everyone will do so immediately, every time, or at all, and that the venue therefore needs to provide multiple entry points to participation. This resonates with the ArtPlay experience, which offered free drop-in outdoor—and later indoor—artful play experiences, in an attempt to increase access for people who may not engage with the ticketed events. It is worth investigating in more detail if families that engage with TAG’s free programmes are more likely to engage with ticketed events and what is it that brings the return users back. There is anecdotal evidence, though, that some families start at TAG and then seek out other arts experiences in other venues, which is positive and endorses TAG’s commitment to being a leader and grower of children’s arts appreciation and participation in Singapore. Like venues and programmes elsewhere (e.g., Starcatchers in Edinburgh, Scotland and ArtPlay in Melbourne, Australia), TAG has discovered a need in Singapore for art experiences for babies and toddlers. This could be driven by a range of factors, including a greater awareness of the importance of the arts for early childhood development or a move towards smaller living spaces that force families to seek stimulation outside the home. Whatever the reason, TAG has had to develop new work for this age group. Artists have been keen to be involved in this project and have benefited from the artist development experiences that TAG has initiated to support them. Venues like TAG have the potential to offer experiences that have become less commonplace in young modern children’s lives, such as sensory and messy play, and the popularity of the gardening-inspired art programmes at TAG shows that children and families gain much pleasure from these encounters. There is now a challenge for venues to develop programmes that attract older children who are beginning to make their own decisions about how they want to spend their time. TAG describes itself as a “safe and comfortable space… to hang out and explore” (Chap. 1). This comment highlights how the arts balance risk and safety across many dimensions of practice. Children need risk and challenge so they can develop beyond their current capacities, but they also need physical and creative safety to ensure they do not hurt themselves or feel overwhelmed. Venues are constantly challenged to frame this risk in a positive way that engages and intrigues audiences, and encourages their participation instead of alarming them. TAG has developed some effective strategies to do this, such as introducing affordable pricing for most programmes. This allows parents to make spontaneous choices to join in and has been especially important for encouraging participation in programmes that are trials for and part of the development of new works and that may not be as polished as fully realised projects. Space is key to TAG’s investment in artist development. The organisation gives artists the physical, mental, creative and temporal space to develop their work, but emphasises that TAG team, the artists, the children and families are all learning together and from each other. It is clear that the artists generally share this positive view, and TAG has taken steps to encourage children and families to see themselves as co-players rather than consumers of fixed arts experiences. The artists note that

228

N. Jeanneret et al.

physical space is always a premium in Singapore, so TAG’s visual arts space and WhiteBox offer them a place to realise their ideas. Just as the visual arts spaces that the artists create shape the children’s experience of TAG’s spaces, so too do the affordances of the visual arts space and the WhiteBox shape the artists’ work. The access to space that TAG affords artists is linked to the access to time that the venue offers them to develop their work. Without the expectation to deliver a finished product immediately, artists have time to play with ideas. It is not only that artists are afforded the opportunity to try new ideas, they are given the chance for interactions and iterations with access to this dedicated space for ongoing rehearsals. Their projects are trialled regularly and seen as works-in-progress that are further developed in response to the children’s reactions and the artists’ own self-reflection. This process enables the artists to not only extend their artistic practice but to consistently examine and reflect on how this practice interacts with an ‘artistic pedagogy’ that engages young children. As one artist noted, “we get to experiment, but we also get to solidify our practice” (Chap. 6). The research highlights the importance to artists wanting to develop new artworks for children, of regular access to a diversity of families not ordinarily available to them. The chance to see what works, to experiment, tweak and refine is invaluable. As one artist pointed out, getting access to the right age group or enough children to form an audience to trial their works is hard (Chap. 6). TAG is a place for collaboration between staff, artists and audiences. As the artists note, the fragmented nature of freelance employment restricts opportunities for artists to see each other’s work and offer meaningful feedback about it. Arts centres like TAG, ArtPlay and The Ark, provide a ‘home’ or central meeting point for artists to discuss, affirm, challenge and develop their shared creative interests with each other and with staff, children, teachers and families. It is clear that, to date, this has helped to foster positive artistic and personal relationships amongst the artists who work at TAG and who would otherwise have limited opportunities to meet and who would therefore potentially be independently ‘reinventing the wheel’. All the examples of artists’ development highlighted by this research point to the importance of ‘doing’ to learning. As the artists who participated in INHEPI (International Network of Human Encounters in Performance and Installation)2 said, they get to “see how each other are [like] as artists and get to know each other’s practice” (Chap. 6). TAG’s interest in having unrestricted conversations without boundaries (Chap. 3) has created an environment where artists feel confident to explore and test new ideas which has, in turn, expanded the range of creative experiences that the organisation can offer children and families. TAG’s approach to programme development affords artists the space to try out new ideas without fear of failure. TAG acts as a broker between artists and audiences. It supports artists to communicate with families by framing works-in-progress as a joint exploration, and explicitly inviting audiences’ reflections. TAG staff also help artists 2 INHEPI

was one of the capability development programmes offered by TAG to artists in 2019. TAG partnered independent Australian artist Alex Desebrock to present INHEPI, a creative platform for artists to come together to seed and experiment with ideas for new works for young audiences.

11 The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does

229

to identify what kind of feedback they need and what are the best questions to elicit a useful response. The use of ‘play meetings’ (by Japanese artist Daiya Aida; Chap. 3) is a way of inviting children into the development process, generating new ideas, and ‘stretching’ the children. As Visual Design and Exhibitions Manager Yap Jia En explains, it also forces artists to articulate their vision. TAG team notes the importance of ‘framing’ work-in-progress experiences to manage audience expectations. This includes offering free entry to these trials and asking explicitly for feedback. Rather than being second-tier events, if audiences are taken care of and still given a worthwhile experience, there is potential for them to feel more involved and valued than when they are participating in a fully realised work. As the researchers note, audiences readily stay back after such trials to offer their thoughts (Chap. 10). This indicates a high level of investment in and understanding of the creative process. There is always a tension with providing satisfying experiences for participants, but enlisting audiences as active critical participants in the creative development helps to reframe the programmes as a joint mission rather than a consumer product. This study also highlights the importance to artists of observing children’s responses, especially in circumstances where children are not able or willing to give direct feedback about their experience—for example, because they are pre-verbal. For example, Daiya Aida’s observation of children’s love of hidey-holes has led to enclosed spaces becoming part of TAG’s visual arts space design ‘vocabulary’ (Chap. 3). Artists are usually practiced in analysing the responses of audiences to their work, and the opportunity to conduct multiple programmes at TAG may further assist them to become skilled readers and interpreters of child engagement. This research reinforces that artists often—although not always—enjoy the challenges and rewards of being out of their comfort zone or, as one artist expressed, “do something very difficult…. something that … will put you in a fix” (Chap. 6). It is important, though, that artists are supported to do this. A key feature of this support is trust. TAG trusts the artists’ creative judgement and they trust TAG’s pedagogical knowledge. A related feature is the acceptance of failure as an inevitable and positive part of creative risk-taking. This is a position that may not be practical to endorse across all levels of a venue’s operations, but it has two main advantages. One is that when venues and artists take risks, they are forced to understand the daily experience of the children and families participating in their programmes, in which they are asked to engage in unfamiliar activities with unknown people. Another is that creative practice and programming cannot develop without trying new approaches so if venues want ‘cutting edge’ work, they have to accept the attendant risk of failure. TAG takes on considerable creative and financial risk which other arts centres benefit from when they subsequently take up work that has been successfully developed at TAG. Aligned with TAG’s trust in and respect for artists, the organisation has a strengthbased view of children as capable, creative citizens. TAG interprets creative capacity as a fluid state, recognising that each person’s ability to participate in the arts changes from day to day and according to the experiences they are offered. While TAG team is confident to offer artists guidance about pedagogy, engagement and play, they appear to be less willing to give feedback about the artistic merits of the work. Although

230

N. Jeanneret et al.

this shows a welcomed respect for and trust in the artists’ skills, it may also reflect a belief that artistic worth is in the eye of the beholder. It points to an area of learning that may be overlooked in artist development programmes; that is, the specific ways that aesthetic dimensions enhance engagement, and the ways in which pedagogical strategies may influence artists’ aesthetic choices. The research highlights that TAG’s investment in artists has resulted in the artists’ strong investment in the organisation. For those for whom working with children and families is new, TAG has opened up new creative possibilities. For those who had an existing practice working with children, TAG has offered platforms of a different scale and shape. Their enthusiasm is twofold: for the artful experiences they can offer children and for their personal sense of creative stimulation. Their ongoing investment in the work is likely to benefit children and families, TAG, and the wider youth arts field in Singapore and internationally, through the development of artists and venue staff who have a strong and well-articulated practice of creating art with and for children. For example, TAG’s long-term support for programmes such as Terrific Tales by The Storytelling Centre Limited—which has been running weekly at TAG since 2017—benefits audiences, artists and the artform (Chap. 10). It has allowed Director and master storyteller Kamini Ramachandran to mentor other artists and to build up their skills; it has allowed all of them to develop the possibilities of the artform; and it has given audiences the opportunity to immerse themselves in an artform and to become discerning about its delivery. The take-up of regular storytelling sessions at other venues in Singapore since the experiment at TAG shows how risk-taking and long-term investment in artists and programmes can have wide and lasting benefits. As the NAC acknowledges, there is great competition for audience’s time and money, so live experiences need support to maintain and grow audiences (Chap. 10). There is a tension between offering experiences that are familiar and popular (‘instagrammable’) and those that stretch audiences and create a new market. There is also a challenge, shared by venues around the world, to develop programmes that resonate with and are accessible to a range of people. Although the financial support given to artists to be part of the artist development programmes to date has been welcomed by the artists, it may not be enough to sustain them long-term as it does not compensate them for their hours. Ongoing financial support is needed to allow artists to focus on one project at a time, to keep them in touch with each other, to build on their existing learning and to document it successfully. ArtPlay found that artists were very keen to contribute to these experiences but needed additional financial support to commit the time and effort required to facilitate or participate in deep professional learning. The researchers recommend that artists should articulate the value of their work even if only limited funds are available, to give their practice professional standing and to acknowledge the artists’ considerable in-kind contribution to public arts programmes. Realistic figures about artists fees may also help TAG to lobby for more funds to support their programmes and to keep experienced artists engaged with it. While TAG has looked to international models for inspiration and has invited some international artists to work at the venue, it is strongly rooted in the Singapore context. Local artists develop work for local audiences, with a view of growing the pool of

11 The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does

231

artists in Singapore who have the skills and passion needed to create art with and for children under the auspices of the established organisation and structure of NAC. This has had an immediate benefit through the presentation of work that resonates with Singapore audiences and that artists can remount in other local venues. TAG wants to be a place that other arts organisations turn to when programming arts experiences for children and families, and this positions TAG as an industry leader. TAG’s approach to developing artists’ capacity to create meaningful arts experiences with and for children and families also has the potential to be of great benefit to the international field of arts for young audiences, through the development and championing of new creative works and processes shaped by Singapore’s unique character.

Conclusion Increasingly, arts centres such as TAG are making an important contribution to community building and the concept of family-friendly cities around the globe. As the researchers note, there is a growing demand by families with young children and babies for active and interactive playful experiences away from home. Families are looking for opportunities for informal and engaging experiences that are different to the demands of school assessment, and that steer children away from a reliance on disembodied screen-based activities. As this research confirms, families are also looking for further opportunities for their children to play and mix with other children in safe public environments. In response to this family demand, cultural institutions, including museums, galleries and public arts centres, have developed spaces and programmes for children and families to interact and learn, that offer more than a passive walk-through and receptive experience. Examples such as ArtPlay, The Pauline Gandel Children’s Gallery at the Melbourne Museum, and the Seattle Children’s Museum are some amongst a growing number of public venues that have developed innovative, interactive spaces and programmes, all in some way or another giving emphasis to child interactive play. The arts are an ideal vehicle for connecting families in these spaces by providing meaningful hands-on, aesthetic experiences. Despite this development, little is known in these contexts about what types of play are afforded, and how children’s play is prompted and extended to be both exploratory and also creatively challenging and artful. Whilst much is known about play, little is known about the nexus of play, creative and artistic experience and engagement. This is important to know if arts and cultural organisations are to engage children in memorable experiences, ones that families are likely to want to return to and to recommend to others. This research helps fill this gap. Arts and cultural organisations have long grappled with how to attract children, young people and families to their programmes, and ‘education’ or ‘learning’—as well as enjoyment—are important to both organisations and parents or guardians, as the researchers note in Chap. 6 and is supported elsewhere (Brown et al., 2019). There are institutions that link their programmes explicitly to a culturally placed

232

N. Jeanneret et al.

framework of school curricula and teaching with established approaches to pedagogy that, to a lesser or greater degree, blend classroom arts practices into their offerings. TAG as an early childhood community arts space that includes families, however, has no established pedagogical method as a starting point for arts or play encounters, as the researchers observe. The term ‘education’ can give emphasis to the acquisition of set knowledge whilst the arts are commonly associated with creative and aesthetic inquiry, which itself is the ‘outcome’. TAG is not devoted to either or both, but to providing arts-rich experiences that deliver what the arts do best—enjoyable activities where children can learn to “take risks, to challenge themselves both physically and mentally, to create something new, to deal with fears, and to enjoy the moment as they construct new meanings” (Blasi et al., 2002, p. 101). Through these experiences, “children make sense of their world and their place in it, and they learn to problem-solve, socialize, communicate and be creative” (McInnes & Elpidoforou, 2018, p. 400), and are immersed in aesthetic dimensions only the arts can provide. As noted, the early childhood literature highlights the importance of these kinds of encounters as a basis for learning. Experiences that are enjoyable, interesting and creative trigger intrinsic motivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), which leads to engagement, considered a form of learning in itself (Hyson, 2008). As Dewey (1934) stressed, learning is centred on lived experience and children make sense of the world through active and direct investigations of materials, processes and interactions (Shaffer, 2015). Children will make meaning of their experiences at TAG in relation to their individual interests, knowledge and experiences. These arts encounters may resonate quite differently with each child in any one group and the learning from their experience at TAG may not be immediately evident, but emerge later as what the children have heard, seen and done during the experience intersects with other relevant experiences and knowledge. Co-Founder Jane Choy reflected, Previously … we always get a bit confused like does the learning come first or the arts…. [but now] it’s very clear that arts is primary, learning is secondary, in the sense that the learning is woven in with whatever that we get from the artist. (Chap. 6)

Experience and research tell us she is correct. Learning will emerge from these encounters with the arts in the way we have outlined above, but the outcomes of such experiences are not uniform, nor can they be planned to be so in this context. In an interview, Executive Director Luanne Poh stated, “ultimately it’s not about the arts per se, it’s not about the show I watched, it’s about the feeling I got … and that comes from the relationship, so I think that is the most important” (Chap. 6). Similarly, the arts group Brocolily acknowledges that their work is “quite educational,” but “at the same time, we don’t want it to be just purely … educational. We want it to be fun [emphasis in original] and interactive and at the same time … it stays with them” (Chap. 6). Enjoyment, immersion in the arts and aesthetics, and learning are not mutually exclusive for young children and it is important that the entire TAG team are aware of the role and the capacity of the arts in early childhood to support the concept of learning in, through and across the arts, as the researchers suggest. To understand the complex, dynamic and interactive practice that artists working with children wrestle with, multi-dimensional conceptual frameworks are required

11 The Artground: Where We Let Art Do, What Art Does

233

(Andersen, 2020; Falk & Dierking, 2013; Griffin et al., 2005; Brown & Jeanneret, 2017; Pringle, 2006). For TAG to continue to shape and strengthen its practice, the organisation requires working theories that provide consistent and shared values, language and standards for practice (Foutz & Emmons, 2017; Pekarik, 2010). The outcomes of this research support the organisation to do so; to reflect on and consolidate understandings of the arts practices TAG wants to promote and the place it wants to be, underpinned by the shared beliefs and values that we have attempted to capture in Fig. 11.1. With such rich evidence of the success of TAG to date, now is the time to consider more deeply defining what arts experiences are and how they can be facilitated in the different spaces; to state, for example, what differentiates the visual arts space from a playground and aspires to make it an arts experience? What is the role of aesthetics across the whole organisation? As the researchers state, clearly “articulated objectives and intentions of the arts programmes would” be helpful to “the artists when they consider the pedagogical approaches and strategies to include in the delivery of the arts experience” (Chap. 9). This potential next phase of TAG will build a bank of knowledge to inform principles of practice for artists and organisations in Singapore and internationally.

PHILOSOPHY

PLACE

PRACTICE

aesthetics and art are core to experiences

dedicated & unique a focal point for children’s arts in Singapore

engaging planned & responsive age & interest appropriate authentic up close & interactive multisensory aesthetically stimulating open-ended playful invites different investments by children enables adult participation recognises inclusivity and diversity child-centred

children, families & artists are cultural citizens with fluid creative capacities artists, staff and children & families share making and experiencing art creative practices & experiences evolve play is important to children & to creativity learning is dialogic, personalised & relational for all families are motivated & invested in play & creative learning artists are co-developers of new ideas & approaches artist practice is developed through curiosity, experimentation & play there is investment in delivering engaging programs that are both enjoyable & creatively challenging artists are enabled and empowered to work with diverse audiences ongoing reflection & evaluation is embedded throughout the organisation

a ‘home’ creates a sense of belonging for artists, children & families fosters a community of arts practice physical flexible practical customized aesthetic transformative temporal time for development of ideas & iterations unhurried varied ambient welcoming accessible stimulating & creative with a shared sense of purpose

creative explorative challenging fosters curiosity, play, experimenting balances risk, safety with trust testing & refinement collaborative co-creation & co-play consultative: feedback sought from artists, children & families

Fig. 11.1 Dimensions of The Artground (Copyright 2020 by authors)

234

N. Jeanneret et al.

References Andersen, J. (2020). Understanding the artistry of actors who create theatre with and for children. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13569783.2020.1779586. Blasi, M., Hurwitz, S. C., & Hurwitz, S. C. (2002). For parents particularly: To be successful—Let them play! Childhood Education, 79(2), 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.105 22779. Brown, R., & Jeanneret, N. (2017). Research, practice, and policy connections: The ArtPlay case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.120 1027. Brown, R., Jeanneret, N., & Andersen, J. (2019). Are we on the same page? Family and museum staff perceptions of engagement and learning. Visitor Studies, 22(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10645578.2019.1668235. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Capricorn Books. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Foutz, S., & Emmons, C. T. (2017). Application and adaptation of an institutional learning framework. Journal of Museum Education, 42(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2017. 1306663. Griffin, J. M., Kelly, L., Savage, G., & Hatherly, J. (2005). Museums actively researching visitors’ experiences and learning (MARVEL): A methodological study. Open Museum Journal, 7(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6061. Hyson, M. (2008). Enthusiastic and engaged learners: Approaches to learning in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jeanneret, N., & Brown, R. (2013). Behind ArtPlay’s bright orange door. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education. http://education.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/art play/behind_the_bright_orange_door. Kilvington, J., & Wood, A. (2010). Reflective playwork: For all who work with children. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. McCarthy, K. F., & Jinnett, K. J. (2001). A new framework for building participation in the arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monogr aph_reports/2005/MR1323.pdf. McInnes, K., & Elpidoforou, M.-E. (2018). Investigating and learning from toddler play in a children’s museum. Early Child Development and Care, 188(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03004430.2016.1223073. Munley, M. E. (2012). Early learning in museums: A review of the literature. Report prepared for Smithsonian Institution’s Early Learning Collaborative Network and Smithsonian Early Enrichment Center. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://www.si.edu/Content/SEEC/docs/mem%20l iterature%20review%20early%20learning%20in%20museums%20final%204%2012%202012. pdf. Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2016). Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A review of literature and development of a multifaceted model. Visitor Studies, 19(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10645578.2016.1144023. Pekarik, A. J. (2010). From knowing to not knowing: moving beyond “outcomes”. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(1), 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2009.00011.x. Piscitelli, B., Everett, M., & Weier, K. (2003). Enhancing young children’s museum experiences: A manual for museum staff . Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Applied Studies in Early Childhood. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31023.33443. Pringle, E. (2006). Learning in the gallery: Context, process, outcome. London, UK: Engage. Shaffer, S. E. (2015). Engaging young children in museums. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Chapter 12

To Let Art Do, What Art Does Luanne Poh and Jane Choy

Writing a vision statement should have been a relatively easy task when it came to envisioning how the arts scene for young audiences would look like and the kind of impact The Artground (TAG) would have on it. However, it turned out to be the most daunting task we could possibly imagine, with two very different beings coming together as a team. This was the start of many conversations on what ‘letting art do what art does’ means to an artist, a child, a parent, an educator, a team member or even someone who has yet to think that arts-going is or should be a part of life, and how TAG would deliberately create opportunities for experiences that spark curiosity. Born out of a reflection of this deep intention, the vision “to let art do, what art does” (The Artground, n.d.-a) has done a lot for TAG and acted as a force of change. This lofty purpose kept our team members focused during the stressful times they go through, knowing that we are all heading towards a particular direction together, even though it does not necessarily fit into what a typical corporate vision statement may sound like. Sometimes, when team members are running from pillar to post managing the day-to-day operations, especially on hectic weekends, we get asked or reminded of why we started TAG. Each time we reflect on its beginning days, we reaffirm how far we have gone and how much we ‘retained’ from our early days. It is no longer about whether we can achieve this vision and not everything has happened the way we had imagined it to, but this vision has started changing the way artists view arts spaces and experiences for young children, shaped how educators look at arts encounters for children and perhaps kept parents wondering about the differences between arts-going versus attending an arts enrichment class. What has mattered most of all is the meaning our stakeholders have found in this statement, To cite: Poh, L., & Choy, J. (2020). To let art do, what art does. In C.-H. Lum & J. Wong (Eds), The Artground ecology: Engaging children in arts and play experiences (pp. 235–241). Singapore: Springer. L. Poh (B) · J. Choy The Artground, The Ground Co Limited, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-H. Lum and J. Wong (eds.), The Artground Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0582-6_12

235

236

L. Poh and J. Choy

which has encapsulated all the core ideals of TAG and taken us to where we are today—a journey that has in fact just begun, but has been well-captured in the earlier chapters of this book.

In the Beginning Jane and Luanne have known each other for a long time and had always mused about starting an inclusive place that would benefit both the arts community and the preschool community. One was enthusiastic about bridging early educators and the arts, while the other was eager to find a permanent platform where children and artists could find joy in working together. For an early childhood trained professional and an arts producer for young audiences, it seemed like the perfect plan to combine our skills and passion. We knew we wanted to create an environment where children’s natural abilities were foregrounded, and where they would be exposed to experiences that were interesting and developed their characters, values and empathy as much as their cognitive abilities. We also knew that we wanted to create an environment that was diverse and inclusive, which could hopefully plug the gaps we were aware of in each of our sectors. In 2016, when the Open Call from the National Arts Council, Singapore (NAC) was announced, both Jane and Luanne were at some kind of crossroads in their personal and professional lives, and so they decided that starting the first children’s arts centre in Singapore could be a really interesting endeavour to extend their professional interests and to impact the communities that they were deeply passionate about. Without the pressure of having to provide children with an ‘education’, this children’s arts centre allowed us the freedom to explore more artistic and exploratory behaviours. It also allowed us to plug what Luanne felt was a gap in the Arts for Young Audiences (A4YA) sector, and what Jane saw as the perfect opportunity to develop shared experiences and a shared language between pre-school educators and artists. While there have been presentations for young audiences in Singapore’s arts scene for a while now, there was not a diverse presentation of genres and styles. Most were presented on a proscenium style stage with young audiences sitting on cinema style chairs a fair distance away. In order to engage children in such settings, it predicates a certain style of storytelling that perpetuates children’s theatre on proscenium stages, not just in Singapore but as a general practice worldwide. While there are advantages to this form of theatre, what is troubling is that this is, primarily, the only form of theatrical presentation available to young audiences. Like food, which provides all the necessary nutrients to a growing child, we believe that children should have access to a palette of different cuisines to develop their taste palate for trying out different dishes in the future. Our belief is that it will not only deter a child from being picky about food, but also encourage the child to experiment and be curious about different cuisines from different cultures, instead of seeking out the same staple diet. Using the same food analogy, it is also important to consider what is age-appropriate food to introduce to the child, instead of having a one-size-fits-all mentality.

12 To Let Art Do, What Art Does

237

This school of thought goes beyond education and arts engagement. It also sets the foundation with regards to the kind of organisation that we wanted to cultivate. The sense of curiosity and adventure in trying out new territories are important qualities that we sought in our potential partners in the early days.

Important Collaborations Nova Nelson from Cultivate Central. When we were called back by the NAC for an interview after being shortlisted, we did not have a lot of time to prepare our proposal for the “Children Panel” that was set up to evaluate the ideas from parties who had expressed interest in the Open Call (NAC, 2016). On top of that, we were given only 15 min to deliver the pitch, which did not sound like a lot of time we had to convince the panel that we deserved this 3-year project and a S$400,000 start-up grant. We dug deep into the sort of experience that we wanted the children to have at TAG and we wanted it to go beyond the arts. We wanted to share why it was important, and possibly transformative, and more importantly, that if we are curious enough, we can learn an amazing amount of information from the environment around us. As such, we approached Nova Nelson, permaculture designer and founder of Cultivate Central (http://www.cultivatecentral.com) to join us in the pitch. Within 15 min, we got the interest of the Children Panel—with worms that they were initially squeamish about, but also curious to touch, to pat and to understand how something so seemingly small and insignificant as the worm could have such an impact on our environment by helping our food to grow. We explored briefly what a worm would say if it could speak and had teeth, how it would move in the rain or underground, and what we would share with our friends and families after the session. Worms love Coffee!1 is now a staple programme held in our Good Garden on weekends and we continue to ignite these little sparks of curiosity in our young children—and often, their accompanying adults. Lekker Architects. We were very lucky to have found the team at Lekker Architects (http://www.lekker.sg) to manifest our vision for the space. We shared that we wanted a blank canvas and an empty white box (now known as the WhiteBox)—for artists to develop and present any kind of work, and for young children to enjoy an ever-changing myriad of experiences. We also wanted the space to be accessible and have the ‘raw vibe’ of a workshop studio which suggests the sort of raw, experimental, novel ideas that would take place and have room to germinate and grow at TAG. Lekker Architects was excellent in delivering this brief and this was really instrumental in our ability to work within a space that allowed us to achieve our goals. For us, this also concretised our suspicion that a physical space can say so much by being so ‘sparse’. Looking back, the experience of working with Lekker 1A

gardening-inspired art workshop for 2- to 3-year-olds, by Cultivate Central. Children interact with and learn about the diet, movement and role of worms in the environment, before creating wax resist paintings inspired by the worms’ movement, with the use of recycled coffee grounds.

238

L. Poh and J. Choy

Architects also laid the foundation of our understanding of designing a space that can invoke imagination and possibilities, without necessarily utilising a built-up structure. Director Ong Ker-Shing of Lekker Architects shared, You do not need four walls to make a room. If we design a door which opened up to a spill of colours on the floor, you can place a stool in front of the door and seat a storyteller, and the children will naturally sit within the non-structured boundaries in front of the storyteller and that becomes a space for stories.

These partners who helped us design our programmes and build our spaces in our early days helped us develop the next tier of our understanding for what was to become TAG, as we know it.

July 7, 2017: The Opening of The Artground We opened to much fanfare, relative to the openings of new visual arts spaces that we had after that. There was much excitement and anticipation as to how we were going to live up to expectations. The plus point was that there was no predecessor to compare us to. The minus point was exactly that as well. While we had a work plan to implement, we could not tell for sure how it would resonate with artists and audiences. Would parents come to a ‘playground built around the theme of the arts’ and was that a sustainable idea that would lose its novelty after a while? In the event that they did come and enjoyed it, how would we sustain ourselves financially? Where and how would we find artists to continually fill our weekend programming slots to expose children to different art forms? Previously, parents had been used to buying tickets in advance and pre-planning for visits to arts venues, or alternatively, dropping into free programmes. Does this concept of ‘dropping in for a paid event’2 work? There were so many uncertainties and we had nothing to compare these practices to or base our assumptions on. But if there was one thing the team knew, it was the importance of great collaborations and a positive arts experience for the whole family, not just the children. We took time to welcome artists, educators and families into our ‘home’ and invited them to the programmes like a good host would invite their guests to try a new homemade dish. If they were not up to it, we took that in our stride, asked what their preferred palate was and tried to pair it with another potential experience that was more likely to be deemed positive. We understand that it is more important to experience something that they will find palatable, than to coerce them into an unsuitable experience and put them off.

2 TAG’s

weekend programmes take place in their WhiteBox or Good Garden at hourly intervals, on a drop-in basis. 10 min before each programme begins, TAG team makes announcements about what the programme is and the age group that it is suitable for, and families who are interested can sign up for the programmes on the spot. These programmes are typically priced at S$10 per parent-child pair.

12 To Let Art Do, What Art Does

239

We also understood that not all parents, at that time, would find us ‘suitable’. During our opening month in July, 2017, a parent came up to Luanne after 5 min of exploring the visual arts space. Parent (P) Luanne (L) P L P L P L P L P

Erm, excuse me, you work here? Yes, I do, welcome to The Artground. My name is Luanne, how can I help you? This place is for children? Yes, it is. We just opened. [Cutting Luanne off] So where are the toys? Is this it? Oh. Yes, we do not have any toys here per se. So, what is my child supposed to do here? Well, they can explore the space, discover the … But there are no toys? Then they play with what? We designed the space based on how children are intrinsically curious to explore and would find what is interesting that appeals to them. Oh okay okay. [Turns to child] Okay, you go, erm play lah [sic]

After 10 min, the family left, mumbling that the place was too boring. TAG team discussed it at length and we understood where the parent was coming from. They were looking for designed play sets which had perfunctory play elements like a kitchen set or toy cars, and we know that TAG was not built to serve that. We took it in our stride that we would exist alongside many other fun spaces for children, and what we needed to do was to be clear where we stood in that realm and what objectives we serve. Team discussions and feedback from the visitors triggered many questions in the initial days, as TAG tried to find its identity not as another indoor playground but as an open arts platform for its various stakeholders. How were we to continue attracting families with children to engage in the arts, without them feeling compelled that they had to restrict their children in certain ways to ‘fit’ into traditional views of what artsgoing looks like for children? How would we present TAG and who we are without the word ‘play’, which often gives a misimpression that TAG is a playground? In line with the findings highlighted in Chap. 3, the truth of the matter is that we did function like a playground and we do want to continue serving as one—a playground where artists can toy with ideas without restrictions, a playground where children can explore the arts while being themselves, a playground where teachers feel at ease to have an exchange of ideas with artists and to bring replicable, innovative ideas back to their classrooms, and a playground where parents learn to play with ideas of creativity in collaboration with their children and the artists. This is why age-appropriateness as well as effective artist engagement are key in our programming and our communications with the artists we work with. When we first started, we did not want to be didactic and force pedagogy upon our artists because we felt that at TAG—as opposed to an arts-focused pre-school or specialised arts enrichment centre—arts engagement is primary and ‘learning’ is secondary and incidental. However, it is important to note that we do expect the learning to take

240

L. Poh and J. Choy

place, and that it should and would happen incidentally as opposed to accidentally. This ties back to our vision of allowing the arts to just ‘do its thing’ because it is enough. While we always mention that the intention is to move towards a harmonious marriage of pedagogy with artistic practices and content development, it was not something we strongly enforced in the beginning. As with families who come into the space with various degrees of cultural capacities, we felt the same for our artists. They are at different stages of their journey in this A4YA sector and it is important that TAG serves as a bridge to facilitate their transition and journey. Some might identify themselves as an arts teacher, some as teaching artists, some an A4YA artist, some as a hybrid along the spectrum of all three. Each, like a proscenium stage performance, has its role and place, and none is more important than the others as long as we allow for the spectrum to exist. In Chap. 9, there were comparisons made to children’s art centres in other parts of the world and while our intention is to learn from them, the long-term plan in mind is to ensure that TAG is culturally relevant and sustainable in the local context. In our engagement with artists, we often share incidentally what and how young children at different developmental stages in their lives might perceive as stimulating, and encourage artists to use that knowledge in their creative engagement with the children. This could be as simple as in Baby Space,3 where performers need to be within the range of sight of a 6- to 9-month-old baby, or apply the ‘Theory of Mind’ appropriately in devising theatrical presentations for 3- to 5-year-olds to create surprises and anticipation in the narrative. When we presented Baby Space as our opening event, we wanted to emphasise that when we say we are a children’s arts centre for children from birth to 12 years old,4 we really mean from birth. In Singapore then, there were no theatrical presentations for babies and we wanted to challenge our local artists to consider this group as audiences to develop content for as well. In the beginning, we had many parents asking us, “Do I have to buy a ticket for my baby as well?” and “What would my baby learn from watching the show?” These questions presented us with the opportunity to share about the marriage between pedagogy and artistic practices. We shared about how babies learn from their environment, and instead of spotlighting on a task or event like adult learners, we observe how babies respond to stimuli and notice how they are able to reciprocate in their own ways while forming important relationships with the people and things around them. In the same way, Baby Space presented an aesthetic representation of the world and provided intimate bonding moments between the babies and their parents, who could both be at ease during the arts experience. We also invited artists into the performance of Baby Space to draw inspiration and eventually grew a pool of local artists who would later develop more baby theatre works. In the last 3 years, baby theatre emerged not just at TAG, but at the Esplanade (http://www.esplanade.com)—Singapore’s national performing arts 3 Baby

Space by Swedish choreographer Dalija Acin Thelander is a 35-minute “multi-sensory installation designed for pre-walking babies … where contemporary dance, music and visual arts meld together to form an immersive encounter with the arts” (The Artground, n.d.-b). 4 We have since revised our recommended age group from birth to 9 years old from April 2020.

12 To Let Art Do, What Art Does

241

centre, and other festivals in Singapore that presented international works. This is testimony to the way we work with artists and audiences in tandem to allow creative processes to take root, before fertilising it with pedagogy. In our last edition of Baby Space in January, 2020, we noticed that there were significantly fewer parents asking us what and how their babies would learn from the show, and more active participation from both mother and father—parents purchased tickets for three members in the family, instead of just two—in the shared experience with their child. The diverse audiences whom we cater to in this small outfit, from babies to children with diverse needs, have empowered us to look at inclusivity within A4YA in new ways. Be it keeping a clear path of 1.5 m for wheelchair users who access our visual arts space or allowing tube feeding to happen during a performance, these are simple accommodations we are often happy to make on our end so that every child, regardless of which community they are from, can enjoy the arts in the way that is most comfortable and accessible as it can and should be. In collaboration with artists, parents and educators, we learn that every child has needs—just different types of needs for each child.

Beyond 2020 Currently, it is hard to say what the future could look like with the COVID-19 outbreak. However, we continue to be encouraged and heartened with the #HomewithTAG digital engagement initiatives (http://www.theartground.com.sg/homewi thtag/) that have taken root and shown us new ways of reaching out to our stakeholders. Artist development will continue to be an important part of what we do at TAG and our hope is that like with Baby Space and its audiences, we will not have to justify why it is important and why we need to pay or invest in our local artists or arts programmes for young children, as we continue to refine our working model or framework. The important insights gleaned from this book will also enable us to continually review and reflect on the arts experiences that were born out of a blank canvas in an underutilised school hall and the partnerships that made these possible.

References The Artground. (n.d.-a). About us. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from http://theartground.com.sg/abo utus/. National Arts Council. (2016, March 3). Open call: Children’s arts centre at the Goodman Arts Centre multi-purpose hall [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:2d9 228b6-6d3f-4efe-abed-6454a55d6ade.