I think it’s always the case with events like this that it’s the quality of the conversation and the quality of the questions being asked that makes them a success. This seems to have been the case, certainly if the feedback from participants after the event is anything to go by. In addition, as the Workshop itself was about to close and as we were about to leave the venue, nobody seemed to want to leave. Two of the discussion groups in the final session did not wish to stop, so the discussion continued well beyond the allotted time. Again a clear indication of how well things went.
Key questions are along the following lines and constitute a further refinement in the Dwell-Time; concept and are as follows and were presented in the introductions:
• What are the site specific qualities of this new medium?
• In what ways are public screens transforming the experience of urban space?
• Are new forms of public event, ritual and forms of civic engagement being created as a consequence of their use in
prominent city centre location (especially within the framework of APS)?
There were many participants from many different contexts and professional backgrounds. But the introductions at the beginning of the day and the two keynote presentations were intended to get participants up to speed as quickly as possible. John Foxx presented some of the research that had gone into his installation Cathedral Oceans. But also, he presented some very interesting and challenging issues relating to the design of urban spaces and the concept of having sustainable environments in city centres. John also shared some of his insights and vision associated with the future design of urban spaces. Ava Fatah gave an overview of her current work Encounters in the Digital City.
This was followed by a panel discussion with Mike Gibbons (Live Sites UK), Chris Nriapia (BBC), Geraldine (BBC), David Wilson (Bradford Council). Each was asked to highlight an issue that they were grappling with. Mike kicked the session off by describing the current state of the network of screens in the UK. He gave brief details of what was involved in installing the screens, some of the contextual issues and the various partners involved and the costs of setting them up. He also described some the issues relating both the build up to the Olympics and the legacy that is intended from the implementation of the screens and the types of public event that they are intended for. A key issue here is exactly what is going to happenin terms of the continued support for the screens once the Olympics have finished.
(Interestingly, Mike corrected me when I referred to the screens network and the BBC Big Screen Network – leaving me still thinking what are we going to call this network?)
Chris gave a brief presentation of issue relating to how to get community groups and, in particular, underrepresented groups involved with the screens and developing events not usually associated with the medium.
(There are already two key issues coming out here in relation the site specific qualities of the screens: 1) the their management, which always involves a range of partners, including the BBC, Locog, and a local authority – this management structure will always be different wherever you go, and 2) developing uses for the screens for community groups, which again, will be dependant on the locality.)
Dave Wilson gave a brief outline of Bradford Council’s involvement and the use that they are putting to the screens and how this ties in with what Chris is doing. Geraldine highlighted the fact that it is only through generating novel uses and getting a wide variety of partners involved before people really “get it”, so to speak.
The discussion that followed was very lively and a good debate ensued.
Key issues:
Lack of research – though I would argue against this.
Access – to those who do not normally get involved with media or with large public events.
What happens when you turn the screens off!
When these screens are in such prominent locations to many they occur as intrusive – not everyone likes them.
Some of these arguments have been debated elsewhere by CADE.
The issues raised here were then taken into the discussion groups after lunch. Whilst there was no plenary – because the discussions went on over time. A wide range of issues were debated by all participants.