Report Questionnaire:

In order to solicit response to the needs of the artistic community, feedback was sought to the structural issues surrounding a meeting of artist/holographers throughout the congress and very specifically during the concluding session on Sunday July 27, 1990. In conjunction with this input and as an integral part of the experimental meeting a questionnaire was distributed to representatives approximately two months after the conclusion of the congress proper. Unfortunately, the results of this feedback are too extensive to provide in their entirity and it has been necessary to condense the responses to the form of a summary including a few specifically relevant quotations.

The questions designed for the questionnaire were derived from the many issues discussed during the congress itself allowing us to incorporate these responses into the format of the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained nine questions which are presented here preceding the summary of responses.

1. How did you feel about the length of time of the congress ? (if you believe the Congress should be longer or shorter please provide some brief reasons).

The large majority of representatives expressed satisfaction with the overall duration of the gathering, some commenting that more time would simply exhaust the energy of all involved. A minority felt that more time was needed and another minority felt that the gathering was too long and could be shortened. Many representatives commented that the programming during the final two days needed more structure and that rather than open discussion, panels or small group discussions might have been more beneficial.

"Just right", "Wednesday through Saturday is perfect", "The congress was a good length -- any shorter and we wouldn't have had enough time. Any longer and we would have come out fried", "On the whole the duration was o.k., however, if we had been able to address some of the topics such as archival storage, then an extra day would have helped", "people seemed to agree that a full four day schedule wouldn't have been too taxing and it would have allowed more time for individual presentations."

2. Was the participation of Artist/Holographers sufficient. Do you have suggestions for other means by which the artists could present ideas and information?

Responses to this question were nearly evenly split between those who did and didn't feel participation was sufficient. Many representatives felt that if individual artists presentations are continued, that they should permit more time (suggested revisions ranged from 15 to 30 minutes time provided to each speaker). Some representatives suggested that information for and by artists could be augmented by written statements and biographies distrinbuted by each artist, thus reserving pres
entation time for crucial information requiring digression or discussion of their ideas. Some respondents felt that artists might want to break down into special interest groups or that a few selected artists might give longer presentations. A great number of representatives suggested an open video forum for reviewing tapes and presenting the works of artists who are unable to attend the gathering.

"Questions and answers! Each artist needs time to answer questions", "I know it was a planning necessity, but 10-minute talks are a bit short -- even 15 minutes would help", "The artist's sessions could be extended to include 5-10 questions per speaker", "The participation of artist/holographers was great. The presentations were short but it was fascinating to see the development of people's work. Possibly artist's presentations could be grouped into areas of similar content or approach (not media) in the morning with afternoon sessions discussing relevant issues in the afernoon throughout the week", "If you can't say it in 10 minutes then it is too pretentious", "Artists should be asked to bring at least a one sheet biography or at best their promotion folder so that other artists can read about them and thir work. An artist's statement to go with the slides would also be helpful."


3. Were there important topic(s) which you feel should have been addressed but were not? If so, How would you think this topic should be approached (lecture, panel discussion, demonstration, workshop etc.) ? Please list in priority from most to least important.

Many new topics were suggested by the representatives and this should be seen as an important indicator of the continued need for a collective gathering of artist/holographers. The entire range of these topics would be difficult to address in one meeting, but the list certainly provides an extensive agenda for future gatherings. The following list should be comprehensive and is followed by a list of formats suggested for treating these subjects.

Archival processing, storage, packing, computer generated holograms, holography and other visual technologies, university level holography courses, holography in education, holography and architecture, large-scale cooperative work, artist residency projects networking for artists, business dimensions of art (Funding - grants, etc., survival techniques, contracts, insurance, copyrights and legal issues, pricing, gallery placement), documentaion of artists work, aestethics of holography, art and technology, hstory of art holography, special techniques, new materials, artists math and chemistry, association of artists, exhibition critiques.Respondents to the questionnaire suggested the following means as approaches to presenting these topics at a future gathering. Panels and panel discusions, demonstrations, workshops and group/small group discussion.


4. Would you be able to assist in publicizing and organizing a future congress ?

The greater proportion of representatives indicated that they would be able to assist in organization of a future meeting. Among the areas in which they offered support were the following.

Publicizing, promoting, exhibition selection, organize a session, host or monitor a session,help with coordination and organizing.


5. How might the exhibition held in conjunction with such a congress be improved ?

During the open discussions of the congress as well as in informal conversation at meals etc., many representatives expressed concern with the existing format of the congress exhibition, the manner of presentation of work, etc. For this reason, this question presupposed dissatisfaction with some aspect of the exhibition. The suggestions contributed were broad in range.

A. A larger exhibition space perhaps allowing for installations. Spread the exhibition to several galleries or public exhibition spaces in the community. Allow for installations where necessary and provide space adequate to preserve the integrity of the artists work.

B. Travel the exhibition at the conclusion of the congress.

C. The exhibition could be curated with a chosen theme or aesthetic direction defined in advance.

D. Provide a more visible location.

E. Broadly publicize the exhibition (place ads in major art magazines, etc., seek reviews by critics)

F. Put artist's statements up to accompany work.

G. Don't do the exhibition at all!


6. Do you have suggestions for dealing with the multi-lingual nature of our meeting and a cost-effective means for making the content available in the necessary languages?

This problem was immediately apparent to the representatives to the congress yet no simple and comprehensive solutions are currently forthcoming. Among the suggestions which were offered were the following. Because of its direct and economical solution to at least a portion of the language problem, item D. below appears to offer some significant advantages and opportunities and was suggested by a number of respondents.

A. Invite bi-lngual family members or volunteer translators.

B. Simultaneous translations through computer.

C. Attempt to hire bi-lingual students to assist with translation duties.

D. Pre-presentation translation. Material for talks and lectures would be submitted in advance and translated into languages requested by the representatives.


7. Do you have suggestions for ways to identify and encourage younger/new artists to become involved in a meeting such as this.

A number of practical suggestions were submitted in reponse to this query.

A. Ask each artist or regional organizations to encourage younger artists to participate.

B. Contact institutions with holography programs and seek out student involvement.

C. Publicize in major art magazines

D. Keep it affordable so that younger artists can attend. Perhpas there could be a special fund to assist a small number of upcoming artists to participate or they could be given reduced charges in exchange for organizational assistance.

E. Involve them in planning of the event.

8. Do you have any suggestions for alternate presentation modes of our quest critics and curators. Should they present lectures as at this congress, or interact with the artists in other manners?

The respondents were largely supportive of the format of the first congress but made suggestions for advancing any future sessions which covered a broad range of topics.

A. Shorter papers followed by discussion groups. Encourage speakers to be involved for one or two days and to interact with artists outside their presentation time.

B. Individual artists critiques by artists or quest critics and gallery walk throughs for the same purpose. Ask critics could discuss work which they feel is strong.

C. Have more critics and curators participating and allow their involvement to be more interactive.

D. Special presentations by curators of holographic exhibitions.


E. Have primary speakers share ideas in panel discussions - get these speakers to interact and share their viewpoints with the artists.

F. Keep presentations shorter, don't overemphasize curators/critics role.

G. More multi-cultural selection of curators/critics (i.e. not all white/male).


9. Do you have any further ideas to contribute to the dialogue and which you would like to have considered when preparations begin for a next congress ?

This question assumes that there will be another meeting of artist/holographers at some time in the future and responses to it suggest that the representatives may see merit in such a gathering. Because of its open-ended structure the reponses to this questions were wide reaching.


A. Continue the secluded character of the event - set off from a busy, competing environment (others counter-suggested that it should be in a higher-profile environment).

B. More involvement of the Museum of Holography in New York - "what are they doing for the community and informing the public"

C. Don't incorporate art and education topics together " . . . the topic of teaching and holography seems vast suggesting either another conference on its own or participation in the larger arts education conferences." in contrast "In additon, I would like to suggest: inform art community and art educators and the art community at-large about the purpose of the congress and future scheduling.

D. Maintain an open atmosphere, not just for holographers but for any interested parties - "we need to involve more of the museums, sellers", "open admission, cheap rates", "I would not limit speakers to critics and curators"

E. Do some longer presentations by selected artists - "by vote during the congress, five artists are selected to make longer presentations", "I think it would be wonderful for the artists to have a little more time presenting their work", "all artists attending should give a fifteen minute presentation".

F. Distribute topics of presentations, panels and other discussions in advance so that interested persons could study the topic. Selected readings or quotations could serve as a focus for some discussions.

G. Provide better access to media equipment and create a room for information incorporating videos, c.v.'s, slide shows and the like.





Credits | Speakers | Artist's talks | Music talk | Exhibition | Responses | Schedule | Budget | Art-in Holo | Home