Scene:
Oregon State University Extension Forestry Faculty planning retreat,
1999.
Colleague
1: (Incredulous tone of voice.) You
want to do an ART SHOW?
Team
Member: Yes, an educational art show.
Colleague
1: An ART SHOW?
Team
Member: Yes, really, an art show.
Colleague
2: What do foresters
know about art?
Team
Member: Not much.
Colleague
1: So why would
foresters want to do an art show?
Team
Member: Glad you asked.
Since
this scene unfolded four years ago, we have come up with an
ever-increasing number of good answers to that question:
Because
Oregon State University Extension Foresters communicate effectively
with our traditional audiences—industrial and family forestlands
owners—but we don’t connect as well with members of the general
public.
Because
debate over forestry issues is more confrontational than
conversational.
Because
our increasingly urbanized general public is becoming more and more
involved in natural resource policy decisions.
Because
for years we’ve been telling the public what we want them to know
about forestry. For a
change, how about listening to what the public is telling us?
We need to know what Oregonians value and want from their
forests.
Because
art is immediate, evokes emotions, and can transcend cultures and
values. It elicits
reactions that conventional Extension education methods simply cannot.
It can be a catalyst for conversation, sparking discussion
while buffering personal attacks.
Because
we’ve never done anything like this before.
Since the
first discussions among our team in 1999 we’ve offered annual
exhibitions titled “Seeing the Forest: Art about Forests &
Forestry.” Over 150,000
people have viewed the show in twelve communities.
We’ve shown 115 art images—valued at over $62,000—created
by 53 Northwest artists. We’ve
received several national and regional awards.
And most important, we’ve engaged the public in dialog about
forests and forestry issues.
In this
article, we’d like to acquaint you with some of the methods we used,
describe how we evaluated the show’s effectiveness, highlight our
results, and share some things we learned along the way.
Core Concepts
“Seeing
the Forest” is innovative, but it is fundamentally an educational
program and we took a systematic approach in developing it. First, we identified our target audiences as the general
public with little awareness of forestry issues.
Second, to effectively engage the public in dialog, we had to
put the art “in the public’s way.”
To accomplish this goal our show travels to different
communities around Oregon, and is displayed in public places such as
libraries and government buildings.
The content
plan is the educational foundation of the exhibit.
It serves as the template for each show, and the planning team
selects art that conveys specific resource values or management
practices. For the first
two years, we took a “broad brush” approach.
We included portrayals of wildlife habitat, aesthetic beauty,
harvest methods, jobs, forest health, recreational use, water
resources, fire, conflict resolution and urban encroachment.
For our
third show in 2002, “Seeing the Forest” was subtitled
“Supporting the American Dream” and we focused on a specific
theme: How Oregonians, by our actions as consumers, are linked to and
have an impact on forests and forest practices.
To investigate this theme, we highlighted three issues:
1.
the level of demand for forest products,
2.
that environmental problems may be “exported” to other
regions when meeting this demand,
3.
the dilemma faced if switching to substitutes for wood
products, all of which also have significant environmental impacts.
Besides
including art to illustrate a topical content plan, we made an effort
to include different ecological and geographical representations.
Through our Call for Submissions to all art guilds and
newspapers in Oregon and through our juried selection process, we
sought a variety of artistic media for each show, including
photography, watercolor, ceramic sculptures, oils, Native
American-style carvings, fiber arts (quilts and paper) and furniture.
We’ve even included folk art such as painted saws and painted
rocks. Don’t laugh too
hard—that painted rock was priced at $2,800!
Another
core concept for our art show is the evaluation component.
We include a brief questionnaire in the brochure that’s
readily available to viewers. Viewers
are asked to respond anonymously and place the completed
questionnaires in a box. While
such a sampling is self-selected, the wide range of responses we
receive suggests that the self-selection bias is minimal.
Creating
and using multiple lines of communication with viewers of the art show
has been an intriguing challenge.
How many ways could we provide for dialog?
The art itself is the first line of communication.
Each artist provides visual messages.
In addition, most artists write explanatory statements that
accompany their artwork. Our
brochure is another way for us to communicate our intentions.
We also include educational text panels interspersed throughout
the show.
Equally
important, we give viewers multiple ways to communicate with us.
Besides the questionnaire for formal feedback, viewers can
share their thoughts informally with other viewers by posting their
written comments on strategically located corkboards.
And in addition to these asynchronous opportunities for dialog,
public receptions bring the artists, the public, and our Extension foresters
into confluence for real conversation.
Viewers Respond
While more
than 150,000 people have viewed the shows, approximately 2% offered
informal comments, and 1% completed the formal questionnaire (see
Table 1, page 28). These
respondents have provided valuable information about their “Seeing
the Forest” experience. Using
data from the 2000 show, here are selected statistics from the formal
viewer responses to the questionnaire:
- 86
% thought “Seeing the Forest” successfully illustrated the
diversity of forest issues in Oregon.
- 77
% agreed or strongly agreed that viewing “Seeing the Forest”
increased their understanding of the complexity of forest issues.
- 70
% or more correctly identified specific content elements in the show.
In 2000,
the questionnaire also contained two open-ended questions:
- Which
art image did you like best? Why?
- Which
art image did you find the most intriguing or thought-provoking?
Why?
Sixty-five
percent of the viewers who completed the questionnaire responded to
these last questions. Interestingly,
of the 53 art pieces in that particular show, all but three were
specifically mentioned at least once.
That seems to tell us that the show was varied enough to appeal
to a wide audience; there was something for everyone.
A large
oil painting by Stev Ominski, titled “Predator,” prompted the most
comments from viewers and it was at the top of most viewers’
“best-liked image” list. It
was also at the top of the “most thought-provoking image” list.
However, we dubbed it “the painting people loved to hate,”
because of the vehemence of the informal comments we received.
Analyses
of viewers’ responses indicates that we have been successful in
achieving our goals of reaching new audiences, increasing awareness of
the complexity of forest issues, providing a conducive environment for
dialog and challenging existing perspectives, and gaining insight into
what the general public values and believes about forests and forestry
(for a more detailed analysis and discussion, see Withrow-Robinson et
al., 2002, “Seeing the Forest: Art About Forests & Forestry,”
Journal of Forestry 100 (Dec. 2002): 8-14.)
Informal conversations with the artists, volunteers, local
hosts, and steering committee members for each show attest to the
value of the project.
Lessons Learned
First, we
learned that people care deeply about their forests. Viewers gave their strongly opinionated feedback to us on how
they felt about forests and forestry issues.
Second, we were taken aback by the polarity of viewer
statements. One viewer
would write “Predator is fabulous!” while another would state “I
HATE Predator!” Sometimes,
we received comments we didn’t want to hear.
Some viewers called the show “too biased toward primal
nature” while others claimed, “This show is all about logging.
Why don’t you show some real forests?”
Several
times, viewer comments would catch us off guard: “Fish are not
forestry! What are salmon images doing in a show about trees?” And, “I don’t get why you have a book and a three-legged
table in an exhibit about forestry.”
Some comments were funny: “Hooray for trees!
Three cheers for oxygen.”
Others were ironic: “I noticed that the ‘anti-logging
art’ pieces are all mounted in wood frames . . . hmmm.”
We learned
that a thoughtful dialog could take place asynchronously.
One series of corkboard comments depicts this well:
- I
don’t like the trees being cut down.
Trees give us air.
- Where
do you think the wood for your house came from?
- I
think people are too harsh. Our
forests are really valuable, and it’s important that we do care.
They are a renewable resource but it takes a long time to grow
one tree. It’s
important that we don’t get careless.
- Yes,
renewable—but only when used wisely.
Past practices should be learned from, not repeated.
It [the forest] was here thousands of years before us, and
should be here for thousands more!
- Logging
is necessary, we need the wood to build, but we also need to let the
old growth alone!
- Anti-logging
propaganda does no one a service other than spreading falsehoods and
an unrealistic reality.
- I’ve
read all the comments here and I don’t see any anti-logging comments
except the first one. People are just saying, “Be careful, use it well.”
Organizing
an art show has been a real education for us, too! We’ve learned what a juried show is. We now know what gouache, sugar lift, dry point, and silver
gelatin printing are—well, sort of.
We can speak quite appreciatively about perspective, color
juxtaposition and composition. And
most important, we’ve developed great admiration for that wondrous
ability artists have to capture images of feelings, place and time.
All the
shows have featured high quality artwork and we learned that artists
know their craft as well as we know ours.
We also learned the obvious lesson that artists are part of the
“general public.” Most
are urbanites and (with some exceptions) have no working connection
to, and little firsthand knowledge of, forestry.
Their awareness and impressions of forests and forestry issues
often reflect commonly held public beliefs, sometimes limiting our
ability to include depictions of certain issues.
We learned
the pitfalls unique to an art show.
Temporarily “losing” the $2,800 painted rock underscored
the need for risk management assessment—and for careful packing. A 60-lb carrying crate taught us to institute a weight limit.
“What do you mean we can’t hang anything on the walls?”
reinforced our commitment to clear communication and having a local
host to help organize the details.
And
we’ve learned the disappointing lesson that many of our colleagues
are at best ambivalent to this project—and to engaging the public in
dialog. While we
acknowledge that the creators of “Seeing the Forest” could
be described as unconventional, we have been dismayed by the minimal
interest exhibited by our more mainstream forestry colleagues.
Obviously, we need to engage in dialog with ourselves, too.
Conclusion
It’s encouraging to see
you’ve found a way to defuse some otherwise hot issues and allow
most people to step back and appreciate a variety of perspective.
—comment from a 1999
viewer
Our
experiences with “Seeing the Forest” have taught us that reaching
out to new audiences requires taking new educational approaches. The art show has moved our Forestry Extension program forward
and become a mechanism for us to engage individuals and communities in
dialog about natural resource issues.
Ultimately, the impact of this initiative may assist in
development of forestry policies grounded more in understanding and
appreciation of important issues, rather than emotional and
unprocessed reactions. As
natural resource professionals, we need to be prepared to listen and
learn as well as talk and teach, and approach such projects with an
open mind and a creative spirit.
Scene:
Oregon State University Extension Forestry Faculty planning retreat,
2002.
Colleague
1: You want to do a PLAY?
Team
Member: Yes, a live, professionally produced and performed play.
Colleague
1: A PLAY?
Team
Member: Yes, really, a play.
Colleague
1: What do foresters know about plays?
Team
Member: Not much.
Colleague
1: Why would foresters want to do a play?
Team
Member: Glad you asked. . . .
The current “Seeing the Forest” steering committee
includes: Trisha Wymore, OSU Master Woodland Manager coordinator; Joe
Holmberg, OSU Forestry Outreach; Scott Reed, Viviane Simon-Brown and
Brad Withrow-Robinson. The
2002 show ended in February 2003.
For the next annual show, the steering committee is considering
adding a youth component, and exploring the idea of creating a virtual
show to increase public dialogue.
Viviane Simon-Brown, an Associate Professor in Oregon State
University Forestry Extension, trains community members in capacity
building, and directs the Sustainable Living Project at OSU. She previously worked in public process, environmental
education, and college administration.
Contact her at viviane.simon-brown@oregonstate.edu.
Brad Withrow-Robinson, Ph.D., is the OSU Extension Forester for
Polk, Marion and Yamhill Counties.
He has worked overseas and enjoys the challenge of working with
communities with diverse viewpoints.
Contact him at brad.withrow-robinson@oregonstate.edu.
Molly
Engle, Ph.D., is Evaluation and Grants Specialist for OSU Extension
Service and Associate Professor of Public Health.
She has planned, designed, implemented, and reported
community-based educational interventions for over 20 years, and has
served as president of the American Evaluation Association.
Contact her at molly.engle@oregonstate.edu.
Scott
Reed, P.h.D, is Extension Forestry program leader and Associate Dean,
OSU College of Forestry. He
is the incoming president of ANREP, the Association of Natural
Resource Extension Professionals. Contact him at scott.reed@oregonstate.edu.
Shorna Broussard, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University.
Dr. Broussard’s current research program focuses on
understanding human attitudes, motivations, and behavior related to
natural resource conservation and management.
Contact her at srb@fnr.purdue.edu.