Introduction

When it comes to evaluating socially engaged projects amongst artists, collaborators in communities, and the institutions which support them, we quickly get tangled up in the politics of cultural measurement. Can forms of socially engaged art be evaluated by standards of artistic autonomy alone or should these forms of co-creation be held accountable to other external standards? This chapter examines the proposition put forward by Thomas Hirschhorn’s drawing, Spectrum of Evaluation (2008), in which he debates the ‘judgement of the non-exclusive audience’ against the ‘evaluation’ of curators, gallerists, art professors, and other arts industry specialists. This ‘non-exclusive audience’ is made up of communities, the public, and partners from across other sectors such as youth, health, justice or urban planning. The challenge for evaluation in co-creative practices is how to negotiate these competing frameworks of value.

How can the process of evaluation function more effectively? Instead of simply reporting to funders, can it assist us in bettering practice? In what ways can evaluation become a productive exchange of ‘value’ and ‘values’ between collaborators? What methods might help us pay better attention to forms of negative value and the potential for harm? How might these processes become integrated in practice and strengthen both social and artistic outcomes? In this chapter, I first explore the politics of measurement in socially engaged arts and the possibilities of participatory value creation through the proposal of a new approach to integrated and dialogic forms of evaluation. Then, I discuss my approach to evaluation through research partnership through the examples of two unique large scale dance projects in Australia. These very different projects primarily engage older people in co-creation but also have much broader audiences and significance socially, aesthetically and politically.