trail 2006 evaluation - creative business solutions€¦ · questions expressed as a quantity (e.g....
TRANSCRIPT
TRAIL 2006 Evaluation
Undertaken by
Jeremy Holloway
Acknowledgements
TRAIL gratefully acknowledges the support of the following
organisations in the implementation of the TRAIL project:
DEVELOPMENTS
T R A I L h a s r e c e i v e d a n i n v e s t m e n t f r o m A r t s & B u s i n e s s
t o f u r t h e r d e v e l o p t h e i r c r e a t i v e p a r t n e r s h i p s
TRAIL would also like to thank Mark Wells and the staff of the
Leisure and Tourism department for their help in the collating and
dissemination of information as contained within this evaluation.
Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Terms of Reference
Methology/Procedures
Introduction/background
Findings/analysis
Conclusions
Recommendations
References/Bibliography
Appendices
Executive Summary
The TRAIL project is now in its second year, and as such has instigated a survey of
visitor’s views of the 2 major components of the project, namely;
• The sculpture trail as seen in Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren
• Exhibitions of recycled art in two exhibition spaces at the Ice factory and the
Teignmouth Tomorrow building.
The survey has been analysed in the following evaluation, together with anecdotal
evidence which has been collected from;
• Artist’s interactions with visitors to the exhibits
• Comments from visitors books placed in the 2 exhibition spaces mentioned above
• Relevant notes extracted from reports of both the 2005 and 2006 projects
• Informal discussions with the Project Manager
As well as clarifying the views of both visitors and artists exhibiting, this evaluation also
provides a benchmark for future projects.
The biggest barrier to fulfilling the primary aim and subsequent objectives of the TRAIL
project is adequate funding, and it is this fact that most strongly influences both the actual
activities that have been evaluated within this report, and those activities that have been
considered, but not been able to be bought to fruition. The conclusions within this
evaluation therefore take this fact onto consideration.
Although the TRAIL project has only been in existence for a period of 2 years, it has
established itself as both a popular and sustainable project, and it is with a view to the
project’s future direction and its subsequent sustainability that this evaluation has been
instigated.
Terms of reference
The purpose of this report is to provide a benchmark for future sculpture trails and
exhibitions, and has been instigated and published for the primary use of
• The project team
• The project’s funders
• The artists involved in the project
• The TRAIL committee
• Teignbridge District Council
• Teignbridge Regeneration Committee
As this is now the second TRAIL project, it has been decided to take account of
progress so far, and map out a future trajectory for the project. The survey on which
this report is based is therefore one of the means by which the project managers and
the TRAIL committee can formulate planning for the future.
There is, however, other anecdotal and written evidence available which has been
included within this report in order to offer a more realistic and complete evaluation.
This evidence is listed within the methodology/procedures section of this report.
It has also been decided to include within this evaluation the report from last year.
This will allow the project to;
• Compare and contrast the effects of funding and/or any inadequacies
• Consider any differences in visitor perceptions
• Detect any trends that become apparent
Methology/procedures
There have been several methods for evaluating the views/demographics of the public
visiting and viewing the sculptures/artworks during the summer of 2006, both on the
beaches at Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren, and in the two exhibition spaces at
the Ice factory and the Teignmouth Tomorrow building. The primary method has been by
public survey; the complete results of this survey form appendices II, III and IV of this
report. The “TRAIL questionnaire 2006” as offered to the public/audience forms
Appendix I of this report. As the majority of the sculptures were in Teignmouth, and both
the exhibition spaces were in Teignmouth, it follows that most of the questionnaires were
completed in Teignmouth.
A secondary method of evaluating public opinion has been to extract comments from the
visitors books located at the two exhibition spaces (referred to above). Artists taking part
in the TRAIL project were encouraged to interact with visitors, such that the subject of
the questionnaires could be approached and the public therefore asked to engage in the
survey. Copies of the comments contained within the visitors books are contained in
appendix V
Although not directly affecting or representing the views of the public, there are also
included within this report press cuttings which mention the TRAIL project. These form
appendix VI of this report.
In order to ascertain both commitment to the project and to consider the long term
sustainability of the project, we have included within this report artists’ views of the
project. These artist evaluations form appendix VII of this report.
In order to take account of progress so far, and map out a future trajectory for the project,
it is necessary to evaluate the success or otherwise of the project so far, and in order to do
this it is necessary to compare and contrast the stated aims and objectives contained
within the original TRAIL constitution.
It is therefore necessary to publish the original constitution in order to establish whether;
1. The constitution needs amending or updating
2. The project is still being conducted as originally planned
3. The project is fulfilling it’s original purpose
4. The public perception of the project is in line with the project manager’s
perception
The TRAIL constitution is therefore reprinted here;
CONSTITUTION for T.R.A.I.L. as at 23rdApril 2005 (AGM)
1. NAME of Organisation is T.R.A.I.L. (Recycled Art In Landscape)
2. The AREA of benefit is: Teignbridge District with special reference to
Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren.
3. Groups to benefit: People of all ages but focusing on 7-18 year olds and family groups.
4. AIMS:
4.1 To promote better understanding of the environment through art
education to all age groups.
4.2 To work with other community groups in Teignbridge providing artist
led workshops with special reference to activities during school holidays.
4.3 To involve families in art projects and encourage the passing on of skills.
4.4 To provide art initiatives for artists, students, community groups and
schools possibly leading to training opportunities and new ventures.
4.5 To help promote the region as an area of excellence for the Arts.
4.6 To be a non profit making Organisation
www.trail.org.uk contact [email protected] tel. 01626 873818
The first step in providing good evaluation data - is balancing the information you
would really like against what you need/can practically use and what is feasible.
Information has a cost and, generally, the more accurate the information the higher the
cost. Most research whether amateur or professional involves some trade-off between
accuracy and cost.
The most important part of research is deciding the appropriate methodology for the data
you require – different methodologies produce different types of data. Any survey must
define the problem, ask the right questions and choose the correct method to get a useful
answer. It is imperative to know WHY you want the information and WHAT you’re
going to do with it before deciding HOW to get it.
Primary research is time-consuming and costly. You shouldn’t do it unless:
• You have a clear idea of what issues or questions you are addressing
• You are confident that the method you are using is unbiased and experimentally
sound
• The data gathering tools you are using are both reliable and valid
• The data you collect will be sufficient to draw conclusions and make
recommendations
Surveys are often the most cost-effective form of monitoring available to arts
organisations but it is imperative to decide WHAT you want to know in order to
determine WHO to survey and WHAT to ask. It is possible to include attitudinal
questions expressed as a quantity (e.g. satisfaction levels) but it is vital to check and re-
check questions so that respondents and surveyors understand them to mean the same
thing.
There are key rules when designing a questionnaire:
1. Keep it short
If your survey is long you have poorly defined survey goals. If you don’t know or
care what you will do with the result of a question – remove it!
2. Design your questionnaire to match your survey method
You can easily include branching and linked questions with CAI/CATI surveys
3. Keep it simple
Don’t mix topics, respondents lose interest or are confused.
4. Don’t combine questions
Never ask what respondents think of a + b at the same time as the response will be
confused
5. Avoid jargon, technical details and abbreviations
Why should respondents know what they mean?
6. Don’t present biased questions
How happy are you with this fantastic, top of the range kettle? Do you always
feel safe walking down your dark street at night? Do you think the council is
doing everything possible for the education system in your town?
7. Check grammar, spelling and design
You will look unprofessional, uncaring and untrustworthy if your copy is littered
with errors
8. Always have a middle response option
Don’t Know or Not Applicable gives respondents real control
9. Provide sample questions with completed details
You might think it’s obvious but many people are easily confused by any type of
form
10. Be specific
Woolly questions get woolly answers
11. Always leave space for comments
You have invited people’s opinions and must give them the opportunity to give
them
12. Be neat, tidy and well-spaced
The design should make it easy for respondents to give their opinions
13. Check the order of questions is logical
Frustration and confusion result from non-sequential questions
14. Always start with an explanation of who you are, why you are asking and what
you will do with the data. Remove suspicions and barriers
15. Ask if respondents would be willing to take part in follow-up research
Questions can be of three types:
• Multiple choice (i.e. closed)
• Open-ended
• Hybrid (multiple choice with option to put own answer)
Attitude choices are usually of three types:
• Likert scale – strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly
disagree
• Semantic differential – Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad
• Rank – place list in order of preference/priority
The above notes on the collection, dissemination and presentation of a survey can be used
in any future analysis of visitor’s views, and will be discussed within the
recommendations section of this evaluation.
Introduction/background
Extract from the TRAIL 2005 report:
“TRAIL is……..Teignbridge Recycled Art In landscape, and it implemented a programme
of exhibitions and workshops in Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren from 30th
July to 4th September 2005. This event was a new initiative to put sculpture into public
spaces and involve the community in visual arts to enhance the region for visitors and
residents, highlight the need to recycle and look after the environment, create
opportunities for employment, share resources and further the aims of local
organisations. Our target group was very broad, involving all generations, with an
emphasis on family groups and young people, encouraging the exchange and sharing of
skills.
T.R.A.I.L. artists had been looking for a sculpture site in a recycling centre for a ‘Scrap
Art Challenge’. The opportunity did not present itself and finally the idea was dropped.
Doff Pollard, Arts Development Officer for Teignbridge Council stepped in and
suggested that land belonging to TDC could be a possible venue. Early in 2005 Lorraine
Montgomery, Parks Department, confirmed that T.R.A.I.L. could use T.D.C. flowerbeds
as sculpture sites. This decision was a catalyst for the programme of events organised by
T.R.A.I.L.
The sculpture trail provoked a great deal of discussion within the local community and
amongst visitors. The general impression was that people enjoyed looking at the
sculpture, found it opened up opportunities to discuss the artwork and recycling with
fellow viewers and artists and added a surprise element to their walks”.
The total number of sculptures available to view on the beaches of Teignmouth, Dawlish
and Dawlish Warren in 2006 was 25, and they were positioned accordingly;
• Teignmouth: 19
• Dawlish: 4
• Dawlish Warren: 2
Because of problems concerning the apparent safety elements of some of the sculptures at
Dawlish Warren, and the subsequent involvement of the Teignbridge Health and Safety
Department, this area received only 2 sculptures, the tin can man, and the knitting
sculpture from 2005. One of those not allowed to be erected by the environmental agency
was a major piece of site specific sculpture. Unfortunately another piece of sculpture
destined for Dawlish didn’t arrive.
Whilst Teignbridge is regarded as a prime tourist area, the socio-economic grouping that
visitors to the region would tend to be attributed to would be CD/3-4. This will be
reflected in the question concerning visits to other art galleries. The fact that the sculpture
is in a place where it would not normally be expected to be, and seen by members of the
public that would not expect to see it, or indeed want to see it, should be taken into
account.
By way of note, we have included, in the back of this report, a few images from a similar
project in Sydney, Australia, called “Sculpture by the Sea”. It is interesting to compare
and contrast the effects of private funding and sponsorship on the exhibits in Australia as
apposed to here in the UK. (Appendix VIII)
Findings/analysis
The TRAIL Survey
The total number of questionnaires completed and useable was 528. A full breakdown of
answers is given in appendices II, III and IV, though an analysis of those answers is as
follows;
• As mentioned earlier in this report, the majority of the questionnaires were
completed in Teignmouth, almost 95%, and of those; just fewer than 10% were
completed in the two gallery spaces. (It must be presumed however, that, for the
purposes of this survey, all respondents viewed the sculptures on the flowerbeds).
• There were almost as many locals (defined for the purposes of this report as
coming from the area of the sculpture trail, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Shaldon and
Bishopsteignton) as visitors from outside the county, with 17% coming from the
rest of Devon.
• The age ranges used for this survey were not sufficiently widespread enough to be
able to draw any specific conclusions, except that 80% of visitors were over 25,
and over 1 in 6 were retired. This, albeit small representation of the visitor age
range, in itself means that opinions concerning “modern” and contemporary art is
likely to be skewed by age and attitude. Mistakes by some data collectors meant
that people answered one survey as a family unit, thereby excluding children as a
specific group.
• It is very pleasing to note that a third of visitors had seen the sculpture trail last
year, and had returned, and although 66% of those were locals, 35% came from
outside the county.
• When people were asked why they were here today, 33% were local, which
differs considerably from the figure above. 40% said they were on holiday. It was
very pleasing however to see that over 8% had come specifically to see the
sculpture trail. Of these, 53% were from outside the local Teignbridge area, with
10% coming from outside the county (including 2 from London).
• The next 2 questions were linked in that the answer to one would probably induce
a similar answer to the other. The figures though are very encouraging for the
project; with 91% saying the sculptures enhanced the area, and a similar figure
saying they wanted the sculpture trail to be an annual event. The comments
derived from the “a” section of question 8 are contained in the aforementioned
appendices II, III and IV.
• With such a large percentage of visitors in favour of the sculpture trail, one would
presume that those same visitors would like to talk to those artists involved in
creating the sculptures, but this isn’t the case, as two thirds of respondents said
they would like to see or talk to an artist which meant that one third did not.
• The question relating to joining in with a community sculpture was again not very
well phrased, and a lot of respondents were confused as to whether that meant
locally or within the Teignbridge sculpture area. A large proportion of
questionnaires had comments relating to the locality of the community sculpture.
For those that answered the question, there was almost an equal number saying
yes and no.
• The question relating to whether the respondent had taken part in an arts activity
was very much in line with the national trend, whereby 75% of adults take part in
an arts event at least once a year. The survey found that 23% never go to an art
exhibition or take part in an arts activity, with the same number going often.
• Again the question concerning the possibility of the respondent working with an
artist to produce a sculpture for 2007 was deemed to be ambiguous. It presumed
the respondent was coming to Teignbridge again next year, or would be visiting if
they were a local, and also that the respondent realised that the question referred
to the sculptures within Teignbridge. Although 87% said no, 13% said yes.
• Nearly 3 out of 4 people left either a comment or a contact number. Again these
are available in appendices II, III and IV.
Findings in relation to constitution
Taking into account the misgivings concerning the age categories within the survey, it
can be seen that the original intent to provide the greatest benefit to: “People of all ages
but focusing on 7-18 year olds and family groups”, is being constrained due to the lack of
necessary funding, with only 10% of visitors being under the age of 19. There was no
funding as such this year for specific projects working with young people and families in
workshops, but TRAIL did manage to mentor 3 organisations, and as a result 3
community pieces were exhibited;
• School exclusion group (Aim Higher),
• Stallcombe Centre for adults with learning difficulties
• ACE Centre for adults with physical disabilities.
The original plan, which was to “promote better understanding of the environment
through art education to all age groups”, is on the face of it, according to the survey, not
being implemented as well as would be wished. This may well be as a result of funding
constrictions, but if the intent is still to promote a better understanding of the
environment through art education, the available funding will need to be utilized
accordingly.
If the intent is in fact to provide sculptures in the flowerbeds within Teignbridge as a
primary motive of the project, then the constitution will need to be amended.
However, if one then takes into account the visitors books, which were available in the
exhibitions at the Ice Factory and the Teignmouth Tomorrow exhibitions, and where the
artists themselves were able to converse, and therefore explain the principles and
rationales behind the exhibits, the responses are considerably different. The visitor books
do seem to reflect that the message was put across reasonably well, which emphasizes the
fact that the sculptures exhibited on their own, with very little explanation, are accepted
as aesthetic sculptures, and not the results of a project such as TRAIL, which has very
definite principles relating to their construction as a result of environmental concerns.
The responses from the public at the two exhibition spaces are contained in appendix V.
The above point can also be attributed to the plan to “involve families in art projects and
encourage the passing on of skills”, whereby there does not seem to be any
acknowledgement within the survey that any involvement with families actually took
place. This was again, however, reflected differently in the comments collected at the two
exhibitions, whereby references were made to children participating. Anecdotal evidence
also suggested that children/families really enjoyed the exhibition, especially on a visual
level.
It must be noted however that the funding allocation in 2006 was such that community
involvement was considerably curtailed. Events which were very much on an ethical and
advocating level, which took place last year, could not take place this year. These events
included;
• Storytelling and making recycled postcards on the beach
• Interactive music and art workshops
• Mosaic workshops
• Clay boat-building
• Extreme knitting
Whether or not the project has enabled the area to fulfill it’s role “to help promote the
region as an area of excellence for the Arts” is not clear from the survey, though the fact
that 91% of visitors thought the sculptures helped to enhance the area must be seen as
partly fulfilling the role.
Analysis of Visitors Comments;
Of all the comments (of which there were approximately 450) contained within the
visitors books, there appear to be only 2 which were adverse, which approximates to a
percentage of 99.5% of people enjoying the exhibition, which when averaged with the
comments from the sculptures’ feedback equated to approximately 95% satisfaction with
the TRAIL project.
Of the 450 comments, 44, or almost 10% mentioned the recycling aspect of the exhibits,
which means that over 90% didn’t! It may well be that most people just didn’t bother, but
a large percentage of visitors commented on the very high aesthetic standard of the
exhibits. Again it would have been more satisfactory if the exhibits were seen to be
related more to the using up of recycled materials, rather than the mere using of them for
exhibits’ sake.
One comment said “I liked the recycled bits”. I think they missed the point.
Another asked why low energy light bulbs weren’t used in the exhibition. Good question!
The two exhibitions were available to view for a period of 23 days, whereas the sculpture
trail was available to view for a period of 37 days, both in the height of the summer
season.
Using multiplying factors as defined by Dawlish Carnival Committee it can be presumed
that 100,000 viewers potentially viewed the sculptures and 3,500 visitors viewed the two
exhibitions. The gallery figure meant that the visitor numbers for the exhibitions
increased 10 fold from the previous (and first) year.
Analysis of Artists’ Feedback Forms;
There were 16 artists feedback forms completed.
In answer to the question “where did you show”,
13 answered: Sculptures
8 answered: Exhibition.
Locals = 13
Devon =2
London =1
All artists were in the 25 – 64 age group
11 artists did not take part last year.
3 artists did take part last year.
Ratings for the application call on average were 4 (good)
The average time (in hours) spent on the project was 68 hours, with;
The longest time being 250 hours
The shortest time being 2 hours
The average time spent on other activities was 56 hours with,
The longest time being 200 hours
The shortest time being 5 hours
The average money spent on the project was £138.75
The largest amount was £500
The smallest amount was £10
The average for the effectiveness of communication was 4.5 out of 5, as was rating for
space allocation and Press and Publicity, though there was one response of 1 for the
latter.
The overall opinion of the event as a whole averages 4 on all but financially, which
barely reached 2 out of 5, although what this figure is based on is unknown.
The actual responses, complete with artists comments, are available in Appendix VII.
Vandalism..
During the 2005 TRAIL project, we had only damage to two items at Dawlish.
This could well be due to the fact that we had artists working in KMCA youth group,
Teignmouth, and Youth-topia in Dawlish for 12 weeks prior to the exhibition. We also
had artists working on the beaches nearly everyday. Most of this damage could easily be
put right...
During the 2006 TRAIL project however, we had the following damage;
• Murtle the willow mermaid, (Becky Shaw), was dropped on the beach three times
and rescued by landscape gardeners and beach staff.
• The Spirit of Skate, (Jane Burt), was continually dismantled as kids wanted the
skateboards. After some interaction between artists and young people they started
supplying replacements (talking to artists really helps)
• Chimes kept disappearing from EO sound sculpture.
• Heads disappeared from Mike Nuth's Plankmen.
• Mermaid remade disappeared on Carnival Day in Dawlish.
• Am Afifi's Sea Henge was used as a climbing frame or hit by a car or boat trailer.
• Blown Away, Deckchair by Petra Turner, was damaged by someone trying to
remove it.
Generally speaking, the closer to the pier the sculpture was, which is where the young
people congregate, unfortunately complete with alcohol and drugs, the more damage
there was to the sculptures.
Conclusions
Although the primary source of information for this evaluation has been a survey which
contains the views of 528 visitors to the TRAIL sculpture trail and 2 exhibitions, there is
also anecdotal evidence contained within this evaluation from other sources which has
been collected to give not just an evaluation of the 2006 project, but also an overview to
take the project forward in future years.
It must be presumed however, that, for the purposes of this survey, all respondents
viewed the sculptures on the flowerbeds, irrespective of where they completed their
questionnaires.
Although almost 95% of the questionnaires were completed in Teignmouth, and of those
just fewer than 10% were completed in the two gallery spaces, it must be remembered
that most (19 out of 25) of the sculptures were in Teignmouth.
No specific conclusions can be gleaned from the age ranges of those viewing the
sculptures, except when analysing the TRAIL constitution, (please see below)
The age ranges used for this survey were not (as previously stated) sufficiently
widespread enough to be able to draw any specific conclusions, except that 80% of
visitors were over 25, and over 1 in 6 were retired.
Mistakes by some data collectors meant that people answered one survey as a family unit,
thereby excluding children as a specific group.
It is very pleasing to note that a third of visitors had seen the sculpture trail last year, and
had returned, and although 66% of those were locals, 35% came from outside the county.
It was very pleasing however to see that over 8% of visitors had come specifically to see
the sculpture trail. Of these, 53% were from outside the local Teignbridge area, with 10%
coming from outside the county (including 2 from London). 91% of visitors said the
sculptures enhanced the area, and a similar figure said they wanted the sculpture trail to
be an annual event.
The largest ambiguity within the evaluation is the project’s relevance to the original
constitution. Taking into account the misgivings concerning the age categories within the
survey, it can be seen that the original intent to provide the greatest benefit to: “People of
all ages but focusing on 7-18 year olds and family groups”, is clearly not being
implemented. It may well be that the project’s plans are being constrained due to the lack
of necessary funding; there was no funding as such this year for specific projects working
with young people and families in workshops, but TRAIL did manage to mentor 3
organisations, and as a result 3 community pieces were exhibited;
• School exclusion group (Aim Higher),
• Stallcombe Centre for adults with learning difficulties
• ACE Centre for adults with physical disabilities.
Also contained within the constitution is an intent to promote better understanding of the
environment through art education to all age groups. This again, according to the survey,
is not being implemented as well as would be wished. This may well again be as a result
of funding constrictions, but if the intent is still to promote a better understanding of the
environment through art education, the available funding will need to be utilized
accordingly. The views of visitors concerning the aesthetics of the exhibitions clearly
indicate that on this level the artworks are engaging and pleasing to the eye, but if the
intent is purely to provide sculptures in the flowerbeds within Teignbridge as a primary
motive of the project, then the constitution will need to be amended. The link between the
exhibits and the ethical/recycling theme must be maintained, or preferably strengthened,
if the project is to fulfil it’s basic aims.
However, if one then takes into account the visitors books, which were available in the
exhibitions at the Ice Factory and the Teignmouth Tomorrow exhibitions, and where the
artists themselves were able to converse, and therefore explain, the principles and
rationales behind the exhibits, the responses were considerably different. The visitor
books do seem to reflect that the message was put across reasonably well, which
emphasizes the fact that the sculptures exhibited on their own, with very little
explanation, are accepted as aesthetic sculptures, and not the results of environmental
concerns.
The above point can also be attributed to the plan to “involve families in art projects and
encourage the passing on of skills”, whereby there does not seem to be any
acknowledgement within the survey that any involvement with families actually took
place.
It has been noted earlier however that the funding allocation in 2006 was such that
community involvement was considerably curtailed. Events which were very much on an
ethical and advocating level, which took place last year, could not take place this year.
These events included;
• Storytelling and making recycled postcards on the beach
• Interactive music and art workshops
• Mosaic workshops
• Clay boat-building
• Extreme knitting
Whether or not the project has enabled the area to fulfill it’s role “to help promote the
region as an area of excellence for the Arts” is not clear from the survey, though the fact
that 91% of visitors thought the sculptures helped to enhance the area must be seen as
partly fulfilling the role.
When the comments in the visitors books contained within the two exhibition spaces are
analysed, it can clearly be seen that the exhibits are not only extremely popular, but of a
very high standard. To achieve a figure of 99.5% of people who enjoyed the exhibition is
praise indeed.
The idea of linking the Teignbridge sculpture trail to a similar one in Sydney, Australia is
both interesting and thought provoking, especially when the methods and amounts of
funding are analysed. Images of a sculpture trail which is not only of an extremely high
standard, but is also based on a very commercial financial footing, will hopefully
instigate both debate and dialogue between the two sculpture sites.
Recommendations
Recommendations, as mentioned below, can be both attributed to comments contained
within the survey, and also anecdotal evidence collected by artists and visitors throughout
the duration of the TRAIL project.
1. In order to include an independent approach to funding, and satisfy the need to
investigate all possible avenues for obtaining funds, it is highly recommended that
efforts are made to try and employ an independent fundraiser. This position could
be included in any future funding proposal.
2. Following on from both the 2005 and 2006 (appendix X) projects, the possibility
of employing an independent project coordinator has arisen, and this is a situation
which will need discussing before the start of the next TRAIL project.
3. It has been noted from various sources that the lack of Council interaction and
engagement from a public perception is a situation that is providing a wasted
opportunity. Whether interaction is provided by leaflets, a road show, or personal
contact, the fact that the TRAIL project is not only present within Teignbridge
during the height of the holiday season, but is also a highly visible project, both
physically and aesthetically, means that the Council has an excellent opportunity
to both publicise their own involvement in recycling, and the advocation of
recycling in general.
4. As TRAIL has such a high profile during the summer months, and, according to
its own survey, a very strong appeal amongst visitors, Teignbridge Council could
be seen to be publicising the event more, especially as the subject of the TRAIL
project is currently in vogue, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
5 Although there were restrictions placed on the work that the 2006 TRAIL project
was able to implement due to lack of funding, there is clearly a difference in the
amount of vandalism dependent upon whether the local youths were actively
engaged in the construction and showing of the sculptures.
6 It was pointed out that a way should be found in which artists could be re-
imbursed for breakages, as at present there is no policy in place for damage
occurring to sculptures. One way to accommodate this would be to arrange a
contingency fund as a percentage of the total funding received.
7 It was also pointed out that closer communication with the police to encourage
them to pay a few visits to the sculpture areas late at night, might help the
situation.
Appendices
1. Survey questionnaire
2. Survey result by numbers
3. Survey result by percentages
4. Survey results by illustration
5. Comments from visitors books from exhibitions
6. Press cuttings
7. Artists’ survey results
8. Images from “Sculpture by the Sea”, Sydney,
9. TRAIL report 2005
10. TRAIL report 2006