1

Evaluation Report

2

Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................3Locus Evaluation .....................................................................................................................................5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................19Appendix 1: ArtRefuge background ...............................................................................................20Credits ....................................................................................................................................................25

3

1.2 How Locus came aboutArtRefuge wanted to build on the success of Significant Objects and Identity (see appendix 1: ArtRefuge Background) and delivered a pilot project consisting of a series of six taster sessions that ran weekly and included print making, film making, ceramics, felt making, each run by a professional artist in 2007. The purpose of the pilot was to gauge people’s interest and to investigate the way forward for the next project. The pilot showed that it was important to find the right person to run the sessions and that there was interest and people did want to take part in art based sessions.

It took approximately two years to secure funding for the next ArtRefuge project, this was due to two reasons; firstly because the Arts Council England wanted ArtRefuge to appoint an artist first and then apply for the funding and secondly the first application to Arts Council England was rejected and ArtRefuge then sought permission to reapply.

A brief to recruit an artist was drawn up; the brief was deliberately left quite open and focussed on wanting an artist with the skills and experience to work with asylum seekers on a year-long project. The interview process threw up some interesting options about who could work with the group.

Ania Bas stood out as an artist who worked with contemporary art as a collaborative process. She had a good track record and portfolio and as a Polish national talked about her experiences of coming to this country. Although different from those of an asylum seeker ArtRefuge thought this empathy would be of benefit. Initially the plan was to appoint only one artist but through the interview process another option presented itself. ArtRefuge also interviewed Les Monaghan, a photographer with an interest in asylum seekers and refugees and a real passion for the area of work but with not much experience. ArtRefuge considered appointing Les as a subsidiary artist to Ania in order for him to learn and gain experience from the process and also document the project. Les and Ania were approached and were excited by the opportunity and agreed. (By chance Ania and Les had met during the interviews and had got on well with each other and been out to lunch together the same day).

Due to the long delay between the appointment of the artists and the re-submission of the Arts Council England Grants for the Arts funding being secured, the artists had over a year before the start of project. This delay enabled them to build their relationship further.

1. Introduction

4

The funding already secured from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Portsmouth City Council and Arts Council England was supplemented by in-kind contributions from members of ArtRefuge’s steering group, this was primarily from Guinness Hermitage and Pallant House Gallery.

1.2 What is Locus?Locus is an idea that Ania put forward based around the concept of place and location and where you are now and what it means to be in this place.

Locus worked alongside ASAP (Asylum Seekers Activity Project), the sessions ran on a weekly basis and were drop-in. They were very informal with no pressure to take part in the activities and no expectation for them to become artists. The aim of the sessions was to be friendly and welcoming, a place to have a cup of tea, a biscuit and a chat, and take part if you want to.

Locus also had a presence at All Saints Church another drop-in service run by the Red Cross and Haslar Visitors Group for refugee and asylum seekers. The drop-in at All Saints is very different to ASAP, more formal and Ania and Les adapted to this and instead of running sessions they engaged with people on a 1-2-1 basis. They attended All Saint’s less frequently than Friendship House.

1.3 Locus OutputsLocus had a number of outputs:

• 3 exhibitions: at the 3rd Floor Arts Centre at Portsmouth Library, Pallant House Gallery, Chichester & the Friendship Centre

• A publication with contributions from Ania Bas and Les Monaghan, and outside contributors• 3 short films (shown on the Big Screen in Portsmouth town square, on the blog and a DVD as

part of the publication)• Blog – a document of the project• Documentary photography by Les Monaghan• Work by participants during the course of the project.

5

2. Locus evaluation

2.1 MethodologyA combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques was used to capture evidence about the project including data collection, 1-2-1 interviews and observation. Data was captured about the sessions, the exhibitions and their private views, and also collected from participants, visitors and stakeholders. The outputs from the project, the blog, the exhibitions, the work produced by participants, the film, the photographs and the publication also provide valuable evidence and have been used to supplement the evaluation.

Quantitative data was captured about the participants in collaboration with the artists. A simple data collection form was produced and information about the participants entered by the artists at the end of each session. Due to the circumstances of many of the participants and the informal drop-in nature of the sessions it was felt that this indirect method of capture was the most sensitive way to collect the information. The information collected included name, age, nationality, status and if they had attended any of the previous projects. It also enabled tracking of participants showing number and frequency of attendance.

Qualitative data was collected by 1-2-1 interviews with the steering group, the artists and participants, comments collected at the private views and at the exhibitions through comments cards, observation of the sessions and from the supporting material.

2.2 Findings: quantitativeThe data collected is incomplete and only provides an indication of the number of people attending the sessions, their country of origin, age and status. It relied on the artists’ relationship with the participants and their knowledge of their circumstances. The forms did allow data about individuals to be built up over a number of weeks as the artists developed relationships with participants. However, for those who attended less or had little or no contact with the artists, less is recorded.

As Les (artist) commented:‘Due to the drop-in nature of the project and of participant expectation- that it is time away from other issues - they don’t necessarily disclose information about their status.’

6

2.2.1 AttendanceFrom observation of the attendees of the sessions the artists felt that a greater number of males attended the sessions compared to females. They thought that this was due to cultural differences and role of males in those cultures. However, the data shows that the spilt is more even and in fact is slightly weighted in favour of female attendance.

2.2.2 AgeIt was decided, again due to the sensitive situation of the participants and the accompanying issues collecting information about them that age-range would be noted rather than specific ages. There is a high number of unknown responses as many did not attended more than once, or infrequently. The Under 15’s were almost exclusively females with young children below school age, or school age children that attended with their families after the end of school.

7

2.2.3 NationalityAgain, there is a large number of unknowns due to the reasons already explored under attendance and age. The UK participants are participants from Portsmouth who had heard about the sessions through word-of-mouth and dropped in to the sessions. There are also participants from the EU as well as refugees and asylum seekers.

2.2.4 StatusThe status of individuals is another sensitive area and data was built up over the course of the project and also with input from Sally Jones (ASAP coordinator) and ASAP volunteers. One of the project’s participants’ status changed during the course of the project as they were granted indefinite leave to remain. They are recorded under their original status.

8

2.2.5 Frequency of visitThe frequency of visits for a majority of the participants was between 1 and 10 visits over the 34 sessions. A small number of participants were more frequent attendees with 6 attending between 15 and 21 times.

2.2.6 NumbersThe recorded number of participants was 399 with attendance recorded over 34 sessions. The average number of participants was 12.

2.3 Qualitative2.3.1 The artistsThe opportunity to appoint Ania Bas as lead artist and Les Monaghan in a supporting role with responsibility for documenting the project has been successful. Several respondents and the artists themselves commented that they not only got on well together but also complemented each other. The dynamic of a male/ female combination worked well and enabled the artists to engage with participants of both sexes, it was noted that cultural differences did mean that female participants were not always at ease with a male artist but as a female artist was also present this was balanced out. They could also support each other as needed during the course of the sessions and also during the course of the project.

The train journey between London and Portsmouth provided an invaluable time for the artists to build their relationship with each other and also to discuss how the sessions went and how the project was progressing. The artists had also kept in touch over the year between the interview and the start of the project, developing and deepening their relationship over this period. Although the delay in starting the project was frustrating for all, the additional time was useful and many felt that it was actually beneficial.

9

It was commented that the fact that Ania Bas was a ‘foreigner’ was helpful as she could relate to some of the issues of finding yourself in unfamiliar circumstances and situations. Although obviously not the same experience as for the refugees and asylum seekers it was felt that it did help to build relationships as there was a degree of understanding and empathy.

The artists were skilled in building up relationships and the confidence of the participants, from observations and comments it is evident that they created a welcoming environment where participants were able to build relationships and friendships and also comfortable to share experiences of their life and situations. The involvement of participants in the development and production of the asylum seeker game is a good indication of the levels of trust that built up during the course of the year.

It was also felt that it was an advantage that Ania and Les did not come from Portsmouth and did not have a link to the city. It gave them a distance that was seen to be useful during the course of the project as it removed them from the issues participants may be having with Portsmouth.

The artists also developed a close working relationship with Sally Jones and the ASAP volunteers.

2.3.2 The sessionsThe artists based themselves at a large round table, and although not all the activity took place at the table it became a base and a symbol of the inclusiveness of the project. A number of people commented on the way the round table worked within the project, not only could people drop-in and out of the activities but it could easily accommodate more people if needed. A participant commented: ‘You can join in if you want- not forced to join in’

The approach Ania and Les took was complimented ‘[it] appears to be casual but isn’t, so welcoming, so inclusive, assumption that everyone automatically included, for the nature of the client group the right way to go about it.’ (Stakeholder)

It was quickly apparent that the creative sessions would need to be activity based and the word ‘art’ removed, this made it easier to engage participants. However, from a small number there was a reluctance to join in as the activities were seen as ‘childish’ and ‘for children’, but as the project progressed this attitude did lessen and those most vocally opposed to the workshops did participate in a few of the activities. Even if people did not participate they would often come and talk to those that were.

The artists both expressed a slight disappointment that no-one became inspired by the activities and interested in art more widely. Participants were more interested in the activity as it was something to do, a way to meet people and to chat. As a participant commented: ‘Good to relieve stress, if you spend all day inside not a life, but if you have something to do, have friends it makes you feel free.’

There was an element of when they had done an activity then that was it, they did not want to take it further or do it again. ‘Nobody has taken anything further to the next step- done what asked but not gone any further.’ (artist)

There was a concern for the artists that they ‘Thought [they] may be pushed into running workshops with outcomes, however got the freedom not to do a workshop and be able to respond to the participants.’ This enabled the participants to ‘Learn from each other’ and for it to be ‘not an educational set-up but a collaboration. Education is not the main aim, so it feels like an art project not an education project.’ (artist)

10

2.3.3 The participantsThe participants viewed the Locus project positively (as noted in section 2.5.4 (see below) for many it was an opportunity to socialise, chat and have fun in an informal setting and a chance to have time away from concerns and issues. A majority of the participants were more interested in the social aspect of the sessions rather than the art, the art was seen as a means to facilitate talking. Only one of the participants interviewed expressed an interest in the art process, they were interested as it was an interest shared with a child who was studying art.

The exhibitions, private views, the screening of the films and the sessions themselves were seen to be a means of promoting a positive image of refugees and asylum seekers. Although participants were often nervous about taking part they felt it was important to do so, not only for people to understand more about them but also to help them stay in the UK.

2.3.4 Session structureThe flexible, informal structure of the sessions seemed to be suited to the participants and fitted in well with the informal nature of ASAP. The ‘Approach [was] very productive, everyone joins in, participates, no coercion, just join in – project going ahead almost without the participants realising it. It always seems good fun’ (stakeholder)‘The way Ania and Les run it – everyone can join in as you don’t need to have a skill.’ (volunteer).

The numbers at the sessions averaged about 10-12 per week, some weeks, such as the session at Christmas numbers reached about 20. There were few regular participants, with a number of participants only attending one or two sessions. The fluid number of participants often meant that the artists only got a few moments to work with people and often as they did not attend again only got the opportunity to do so once. Again the structure of the session facilitated and enabled these small engagements to be built on if people did attend again and if not it enabled them to engage on a small-scale and produce a piece of work. This structure also allowed participants to drop in and out of the

11

sessions, talk to people who were taking part and also for participants to help each other out. The overall structure of the sessions starting small with the tiny post-it notes was very unthreatening and a good place to start with the participants. It was noted that this way of working ‘brought some new people to the group who otherwise would not have attended.’ (stakeholder)

The activities drew out from the participants comments about their life, their thoughts and feelings. For example, the mobile phones were seen as fantastic as they were not only an item that everybody had and could relate to but the messages were ‘incredibly poignant as well as funny’ and ‘people really engaged with drawing meticulous copies of their phones and writing the messages.’The artists trialled taking participants out of the Friendship Centre, however they decided after doing this on a couple of occasions not to carry on as participants did not seem keen to leave. This could be due to the fact that they do a lot of walking and view the time at the Friendship Centre as a chance to sit and relax. As Les commented ‘we come after tea and cake in terms of what is important to them!’, both Les and Ania understood the need to respect the participant’s needs and also fit in with their routines and expectations.

2.3.5 Working with ASAPThe Locus project activity sessions are separate from ASAP but they fitted well and complimented it. As noted it is ‘separate from ASAP as Ania and Les can’t help with the form filling but they can help with the socialising side of the afternoon. Nice for people to be able to come and go, drop-in and out.’ (volunteer)And another observer commented that it seemed to be ‘part of the drop-in rather than in addition to. Two worked well together- don’t have to stop one to do the other’ (stakeholder)

It was noted that Locus ‘Added a lot of value to the Friday drop-in and will be missed by the participants.’ (stakeholder) and that it is ‘good for ASAP as it gives it an extra dynamic, even for those not involved it is good that something else is going on for people to engage in if they want to.’ (stakeholder) The artists also felt that ‘Locus works well alongside ASAP.’ but ‘there is a distinction between the two as they come to the table to ‘take part’ in the arts activity.

2.4 The outputs2.4.1 ExhibitionsThe work from the sessions was exhibited at three venues during the project. At the 3rd Floor Arts Centre in Portsmouth Library at the mid-point of the project and two exhibitions at the end of the project, one at Pallant House Gallery, Chichester followed by another at Friendship House. Private views were held for each of the exhibitions and comments were collected at all private views and during the Pallant House Gallery exhibition.

The mid-point exhibition at the 3rd Floor Arts Centre was seen as a great success by all involved in the project. For the participants it was important to see their work displayed professionally, in a public space and for the work to be valued. The private view was well-attended by over 80 people, and it was noted that many of those who did attend were people not involved in the project. The exhibition provided a positive image of refugees and asylum seekers and brought the project from Friendship House to a wider audience. ‘The exhibition is a good way forward, it is a good way of getting people to know about the project and of the experience of asylum seekers in Portsmouth. The work is really moving if you look at it.’ (stakeholder)

12

The participants, as well as viewing it as a positive representation of refugees and asylum seekers, also enjoyed the social side of the private view and two participants went back to the exhibition while it was on to take friends. The atmosphere created at the private view was warm, welcoming and fun. It was a coincidence that the opening fell on St George’s day and having the private view based around traditional English food was fun and inspired. As one of the participants commented the ‘exhibition was good, everything good, event good and seeing the work up… good to get people to know about refugees. Good for people to go and see exhibition and see the work and get people to know about refugees who don’t know about it. Different place as the session just to support where exhibition others can see it.’ Another participant noted that it was good to have the exhibition at the library as it was a familiar place for asylum seekers as they use it to help them.

The way the work was displayed was largely complimented although there was some disappointment that only a limited amount of the work could be displayed but this needs to put in context of the limitations of the display space. The 3rd Floor Arts Centre is located in a café and provides an awkward display space. The work that was displayed was thought to be professionally hung, with the quality of the work commented on. Interviewees liked the display of the mobile phones with portraits of their creators underneath instead of captions. However, there was a little confusion about what some of the pieces were and who had created them due to the minimal interpretation. These are small points from what was an overwhelmingly positive response to the way the exhibition was displayed, the power of the content and the efficient organisation of the private view. This positive feedback is a consistent theme throughout the comments received about the 3 exhibitions.

The exhibition at Pallant House Gallery consisted of a display of works by participants in the community learning space. At the private view the three films were shown and the Asylum Seeker Game was out for attendees to play. Feedback from the private view and during the course of the exhibition commented on the power and the poignancy of the content of the exhibition, as well as the humour and fun that is also expressed through the work.

13

Of particular note is the change the final exhibition at Friendship House made to the room where the activities took place. The room is a large hall that had a few photographs and some tables and chairs. It is used for a variety of events, activities and purposes throughout the week. It was noted it created at ‘Friendship House a completely different atmosphere and changed the feeling of the room, lost formal feel.’ (artist) The exhibition at Friendship House also encouraged more of the participants to attend compared with Pallant House Gallery and the 3rd Floor Arts Centre.

Exhibiting the work in 3 very different locations maximised the audience enabling not only the participants to view their work but also opening it up to a wider and more varied audience.

2.4.2 FilmsThe films were an ‘unexpected but brilliant outcome’, they were not part of the original project but the flexible and adaptable approach of the steering group and the artists enabled them to be made. Ania Bas brought in Lou Pack, a filmmaker, to work with participants to capture their views. The result was 3 films – ‘Friendship Centre’, ‘Adjusting to the rain’ and ‘Miriam’s solution’ which captured elements of what it is like to be an asylum seeker. Les commented that he was ‘amazed that people did it considering their circumstances’ but as one of the films contributors noted, he thought it might help as it showed a positive image of asylum seekers. They were nervous but felt it was worth it as it was ‘a good thing to do. Good [that] story is up there and might help with staying.’Another of the film’s participants stated: ‘People see it [and] you feel that this country is free and that the refugee is a person. Some people don’t like you if are a refugee when they talk to you. When on the big screen [they see] you are just a person.’

The screening of the films was seen as an important way of bringing a positive image of asylum seekers to the wider population in Portsmouth, a ‘way to engage people out there with their lives.’ They were powerful, with the structure and content showing the voices of asylum seekers and their thoughts, their views as opposed to the negative view that is often portrayed.

14

Creating and showing the films came out of an idea of Refugee TV. Ania Bas had seen the Big Screen in Portsmouth as it is on the route from the train station to Friendship House. Ania was persistent in securing the slot on a Friday for 2 of the films to be shown on a regular basis. The films were shown on the blog, the Big Screen in Portsmouth city centre and are on a DVD as part of the publication, they also formed part of the private view at Pallant House Gallery.

One of the steering group commented that the ‘added benefit of having Ania- the film, the blog were ways of getting information about the project out there. Let people know what we are doing and the issues of being an asylum seeker in Portsmouth and what their experience of being an asylum seeker is.’

2.4.3 PhotographsThe photography element of the project has been successful. The photographs have not only captured the spirit and process of the project but have also been a means of engaging participants. Due to the often ephemeral nature of Ania’s work, including photography as part of the project has enabled capture of the activity as well as the finished work. It is seen as ‘good to have it documented for this and future funding. Particularly due to the nature of the project – collaborative art, record of the project. It is professional and provides evidence about what has been done.’ (stakeholder)

Taking the photographs was not always easy as at first some people were wary of having their photograph taken. This was thought to be due to a number of factors including the fact that some did not have their leave to remain, that it was a male taking the photograph, they wanted to look good etc. During the project people did become more relaxed and by the time the game was being developed photography had become a fun element. Many of the participants were posing for ‘set-up’ shots, suggesting scenarios and taking photos. One of the activity sessions involved learning how to use a camera and how to take photos and this along with the fact that Les was always there with his camera and allowed people to see what shots he had taken, seems to have made people more comfortable.

15

An unexpected aspect of the photographs was that a lot of the participants wanted copies of the pictures of them and asked Les for additional copies. One participant wanted them to take home to show his family who his friends were in Portsmouth and another wanted photos of the people they liked. As a reason for this interest it was suggested that, as well as asylum seekers generally not having many possessions, the photos they do have are digital and although they may have a lot of them they do not have prints of them.

Les did note that although the photographs were good for documenting the projects it was sometimes difficult for him to get the distance he needed between himself and the participants to get the shot he wanted. As he was there he became involved in the activity and with the participants and this was at times a barrier.

There was an issue with the use of a photograph on a flyer. The person whose photograph was used was distressed as they saw it as them being discarded, thrown away or being picked up by males. It was a little unclear as to what the actual issue was but it did cause distress. The issue was cleared up and it was explained why the image was used for a flyer but it would be a consideration for future use of photos.

2.4.4 BlogThe blog was designed to be a record of the progress of the project, a way of visiting the project without coming to it and a way of spreading the word. It can also provide life to the project after it has finished. As well as photographs of the work and activities, the blog hosts the films and advertised upcoming events such as the private views and the exhibitions.

It has also had an added benefit, as one of the ASAP volunteers explains: ‘Good way of explaining what they project is about and what goes on on a Friday afternoon. I linked it to my Facebook page and I use it to explain to friends and family what I actually do on a Friday afternoon.Much better way of explaining it than I could ever do.’

16

2.4.5 PublicationThe publication is another showcase for the project and the work of the participants. The artists were involved in putting together the publication with the designer, and contributions from Marc Steene, Oliver Sumner, a freelance educator and curator, and the project evaluator were also included alongside photographs of the project, a pull-out version of the asylum seeker game and a DVD of the 3 films. The publication was given to all participants and is available to buy. The publication provided another record of the project and has already received good feedback.

The artists also involved project participants in the development of the publication. Dictionary definitions of key words and phrases where shared with participants and some added their own definitions.

2.4.6 The work from the sessionsThe sessions produced a variety of work from small-scale individual work on creating mobile phones, foil moulding on parts of the body to the creation of the asylum seeker game. Some of the activities engaged participants more than other activities ‘[I] enjoyed the game, brilliant, good- other activities not so much. Enjoyed being involved with the photography, being photographed (participant)’, however as another participant noted ‘[I] like everything, not good at what do but it is the joining in and working with other people (participant). ‘It is ‘good to have a chance to talk about the issues about what going on for you- the game helps with this. Playing with other people meet people and make friends.’

2.4.7 ProcessAs part of the project the artists received training on working with refugee and asylum seekers. The training was delivered by Sally Jones and it explained the issues regarding asylum seekers and the no-go areas. Due to the sensitive nature of the group of people the project engaged, it was important to provide the training. This proved useful for the artists both as a refresher and to set the tone of the project as it emphasised the need to build relationships and to create a welcoming and friendly atmosphere.

As the project was working with a vulnerable group of people who had stressful lives and attended irregularly the artists did not expect to be able to engage in collaborative work. The creative sessions started with small scale work that was largely worked on by individuals. The challenge of working with this group was compounded by the language barrier but this seemed to be easily overcome both by the artists and the participants, as one explained ‘[I] liked working with other people and can communicate without talking- can refer to the photos.’

During the course of the project, although there were a large number of participants and not many regular participants, trust and respect was gradually built up. A combination of the welcoming and friendly atmosphere and the artist’s inclusive approach made this possible. The game was the culmination of this process, as Ania explains they ‘finally reached the point that can discuss the position they are in, becoming part of conversation. Found a way of talking about it as an experience that everyone goes through’. And Les: ‘The game captured people’s imagination both participants and volunteers and support staff. Provides a forum to talk about more serious things, but can always go back to being light hearted and fun. Way of talking about things without being deadly serious. People who don’t normally talk about things open up.’

And a participant commented ‘Good thing to – reflects the experience you go through. They say it is a game but it’s life.’

17

2.5 BenefitsAs well as the overall success of the project in engaging people to participate in the sessions and the creation of a relaxed, fun and welcoming atmosphere the project also had a number of other benefits:

2.5.1 Friendship HouseThe current manager of Friendship House stated it: ‘definitely underpins what we do here, we celebrate culture, we celebrate diversity. So great to have a project that supports the ethos of the centre. It’s inclusive. Not only asylum seekers but local residents and centre residents joined in.’

2.5.2 VolunteeringLocus has also provided volunteering opportunities, with 2 students from Chichester University volunteering as part of their degrees.

2.5.3 ArtRefugeLocus has provided continuity from Identity. There are some participants that continue to attend ASAP, or drop back in again after a number of years.

2.5.4 SocialA key outcome of the Locus project was the social impact of the project on participants. Comments from participants, the artists and the steering group all noted this as a key aspect. This social element of the project encouraged people to talk and interact with each other building relationships and friendships in a fun and relaxed manner. For refugees and asylum seekers it is important to have a break from the stress of their situation, to be able to get out of the house and to have some time to have a break from thinking about their issues. Participants commented on the way it has enabled them to make friends and to make friends with people from other countries and cultures. ‘[I] made friends from coming to Friendship House, to meet different people from different countries.’ Another participant stated: It is ‘good to meet friends. I heard about it from another friend who needed a leisure card. First time came

18

with friend, then came by self and then with Saadia – would come back again.’

The project also attracted people from outside the asylum seeker, refugee community to drop in and interact. ‘People do sit together and interact across cultures and language barriers, don’t sit in cliques. Create atmosphere where people want to be involved.’ (artist)

The social interaction is ‘what draws people back. It is a community, an extended family and friendships are developing within group. For the long-term people it is consistent, a social outlet where they have social acceptance.’

It was felt that the art element of the project has been instrumental in enabling the social interaction: ‘having the arts activity is just a focus… an activity that people can be involved in whilst being themselves… for me that is the nicest way to meet someone..’ (stakeholder)

2.6 Steering GroupThe support, expertise and experience of the ArtRefuge steering group were viewed by the artists as invaluable. They noted that it is not always there with other projects and so was particularly valued. The expertise and support of Louise Bristow (independent artist) in hanging the exhibitions was really important and it was seen as being reassuring to have her help and guidance. It was also reassuring to have Clare Dolan (Friendship House Manager) and Sally Jones (ASAP) there to help to deal with situations that arose. The artists commented that looking back they realise how much support and how much back-up they got during the project. In the view of the artists the commitment of the steering group was extremely high throughout the project.

19

The feedback about Locus has been overwhelmingly positive as one person commented ‘it felt like we had achieved even more than we set out to do when the project was first launched’.

Locus has been successful due to a number of factors: • The flexibility of the brief, the steering group and the artists which meant that the project could

respond to the participants and to opportunities that presented themselves over the course of the project.

• The strong commitment of all those involved in supporting and delivering the project to refugees and asylum seekers and to providing a quality experience.

• The skill of the artists in creating a welcoming, relaxed and fun atmosphere for participants and responding sensitively to their circumstances.

• The professional presentation of the work and the project, and the wide audience this has reached by taking opportunities such as screening the films on the big screen in Portsmouth.

• The working relationship between the artists, with ASAP and with the steering group was key.

‘I firmly believe that LOCUS has achieved everything it set out to do, and more.’ (stakeholder)

The working method of concentrating on the process rather than the product seemed risky to the steering group at the outset of the project. The involvement and responses from the participants has shown that the risk was worth taking. As a member of the steering group commented that ‘this was for me the most exciting part of LOCUS and an aspect that stood it apart from anything I have ever experienced before.’

A project such as Locus is important as it ‘about participants and where they are now and accepting them as they are now and it’s not about their past experiences but where they are now.’ (stakeholder).

Working alongside ASAP is valuable as it ‘feels like most of the people coming to Friendship House don’t have the resources, the confidence and the knowledge to go to another evening classes or something similar. However, they do have Sally.’ (stakeholder)

The Locus project, as well as having been a valuable and confidence – building experience for the participants, has also raised the profile of asylum seekers and refugees in Portsmouth and increased awareness of the work of ArtRefuge.

3. Conclusion

20

History of ArtRefugeThe formation of ArtRefuge formerly APASR (Arts Projects for Asylum Seekers and Refugees) has its roots in two connected events. The 2003 exhibition at Pallant House Gallery Alien Nation, an exhibition of work by émigré artists. It included examples by some of the most renowned artists of the twentieth century such as Lucien Freud and Frank Auerbach. The second was the Gallery director Stefan van Raay’s enthusiasm for the community programme to engage with refugees and asylum seekers. Stefan had contacts in Portsmouth with the cathedral and through these he was aware of the situation of refugees and asylum seekers at that time and felt it was an important area to develop work.

The Alien Nation exhibition proved to be the ideal starting point providing an historical link to current issues affecting refugees and asylum seekers. Marc Steene, Head of Learning and Community, Pallant House Gallery and Louise Bristow, freelance artist educator developed an initial project in partnership with local organisations and practitioners in Chichester. Funding was available and a performance based project was developed with Pallant House Gallery providing the visual art element. Pallant House Gallery’s contribution to the project was inspired by the two model art galleries that contain miniature copies of the Gallery’s artworks and sculptures, and the Refugee Council’s suitcase sculpture education resource that supports children in producing a sculpture of a significant object that fits into a small suitcase. The suitcase element was removed as it was felt that this was insensitive to the transient nature of the people they would be working with and the work focused on creating an object of importance to them on a small-scale. The object could be anything from a small item such as a toothbrush to a larger object, for example a horse. Due to concerns about the robustness of the overall direction and focus of the performance project, Pallant House Gallery withdrew and the partnership ended. However, Pallant House Gallery was keen to use the element of the project it had developed to work with refugee and asylum seekers. Therefore new partners needed to be found at short notice and Stefan’s Portsmouth contacts were useful in finding the Friendship Centre.

Contact with the Friendship Centre proved to be a pivotal moment in the development of ArtRefuge. Initially Marc and Louise met Ross Underwood who ran a drop-in session for refugees and asylum seekers on a Thursday. They attended a session to recruit volunteers for the project. As well as attracting participants this also built respect and trust with Ross Underwood and demonstrated that Marc and Louise knew what they were doing. Sally Jones, leader of another more informal drop-in on Friday’s – the Asylum Seekers Activity Project (ASAP) met Marc and Louise at the session and suggested that that ASAP would be more suitable and a better fit to what Marc and Louise wanted to do.

Appendix 1: ArtRefuge Background

21

Due to the withdrawal from the funded project there was now little money available. Pallant House Gallery provided a small amount of direct funding and employed Louise to develop and work with participants from the Friendship Centre to create miniature objects of significance to them. The Significant Objects project ran for 8 weeks alongside ASAP and participants were able to drop in and out of the sessions, attending as many or as few as they wanted to. The participants made about 40 objects and the final works were exhibited at Pallant House Gallery and in the foyer of the Friendship Centre. The exhibition was accompanied by a book recording the responses from participants about their work and a private view was held for participants at Pallant House Gallery. A mini-bus was provided to enable participants to attend the private view.

The Significant Objects project was important in forming and developing the relationship with ASAP and with Sally Jones. ASAP provides advice, support and social activities for refugees and asylum seekers. It gives people 3 hours per week of respite from the stress of completing forms and dealing with their situation - the focus is on physical and mental well-being, on doing something positive.

The project was successful and set in place a number of the elements that still flow through the work of ArtRefuge- the creation of a welcoming atmosphere, the accessibility of the projects no matter what language you use or culture you come from, that it compliments ASAP aims and a professional exhibition of work is produced.

The objects from the Significant Objects project were later displayed in a touring exhibition - Alien Nation: on tour – the Gallery worked with West Sussex Libraries, West Sussex Looked After Children and visitors to the exhibition in a series of workshops responding to the original Significant Objects and producing their own. The Significant Objects from both projects now form the basis of one of the Gallery’s education resource packs.

22

Summary of activity to dateFollowing the success of Significant Objects Marc and Louise wanted to continue to work with ASAP at Friendship House. The next project was a six week drawing and painting course. It was more structured than Significant Objects and aimed to provide skills in areas of art such as still life drawing. This approach was less successful and did not work as well in engaging participants, whereas with Significant Objects there was casual chatting, on this course more focus was needed and the social aspect was lost to a certain extent. There were also cultural differences in approaches to art. The participants were not coming from western culture of fine art, it was not the same tradition and did not have the same meaning for the participants. Although people did engage it did not seem so relevant and did not have the same impact as Significant Objects. Delivering the course highlighted the need to think carefully about what step needed to be taken next and how to deliver it.

It also emphasised the need to have stable funding, to formalise the relationship with the Friendship Centre and the need to expand beyond the involvement of Pallant House Gallery to other relevant organisation across Portsmouth. The process of forming a separately constituted group was a long process which involvied inviting relevant organisations across Portsmouth to become involved. ArtRefuge (then APASR) was constituted and now includes Portsmouth City Council, Friendship House, ASAP, Red Cross, Refugee Action, Pallant House Gallery, Guinness Hermitage, as well as representatives from previous projects and artists.

ArtRefuge’s first project as a constituted group was Identity. It was funded by Arts Council England and Portsmouth City Council. Taking place in 2005/06 it was conceived as a way of breaking down the barriers between the residents of Friendship House and the users of ASAP. The brief asked for the artist to produce a collaborative sculpture that would be sited either inside or outside the Friendship Centre and explored identity. Interviews selected a Zimbabwean stone sculpture, Elvis Mamvura to lead the sessions and Justin Edgar, a filmmaker to document the process. The original sculptor, Elvis left the UK to get stone but could not get a visa to return and was denied a work permit, therefore a replacement had to be found. Elvis recommended Antony Sarieni. Antony stepped in, originally only on a temporary basis while the situation was resolved, but as Elvis was not granted a work permit he ended up doing the whole project.

23

Antony lead the sessions teaching participants the techniques and processes needed to work the stone. A number of individual stone sculptures were amassed during this process. The sessions were again informal, allowing people to drop in and out, some attended on a regular basis, while others came only once or infrequently. A large collaborative stone sculpture that now stands in the foyer of the Friendship Centre was produced. It echoes the theme of identity with different heads stacked on top of one another. Identity was explored in a loose context in the sculpture and explored more fully and directly in the film.

Justin, the filmmaker worked with 3 people who came to the Friendship Centre and were involved in the project. The film investigated their life in Portsmouth and their involvement in the project. As well as an exploration of identity the film also acts as a documentation of the project.

The project was celebrated with an exhibition at Pallant House Gallery and the film distributed and sold.

Den Barry, manager of Friendship House during Identity reflected on the success and impact of the project: ‘Identity served to create a lasting bond/relationship between the participants and the ArtRefuge steering group and an association with the Friendship Centre being a place where you could do positive and creative things with your time. There has been a much stronger camaraderie between participants and staff and a greater sense of belonging. Something that visitors’ remark upon whenever they visit the Friendship Centre is the tangible sense of calm and friendliness that pervades the place....and I firmly believe that this is due to the atmosphere created during Identity. Throughout the project itself, there was a real sense of achievement being experienced on a workshop by workshop basis and the positive change in some of the individuals was noticed by everyone involved and quite heart-warming.’

One flaw in the Identity project was that it was a very well-hidden secret. Although it was successful for the participants it was not that well-known about outside Friendship House and Pallant House Gallery.

24

ArtRefuge Chronology

2003 Significant Objects workshop project at the Friendship Centre and Alien Nation Exhibition, Pallant House Gallery

2004 Drawing and Painting course, Friendship Centre

2005 APASR formed as a constituted group Series of taster workshops

2005-6 Identity collaborative Sculpture Project

2008 APASR name changed to ArtRefuge

2010 Locus Project

25

Evaluation by Sonia RasberyLocus Project photographs by Les MonaghanIdentity Project photographs by Mike EddoesSignificant Object photographs by Marc Steene and Louise Bristow

ArtRefuge and Locus supporters:

Credits