Tallahassee discussion, January 2010

Summary of Kids Guernica Meeting 16 January 2010, Tallahassee

The meeting was organised in a relaxed informal and organic format, with everyone sitting on the ground in a circle, with light touch chairing. The getting-to-know you aspect of the meeting assumed significance: with a few of the personal introductions becoming notable contributions in themselves.

This may have been influenced by the cultural and national diversity and the fact that some people also required their contributions to be interpreted into English. As a result of this segment being quite long, less time was spent on specific discussion. The meeting lasted approximately two hours.

When the discussion opened up, it was clear that Kids Guernica, which now has a significant heritage of over 200 paintings, has reached a milestone in its development, in that the founders, mainly emanating from a university and academic background hold a relaxed consensus in terms of their vision for the project. Despite their consensus that the informal nature of what is an organic movement rather than an organisation has advantages, there was complete courtesy towards alternative perspectives.

Such alternative perspectives that emerged had a lot to do with practicalities and governance. Now, with a substantial heritage of paintings, multiple questions arose as to how and where the paintings were to be stored, what should become of them ultimately and copyright issues linked to such a large body of artistic work. Questions also arose as to the commercial exploitation of the paintings, for example, with the suggestion of auctioning paintings even being made. This led on to the core issue of Kids Guernica governance: whether it should remain a broad movement or an international body with a core structure and coherent legal identity.

Formal legal identity, it was felt by some was necessary for achieving proper recognition and financial assistance from national and international public sources and other appropriate funders. In this context, UN bodies such as UNESCO and UNICEF were mentioned. For European coordinators, the European Union (EU) factor was also clearly in mind.

The issue of Kids Guernica acquiring a defined international legal identity if not agreed or disagreed to, was firmly put on the agenda and it was obvious would be the subject of intense future debate within the “family”. It was also clear that in order to deal with the sort of practical issues referred to, some coordinators were already part of, or in the process of forming legal entities in their own contexts. This could lead to a movement of multiple legal organisations being linked or affiliated to Kids Guernica International in a sort of umbrella relationship? Whether this umbrella remained an organic movement or became a legally enshrined entity is probably the key question facing KG in the near future. At least, this is the impression garnered by this reporter.

While it was not overtly referred to, there was broad awareness of the issue surrounding Picasso’s Atelier. There was deep disappointment to hear that Hatto Fischer was finally unable to attend because of a sequence of technical travel issues. It seemed that because of Hatto’s non-attendance, the issues (ones of formal guidelines as to how paintings be carried out and how such guidelines be enforced) were not fully aired, maybe even avoided. If so, this was determined collectively, as the agenda was not prescribed.

There was no shortage of proposals coming forward for future actions. Most interesting and one potentially highlighting Kids Guernica’s relationship and interface with the likes of the UN, the EU etc was a proposal for a painting in Gazza. Such a proposal poses Kids Guernica with a potent challenge and invokes the core issues emerging at this milestone moment in the movement’s development. Other proposals made were for a New Orleans painting and an exhibition in Martinique.

The concept of geographic hubs also emerged: New York, not only because of its strategic American position but because of its importance to diverse communities such as the Irish, the Jewish, the Italians and others. Brussels and Strasbourg were cited because of their European significance and Geneva because of its European and UN importance and because it is a centre of non-government organisations.

This reporter is interested in making links with Irish-America for instance and dependent on capacity, does not rule out a Belfast exhibition, but did not make a formal proposal regarding such – but indicated the possibility.

______________________________________________________________

This report is not meant as formal minutes but as a broad-brush “remembered interpretation” for aide-memoire purposes, replete with my subjective and selective weaknesses. I nonetheless, hope it helps us to document our discussion and identify some issues for discussion/debate.

Non-American spelling has been used.

Bernard (L.) Conlon, Belfast, 28 January 2010

^ Top

« Teacher Workshop: Making Peace Together with Visions from Around the World | Art Education for Social Justice »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Tallahassee discussion, January 2010