I had the great opportunity in May to work with the Minneapolis Institute of Art. I was offering a training for their incredibly dedicated team (with amazing bench depth, to continue the metaphor) of volunteer docents. The docents are well trained and supported, largely in the visual thinking strategies approach to creating engaging discussions about art with groups of museum-goers of all shapes and sizes.
MIA staff wanted to add creative storytelling to the toolbox of their docents, particularly for their “Discover Your Story” program that welcomes people with dementia and their families to the museum. The idea is that some tours will blend discussions of the artwork with a stop at a work that inspires a creative, group story. And some tours might all feature creative stories.
The training went swimmingly in the a.m. Smart questions, lots of fun. In the afternoon, we set out into the galleries in small groups to enable the docents to try their hand at their new storytelling tool. Sheila McGuire (Director of Museum Guide Programs for MIA) and I observed the small, pilot groups and offered a few suggestions.
It was fascinating to witness the friction points between the TimeSlips approach and a Visual Thinking Strategies approach. And in some cases, a simple human tendency toward efficiency rather than inclusion. You could see the VTS reflex when the facilitator would ask “What do you see here?” and “What makes you say that?” Sheila and I would encourage them to ask a question (both approaches are built on open-ended questions) that invites an imagination-based response to the world OUTSIDE the picture – something that falls outside of VTS, but that is squarely in the realm of TimeSlips.
VTS aims to develop critical thinking and group dynamic skills by facilitating engaging discussions about works of art. Its core audience are children.
TimeSlips aims to create a sense of belonging and provide access to meaning-making through imagination-based and improvisational storytelling. Its core audience is people with cognitive disabilities, usually in the later years of their lives.
It was fascinating to watch the docents as they tried to embrace the new approach – it felt a bit like watching them rub their bellies and pat their heads at the same time. There is the illusion that the methods are doing the same thing (open-ended questions, engaging and facilitated discussion based on the group responses). But there are key differences that you feel as you practice the creative storytelling approach with people trained in VTS.
There is also the basic human impulse to speed things along by leading the discussion a bit to get folks on the “right” track. This isn’t part of either approach…but is hard to resist when you’ve got a group of people you’re trying to move through galleries. I’m fascinated to learn more about the VTS approach (perhaps even take some training) to more fully understand the similarities and differences. For now, I see them as built of some similar techniques, but with very different goals.
