The IAN Model

What does artistic quality mean, and is it possible to assess in young audiences music productions? The IAN model, developed at Aarhus University, Denmark, offers one possible approach to evaluating performing arts by looking at the three vectors: intention, ability and necessity, and how threse three relates. The article introduces the model and gives practical examples of how it is applied.

The IAN model is used in practize in many young audience music contexts, e.g. by the professional jury that selects the annual YAMawards. Want to know more? Click here to read IAN: from theory to practice.

The authors are Karen Hannah, Jørn Langsted and Charlotte Rørdam Larsen, Department of Dramaturgy and Department of Music, Institute of Aesthetic Disciplines, Aarhus University, Denmark. The article has been posted with permission from the authors.

Most people would agree that quality in the arts is important. Many would also agree that cultural policy should put artistic quality high on its list of priorities. But when it comes to being specific about what this implies – what artistic quality means – confusion arises, all eyes begin to wander, and everyone has their own opinion about what this entails.

In Aarhus, the second largest municipality in Denmark, one has taken the bull by the horns and tried to tackle the question about artistic quality. Thus, for the past few years cultural policy in Aarhus has placed explicit emphasis on quality through, among other things, frequent evaluations of art institutions and projects. A couple of years ago, as part of the local cultural policy, the municipality of Aarhus decided to carry out a research project which was to result in a model for evaluations of theatre, dance and music (i.e. the performing arts) with specific emphasis on developing methods by which to assess artistic quality. Three researchers from the University of Aarhus were commissioned to accomplish this task: Charlotte Rørdam Larsen from the Department of Music and Karen Hannah and Jørn Langsted from the Department of Dramaturgy. During the project six reports have been published, and in December 2003 the final book from the project came out. This article presents some of the main results, focusing upon the model we have developed. First, however, a brief introduction to the project and the circumstances from which it originates.

In Danish cultural policy Aarhus is considered a pioneer in the field of evaluating artistic quality. Contrary to the cost-free rhetoric which without argumentation claims to base cultural policy on quality, the municipality of Aarhus has taken action and endeavored to develop a cultural policy which focuses on artistic quality as the political basis. Thus, in 1998 the cultural administration in Aarhus decided that practically every cultural institution (theatres, orchestras, galleries, museums) on the city’s cultural budget was to be professionally evaluated. Various ad hoc consultants were hired to carry out these evaluations. Naturally, this resulted in much diversity in the different evaluation reports, both in scope and in method. The aim of these evaluations was to give the city’s elected officials a broader basis for and greater insight into the decision-making process on cultural policy. It is debatable whether these evaluations made in 1998 led to anything substantial, for example, to any changes in cultural policy. However, it is certainly a fact that an increased awareness of the evaluation process of cultural institutions did occur. Taking things a step further, the municipality of Aarhus and the Danish Ministry of Culture decided jointly to carry out a project in Aarhus running from 2000 to 2003 with the aim of developing methods and creating an evaluation model that can be used in the areas of theatre, dance and music. The work was to be carried out in a collaborative process between the municipality of Aarhus, the Ministry of Culture, the Danish Theatre Council and the State Music Council. The main emphasis of this co-operative effort was to produce a common frame of reference for the assessment of cultural institutions and projects in the fields of theatre, dance and music. The model was to be used both locally and more widely, by municipalities throughout the country as well as by the national arm’s length councils, including the Theatre Council and the State Music Council. It should encompass both qualitative as well as quantitative assessment criteria. In addition, the model should be suitable both as a basis for the preparation of contracts with cultural institutions and, subsequently, used as a means of assessing the results achieved by the institutions in question.

The agreement between the municipality of Aarhus and the ministry implied that the local cultural administration could hire a consultant firm to carry out the project. However, the municipality decided not to do this and instead commissioned three researchers from the Music and Drama department at the University of Aarhus to take on this task. The reason for this was, undoubtedly, that it was hoped that the outcome would thus be more easily accepted by the various cultural and artistic groupings in the city. By the same token we accepted this assignment because we felt that we would be more capable of creating safeguards against over-simplified tendencies such as regarding quality and public success as one and the same thing, or using quality as a tool to reject the new and to favor the traditional art forms. Besides, as of yet, no one has endeavored to develop a model of this nature, although The Irish Art Council has begun work in this direction. Finally, in our opinion much of the discussion on artistic quality ends in pure relativism or in an anything-goes attitude. So, all things considered, we felt that this was a challenging problem to tackle - both professionally as well as with regard to an arts policy.

Our project has its main focus on the performing arts, i.e. theatre, dance and music. It does not encompass the arts as a whole. Nevertheless, it may be possible that the model we have developed can also be applied to other art forms and institutions such as visual art and galleries or museums.

Artistic quality, as we define this in our model, is a combination of Intention, Ability and Necessity.

The aspects of Intention, Ability and Necessity are not always apparent in an art performance and are not something that is easily grasped by the man in the street. To determine the Intention, the Ability and the Necessity of an art work requires knowledge and analysis.

The artistic intention consists of a will to express and communicate. It is a commitment which is urged on by an inner fire that makes it imperative for the artist to express exactly what he or she expresses, here and now. Thus, the work of art is urged on, conveyed to and conceived by the audience as having the quality of genuine commitment.

The will to expression comes from within and is turned outwards. The artist shapes his or her visions, ideas and experiences of the world, of life, of human fellowship, and in this process of shaping thoughts and experiences and willingness to express oneself, ambitions, self-conceit and energy of expression are also at work. And this is so because an art work is not just a description of an outside world – it is a choice between all the world’s many elements combined with some kind of intention. Through art the world is processed.

The will to communicate has a more dialogical aspect. The crucial point here is the artist’s ability to listen to the audience and let the interplay originate in the attentiveness of both the audience and the artist. Often, the magic of the performing arts consists of the artist’s ability to listen to and sense the audience, thereby being able to shape the strategies of artistic conviction and seduction. This may sound rather technical, but actually it is just an attempt to describe the fact that in artistic communication the artist works on all levels to involve the audience. To hold the audience’s attention, to make the audience interested, to move it and to make the audience experience an emotional and intellectual course of events. Paradoxically, the artistic will to communicate may manifest itself even when someone, like Miles Davis, performs intensely, though with his back turned to the audience.

Artistic intention can both encompass a very strong consciousness concerning the traits of the work or of the institution and its communicative aspects and, at the same time, be the result of a high intellectual level of reflection – or it can be traced in an amateur context where genuine commitment may be interpreted as a will to communicate.

The artistic intention includes a number of pitfalls as, for example, if the intention is forced or guided by private interests. An intention based upon the motivating factor of becoming famous is a private intention which may obstruct and limit the performance. Another pitfall is when the intention collides with the ability – in other words, when the artist’s capabilities fall short, become forced and finish up by becoming pathetic and private.

However many different formularized declarations and proclamations about the intention of an art work or an art institution exist, this is not the crux of the matter in analyzing and characterizing the artistic intention. What is of interest is the kind of intention which manifests itself and is present in real action.

Artistic intention concerns the artistic idea. In other words, artistic intention is what emanates from the stage.

The artistic ability comprises specific skills that vary from one artistic field to another. These skills are trained and sharpened, partly through artistic schooling, a kind of apprenticeship, and partly through years of practice and experience. Artistic ability is a prerequisite for expressing and communicating, and the demands made on artistic ability are often highly specialized. Success is dependent upon mastering the artistic forms of expression and this applies to the arts in general. But what characterizes the performing arts is that the artist must fulfill the intentions of a director, a conductor, a playwright, a composer or a choreographer. This type of artistic performance is practically transparent. The artist has to give the work credibility and vitality while simultaneously placing his or her artistic ability at the disposal of someone else.

The struggle within the arts, here meaning when traditional and new art forms meet, is often fought over the question of ability as the traditional accuses the new of not sufficiently mastering their skills. But of course the requirements for artistic craftsmanship are ever changing just as the media through which we experience the art are constantly evolving. Therefore, artistic ability is not a firm and fixed conception but is dependent upon the time, the circumstances and the artistic milieu in which the art work and the artist is situated. On the other hand, artistic ability is not so ambiguous and vague as to mean that great art just happens without any skill or expertise – therefore artistic ability, the skill and expertise, may indeed be an item for assessment.

Artistic ability without personal involvement and commitment may “run idle”, so to speak. Skills can be so over-estimated and fixated on the maintenance of traditions that they become just a cover for artistic bankruptcy – here we are talking about pure form or equilibrium. Neither ability nor intention can operate on their own.

The demands for artistic ability vary and are dependent upon whether it is a playwright, composer, conductor, choreographer, dancer, musician or an actor that we are talking about, and of course these demands vary from art form to art form. Nevertheless, the question remains: Are there certain universal criteria for artistic ability which are valid in all artistic contexts? In our opinion there are.

A crucial demand for artistic ability is the requirement of unity in diversity . An art work comprises a variety of different elements. And it is essential for the artist to be able successfully to bind this diversity together. The interaction between segments and the whole entity plays a major role as to whether the art work is considered as having the mark of quality. This entity or unity of an art work may consist of a variety of aspects. For instance, it may be a certain principle of composition that organizes and structuralizes the tone, the words or the actions on the stage. Or it may be a specific point of view running throughout the work, accentuating different elements of importance. It can also be a certain set of ideas which binds together a multitude of details. Often one will find that the greater the tensions and contradictions which are successfully integrated within an overlying artistic perspective, the better the art work will be. But again, this is not an absolute requirement. Minimalistic forms of art are indeed characterized by employing few elements. And what binds the multitude of details together may just as well be an aspect of disruption which gives rise to a structure that is split in many directions.

Technical ability is another major requirement which, as mentioned before, varies from art form to art form. But of course the more the artist masters the techniques within his or her field of work the higher the quality of the art. This also holds true for the media which is used to support the artistic idea.

A third important requirement is the activation of intellect and emotion. What characterizes good art is its ability to arouse intellectual and emotional feelings in the recipient. The experience of art cannot be compared to the solving of a mathematical equation – even though there may, in mathematics, be an emotional activity involved. The experience of art comprises elements of the individual’s entire state of being and involves the full register of experience. However, if an art work is too intellectual it may be conceived as being dry and uninteresting; if it is too emotional, it is a true tear-jerker.

Nevertheless, the combination of artistic ability and artistic intention is not sufficient to form the core of a framework for the discussion of artistic quality. There is one more thing to consider, and this holds true especially for the performing arts, namely, the relation to the audience, to the surroundings, to the society in which the work of art is performed. Necessity is what we call this aspect. This implies that a good work of art must consist of some kind of necessity which reaches beyond the artistic intention and ability. The art work – the artistic initiative – must evoke a response in a reality populated with smaller or larger groups of people, characterized by specific social and psychological traits. The work of art must be characterized by acting upon these people and upon their social and psychological situation in a way which appears revelational, believable and imparts a sense of immediacy. This should not be interpreted too rigidly. It does not imply some kind of external demands which are forced upon the art work. But, on the other hand, it is an attempt to verbalize the crucial point that in order for an art work to have the mark of quality in a cultural-political context, it cannot function as an enclosed reservation where the relation to the audience is without any interest. When we say that art has to be revelatory to have the mark of quality, this means that without being idyllic or escapist it must relate to the audience’s living circumstances – for better or for worse – and, thus, place these elements in a series of perspectives, thereby adding new aspects and other dimensions to life.

To discuss artistic necessity involves deciding whether an art work proves equal to the problems of today, to lifestyles and to ways of thinking as well as deciding whether the art work in question moves people in a direction both liberating and thought-provoking. Thus, artistic necessity is the dimension that brings the aesthetic and the ethical together.

In the case of cultural institutions, guidelines and agreements with the public authorities may form an easily accessible part of their necessity. However, this does not imply that artistic necessity can be reduced to the fulfilment of an institution’s objectives. Their necessity is broader-based and meeting their goals and guidelines is only part of their business.

In constructing our model we have chosen not to place Intention, Ability and Necessity as three angular points on a triangle which it is, of course, possible to do. However, this would result in closing the model. On the contrary, we conceive Intention, Ability and Necessity as three vectors which point in each direction and thus form a core from which the discussion on artistic quality takes its starting point and to which it can return. Figure 1 illustrates the basic outline of our model.

Figure 1
The IAN-Model

Artistic quality is then determined by interplay between Intention (I), Ability (A) and Necessity (N).

As with other models, this one is not a reflection of the total reality. The model is rather to be conceived as a tool for discussions or for structuring discussions and statements about artistic quality.

In a model of this type one could suppose that the vectors were of different length. This could, among other things, indicate that the artistic intention in the specific case is more profound than the artistic ability.

However, the model does not suggest that the perfect work of art should consist of arrows of equal length so that everything is well-balanced. It is not meant as a normative model in that way. On the contrary, it can be used to become more conscious of the fact that in discussions about artistic quality some would place emphasis on artistic Ability, while others perhaps attach more importance to Intention or Necessity or to the coherence between some of the vectors or all of them.

The flexible nature of the model makes it applicable to single pieces of art work as well as to the entire life of cultural institutions. It may be applied to institutions which organize and/or produce performing art. And it can be used as a principle of structure in relation to applications and when the outcome subsequently is evaluated. Finally, the model may be used as a basis for self-evaluation.

The following few examples will illustrate how one can begin to reflect and discuss artistic quality in the light of the model. The examples are deliberately simplified in order to encourage the imagination and to raise associations. Furthermore, the examples we have chosen all illustrate how one can discuss shortcomings in relation to artistic quality. We should point out that the intention with these examples is not to classify specific art forms but rather to illustrate the possibilities of the model and how it can be used to discuss and define artistic quality or the lack thereof.

Figure 2
Certain Forms of Amateur Art

Figure 2 depicts how the model can be used to discuss certain forms of amateur art. Of course this does not hold true for all amateur art. In this example one can picture an evening-school class in which the students have received a brief course in different forms of theatre. Based on this short introduction they are eager to stage a show about themselves. They are filled with high intentions, but their ability cannot measure up to this. And because of the limited nature of their performance, the show lacks necessity as it only appeals to the participants themselves (and perhaps their families and friends) and not to a wider audience. In other words, we have a case here which exemplifies an art form in which the participants have high intentions but low ability and practically no necessity in a wider context, that is in relation to an audience.

Figure 3

An Art Institution on its Deathbed

Figure 3 is an example of a traditional art institution with the productions being planned and taking place with the only raison d’être to fill out the plan for the repertoire. The artistic ability among the artists is high, but their engagement is close to zero. The performance can be best described as a piece of drudgery, not done con amore. And in a broader perspective, the performance does only have little relevance and necessity.

Figure 4
Art on Command

Here in Figure 4 we have an example of artists who meet the objectives of cultural policy completely. However, they do it without much engagement (intention), and their artistic abilities are not very sophisticated. The following could exemplify this: if the objectives of cultural policy state that a cultural institution must perform for children, then one does this, but without any visionary idea. Performing for children is not an integral part of the institution. The work is shoddy, one of the reasons being a lack of ability to perform for children without ending in a rather farcical, forced childishness.

Figure 5

A Purely Commercial Project

Figure 5 may illustrate a purely commercial project. Think, for instance, of shows such as Popstars or American Idol. What is significant here is that the producers’ expectations to the participants’ artistic ability are non-ambitious. The chosen music is without originality – it just goes with the flow. The artistic intention is diffuse: the performers’ intention is to become famous while the producers’ paramount intention is to utilize the talent-show in order to obtain more viewers. The necessity here is about publicity and advertising – not only to break ground for a new recording star but most of all to sell the advertised products, in this case to a teenage audience. During the process the audience are regarded as consumers, and the necessity is commercial in two ways – the first being the sponsors’ products, and the second, hopefully, the creation of a new pop name for the profit of the record company.

The point of these examples has been to demonstrate the basic outline and usage of our model. Initially, the examples indicate how our model can be used as a means of starting a discussion from which it is possible to form a structure for analyzing the basic elements of artistic quality. With this structure one is able to focus the analysis and the questions being considered. However, it should be obvious that we are not talking about a kind of checklist or a quantitative grading scale.

It should be pointed out that certain performances do not aim for artistic quality but instead strive to fill a social function, entertain a certain audience or to simply just make money. This is of course perfectly legitimate, but these criteria should not be confused with artistic quality. In the examples above, artistic quality has been the question under discussion – not social or monetary qualities.

When evaluating performing art it is important to keep in mind that the object under evaluation is not a static one. The quality of the production and/or the institution in question may develop in a positive or a negative direction, i.e. the quality of an art work may improve or worsen over time. Therefore, in producing art as well as in evaluating art it is of vital importance to have an eye for potential artistic qualities – qualities which under the right conditions may develop and grow. Art itself and the support of art is thus concerned with the act of taking chances and gambling on something that is not yet fully developed. This aspect of time, inherent in artistic processes, should also be reflected in the evaluations of art. Often an evaluation tends to be a momentary snapshot, covering a short period of time. To ensure that the evaluation leaves room for artistic development it is necessary not only to focus on the “here and now” but also to be aware of artistic processes and the situation both before and after the evaluation. If the evaluator does not have this sense of artistic processes and potential artistic development, then art forms in the course of development may very well be thwarted and thus come to nothing.

Besides the aspects of time, inherent in artistic processes, it is important to be aware of the context for the artwork. This context may include many different elements, for instance the political climate, prevailing trends in art, audience expectations and so on. In relation to our model the context primarily consists of the resources available. These may be human, technical, or economic. It is of vital importance to break away from the illusion that the arts exist on free and equal terms. This is an illusion as long as some producers dispose over large economic resources, often received through public funding, while others receive less or none at all. To bring the artistic intention in a project or an institution to full development is, among other things, dependent upon the resources available. A director may have excellent ideas for a performance; however, these are of no use if he is lacking the economic resources to hire the right actors who are able to transform his ideas to the scene. On the other hand there will always be a tendency to rationalize failure as being due to lack of resources: “If only we had received a larger public grant ....., if only we had a larger staff, then ....... ”.

Apart from the resources, another contextual element of importance is the objectives of cultural policy, relating to the art phenomenon under evaluation. One should not consider these objectives as untouchable. Often it is necessary to include these and to discuss and analyze the objectives critically in order to understand why a certain art phenomenon is what it is, and also in order to reveal alternatives.

With the aspects of time and context added, our model can be illustrated in this way:

Figure 6
The IAN-Model and its Relation to Time and Context

Context, e.g. Resources and Cultural Policy Objectives

Duration of time

The point with our model is that it has to be both robust and sensitive. Furthermore, the model has to be easy to remember and able to raise associations while at the same time forming a basis for detailed analyses and discussions. The model should be capable of being used on a political level, for instance, if one chooses to upscale the ability-vector in relation to the priorities in cultural politics. Moreover, the model is also supposed to be used to evaluate applications for public subsidies where arm’s length councils assess projects and institutions on the basis of the model’s three dimensions. Finally, it is intended that the model should be used to evaluate projects as well as institutions.

The model does not settle political disagreements and it does not turn questions of quality into quantitative criteria. On the contrary, the model is suitable for discussions and decisions, based on qualitative considerations. In evaluating artistic quality we recommend:

• that professionals with artistic insight make the evaluations and that each evaluation is carried out by at least two professionals;

• that these professionals should not evaluate the same institution twice in succession;

• that emphasis is placed on working out the starting document for the evaluation. Here one ought to come to a decision as to the function of the evaluation (i.e. evaluation as an instrument of control vs. development). Furthermore, one ought to consider the political context in which the evaluation plays a part as well as the interplay during the evaluation between the evaluator, the official who has commissioned the work and the institution or project under evaluation. Finally, the starting document should specify how to apply the IAN-model and its concepts;

• that self-evaluation, implemented by the institution or project, is a compulsory element in the evaluation. One ought to define what elements this self-evaluation is directed towards as well as a maximum size of this contribution, for example 5 pages;

• that a maximum size, for example 8-10 pages, for the evaluators’ final report is specified, and that this final evaluation as far as possible includes a part where the institution under evaluation is compared with other institutions of the same size and with equivalent tasks.

Generally, we recommend that one ought to put special emphasis on professionalism, written reports, dialogue, publicity and developing-aspects in evaluations of the performing arts.

As mentioned in the introduction to this article, we have during the project produced several reports. In one of these, published in June 2002, we presented a first version of the model. Since then, our model has circulated and been applied in various contexts. Here we confine ourselves to describe just one of these cases, namely an evaluation carried out by the Danish State Music Council.

Thus, in October 2002 the cultural administration in Aarhus commissioned the State Music Council to evaluate four institutions in Aarhus – the symphony orchestra, a big band, and two opera companies. In their evaluation the Council was asked to apply the IAN-model’s three concepts – Intention, Ability and Necessity.

The State Music Council’s evaluation of the four institutions is based on a variety of written material (contracts, annual results, annual financial reports, programs, action plans, etc.) as well as a meeting with representatives from the four institutions.

In their evaluation, comprising 10 pages, the State Music Council interprets Intention as artistic visions and ambitions, Ability as artistic and practical ability, and Necessity as commitment, necessity and responsibility to the surroundings, including what may be stated in contracts, etc.

For each of the four institutions the Music Council examines their Intention, Ability and Necessity. In one of the cases the Council recommends the institution to employ the IAN-model for internal evaluations, in another case the Council points out that the institution has a high consciousness of its Intention, Ability and Necessity. The Music Council’s application of the IAN-model indicates that the model can be used also when it comes to relatively concise definitions of an institution’s artistic Intention, Ability and Necessity. However, it seems to us that the Necessity-dimension is the one which, for the most part, has been rather neglected. This probably has to do with the fact that it is difficult to define a given institution’s role in society here and now.

Towards the end of their report the Music Council reflects upon the evaluation process. If time had allowed, the Council would have used self-evaluations from the institutions, and they also would have preferred to hold two meeting with the representatives from the four institutions in order to, among other things, encourage the institutions’ self-reflection. The Council states that in the discussion during the meetings, the IAN-model concepts initiated interesting discussions – for both parties. Moreover, the Music Council recommends that the model’s concepts should be used in the institutions’ current internal evaluations with a view to development, innovation and improvement within each institution. The Council concluded their report with these words:

Among other things, the Music Council recommends that the institutions could consider, from time to time, how much weight should be placed upon the three parameters. How much should one concentrate one’s efforts, and how much should one be less active? In some periods of shorter or longer duration it may be expedient for instance to concentrate one’s efforts on the institution’s ability, meaning professional artistic empowerment in certain areas or practical economic capability which is typically associated with constraints. At other times an unbending artistic intention or ambition is decisive for developing the institution. The lack of one or more of the parameters for a longer period of time will, however, always be a clear signal concerning the need for a conscious reassessment of the institution’s course and objectives.

To reflect on the institution’s intention, ability and necessity has its justification in evaluations as well as in negotiations with grant-awarding and political authorities.

However, the Music Council do not recommend that the IAN-model becomes absolute, universal or is used to evaluate every artistic activity or institution. The institution in question still ought to be evaluated also on its own premises and in relation to its specific character.

But as an instrument for reflection and awareness the model appears to have a fine function and will perhaps also have great effect. (Statens Musikråd (2003): Evaluering af Klüvers Big Band, Aarhus Symfoniorkester, Den Jyske Operas særforestillinger samt Aarhus Sommeropera , duplikat, København [The State Music Council (2003): Evaluation of Klüver’s Big Band, Aarhus Symphony Orchestra, Danish National Opera’s Summer Festival and Aarhus Summer Opera , duplicate in Danish, Copenhagen]).

Evaluations cannot be implemented mechanically and schematically. There are nuances and specific factors which ought to be included in relation to the individual art work or institution. When evaluating one has to confront and analyze the reality. As the Music Council’s evaluation illustrates, the IAN-model is applicable to structure this analysis and – importantly – do it with a comparative aim.

In our opinion, it is of primary concern that a model of this nature succeeds in outlining procedures for evaluation which contribute to an open and democratic approach to the evaluation of art. There is no point in a rigid model - but there is a point in the attempts to raise the level of democracy and of debate in cultural politics. And this is what we have wished to contribute to.

What has been important in our project is to advocate structured discussions on artistic quality through the model’s concepts; to prove that artistic quality in performing arts also concerns the relation to the audience/society; and to point out that it is possible to discuss artistic quality on various levels, spanning from the political to the professional. Our aim has been to create a model which is both robust and sensitive. Only time can tell whether this will result in improved evaluation.

Taking things a step further, the IAN-model is now in circulation. If, where, when and how it will be applied is beyond the creators’ control. Our hope is, of course, that it will be used. Especially because the model seeks to exist not on the premises of the economy, the number of audience attendance or the prestige, but on the premises of the arts themselves.

The basis for this article is from the following book:

Jørn Langsted, Karen Hannah, Charlotte Rørdam Larsen (2003): Ønskekvist-modellen. Kunstnerisk kvalitet i performativ kunst [The IAN-Model. Artistic Quality in the Performing Arts] , Klim, Aarhus, Denmark