{"id":3934,"date":"2014-12-10T08:47:15","date_gmt":"2014-12-10T13:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/?p=3934"},"modified":"2014-12-10T08:47:15","modified_gmt":"2014-12-10T13:47:15","slug":"excellence-is-heterogeneous","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/2014\/12\/excellence-is-heterogeneous\/","title":{"rendered":"Excellence Is Heterogeneous"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ExcellenceSign\"In completing my assignment for Barry’s Blog (brief observations on “what I have learned”) I included “Excellence is heterogeneous.” (See Lessons<\/a>.) My explanatory note said, “Technique is important in the arts. So are relevance, inclusiveness, and impact\u2013to name only a few additional criteria. Excellence is best sought in everything that matters but can seldom be achieved in all categories in equal measure.”<\/p>\n

I’ve been down this road before and have caught the usual flak around the topic. Nevertheless, it’s worthwhile revisiting. And to revisit it a bit, I’ve been waiting for an excuse to point readers to Nina Simon’s two wonderful posts on the topics of excellence and engagement from last September.: But What about Quality? <\/a>and What Are Your Engagement Goals?<\/a> What so impresses me about the first post is the beginning of a list of categories of quality\u2013a taxonomy of quality if I’m going to be excessively academic about it. She does not believe it’s a definitive list. The categories may not be equally important (or they may be!). I’ve made a rudimentary stab at some of this before, but she has carried it much further than I.<\/p>\n

Quality Q\u2019s:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. AESTHETIC: is it beautiful?<\/li>\n
  2. TECHNICAL: is it masterful?<\/li>\n
  3. INNOVATIVE: is it cutting edge?<\/li>\n
  4. INTERPRETATIVE: can people understand it?<\/li>\n
  5. EDUCATIONAL: can people learn from it?<\/li>\n
  6. RELEVANT: can people relate to it?<\/li>\n
  7. PARTICIPATORY: can people get involved or contribute to it?<\/li>\n
  8. ACADEMIC: does it produce new research or knowledge?<\/li>\n
  9. BRIDGING: does it spark unexpected connections?<\/li>\n
  10. IGNITING: does it inspire people to action?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Much more work should be done with this. Sometime I may, but all are welcome to lend a hand.<\/p>\n

    In her second post she articulated her Museum’s engagement goals, another important contribution.<\/p>\n