Heavy procedure would weaken the participant initiative that makes temporary exhibitions worthwhile. A modest safety framework can coexist with curatorial experimentation; the early energy around temporary exhibitions should begin a relationship, not become the final measure of success.
The usual account of temporary exhibitions overlooks unpaid labour and inaccessible locations. Rather than applying one arrangement everywhere, I would disaggregate participation and direct extra support towards the times, places and groups carrying the greatest practical burden.
Success in temporary exhibitions should be measured after novelty fades. I would ask whether new audiences return to cultural venues, record why people withdraw, and keep governance of temporary exhibitions light enough to preserve curatorial experimentation while meeting clear safety obligations.
I share the demand for long-term evidence about whether new audiences return to cultural venues, but temporary exhibitions cannot depend on goodwill alone. A responsible coordinator and minimum documentation would make decisions reviewable and give participants consistent protection.
Which writer favours a named coordinator and minimum reporting requirements for temporary exhibitions?
Which writer is most concerned that average results for temporary exhibitions may conceal unequal access?
Which writer shares Writer C’s preference for keeping coordination of temporary exhibitions relatively light?
Which writer shares Writer C’s view that evidence should extend well beyond the launch of temporary exhibitions?