You are on page 1of 53

E VA LU AT I O N

REPORT
SIL EN T SIGN A L : eng a g i n g t h e p u b l i c
in t he science of gen et i c s, cel l b i o l o g y,
im m u n ology an d e p i d emi o l o g y
t hro ugh th e mediu m of a n i mat i o n
EVALUATING A COLL ABORATIVE ART AND SCIENCE
PROJECT PRODUCED BY ANIMATE PROJECTS

EVA LUATO R : DEBBIE WATS O N
R EPO R T DATED: FEBR UA RY 2 0 1 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AND NOTES FOR
READING
T H E EVALUATOR WOULD LIKE TO THA N K THE
CO L L ABORATORS, PA RTNERS, A ND AU DI E N CE A N D
E VEN T PAR T I CIPA NTS FOR THEIR F E E DBACK A N D
R E S PON S ES I N PERSON A ND ONLI N E . THA N KS
AL S O TO G I L LIA N PEA RSON, ED U CATI O N A L
CO N S ULTAN T FOR HER FEEDBACK O N THE
S CI EN C E G UI DE. HUGE THA NKS TO A B I GA I L
AD DI S ON AN D BENTLEY CRU DGINGTO N , F O R
T H EI R VALUAB LE INPU T A ND A SSIS TA N CE , A N D
F OR MAKI N G THE PROCESS SO ENJ OYA B LE .

Notes for reading: Where the words of the
collaborators and partners have been used within
the flowing text, they have been italicised. Speech
marks have not been used but quotes are indented
and attributed.

F U RT H ER I N FORMATION

For further information regarding the evaluation,
contact: debbie@yetproject.com
For further information regarding the project,
contact: abigail@animateprojects.org

MO R E I N F O R MATI O N
O N THE P R OJ ECT
CA N B E F O U N D AT
S I LE N TS I GN A L .O R G

2
CONTENTS
PAG E

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 -15

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 16-19

1.1 What was the project?
1.2 What were the aims and objectives?
1.3 How was the project set up?
1.4 What has been the process for evaluating the project?

2 PROJECT FINDINGS 20-37

2.1 In what ways were the aims and objectives achieved?
2.2 What were the difficulties or disappointments?

3 PROJECT CONCLUSION 39- 40

3.1 What has been learned?
3.2 What are the future possibilities and hopes for an
ongoing impact?

APP EN D IX 1
Original project summary & list of core partners

APP EN D IX 2
Artwork descriptions & collaborator biographies

APP EN D IX 3
Video material links

APP EN D IX 4
Sample Audience Exhibition Survey

APP EN D IX 5
Sample Collaborator Questionnaire

APP EN D IX 6
Sample Genetic Moo Workshop Survey

3
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW

D E V I S ED BY A NIM ATE PROJECTS, WO R KI N G I N CO LL A B O RATI O N W I TH
S CI EN T I S T BE NTLEY CRU DGINGTO N A S CHI E F S CI E N TI F I C A DV I S O R , THE
PR OJEC T WAS SET U P TO ENGAGE THE P U B LI C BY O F F E R I N G A N A R TI S TI C
R E S PON S E AND EXPLORATION OF S I GN I F I CA N T A R E A S O F CU R R E N T
S CI EN T I F I C R ESEA RCH A ND U ND E R S TA N DI N G I N GE N E TI CS , CE LL B I O LO GY,
I M MUN OLOGY A ND EPID EMIOLOGY. F U N DI N G A N D S U P P O R T F O R THE P R OJEC T
WAS R EC EI VED VIA A WELLCOM E TR U S T L A R GE A R TS AWA R D A N D A GRA NT
F R OM T HE GARFIELD WESTON FO U N DATI O N .

The project brought together six artists who work with animation in their practice and six biomedical scientists, paired
together following a selection and commissioning process undertaken by Animate Projects. The six paired artists and
scientists collaborated over a 19-month period to evolve the content, and create the animations which were shown
through a programme of exhibitions, screenings and events throughout the UK and internationally. The project also
encompassed an educational strand, producing a Science Guide and lesson plans, and a programme of events and
seminars aimed at reaching schools and teachers.

PROJECT AIMS

1. To create six projects partnering artists and scientists to develop their respective artistic/scientific practice
2. To encourage dialogue and exchange of ideas between the artists and scientists
3. To produce six artworks that demonstrates the power of animation to captivate audiences
4. To enthuse audiences to consider how our bodies work and how science strives to understand and improve our
personal and global health through research into genetics, immunology and epidemiology
5. To distribute the work through exhibition online, in galleries and at festivals reaching 24,000 people
6. To explore the process, animation techniques and themes through 23 events, workshops and online resources,
reaching 900 adults
7. To engage and inspire 2,000 young people through partnered initiatives

METHOD OF EVALUATION

AN IMAT E PR OJECTS ENGAGED A N E XTE R N A L E VA LUATI O N CO N S U LTA N T TO
WOR K W I T H THEM DURING THE PR OJ ECT P E R I O D, A N D TO AU THO R THE F INAL
R E POR T MEASU RING THE OUTCOME S O F THE P R OJ ECT I N R E L ATI O N TO T H E
AI MS AN D OB JECTIVES A BOVE.

The methodology comprised data collection and analysis techniques which allowed capture and interpretation of
statistical data as well as the experiences, views, and opinions of all those involved during the collaboration process
and the public engagement phase.
4
FINDINGS
The findings, below, demonstrate the ways in which the project aims were realised:.

PROJECT AIM 1 & 2

TO CR EAT E S IX PROJECTS PA RTNE R I N G A R TI S TS A N D S CI E N TI S TS
TO D EVELOP THEIR RESPECTIVE AR TI S TI C /S CI E N TI F I C P RACTI CE

TO E N COURAGE DIA LOGUE A ND E XCHA N GE O F I DE A S B E T W E E N
T H E AR T I S T S A ND SCIENTISTS

Following an invitation to artists (A) and an open call for scientists (SC), and a workshop session to match potential
collaborative pairings during the R&D period, Animate Projects successfully brought together six partnerships which
resulted in the production of six animated artworks:

1. (A) boredomresearch (Vicky Isley and Paul Smith) & (SC) Dr Paddy Brock, University of Glasgow
collaborating on AFTERGLOW

2. (A) Genetic Moo (Tim Pickup and Nicola Schauerman) & Dr Neil Dufton, Imperial College London
collaborating on BATTLE OF BLISTER

3. (A) Eric Schockmel & (SC) Dr Megan MacLeod, University of Glasgow collaborating on IMMUNECRAFT

4. (A) Samantha Moore & (SC) Dr Serge Mostowy, Imperial College London collaborating on LOOP

5. (A) Ellie Land & (SC) Professor Peter Oliver, University of Oxford collaborating on SLEEPLESS

6. (A) Charlie Tweed & (SC) Dr Darren Logan, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute collaborating on
THE SIGNAL AND THE NOISE

S E E APPEN DI X 2 FOR A RT WORK DE S CR I P TI O N S
AN D COL L ABORATOR BIOGRA PHIE S

The artists and scientists articulated their objectives at the outset of the project and were able to revisit and reflect on
them over the course of the project. In this way they were given an opportunity to monitor the development of their
practice and their own objectives as well as those of the wider project.

The analysis of questionnaire data from the collaborators was able to demonstrate many of the ways (see main report
for full description) in which the two Project Aims were achieved, and also highlights challenges and issues along the
way of the collaboration:

BOR EDOMR ESEA RCH and DR PA D DY B R O CK:

During the making of AFTERGLOW, the artists Vicky Isley and Paul Smith aka boredomresearch found many ways
to build on and extend their work as a direct result of the collaboration, for example they have initiated their own
interdisciplinary programme at Bournemouth University, offering workshops across art, science and technology.
(http://blastevent.net/about)

Scientist Paddy Brock clearly conveyed how the process had enhanced his own practice and described how the
collaboration had great value in terms of science communication and engagement. Questions still remain for him
about how this value might be communicated and fed back into broader science so that a greater number of his
colleagues in the science world could be persuaded towards more public engagement.

His reflections, at the end of the project, described the sometimes surprising results which occurred during
the collaboration:

The science of the piece (detailed Plasmodium knowlesi epidemiology) didn’t come up as
often as I hoped it would, but there was lots of good engagement about malaria in general
and the global burden of infection (cited later by Paddy as a more important biomedical issue).
In that sense the project did an excellent job of highlighting an important biomedical topic in
an innovative way.
D R PAD DY B RO C K (SC) 5
G E N ET I C MOO and D R NEIL D U F TO N :

Dr Neil Dufton and Tim Pickup and Nicola Schauerman of Genetic Moo had a very experimental approach to their
respective art and science practice. Though it was felt there were no surprises during the collaboration, there was
also a distinct sense of having achieved more than we imagined at the beginning. Both parties seemed genuinely
inspired by the experience of working together and cited many new developments, cross-over inspirations and
positive outcomes.

Genetic Moo were able to develop their practice and skills in coding, editing and engaging the public. The project was
the largest they had worked on to date and they acknowledged its scope and ambition and felt great professional
value in being able to bring it to completion.

Dr Neil Dufton talked about how he learned more about presenting, through watching Genetic Moo tailor the
project for different audiences. He described a new found confidence in presenting his science and had won
three best poster prizes at national and international conferences; something he felt was directly related to the
collaboration experience. He also seemed to learn a great deal through the method of developing the work with
the public’s participation, and was able to gain different perspectives by bringing many aspects of himself to that
process; as a scientist, as an artist (he is also an illustrator) and as a member of the public attending events with his
wife and baby.

E R I C S C H OC KMEL and DR M EGA N MACLEO D:

For artist Eric Schockmel, he was able to evolve his visual vocabulary, learning and adopting new techniques in
3D animation and experimenting with new colour combinations. The experience also led to him feeling more
likely (and more comfortable) potentially seeking out collaborations with people outside of my direct creative
field in the future.

Scientist Megan MacLeod enjoyed seeing how the animation developed over time and articulated how that process
has value in and of itself. She also described how she enjoyed seeing Eric make something beautiful of the science and
scientific concepts. She also felt that she had achieved her hoped for aim of being able to think about her work from
a different perspective and described how taking part in the project had helped her talk about (her) work in
a more engaging way and with the use of less jargon.

SA MAN T H A MOORE and D R SERGE MO S TOW Y:

Serge Mostowy felt that the benefits to his practice, and his lab team, could not be demonstrated in the usual expected
ways, i.e. data collection, publishing outputs, funding applications. Instead the value was to be found in less immediately
tangible ways. He cited the value of being forced to think about/communicate many things about our own science that
we do not know. Additionally the process (or perhaps the person) had the affect of helping to foster an environment of
cohesiveness and pride... reinforcing productivity and driving curiosity which Dr Mostowy felt would ultimately contribute
towards scientific success.

Samantha Moore described the process as rewarding to see how well the ‘collaborative cycle’ (her methodology of
continuous feedback with the subjects of her work) worked with a group of people who were far removed to (my) usual
groups. She was able to testing her theories around creative methodologies that were central to her practice based
PhD in a different field to the neuropsychological one she was more familiar with. The medium of animation seemed to
her to allow unique creative collaborative links which encouraged a creative and subjective visualisation of the research,
something she felt would not have happened under normal circumstances.

6
E L L I E L AN D and PROFESSOR PETE R O LI V E R :

This duo seemed to enjoy a very open dialogue and their collaborative approach extended to the way they
were able to work with the project participants; implementing participatory filmmaking methods which gave a
framework for working with groups of participants. This particular avenue has generated a desire in Ellie to explore
those methods further within her academic work.

Professor Oliver achieved more than expected, from his initial hope of being able to take part in the artistic process.
He also learnt a great deal from discussions with Ellie and seeing the other projects in Silent Signal unfold. The issue
of engaging with many more people and having a chance to talk about the science was also cited as particularly
valuable, as was talking with the mental health service users who narrate the final film.

C H AR L I E T W EED and DR DA RREN LO GA N :

The process of working together to produce THE SIGNAL AND THE NOISE was described by Darren Logan as a true
collaboration. Both he and Charlie Tweed seemed genuinely surprised and excited at the easy and organic way they
were able to develop a shared vision for their animation.

Darren, like many of the scientists felt the project had enabled him to develop new ways to communicate his
research. He was also able to connect with many people in the creative communities which has had led to him
becoming involved with multiple new art/science initiatives, e.g. the Body of Songs project (http://bodyofsongs.
co.uk). Darren described these developments as personally rewarding and certainly exceeded expectations.

Charlie was able to use new methods in the filming which pushed the development of his practice. He utilised HD
footage – creating a completely different aesthetic to previous works. Additionally he was able to work with multiple
screens incorporated in the single frame - again this was a new and different type of film to make. This had been
Charlie’s first collaboration with a scientist and he felt pleased that he was able to understand some very complex
science and from that was able to create a work which went beyond visualising the data.

Key to how the collaborations were set-up and encouraged, and an essential factor in how the Project Aims 1 & 2
were achieved, was the role of Abigail Addison of Animate Projects, and Scientific Advisor Bentley Crudgington. The
collaborators were given an opportunity to comment on how they found the process of working with both Abigail and
Bentley and without exception, the feedback was highly positive and in many cases, glowing.

The Silent Signal exhibition tour went exceptionally well mainly due to Animate Projects good
communication prior and during installation periods. Animate Projects did a wonderful job
of securing further screenings of the Silent Signal works in international festivals which has
enabled our work to be shown in international film festivals which we have never exhibited in
previously. Bentley did a fantastic job of the educational program which has helped audiences to
clearly appreciate the complexity of the works on exhibition.

B O RED O M RESEARC H (A )

A great process, lots of really useful feedback, very supportive, whilst also pushing the projects.
Space for creative freedom and the upholding and acknowledgement of that.

ELLIE L AND (A )

7
PROJECT AIM 3

TO P R ODUC E SIX A RT WORKS THAT DE MO N S TRATE S
T H E POW ER OF A NIMATION TO CAP TI VATE AU DI E N CE S

The animations were successfully created and delivered to Animate in
November 2015. The launch event at QUAD in Derby in February 2016 was
a huge success, with introductions to the work delivered by the artists and
scientists, and as Senior Curator Peter Bonnell remarked:

G REAT CO NT ENT,
G REAT SH OW,
W E LOV ED I T !

Seventy six audience comments were received over the course of the partnered
exhibitions that attested to this aim, with many describing their enjoyment and enthusiasm:

1. Very good use of art to depict current research – very inventive

2. Diverse, insightful and aesthetically charismatic

3. Colours and shapes gave a different perception to how the body works

4. Sound and visuals conspired beautifully to create surprise

5. I found the exhibition absolutely fascinating

6. They were lively and fun to watch but also felt that science research was behind them

7. The animations tackle science and health in a way that breaks down the
conventional view taken by patients and healthcare professionals. Great stuff

8. I am amazed that I am alive, I never thought about it!

9. Loved the way that science was expressed

10. I have Crohn’s disease – felt it summed up how the body, mind and spirit should
work in synch but can’t due to modern day pressures

8
Photograph courtesy of Wellcome

Honourable mention should definitely go to Animate Projects’ Silent Signal project which came
to fruition this year with six experimental animations produced by collaboration between artists
and scientists, immaculately documented on the project’s website.

T HE B EST IND IE ANIM ATIO N O F 20 16 , J EZ STEWART,
SIGHT & SO UND M AGAZINE, B FI, JANUARY 20 17

T H E I N DI VI DUA L A RT WORKS A F TE R GLOW A N D LO O P
R EC EI VED AWA RDS A ND ACCOL A DE S F R O M THE A R T
WOR L D AN D A NIMATION FESTIVA L CI R CU I T, A N OTHE R
I NDI C ATOR OF CA PTIVATING AUD I E N CE S .

AFTERGLOW was awarded the Lumen Prize Moving Image Award 2016; LOOP received Second Place for the
Raw Science Film Festival Award for Professional Documentary under 10 Minutes, and a Special Mention at
FAFF (Factual Animation Film Fuss) 2016.

The feedback which we have received from audiences during the exhibition tour has been
exceptional. Viewers have described the work as ‘hypnotic’, ‘mesmerising’, ‘captivating’ and
‘beautiful’. The highlight for us was the work being awarded the prestigious Lumen Prize Moving
Image Award in September 2016. There was a strong shortlist so we felt honoured to receive
this award.
B O RED O M RESEARC H (A )

We thought that the experience of the animator in making the film is a clever highlight, especially
as we do not see the filmmaker but we feel her to be very present. We thought the attention to
detail was superb, especially the details of the process - which could be so dry, but are cleverly
presented to the audience. We felt that the visual articulation of the unseen was great. And we
felt that it was a great achievement to successfully bring the process of making into the fabric
of the film.
FAFF J URY STATEM ENT, O C TO B ER 20 16

9
PROJECT AIM 4

TO E N T H US E AU DIENCES TO CONS I DE R HOW O U R B O DI E S WO R K A N D
H OW S C I EN C E STRIVES TO UNDERS TA N D A N D I MP R OV E O U R P E R S O N A L
AN D GLOBAL HEA LTH THROUGH R E S E A R CH I N TO GE N E TI CS , I MMU N O LO GY
AN D EPI DEMI OLOGY

Even though none of the artists have let the facts get in the way of a good film, the depth
of their collaborations ensure the merit of Silent Signal is scientific as well as artistic.

H E R E ’ S THE SC IENC E: SIX ARTISTS CO LL AB O RATE WITH
S IX B IO LO GISTS FO R ILLUM INATING SHOW AT Q UAD,
M ARK SHEERIN, C ULTURE 24 , FEB RUARY 20 16

The feedback did provide strong evidence of the exhibition and events providing inspiration and creating enthusiasm
in a subjective, body and health response to the themes and the artworks:

I could have talked with the scientists all day – I was surprised at the breadth of knowledge (I expected the depth)

Stimulating but not informative

Loop was my favourite – actual conversation with researcher and visualising septin cell structure and function

I feel the work gave us a taste of the complexities to genetic sequencing at a level that someone with no
understanding could appreciate

Yes it made me think that I need to look after my body

I gained a better understanding

…because it made me feel relaxed

I learnt about the body more and AfterGlow was really interesting to read about

My son has a rare genetic condition which will lead to death (2 kids already died of it) so a very involved fascinating
research study

There were a few negative comments, often from scientists, numbering approximately 5 in total.
Nevertheless it does demonstrate that for a very few people, the animations and the science behind
it did not communicate, enthuse or inspire.

10
Photograph by Debbie Watson
PROJECT AIM 5

TO D I S T R I BUTE THE WORK THROU GH E XHI B I TI O N O N LI N E ,
I N GAL L ER I ES A ND AT FESTIVA L S R E ACHI N G 24 ,0 0 0 P EO P LE

Photograph by Jacquetta Clark, courtesy of LifeSpace, University of Dundee

The public engagement period was set up to engage audiences throughout the UK with four key partnered
exhibitions at QUAD in Derby, Vivid Projects in Birmingham, Wellcome Genome Campus near Cambridge, and
LifeSpace Science Art Research Gallery in Dundee. Also planned was a workshop series and discussion event in London
with Central Saint Martins and its students. Two partnered exhibitions, added later, happened at the University of
Salford in Salford and at the Phoenix in Leicester. Many of the original and later partners approached Animate directly;
keen to be involved in the Silent Signal project. There was an additional series of one-off events and screenings which
took place throughout the UK and in Germany, Austria and the USA.

T H I S AI M WAS ACHIEVED A ND EXCE E DE D
OVER T H E CO URSE OF THE PROJECT
PE R I OD. I N TOTA L , JU ST UNDER 5 0 ,0 0 0
PEOPL E I N T ERACTED WITH THE WO R K
I N P ER S ON OR VIA THE SILENT SIG N A L
W E BS I T E.
The total number of exhibition visitors, event attendees
and workshop participants was 16,410. This figure represents
approx 66% of the project target figure of 24,000. In terms of
online interaction: a total of 30,500 people visited the Silent
Signal website; 2,700 people watched the animations on
Vimeo; and 350 people downloaded the Science Guide.

Detailed breakdown can be found in the main report.

The collaborators, mainly the artists, also reported on
additional events and screenings which happened during
the project period. 95,941 additional audiences were able to
see the animations or attend events where the Silent Signal
projects were discussed, this was made up of: 84,000 who
viewed AFTERGLOW on the video wall at the Sony Center,
Berlin; plus talks at art/science/technology conferences in
11
South Korea, Colombia, Germany and the Netherlands.
PROJECT AIM 6

TO E X PLOR E THE PROCESS, A NIMATI O N
T EC HN I QUES A ND THEMES THROU GH
2 3 EVEN T S , WORKSHOPS A ND ONL I N E
R E S OUR C ES , REACHING 900 A D U LTS

Photograph by Antonio Roberts, courtesy of Vivid Projects

Silent Signal over-achieved this aim by organising, delivering, and tracking a total of 36 events involving approximately
10,400 people. Twenty of the events took place during the Exhibitions at QUAD, Vivid Projects, Wellcome Genome
Campus and LifeSpace, with approximately 1,200 people attending. More than 9,200 people also attended the
sixteen other partnered events which took place. The events comprised talks, discussions, seminars, symposia, one-off
screenings, and workshops, which explored the process of art and science collaboration, animation techniques,
and the scientific themes which lay at the core of the Silent Signal artworks.

S E E TABL ES 1 & 2 ON P3 1 & P32 FO R
VE N UE AN D AU DIENCE D ETA IL .
Photograph courtesy of Wellcome

12
PR OF ES S OR P ETER OLIVER (S), WHO CO LL A B O RATE D O N THE A N I MATI O N
S LEEPL ES S W ITH ELLIE L A ND D ES CR I B E S O N E O F THE S E E V E N TS , HE LD
AT THE UN I VERSIT Y OF BIRM INGH A M O N 1 5 MA R CH 2 0 1 6 :

For the Birmingham event I was surprised and very pleased how well the audience engaged with
the plasticine modelling task we ran after showing the film; the models/descriptions they made
were a combination of personal, emotional and the plain silly – but the anonymity meant they
could all be shared. This certainly generated a great deal of discussion, even amongst strangers.

P RO FESSO R P ETER O LIV ER ( SC)

Scientific Advisor Bentley Crudgington and Educational Consultant Gillian Pearson also successfully produced
a Science Guide to frame and contextualise the biomedical research for the audience both online and in the gallery.
Also created were activity sheets and resources which were aimed at teachers and science communicators working
with young people to introduce the scientific themes in ways which were engaging and educational, based on the
A-Level Science syllabus. The strategy for disseminating the guide and its contents involved:

Engaging Gillian Pearson, to act as an advisor, drawing on her wide experience, contacts and networks within the
school science education arena

High quality, full colour, hard copy booklets available to take away from the exhibition venues and distributed to
science communicators at events (2,000 copies printed and distributed)
Downloadable version of the Science Guide and additional activity sheets made available on the Silent Signal
website – 348 copies have been downloaded during the public engagement period

Bentley Crudgington and Gillian Pearson presented the resource and its content at the BIG Event 2016 (British
Interactive Group) an annual science communication conference to 30 science facilitators, who participated in a
workshop session

Additional networking and discussions took place during the BIG event, attended by 150-200 people, identified
as the most effective group to help disseminate the materials and the science themes into schools

Bentley Crudgington also presented the resource and its content to a mixture of biomedical scientists (interested
in and with a need to deliver public engagement), science communicators, engagement officers, science centre
staff and programme developers at Imperial ReachOut and Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics

What was so useful to me as an engagement professional was to have such a great
example of best practice in collaboration. Silent Signal allowed me to show
others, such as my colleagues in the Learning and Programmes team at the
National Museum of Scotland and groups such as the Edinburgh Skeptics and Eureka
Edinburgh, that something beautiful, inspiring and surprising can happen when
people step outside their normal boundaries and really celebrate creativity.

AL I FLOY D, FREEL ANC E SC IENC E CO M M UNIC ATO R & SCIENCE
E NGAGEM ENT O FFIC ER (B IO M ED IC INE), NATIO NAL M USEUMS
SCOTL AND (EX ) C REATIV E CO NSULTA NT
Photograph by Jacquetta Clark, courtesy of
LifeSpace, University of Dundee

13
PROJECT AIM 7

TO E N GAGE AND INSPIRE 2 , 000 YO U N G
PEOPL E T HR OU GH PA RTNERED INI TI ATI V E S

Photograph by Heather Barnett

T HIS A I M OF E N GAG ING YO U N G P EO P L E WAS STRO NGLY
OVE R -ACHI E V E D, AN D IS D E M O NS T RAB L E IN THE FO LLOWING WAYS:

5,669 young people (aged under 16 to 24) were tracked as having engaged with Silent Signal online,
at exhibitions and events

Breakdown by age group: under 16s: 523, 16-19 year olds: 1,846, and 20-24 year olds: 3,300

523 under 16s, 887 16-19 year olds, and 902 20-24 year olds attended Silent Signal
exhibitions and events over the course of the project

959 16-19 year olds and 2,398 20-24 year olds visited the Silent Signal website

I also think that the Science Guide and associated activities especially those for children that
were organised by Bentley were very impressive and really did help the audience to understand
complex science in very creative and engaging ways.
C HARLIE T W EED ( A )

Silent Signal also worked with another partner in order to engage directly with young people, namely Central Saint
Martins, University of Arts London, who wanted to offer their students valuable experience in developing devising and
delivering workshops. The students worked with two Silent Signal partnerships, Samantha Moore & Dr Serge Mostowy,
and Genetic Moo & Dr Neil Dufton, to carry out the long planned events: a cascade of descending ideas which included
two artists’ talks, a screening and discussion event, student sharing, live public workshop led by the students, and filmed
documentation of the workshop day (see Vimeo link in Appendix 3).

Seven students signed up and were very interested to explore the theme of Silent Signals in the
body and were interested in cross-disciplinary Sci/Art work. Although a little disappointed with
the numbers of participants who signed up to be involved, owing to the unfortunate timing of
the project around degree shows, exam time, and summer holidays, seven enrolled instead of
the target 12-20 – but, the organiser of these events, Heather Barnett stressed that the seven
participants were very enthusiastic and enjoyed the whole day.

TEX T IN ITALIC S TAKEN FRO M HEATHER BA RNET T
14
TELEP HO NE INTERV IEW TRANSC RIP T, 13 J UNE 2 01 6
In terms of inspiring young people, the feedback data (all from under 16 year olds) from the
Genetic Moo workshops provides a clear demonstration of enthusiasm from young people:

I love that, going in the exhibition and putting things in my head. I now know more about antibodies

Fun, educational, exciting. Making a connection to science

Good to have the scientist there to talk about the science behind the movement animation.
Interesting to see the different animations produced

CONCLUSION

TH E S I L EN T S IGNA L PROJECT WA S A B LE TO F U LLY ACHI E V E I TS P R OJ ECT
A I MS OVER T HE COU RSE OF THE CO LL A B O RATI O N P R O CE S S A N D THE
P U BL I C EN GAGEMENT PERIOD.

The analysis and evaluation has been able to demonstrate the many ways in which these aims were achieved and the
factors which were contributing to that achievement. It seems that collaboration was happening at many levels, not
just between the artists and scientists who created the artworks, but between Animate and their key advisors and
funders, the exhibition and event partners, and the public participants and viewers. Collaboration was happening in
simple and complex ways, some more explicit than others, but all ultimately contributing to the overall success of this
ambitious project and the possibilities for its legacy.

On a professional level, my own research has moved away from sleep science, yet I will
certainly be keen to work with filmmakers/animators/artists again as I see the huge potential
for public engagement... Although it may be obvious, the power of a moving image to convey a
concept is under-used in scientific communication at all levels.

P RO FESSO R P ETER O LIV ER (SC ) AT T H E END
O F THE P UB LIC ENGAGEM ENT PERIOD

15
PROJECT
OVERVIEW
1.1 WHAT WAS THE PROJECT?

D E V I S ED BY A NIM ATE PROJECTS, WO R KI N G I N CO LL A B O RATI O N W I TH B E N T L E Y
C RUDGI N GTO N A S SCIENTIFIC A DV I S O R , THE P R OJ ECT WA S S E T U P TO E N GAG E
T H E PUBL I C BY OFFERING A N A RTI S TI C R E S P O N S E A N D E XP LO RATI O N O F
S I G N I F I C AN T A REA S OF CU RRENT S CI E N TI F I C R E S E A R CH A N D U N DE R S TA ND ING
I N GEN ET I C S , CELL BIOLOGY, IM MU N O LO GY A N D E P I DE MI O LO GY.

The animated artworks and other project materials were presented through partnerships with galleries and festivals
across the UK and abroad. Funding and support for the project was received via a Wellcome Trust Large Arts Award
and a grant from the Garfield Weston Foundation.

The project brought together six artists who work with animation in their practice and six biomedical scientists, paired
together following a selection and commissioning process undertaken by Animate Projects. The six paired artists and
scientists collaborated over a 19-month period to evolve the content, and create the animations which were shown
through a programme of exhibitions, screenings and events throughout the UK and internationally. The project also
encompassed an ambitious plan of: schools involvement; interactive workshops; seminars and lectures; and an online
educational resource, with the aim of reaching and engaging with as many different audiences as possible.

S E E APPEN DI X 1 FOR A PROJECT S U MMA RY
AN D L I S T OF CORE PA RTNERS.

1. 2 WHAT WERE THE AIMS
AND OBJECTIVES?

1. To create six projects partnering artists and scientists to develop their respective artistic/scientific practice

2. To encourage dialogue and exchange of ideas between the artists and scientists

3. To produce six artworks that demonstrates the power of animation to captivate audiences

4. To enthuse audiences to consider how our bodies work and how science strives to understand and improve our
personal and global health through research into genetics, immunology and epidemiology

5. To distribute the work through exhibition online, in galleries and at festivals reaching 24,000 people

6. To explore the process, animation techniques and themes through 23 events, workshops and online resources,
reaching 900 adults

7. To engage and inspire 2,000 young people through partnered initiatives

16
1. 3 HOW WAS THE PROJECT SET UP?

T H E PR OJ EC T BEGA N WITH A N INI TI A L R & D P E R I O D - J U LY 2 0 1 3
TO JAN UARY 201 4 - SUPPORTED BY THE W E LLCO ME TR U S T.

This was followed by the main project period which started once funding had been secured in August 2014. There
were two distinct phases: the collaborative production process period to November 2015 and the public engagement
period from February 2016 to January 2017.

During the R&D period Animate Projects sourced the artists and scientists, built relationships with the project partners,
facilitated the relationships between the artists and scientists through workshop and roundtable sessions, and set up
the project website.

Photograph by Bettina Fung

The collaborative production process period involved the six paired artists and scientists learning about each other’s
work and approach through lab and studio visits, and developing ideas through continuous dialogue to inform the
content of the artwork, resulting in the final animated artworks being delivered to Animate in November 2015. The six
paired artists/scientists were also given an opportunity to share their process with each other at a roundtable event in
January 2015, a year after they had first shared their ideas at a roundtable during the R&D period. During this period
Animate continued to work with established and new partners around the country, and further afield, to develop the
exhibitions, screenings, workshops and educational events, which would form the second phase of public engagement
throughout 2016.

The public engagement period was set up to engage audiences throughout the UK with four key partnered
exhibitions at QUAD in Derby, Vivid Projects in Birmingham, Wellcome Genome Campus near Cambridge, and
LifeSpace Science Art Research Gallery in Dundee. Also planned was a workshop series and discussion event in London
with Central Saint Martins and its students. Two partnered exhibitions, added later, happened at the University of
Salford in Salford and at the Phoenix in Leicester. Many of the original and later partners approached Animate directly;
keen to be involved in the Silent Signal project. An additional series of one-off events and screenings took place
throughout the UK and in Germany, Austria and the USA.

Additional screenings and events, where the collaborating artists and scientists shared their process and artworks, also
happened as a result of the collaborations. These events reached public and academic audiences in Germany, South
Korea, Colombia, Netherlands, China and Italy.

The project was completed at the end of January 2017, at which point the final evaluation report was compiled.

17
1.4 WHAT HAS BEEN THE PROCESS
FOR EVALUATING THE PROJECT?

AN IMAT E PR OJECTS HA S BEEN RE S P O N S I B LE F O R S E T TI N G
U P T H E EVALUATION PROCEDURE S A N D ME THO DS , I N
CO N S ULTAT I ON WITH THE AU THOR O F THI S R E P O R T
( D E BBI E WAT SON), WHO WA S A BL E TO B R I N G E XTE N S I V E
R E S EAR C H S KILL S A ND EXPERIENCE TO S U P P O R T THE
E VA LUAT I ON DURING THE M A IN P R OJ ECT P E R I O D
( JA N UARY 2015 – JA NUA RY 201 7).

The approach adopted by Animate was a mixed methods one, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. This
approach is useful when a project is multi-dimensional in nature, allowing an organisation to capture a wide variety
of data which, through triangulation and brief analysis can lead to the possibility of a more reliable and meaningful
demonstration of how the aims and objectives may have been achieved.

Data was collected in the following ways:

QUA N T I TAT I VE

Silent Signal website data tracking by Animate; website visits, Science Guide downloads, Vimeo plays

Exhibition numbers collected by the host venues/institutions

Event attendance collected by partners/collaborators/science and education advisors

QUA L I TAT I VE

Questionnaires – hard copy at events and exhibitions, online versions on website

Audio recorded or transcribed telephone interviews

Video interviews

Recording of roundtable events transcribed

18
In compiling and writing this evaluation report the data has been sorted and organised to measure and interpret
the outcomes from the project, primarily through the framework of the stated aims and objectives. Funding for the
project included the award of a Wellcome Trust Large Arts Award; therefore the report includes data, where available,
that meets the Wellcome Trust’s Engaging Science audience demographic categories.

The quantitative data has been pulled together from a final document search of sources compiled and tracked by
Animate and their partners over the course of the project period. These have been set out to demonstrate, as clearly
as possible, the ways in which objectives were achieved in relation to audience engagement online, at exhibitions,
events, workshops and screenings, and to identify any areas where the aims and objectives were harder to achieve.
The audience feedback data (both qualitative and quantitative) has been sorted and interpreted to convey as many
of the responses and experiences of audience members and event participants as possible within the time frame
available for reporting.

As part of the wider evaluation of the Silent Signal project objectives, this report documents and considers the
findings from the data related to the collaborative production process happening between the six artist/scientist
partnerships during the first half of the project period, from August 2014 to November 2015, when the finished
artworks were delivered.

The artists and scientists were sent questionnaires at key points throughout the development, production and post-
production periods to gather their experiences and responses to all aspects of their collaborations. This report sets
out the findings from the collaborations which took place during the period, with a particular emphasis on data
drawn from questionnaires completed following the delivery of the animated artworks. Also included are reflective
comments following the end of the project and the public engagement period.

Audience responses are quoted anonymously within the report, though the feedback forms did give the option for
audience members, who wanted to be placed on future mailing lists, to share their email addresses. Parental consent
was sought for photographs and feedback from young people. There were no other issues around permissions
or ethics due to the highly public nature of the events and the clear intention by Animate, the artist/scientist
collaborators and the venues to share thoughts and experience.

19
PROJECT
FINDINGS
2 .1 IN WHAT WAYS WERE THE
AIMS AND HOPES ACHIEVED?
Note for reading: actual words/text from the collaborator feedback data has been
used within the flowing text where possible – shown in italic type for clarity.

PROJECT AIM 1
TO CR EAT E S IX PROJECTS PA RTNE R I N G A R TI S TS A N D S CI E N TI S TS
TO D EVELOP THEIR RESPECTIVE AR TI S TI C /S CI E N TI F I C P RACTI CE

PROJECT AIM 2
TO E N COURAGE DIA LOGUE A ND E XCHA N GE O F I DE A S B E T W E E N
T H E AR T I S T S A ND SCIENTISTS

Following an invitation to artists (A) and an open call for scientists (SC), and a workshop session to match potential
collaborative pairings during the R&D period, Animate Projects successfully brought together six partnerships, see
full list below. A key element in enabling the artists and scientists to articulate the development of their practice was
through the setting of objectives at the outset of the project which they were able to revisit and reflect on, via an
evaluative questionnaire process, in November 2015.

T H E S I X COL L A BORATIONS

1. (A) boredomresearch (Vicky Isley and Paul Smith) & (SC) Dr Paddy Brock, University of Glasgow
collaborating on AFTERGLOW

2. (A) Genetic Moo (Tim Pickup and Nicola Schauerman) & Dr Neil Dufton, Imperial College London
collaborating on BATTLE OF BLISTER

3. (A) Eric Schockmel & (SC) Dr Megan MacLeod, University of Glasgow collaborating on IMMUNECRAFT

4. (A) Samantha Moore & (SC) Dr Serge Mostowy, Imperial College London collaborating on LOOP

5. (A) Ellie Land & (SC) Professor Peter Oliver, University of Oxford collaborating on SLEEPLESS

6. (A) Charlie Tweed & (SC) Dr Darren Logan, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute collaborating on
THE SIGNAL AND THE NOISE

20
AR T I S T S ’ S TATED OBJECTIVE

F OL LOW I N G A BRIEF A NA LYSIS OF A LL O B J ECTI V E S , I T
WAS POS S I BL E TO IDENTIF Y THRE E CO MMO N THE ME S :

1. Expansion of knowledge and skills in understanding and communicating ‘science’

2. Development of new animation ideas, tools, skills and techniques through the process of making the work

3. Development of collaborative methodologies and practice

Some of the more individual objectives included: gaining experience of organising linked events;
expansion of exhibition portfolios; and the development of visual language and narrative skills.

SC I EN T I S T S ’ STATED OBJECTIVES

LI K EW I S E T H E SCIENTISTS’ OBJEC TI V E S W E R E B R I E F LY A N A LYS E D
A N D T HE F OLLOWING THREE ELEME N TS E ME R GE D S TR O N GLY:

1. Finding new ways, perspectives, skills and techniques which will encourage communication and dialogue about
scientific research - with the public, other scientists, and the artist collaborators

2. To learn about and be involved in an ‘artistic process’ and to forge professional networks within the creative
community

3. Promote the importance of scientific work to the public, as well as public edification and acknowledgement

Other individual objectives included: hoping that the animation immerses the audience in scientific techniques and
principles; that an account of the collective collaborative experience be published in a peer-reviewed journal; that
a collaborative dialogue be opened up between scientists across disciplines; that the laboratory environment is
enhanced by the artistic collaborative experience.

OUTCOMES

TH E F OL LOW ING SECTION DETA IL S THE WAYS I N W HI CH THE P R OJ ECT
O U TCOMES ( P ROJECT A IMS 1 & 2) HAV E B E E N ACHI E V E D A N D A L S O
H I GHL I G H T S OTHER FIND INGS A ND S U R P R I S E S W HI CH HAV E E ME R GE D
TH ROUGH T H E COLL A BORATIVE P R O DU CTI O N P R O CE S S .

The questionnaire data for each partnership was lightly analysed to answer the two aims, framed below to
become questions:

1. In what ways were the artists and scientists able to develop their respective practices?

2. What sort of dialogue emerged between the collaborative partnership and how were ideas exchanged?

21
B OR EDOMR ESEA RCH A ND DR PA D DY B R O CK

During the making of AFTERGLOW, the artists Vicky Isley and Paul Smith aka boredomresearch found many ways to
build on and extend their work as a direct result of the collaboration. They have initiated their own interdisciplinary
programme at Bournemouth University, offering workshops across art, science and technology (http://blastevent.
net/about). Additionally they have gone on to develop other art/science collaborations, including one with Professor
Oliver’s colleague at the University of Oxford that have been exhibited at international venues including The National
Center for the Arts in Mexico City (http://transitiomx.net) and Gwacheon National Science Museum in Seoul. (http://
heyevent.com/event/zj2xp6ffabu64a/bioartseoulexhibiton)

Scientist Paddy Brock clearly conveyed how the process had enhanced his own practice and described how the
collaboration had great value in terms of science communication and engagement. Questions still remain for him about
how this value might be communicated and fed back into broader science so that a greater number of his colleagues
in the science world could be persuaded towards more public engagement.

Both artists and scientist enjoyed the working relationship which developed, and the subsequent opportunities to
co-present at conferences and events. Paddy’s hoped for outcome regarding the publication of a peer reviewed
journal article was not met at the time of writing this report, though it remains a possible future outcome as the
option is still being explored as part of the project’s legacy.

Reflections and round up at the end of the public engagement period included a comment from
Paddy which described the sometimes surprising results which occurred during the collaboration:

The science of the piece (detailed Plasmodium knowlesi epidemiology) didn’t come up as
often as I hoped it would, but there was lots of good engagement about malaria in general and
the global burden of infection (cited later by Paddy as a more important biomedical issue).
In that sense the project did an excellent job of highlighting an important biomedical topic in
an innovative way.
D R PAD DY B ROCK ( SC)

G E N ET I C MOO and D R NEIL D U F TO N

The process of making BATTLE OF THE BLISTER has been one which has engaged the public from the beginning
as the performances incorporated into the final animation were captured through three ‘Blister Cinema’ workshops
in 2015 that engaged approximately 1,000 participants. Dr Neil Dufton and Tim Pickup and Nicola Schauerman of
Genetic Moo have a very experimental approach to their respective art and science practice and though it was felt
there were no surprises during the collaboration, there was also a distinct sense of having achieved more than we
imagined at the beginning. Both parties seemed genuinely inspired by the experience of working together and cited
many new developments, cross-over inspirations and positive outcomes.

Genetic Moo were able to develop their practice and skills in coding, editing and engaging the public. The project was the
largest they had worked on to date and they acknowledged its scope and ambition and felt great professional value in
being able to bring it to completion. The excitement they felt in conveying the science and successfully encouraging
a high level of public interactivity was enthusiastically described in their questionnaire response following delivery of
the work. They also looked forward to exploring their many new ideas and skills, including more tests with projection
domes.

Through the process of making the film, including all the Blister Cinema workshops and their
preparation, the knowledge and skills we’ve gained count for a great deal. We have no doubt
that what we’ve learnt will have a big impact on our future projects, and for example, how we
engage an audience in interaction.
GENETIC MOO ( A )

22
Dr Neil Dufton talked about how he learned more about presenting, through watching Genetic Moo tailor the project
for different audiences. He described a new found confidence in presenting his science and had won three best
poster prizes at national and international conferences; something he felt was directly related to the collaboration
experience. He also seemed to learn a great deal through the method of developing the work with the public’s
participation, and was able to gain different perspectives by bringing many aspects of himself to that process; as a
scientist, as an artist (he is also an illustrator) and as a member of the public attending events with his wife and baby.

Both artist and scientist in this collaborative pairing shared a keen mutual interest in each other’s work, resulting in a
very symbiotic and experimental approach. The dialogue, which emerged through the course of the collaboration,
seems set to continue and seems to have opened up many avenues for future crossovers between art and science for
both Neil Dufton and Genetic Moo. The interesting question from this particular collaboration is what happens when
artist becomes scientist and scientist becomes artist?

E RI C S C H OC KMEL and DR M EGA N MACLEO D

For artist Eric Schockmel, it was his first time of working with a scientist and he described how he enjoyed the feeling of
the work being grounded in a larger context and reinforcing a sense of coherence. During the process he was able to evolve
his visual vocabulary, learning and adopting new techniques in 3D animation and experimenting with new colour combinations.
The experience has also led to him feeling more likely (and more comfortable) potentially seeking out collaborations with
people outside of (his) direct creative field in the future.

Scientist Megan MacLeod enjoyed seeing how the animation developed over time and articulated how that particular
process has value in and of itself. She also described how she enjoyed seeing Eric make something beautiful of the science
and scientific concepts. She also felt that she had achieved her hoped for aim of being able to think about her work
from a different perspective and described how taking part in the project had helped her talk about (her) work in a
more engaging way and with the use of less jargon. Some elements had to be navigated and she reflected on the rigid
approach to word use in science and how that is not the case in the artworld.

Their shared experience and learning about each other’s practice led to Eric and Megan making poignant realisations
about how similar artists and scientists can be in the way they work; Megan described her favourite moment at the
end of a day when she is looking at the results of an experiment that no-one else knows about yet; Eric also described
a very similar feeling he sometimes experienced just before his own creations are released into the public sphere.

SA MAN T HA MOORE and D R SERGE MO S TOW Y

This collaboration, which resulted in the animation LOOP seemed to get off the blocks very quickly with the artist
visiting the science laboratory early on in the process to learn about the research and to share her animation practice
with the lab team. This seemed to have been, and continued to be, an inspiring experience as described by Dr
Mostowy: visits from Samantha energise my entire lab and force us to think differently.
Photograph by Samantha Moore

23
Like other responses from the scientists, Serge Mostowy felt that the benefits to his practice, and his lab team,
could not be demonstrated in the usual expected ways, i.e. data collection, publishing outputs, funding applications.
Instead the value was to be found in less immediately tangible ways. He cited the value of being forced to think about/
communicate many things about our own science that we do not know. Additionally the process (or perhaps the person)
had the affect of helping to foster an environment of cohesiveness and pride... reinforcing productivity and driving curiosity
which Dr Mostowy felt would ultimately contribute towards scientific success.

Samantha Moore described the process as rewarding to see how well the ‘collaborative cycle’ (her methodology of
continuous feedback with the subjects of her work) worked with a group of people who were far removed to (my) usual
groups. She was able to testing her theories around creative methodologies that were central to her practice based
PhD in a different field to the neuropsychological one she was more familiar with. The medium of animation seemed to
her to allow unique creative collaborative links which encouraged a creative and subjective visualisation of the research,
something she felt would not have happened under normal circumstances.

At the end of the public engagement period Serge commented:

The mass appeal of this project has been surprising. I could communicate this experience with a
wide variety of people from different international settings (Europe, North America, Japan) and
work/education backgrounds (scientists and beyond). It has immediately helped non-scientists
to grasp my research questions, and their underlying importance.

D R SERGE M O STOW Y ( SC)

E L L I E L AN D and PROFESSOR PETE R O LI V E R

This was collaboration where the boundaries between art and science were blurred. Professor Oliver, as the recognised
scientist in the duo, was able to demonstrate and utilise his skills as a musician during the making of SLEEPLESS. This
collaboration seemed to enjoy the freedom to experiment and draw on the diverse abilities of artist and scientist. This
was articulated and very much appreciated by Ellie Land: Perhaps I was lucky, but actually it felt like I was working with
another artist at times.

Professor Oliver achieved more than expectation, from his initial hope of being able to take part in the artistic process.
He also learnt a great deal from discussions with Ellie and seeing the other projects in Silent Signal unfold. The issue of
engaging with many more people and having a chance to talk about the science was also cited as particularly valuable,
as was talking with the mental health service users who narrate the final film. He felt there were many opportunities to
improve his communication skills when talking to scientists and non-scientists and as has been encouraged to extend
his stand-up skills by taking part in the science stand-up, Bright Club.

Ellie Land also demonstrated her enjoyment of working in a freer, less confined way; how she was able to spend weeks
drawing and animating and improving her skills whilst also touching base with why I became an animator. She articulated
the complexity of filmmaking and the flexibility and adaptability that was required of her when working with a group
of participants to make a film: I was especially surprised when working with service user B, he was instrumental in bringing
things together in the voiceover.

This duo seemed to enjoy a very open dialogue and their collaborative approach extended to the way they were able
to work with the project’s participants; implementing participatory filmmaking methods which gave a framework for
working with a group of participants. This particular avenue has generated a desire in Ellie to explore those methods
further within her academic work.

A reflection from Professor Oliver at the end of the public engagement period demonstrates his strong belief
and experience in the value and potential that can be achieved through this form of artistic collaboration:

On a professional level, my own research has moved away from sleep science, yet I will
certainly be keen to work with filmmakers/animators/artists again as I see the huge potential
for public engagement: having given talks to a wide range of audiences, I wish I had been able to
show this film a few years ago, it would have been a perfect adjunct to a talk/lecture on sleep/
mental health. Although maybe obvious, the power of a moving image to convey a concept is
under-used in scientific communication at all levels.

P RO FESSO R P ETER O LIVER ( SC)

24
C H AR L I E T W EED and DR DA RREN LO GA N

The process of working together to produce THE SIGNAL AND THE NOISE was described by Darren Logan as a true
collaboration. Both he and Charlie Tweed seemed genuinely surprised and excited at the easy and organic way they
were able to develop a shared vision for their animation.

Darren, like many of the scientists felt the project had enabled him to develop new ways to communicate his research.
He was also able to connect with many people in the creative communities which has had led to him becoming
involved with multiple new art/science initiatives, e.g. the Body of Songs project (http://bodyofsongs.co.uk). Darren
described these developments as personally rewarding and certainly exceeded expectations.

Charlie was able to use new methods in the filming which pushed the development of his practice. He utilised HD
footage – creating a completely different aesthetic to previous works. Additionally he was able to work with multiple
screens incorporated in the single frame - again this was a new and different type of film to make. This had been Charlie’s
first collaboration with a scientist and he felt pleased that he was able to understand some very complex science and
from that was able to create a work which went beyond visualising the data.

The question of artistic control had been present for Darren at the beginning of the project but he was pleasantly
surprised by the amount of artistic involvement that Charlie offered: permitted me to get a really good understanding of his
creative vision and process. The dialogue developed through working face-to-face in short creative bursts (both had
young families which meant time together was limited) with Charlie offering different options to gauge opinion on
what worked best and being responsive to suggestions and ideas from Darren. The collaboration went far beyond
the scientist providing the source material and the artist doing the animation, instead there were conversations held,
compromises carefully navigated and connections found which resulted in a piece of work which both hope:

…will move beyond being an illustration of the science and become something more – that takes
into account all of the research and does something unique that triggers discussion and debate
amongst its audience.

C HARLIE T WEED ( A )

Key to how the collaborations were set-up and encouraged, and an essential factor in how the Project Aims 1 & 2
were achieved, was the role of Abigail Addison of Animate Projects, and Scientific Advisor Bentley Crudgington. The
collaborators were given an opportunity to comment on how they found the process of working with both Abigail and
Bentley and without exception, the feedback was highly positive and in many cases, glowing.

The Silent Signal exhibition tour went exceptionally well mainly due to Animate Projects good
communication prior and during installation periods. Animate Projects did a wonderful job
of securing further screenings of the Silent Signal works in international festivals which has
enabled our work to be shown in international film festivals which we have never exhibited in
previously. Bentley did a fantastic job of the educational programme which has helped audiences
to clearly appreciate the complexity of the works on exhibition.

B O RED O M RESEARCH ( A )

A great process, lots of really useful feedback, very supportive, whilst also pushing the projects.
Space for creative freedom and the upholding and acknowledgement of that.

ELLIE L A ND ( A )

...as well as their obvious hard work, Bentley’s positive attitude and enthusiasm and Abigail’s
constructive comments and understanding of the animation field have been essential for the
success of the project.

P RO FESSO R P ETER O LIVER ( SC)

The next set of Project Aims looks at how those discussions and debates, experience and
engagement, unfolded as Silent Signal continued into the public engagement period.

25
PROJECT AIM 3
TO P R ODUC E SIX A RT WORKS THAT DE MO N S TRATE
T H E POW ER OF A NIMATION TO CAP TI VATE AU DI E N CE S

Honourable mention should definitely go to Animate Projects’ Silent Signal project which came
to fruition this year with six experimental animations produced by collaboration between artists
and scientists, immaculately documented on the project’s website.

THE B EST IND IE ANIM ATIO N O F 20 16 , J EZ ST EWA RT,
SIGHT & SO UND M AGAZINE, B FI, JANUA RY 2 01 7

THE ART WORKS

1. AF T ER GLOW
2. BAT T L E OF BLISTER
3 . I MMUN ECRA F T
4 . LOOP
5 S L EEPL E SS
6. T H E S I GNA L A ND THE NOISE

S E E APPEN DI X 2 FOR A RT WORK
D E SC R I PT I ONS A ND COLL A BORATO R
BI O G RAPH I ES.

The animations were successfully created and delivered to Animate in
November 2015. The launch event at QUAD in Derby in February 2016
was a huge success, with introductions to the work delivered by the artists
and scientists, and as Senior Curator Peter Bonnell remarked, ‘there was
surprise [from the audience] at the scientists not being of the straight-laced
tweedy types’.

FO R P ETER AND OTHER STAFF
M EM B ERS AT Q UAD, HIS FINAL
FEED BAC K CO M M ENT D ESC RIB ES
THE SUCC ESS O F THE EX HIB ITIO N:

G REAT CO NT ENT,
G REAT SH OW,
W E LOV ED I T !

P ETER B O NNELL TELEP HO NE INTERVIEW
TRANSC RIP T 15 AP RIL 20 16
Photographs Laura Mitchell, courtesy of QUAD

26
In terms of demonstrating the power of animation to captivate, the Exhibition Audience Survey ended up being
worded around whether audiences found the work to be stimulating and/or informative, rather than whether
they found it captivating. Following discussions between Animate, Bentley Crudgington and Debbie Watson (the
evaluator), it was decided to also add questions that would probe personal views into how individuals think or feel
about their body. A question was also included to generate personal feedback to see whether individuals were
stimulated to become more involved in animation or science.

This section details 15 (20%) selected audience comments, from the 76 comments that attested to this aim, which
were received over the course of the partnered exhibitions:

1. Very good use of art to depict current research – very inventive
2. Diverse, insightful and aesthetically charismatic
3. It was very good but needed some improvement to the excitement
4. Very stimulating and thought developing
5. Sound quality poor, fascinating visuals
6. Too much art not enough science
7. I didn’t understand anything. I couldn’t even hear the information over the music. The only one I did
understand was the sleep deprival one
8. Colours and shapes gave a different perception to how the body works
9. Sound and visuals conspired beautifully to create surprise
10. I found the exhibition absolutely fascinating
11. They were lively and fun to watch but also felt that science research was behind them
12. The animations tackle science and health in a way that breaks down the conventional view taken by
patients and healthcare professionals. Great stuff
13. I am amazed that I am alive, I never thought about it!
14. Loved the way that science was expressed
15. I have Crohn’s disease – felt it summed up how the body, mind and spirit should work in synch but can’t
due to modern day pressures

Photograph courtesy of the Wellcome Genome Campus

27
The individual artworks AFTERGLOW and LOOP also received awards and accolades from the art world and
animation festival circuit, another indicator of captivating audiences – peer, expert and general audience members.
AFTERGLOW was awarded the Lumen Prize Moving Image Award 2016; LOOP received Second Place for the Raw
Science Film Festival Award for Professional Documentary under 10 Minutes, and a Special Mention at FAFF (Factual
Animation Film Fuss) 2016. Several of the animations screened in high profile film, art, science and animation
festivals (Encounters Film Festival, Imagine Science Film Festival, London International Animation Festival), and were
presented at art, science and technology conferences. Genetic Moo also won the Kent Creative Award 2016 in the
audiovisual category in 2016 for their work including the Blister Cinema events they produced in Margate.

The feedback which we have received from audiences during the exhibition tour has been
exceptional. Viewers have described the work as ‘hypnotic’, ‘mesmerising’, ‘captivating’ and
‘beautiful’. The highlight for us was the work being awarded the prestigious Lumen Prize Moving
Image Award in September 2016. There was a strong shortlist so we felt honoured to receive
this award.

B O RED O M RESEARCH ( A )

In AfterGlow art embraces science, with an extraordinary visualisation of a malaria infection
transmission scenario. Seen from the perspective of mosquitoes, a dark world of disease
within an island environment becomes a compelling short film where flight trails and foraging
macaques are rendered into glowing shapes and patterns of wonder and beauty. It is a
memorable example of artists employing digital media to its full potential.

TESSA JAC KSO N O B E, LUM EN PRIZE
SELEC TIO N PANEL COMMENT

We thought that the experience of the animator in making the film is a clever highlight, especially
as we do not see the filmmaker, but we feel her to be very present. We thought the attention to
detail was superb, especially the details of the process - which could be so dry, but are cleverly
presented to the audience. We felt that the visual articulation of the unseen was great. And we
felt that it was a great achievement to successfully bring the process of making into the fabric
of the film.

FAFF J URY STATEM ENT, O C TO BER 2 01 6

PROJECT AIM 4
TO E N T H US E AU DIENCES TO CONS I DE R HOW O U R B O DI E S
WOR K AN D H OW SCIENCE STRIVE S TO U N DE R S TA N D A N D
I M P R OVE OUR PERSONA L A ND GLO BA L HE A LTH THR O U GH
R E S EAR C H I NTO GENETICS, IM MU N O LO GY A N D E P I DE MI O LO GY
Photograph by Greg Milner Photography,
courtesy of Vivid Projects

28
Even though none of the artists have let the facts get in the way of a good film, the depth
of their collaborations ensure the merit of Silent Signal is scientific as well as artistic.

HERE ’ S THE SC IENC E: SIX A RT IST S
CO LL AB O RATE WITH SIX B IO LO GIST S FOR
ILLUM INATING SHOW AT Q UAD, MA RK
SHEERIN, C ULTURE 24 , FEB RUA RY 2 01 6

The feedback and evaluation process sought to ask questions and generate interest in how people ‘felt’ or
‘experienced’ the exhibition, as well as their view of the scientific communication and themes. The feedback did
provide strong evidence of the exhibition and events providing inspiration and creating enthusiasm in a subjective,
body and health response to the themes and the artworks:

Q. Did you find the way the animations looked at current scientific research stimulating and informative?

I could have talked with the scientists all day – I was surprised at the breadth of knowledge (I expected the depth)
Stimulating but not informative
Loop was my favourite – actual conversation with researcher and visualising septin cell structure and function
I feel the work gave us a taste of the complexities to genetic sequencing at a level that someone with no
understanding could appreciate
The films have made me intrigued about how the body deals with environmental interactions on a genetic/cellular
scale

Q. Have the films made your think (or feel) differently about your body in any way?

Yes it made me think that I need to look after my body
I gained a better understanding
Yes because it made me feel relaxed
I learnt about the body more and AfterGlow was really interesting to read about
My son has a rare genetic condition which will lead to death (2 kids already died of it) so a very involved fascinating
research study

Q. Has this experience made you think about becoming more involved in either SCIENCE or ANIMATION?

I want to learn more to help inspire my children
Interested in finding out more about how the body works and the animation aspect is a really good way in which
knowledge can be passed on
I am interested to find out more about the background to some of them. I picked up your brochure so hopefully that
will tell me

There were also some highly charged negative reactions to the exhibition – in most cases, it was a single feedback
form or person at each venue, often a scientist. The number of negative comments was relatively few, 3.3% (5 of 153
exhibition feedback forms received). Nevertheless it does demonstrate that for a very few people, the animations and
the science behind it did not communicate, enthuse or inspire:

Mystifying and belittling... a laudable feat to have done so, and I am a scientist
I didn’t understand anything, the only one I did understand was the sleep deprival one
Truly dreadful. Untouchable. Left after a few minutes. Disliked visuals and repetitive sound/music
I struggled to comprehend the scientific terms
Poor art, mediocre shallow science

However Silent Signal received praise in the science communication arena with the project being longlisted for
the NCCPE Engage Competition 2016 and receiving a Commendation for the Imperial College London President’s
Collaboration Award for Excellence in Societal Engagement.

29
PROJECT AIM 5
TO DI S T R I BUTE THE WORK THROU GH
E XHI BI T I ON O NLINE, IN GA LLERIE S A N D
AT FES T I VAL S REACHING 24000 PEO P LE

Photograph by Jacquetta Clark, courtesy of LifeSpace, University of Dundee

This aim was achieved and exceeded over the course of the project period. In total, just under 50,000 people
interacted with the work in person or via the Silent Signal website.

The total number of exhibition visitors, event attendees and workshop participants was 16,410. This figure represents
approx 66% of the project target figure of 24,000. In terms of online interaction: a total of 30,500 people visited
the Silent Signal website; 2,700 people watched the animations on Vimeo; and 350 people downloaded the
Science Guide.

The visitor numbers were tracked during the following activities:

1. Durational Silent Signal exhibitions, with programmed events and workshops, agreed with four key partners at
the outset of the project: QUAD arts centre in Derby; Vivid Projects, collaborative project space in Birmingham;
the Wellcome Genome Campus near Cambridge, home to genomics and computational biology institutes and
organisations; and the LifeSpace Science Art Research Gallery at the University of Dundee. The total number
of visitors and audience members that was achieved in these four venues reached over 7,200 people, including
1,200 who attended the organised events and workshops. See table 1 for detail.
2. Silent Signal partnered events during the 2016 public engagement period, included: discussion and screening
event at Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London; an exhibition at the University of Salford for
Manchester Science Festival; an exhibition at the Phoenix Arts Centre in Leicester; screening and discussion
at Einstein’s Garden at the Green Man Festival in Wales and a screening, talk and workshop at the Wellcome
Collection, London. The total number of people attending these events was 8,200. See table 2 for detail.

3. There was an additional series of one-off events in the UK, Europe and USA reaching an additional 1,100 people.
See table 2 for detail.
4. The collaborators, mainly the artists, also reported on additional events and screenings which happened during
the project period. 95,941 people were able to see the animations or attend events where the Silent Signal
projects were discussed this was made up of: 84,000 who viewed AFTERGLOW on the video wall at the Sony
Center in Berlin; plus talks at art/science/technology conferences in the UK, South Korea, Colombia, Germany
and the Netherlands.

30
TABLE 1 SILENT SIGNA L DU RATI O N A L E XHI B I TI O N S A N D
PROGRA MME OF E V E N TS A N D WO R KS HO P S

EX H I B I TI O N V E NU E , DAT E S EV ENTS & WO RKSHO P S
& V I S I TOR N U M B E R S

QUAD 1. Talk with (SC) Dr Megan MacLeod, IMMUNECRAFT
6 FEBRUARY - 6 MARCH 2016 2. Symposium at University of Derby, College of
Art, with collaborators (A) & (SC) and other invited
2,269 visitors to exhibition* artists and scientists
202 event attendees 3. Meet the collaborators (A) & (SC) at the QUAD
55 workshop participants exhibition preview

4. (A) Genetic Moo’s Blister Cinema workshop with
Dr Neil Dufton (SC)

VIVID PROJECTS 1. Salon at University of Birmingham.
19 MARCH – 23 APRIL 2016 IMMUNECRAFT, LOOP & SLEEPLESS collaborators
(A) & (SC) present to talk about their work

580 visitors to exhibition at Vivid Projects (300 of 2. FOODLab pop up food laboratory event in
those were attendees at the Food Lab event)* response to Silent Signal for Digbeth First Friday
1,552 visitors to University of Birmingham 3. (A) Genetic Moo’s Blister Cinema workshop
exhibition*
56 attended the Salon event 4. (A) Ellie Land and (SC) Professor Oliver’s
modelling clay dreams workshop
23 workshop participants

WELLCOME GENOME CAMPUS 1-4. A series of four First Thursday late night public
12 MAY -25 SEPTEMBER 2016 engagement events were held during the period of
the exhibition

1,651 visitors to exhibition* 5. (A) Genetic Moo’s Blister Cinema workshop with
(268 attended during the First Thursday events) Dr Neil Dufton (SC)
74 workshop participants

LIFESPACE SCIENCE ART Talks and Seminars:
RESEARCH GALLERY 1. Charlie Tweed (A)
29 SEPTEMBER – 26 NOVEMBER 2016 2. Dr Megan MacLeod (SC)
3. Samantha Moore (A)
4. Ellie Land (A)
308 visitors to exhibition*
5. Dr Paddy Brock (SC)
123 event attendees 6. boredomresearch (A)

7. (A) Genetic Moo’s Blister Cinema workshop with
Dr Neil Dufton (SC)
Photograph by Jacquetta Clark, courtesy
of LifeSpace, University of Dundee

31
TABLE 2 SILENT SIGNA L AT F E S TI VA L E V E N TS , O N E - O F F
SCREENINGS, TA LKS A N D DI S CU S S I O N S , A N D WO R KS HO P S

VE N U E A N D LO C AT IO N T Y P E O F EV ENT TOTAL EVENT
AT TENDA NCE

PHO E N I X A R T S C E N T R E , Screening* 2,841
L E I CE S TE R

PHO E N I X A R T S C E N T R E , Talk 20
L E I CE S TE R

PHO E N I X A R T S C E N T R E , Workshop 50
L E I CE S TE R

W E LLCO ME TR U S T, LO ND O N Display* 2,160

W E LLCO ME CO L L EC T IO N , LO N D O N Screening, Talk & Workshop* 625

M A N CH E S TE R S C IE NC E FE S T IVAL , Exhibition* 2,325
U NI V E R S I T Y O F SAL FO R D

C E N TRA L SA I N T M AR T IN S , Workshop 5
LO N DON

C E N TRA L SA I N T M AR T IN S , Discussion* 107
LO N DON

G R E E N MA N FE S T IVAL , Screening & Discussion* 100
BRECO N , WA L E S

VIS V I E N N A I ND E P E ND E NT Display 200
SH OR TS , V I E N N A , AU S T R IA

EX PA N DE D A NIM AT IO N Screening & Presentation 80
SYMP OS I U M, AR S E L EC T R O N IC A ,
L I N Z , AU S TR I A

KUN S T K RA F T WE R K , Screening 18
L E I PZ I EG, GE RM ANY

OB E R HAU S E N INT E R NAT IO NAL Screening & Discussion 80
SH OR T F I LM FE S T IVAL , G E R M ANY

IMAG I N E S CI E NC E FE S T IVAL , Screening 150
NE W YO R K , U SA

EC S TATI C TR UT H SY M P O S IU M , Presentation 138
ROYA L CO LLEG E O F AR T, LO ND O N

G L A S GOW S CIE N C E FE S T IVAL , Display & Activities 203
G L A S GOW

BRI TI S H I N TE RAC T IV E G R O U P Education Activity Presentation 20
(B I G) B E LFA S T

IMPE R I A L COL L EG E O U T R E AC H , Education Activity 40
LO N DON

G O DA LMI N G CO L L EG E , Education Activity 28
G O DA LMI N G

IN S P I R I N G F UT U R E S , O NL IN E Education Activity (Webinar) 52 32
PROJECT AIM 6
TO E X PLOR E THE PROCESS, A NIMATI O N TECHN I Q U E S A N D THE ME S THR O U G H
2 3 EVEN T S , WORKSHOPS A ND ONL I N E R E S O U R CE S , R E ACHI N G 9 0 0 A DU LT S

Silent Signal over-achieved this aim by organising, delivering, and tracking a total of 36 events involving approximately
10,400 people. Twenty of the events took place during the Exhibitions at QUAD, Vivid Projects, Wellcome Genome
Campus and LifeSpace, with approximately 1,200 people attending. This included a one day symposium at the
University of Derby, with presentations from invited artists and scientists, as well as the project collaborators (audio
recordings and written presentations can be accessed on the project website silentsignal.org). More than 9,200 people
also attended the sixteen other partnered events which took place. The events comprised talks, discussions, seminars,
symposia, one-off screenings and workshops which explored the process of art and science collaboration, animation
techniques, and the scientific themes which lay at the core of the Silent Signal artworks.

S EE TAB LES 1 & 2 FOR
VEN UE AND AU DIENCE
DETAI L

For the purposes of measuring
this aim, audience numbers for
partner-exhibition screening events
(and FOODLab at Vivid), marked
with an asterisk* were not counted
but estimated.
Photograph courtesy of the University of Derby
Photography, courtesy of Vivid Projects
Photographs by Greg Milner

33
Ellie Land, the artist and Professor Peter Oliver, the scientist who collaborated on SLEEPLESS described their
experience of one of these events, held at the University of Birmingham on 15 March 2016:

For the Birmingham event I was surprised and very pleased how well the audience engaged with
the plasticine modelling task we ran after showing the film; the models/descriptions they made
were a combination of personal, emotional and the plain silly – but the anonymity meant they
could all be shared. This certainly generated a great deal of discussion, even amongst strangers.

P RO FESSO R P ETER O LIVER ( SC)

I was surprised at how well received the plasticine dreams session was. We wanted to give the
audience a hands-on experience that reflected the types of sessions we ran with the service
user group [who participated in making Sleepless]. I think all three sessions during this workshop
worked well with each other, particularly the flow between them, especially as they were all
different in approach and themes.

ELLIE L A ND ( A )

Photograph by Jacquetta Clark, courtesy of LifeSpace, University of Dundee

Scientific Advisor Bentley Crudgington and Educational Consultant Gillian Pearson also successfully produced a
Science Guide to frame and contextualise the biomedical research for the audience both online and in the gallery.
Also created were activity sheets and resources which were aimed at teachers and science communicators working
with young people to introduce the scientific themes in ways which were engaging and educational, based on the
A-Level Science syllabus. The strategy for disseminating the guide and its contents involved:

Engaging Gillian Pearson, to act as an advisor, drawing on her wide experience, contacts and networks within the
school science education arena

High quality, full colour, hard copy booklets available to take away from the exhibition venues and distributed to
science communicators at events (2,000 copies printed and distributed)

Downloadable version of the Science Guide and additional activity sheets and video interviews made available
on the Silent Signal website – 348 copies have been downloaded during the public engagement period

Bentley Crudgington and Gillian Pearson presented the resource and its content at the BIG Event 2016 (British
Interactive Group) an annual science communication conference to 30 science facilitators, who participated in
the session

Additional networking and discussions took place during the BIG event, attended by 150-200 people, identified
as the most effective group to help disseminate the materials and the science themes into schools

Bentley Crudgington also presented the resource and its content to a mixture of biomedical scientists (interested
in and with a need to deliver public engagement), science communicators, engagement officers, science centre staff
and programme developers at Imperial ReachOut and Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics
34
What was so useful to me as an engagement professional was to have such a great example of
best practice in collaboration. Silent Signal allowed me to show others, such as my colleagues in
the Learning and Programmes team at the National Museum of Scotland and groups such as the
Edinburgh Skeptics and Eureka Edinburgh, that something beautiful, inspiring and surprising can
happen when people step outside their normal boundaries and really celebrate creativity.

AL I F LOY D, FREEL ANC E SC IENC E CO M M UNIC ATO R & SCIENCE
E NGAGEM ENT O FFIC ER (B IO M ED IC INE), NATIO NAL M USEUMS
SCOTL AND (EX ) C REATIV E CO NSULTA NT

The Silent Signal Science Guide is a great resource, bringing together creativity, ethics and
science in a useful package that has been enthusiastically received in our networks. Using the
resource has enabled us to bring in different elements to our workshops, especially those
that are under-represented in traditional STEM Outreach. In addition, the project really adds
value in terms of its animations, and has supported the users and learners with its discussions
relating to debating ethical and social impacts of the scientific research within. In short, it is
a holistic package that has found wide application across our programmes, and across our
collaborators. We can see application of this resource for many years to come.

D R M EL ANIE B OT TRILL , STEM P RO GRA MMES
M ANAGER, IM P ERIAL CO LLEGE LONDON

Photograph Laura Mitchell, courtesy of QUAD

35
PROJECT AIM 7
TO E N GAGE AND INSPIRE 2 , 000 YO U N G
PEOPL E T HR OU GH PA RTNERED INI TI ATI V E S

THIS AIM O F ENGAGING
YO UNG P EO P LE WAS STRO NGLY
OV ER-AC HIEV ED, AND IS
D EM O NSTRAB LE IN THE
FO LLOWING WAYS:

5,669 young people (aged under 16 to 24) were
tracked as having engaged with Silent Signal
online, at exhibitions and events

Breakdown by age group: under 16s: 523,
16-19 year olds: 1,846, and 20-24 year olds: 3,300

523 under 16s, 887 16-19 year olds, and
902 20-24 year olds attended Silent Signal
exhibitions and events over the course of
the project

959 16-19 year olds and 2,398 20-24 year
olds visited the Silent Signal website

Photograph by Greg Milner Photography, courtesy of Vivid Projects

I also think that the Science Guide and associated activities especially those for children that
were organised by Bentley were very impressive and really did help the audience to understand
complex science in very creative and engaging ways.

C HARLIE T WEED ( A )

One particular highlight was talking to a boy (probably around 11 years old) at the Glasgow
Science Festival about the animation I did with Megan. He seemed to immediately get the
concept behind the work - he was passionate about making games using a software
called Scratch.

ERIC SC HO C KMEL ( A )

Not all of the four main Silent Signal
Photograph by Heather Barnett

exhibition partners were able to capture age-
related data therefore the actual numbers
could have been much higher than reported.
Significant age-related data was available
from QUAD but no age data was available
from LifeSpace Gallery and the data available
from Wellcome Genome Campus and Vivid
Projects itself was a very small percentage of
their total visitor numbers.

36
Silent Signal also worked with another partner in order to engage directly with young people, namely Central Saint
Martins, University of Arts London, who wanted to offer their students valuable experience in developing devising and
delivering workshops. The students worked with two Silent Signal partnerships, Samantha Moore & Dr Serge Mostowy,
and Genetic Moo & Dr Neil Dufton, to carry out the long planned events: a cascade of descending ideas which included
two artists’ talks, a screening and discussion event, student sharing, live public workshop led by the students, and filmed
documentation of the workshop day (see Vimeo link in Appendix 3).

Seven students signed up and were very interested to explore the theme of Silent Signals in the
body and were interested in cross-disciplinary Sci/Art work. Although a little disappointed with
the numbers of participants who signed up to be involved, owing to the unfortunate timing of
the project around degree shows, exam time, and summer holidays, seven enrolled instead of
the target 12-20 – but, the organiser of these events, Heather Barnett stressed that the seven
participants were very enthusiastic and enjoyed the whole day.

T E X T IN ITALIC S TAKEN FRO M HEATHER BARNET T TELEPH ONE
INTERV IEW TRANSC RIP T, 13 J UNE 2 01 6

In terms of inspiring young people, the feedback data from the Genetic Moo workshop at QUAD on 27 February 2016
was able to capture enthusiastic responses from some young people, for example:

I love that, going in the exhibition and putting things in my head. I now know more about antibodies

FEM ALE, UND ER 16 , GENERAL VISITOR

Fun, educational, exciting. Making a connection to science

FEM ALE, UND ER 16 , GENERAL VISITOR

Good to have the scientist there to talk about the science behind the movement animation.
Interesting to see the different animations produced

M ALE, UND ER 16 , GENERAL VISITOR

The final feedback comment above was completed by three under 16s, one male and two female, who were also
attending the Genetic Moo workshop. They also drew an expanding five limb/petal shape with the words growth,
multiplying and play-art written alongside to describe their experience.

37
2 . 2 WHAT WERE THE DIFFICULTIES
OR DISAPPOINTMENTS?
There were some frustrations and disappointments in the levels of exhibition audience feedback which was obtained.
Most of the partners advised that this was generally an issue during their exhibitions and even though there was a
lot of discussion and effort put into devising the feedback forms so that they limited the number of questions, there
was still relatively small numbers who responded. This was mirrored in the online interaction which also delivered
disappointing numbers of completed audience feedback forms.

It was also challenging to directly engage teachers with the educational resource, although the focus on sharing the
resource with science communicators has enabled more of a legacy for the project.

38
PROJECT
CONCLUSION
3.1 WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED?
The importance of contextualising information being available at exhibition and the added value that discussion
events can bring to engage audiences further with the scientific research and the artistic techniques being
employed and to catalyse conversation

Obtaining audience feedback at venues is not an easy task. At the Wellcome Genome Campus, they found passive
methods of obtaining feedback had very limited value. Worth looking at other data capture methods beyond the
individual feedback form (group discussion sessions, post it note walls)

Difficulty in tracking how science communicators and teachers have made use of the Science Guide and activity
sheets and for future projects more needs to be done to encourage feedback
To encourage teachers to make use of the resource providing some endorsements from other teachers and their
students via an online video or PDF download may have encouraged more engagement

Needed to highlight the Science Guide more at the exhibition venues. Rebecca Gilmore, Wellcome Genome
Campus:
…a fantastic job by Bentley but needed to be more visible, both to notice it and to understand it was free to take away.
Added ‘Help Yourself’ signs which helped!

Time for set-up is often an issue and led to technical sound levels being negatively mentioned by visitors at
QUAD and Wellcome Genome Campus

3. 2 WHAT ARE THE FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
AND HOPES FOR AN ONGOING IMPACT?
There is evidence that there is a real appetite for interdisciplinary art and science projects, most notably as
organisations approached Animate Projects and its collaborators with a desire to share the project with their
audiences. For instance, the project’s producer was invited to speak at the Royal College of Art’s Ecstatic Truth
Symposium and the Expanded Animation Symposium at Ars Electronica engaging students, researchers, animators,
and artists on the stimulating outcomes that such an interdisciplinary project can produce.
There are numerous examples which suggest that there are many possibilities for future projects for the collaborators,
the partners, and for Animate, that have sprung as a result of connections made and the profile that this project has
raised. There are also hopes for encouraging more support and enthusiasm for art and science collaboration within the
artistic and scientific communities.

We incorporated AfterGlow into our portfolio for our successful submissions for Paisley Project
Commission and our Future Emerging Art & Technology (FEAT) residency. The project enabled
us to evidence that we have successfully worked on a long term art/science collaborative
commission.

B O RED O M RESEARCH ( A )

39
What working with boredomresearch on Silent Signal taught me is that the transition
to constructive dialogue need not take the length of a career. With our models as a central focus
for discussion, the desire to achieve mutual understanding as our shared mission, and the support
of progressive institutions, we made the journey to T during the course of a single project.
http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/03/09/understanding-monkey-to-human-malaria-
transmission

D R PAD DY B RO C K (SC ), C AM B RID GE CO RE B LO G, 9 M ARCH 2 01 6

I hope to repeat this successful experience. For my next funding application to the Wellcome
Trust, I have requested funding to perform a second animation with Samantha and Animate.

D R SERGE M O STOW Y ( SC)

The project has been invaluable. It has pushed me beyond what I expected in terms of learning
and development. It has opened doors for me, increased my professional network and has
prompted meetings and conversations that will grow into new projects.

B ENTLEY C RUD GINGTO N, SC IENTIFIC ADVISOR

In conclusion, the Silent Signal project was able to fully achieve its Project Aims over the course of the collaboration
process and the public engagement period. The analysis and evaluation has been able to demonstrate the many
ways in which these aims were achieved and the factors which were contributing to that achievement. It seems that
collaboration was happening at many levels, not just between the artists and scientists who created the artworks, but
between Animate and their key advisors and funders, the exhibition and event partners, and the public participants
and viewers. Collaboration was happening in simple and complex ways, some more explicit than others, but all
ultimately contributing to the overall success of this ambitious project and the possibilities for its legacy.

On a professional level, my own research has moved away from sleep science, yet I will certainly
be keen to work with filmmakers/animators/artists again as I see the huge potential for public
engagement... Although maybe obvious, the power of a moving image to convey a concept is
under-used in scientific communication at all level.

P RO FESSO R P ETER O LIV ER (SC ), AT TH E END
O F THE P UB LIC ENGAGEM ENT PERIOD

I hope that the film helps people to understand that 1] scientists see things subjectively as well
as objectively 2] they don’t always agree with each other and 3] that science is really creative!
The film was received really well by audiences, inspired discussion and interest in presentations
that Serge and I did together, and most importantly was incredibly positively received by the
scientists who I collaborated with.

SAM ANTHA M O O RE (A), AT THE END OF T H E
P UB LIC ENGAGEM ENT PERIOD

40
APPENDIX 1
ORIGINAL PROJECT
SUMMA RY

OU R BODI ES P ERFORM A SOUNDL E S S I N TE R N A L DI A LO GU E B E T W E E N
C E LL S US I N G THE UNIVERSA L CYP HE R O F GE N E TI CS . THE S E S I GN A L S A R E
F U NDAMEN TAL TO HOW OU R BOD I E S O P E RATE A N D HOW THE Y A DA P T TO
F I GHT DI S EASE.

Through animation, the six projects in Silent Signal explore how research into genetics, immunology and epidemiology
is advancing our understanding of how the human body communicates internally. The projects consider how our
immune system functions, how disease is spread and how our genetic code can be manipulated. By bringing together
six artists with six scientists to creatively explore cutting edge research we are asked to reflect on what the future
applications and impact of the research might be for us all; where medical advancements could boost our response to
infection, exploit our genetic code to treat health and behavioural problems, or predict how medicinal interventions
could save large populations from fatal diseases.

Given the parity between the tools and processes used in animation with those utilised by the scientists, animation
is a most fitting medium to explore this research. The artists will be using a wide range of animation techniques to
simulate the perspective of the scientific equipment, and will incorporate the actual data, algorithms and coding from
the research to produce their artwork.

Silent Signal comprises six collaborative projects producing animated works for exhibition online and in the gallery,
with associated events, workshops, educational resources and online materials to share learning with art, science and
interdisciplinary students, researchers and practitioners.

LIST OF CORE PARTNERS

Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, London arts.ac.uk/csm
Imperial College London, London imperial.ac.uk/outreach
LifeSpace Science Art Research Gallery, Dundee lifespace.dundee.ac.uk
Phoenix, Leicester phoenix.org.uk
QUAD, Derby derbyquad.co.uk
University of Derby, College of Arts, Derby derby.ac.uk/arts
University of Salford, Salford salford.ac.uk
Vivid Projects, Birmingham vividprojects.org.uk
Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton publicengagement.wellcomegenomecampus.org
APPENDIX 2
ART WORK DESCRIPTIONS AND
COLL ABORATOR BIOGRAPHIES

AF TERGLOW - GA LLERY VE R S I ON
AF TERGLOW (SUSCEPT I BL E , E XPOS E D, I N F EC T E D,
RECOVERED) – SI N GLE S C R E E N VE R S I ON
boredomresearch and Dr Paddy Brock, University of Glasgow
Duration: 4’36” (single screen), in exhibition the piece is generative

Locked in perpetual twilight - prime mosquito blood-feeding time - AfterGlow presents a terrain progressively
illuminated by glowing trails, evocative of mosquito flight paths. These spiralling forms represent packets of blood,
carried by mosquitos infected with Plasmodium knowlesi, a malaria parasite recently found to jump the species barrier
from monkey to human.

The infection left in the wake of wandering macaques as they search the island for food reveals the intimate
relationship between disease and its environment.

Here we see how the island’s empty dark mountains are quickly engulfed with glowing forms, as we journey through
the different stages of infection, starting with delicately spiralling cells of colour that form clusters, then become
turbulent when infectious. Where the infection is most dense, we see a blizzard of disease, vividly expressing the
complexity of this dangerous scenario.

The single screen version was made using screen capture taken from the real-time software version of AfterGlow that
runs in a game engine. The selected film capture was then compiled and edited to show the accumulation of the
infection transmission scenario and the soundtrack was created by boredomresearch.

boredomresearch’s computer generated landscape is charged by the research of mathematical modeller, Dr Paddy
Brock, who uses analysis tools from ecology and epidemiology to explore zoonotic malaria in Malaysia.

B O RE DO M R E S E AR C H

boredomresearch is a collaboration between artists Vicky Isley and Paul Smith. Fascinated by the mechanics of the
natural world they use computational technology to simulate natural patterns, behaviours and intricate forms that
gradually change over time.

boredomresearch’s work opens channels for meaningful dialogue and engagement between public and scientific
domains. For example their artwork Real Snail Mail was the world’s first webmail service to use real snails, challenging
our cultural obsession with speed, and received worldwide attention, including: BBC, TIME Magazine, New Scientist and
Discovery Channel Canada.

Based at the National Centre for Computer Animation, Bournemouth University, their work benefits from a fine blend
of art and science – allowing them to achieve projects underpinned by a deep appreciation of the creative possibilities
of technology.

boredomresearch’s artworks are in collections around the world including the British Council and Borusan
Contemporary Art Collection, Istanbul. Exhibitions include: Bio-Art 2015, Seoul; ISEA2015, Vancouver; TRANSITIO
MX_06 Electronic Arts & Video Festival, Mexico City; Soft Control: Art, Science and the Technological Unconscious,
Slovenia and Gateways, House of Electronic Arts, Basel.

b ore d o mre s ea rch . net
DR PA D DY B R O C K

Dr Paddy Brock trained as a field biologist with interests in animal behaviour, evolution and ecology. His current
research, at the Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the University of Glasgow, applies
quantitative approaches to investigate disease transmission, particularly in multi-host systems that involve wildlife. He
is working on a project funded by Environmental & Social Ecology of Human Infectious Diseases (ESEI) programme on
the zoonotic malaria Plasmodium knowlesi, as part of a team integrating analysis tools from ecology and epidemiology.

Previously, he used statistical and mechanistic models to assess transmission-blocking interventions for malaria and
the dynamics of co-infection between HIV and HPV (human papillomavirus). Paddy maintains an interest in the study
of immunity in an ecological context, and explored this and related issues in the Galapagos sea lion for his PhD. He
continues to collaborate with the Galapagos National Park on ways to incorporate research findings into conservation
management programmes.

g la.a c.u k/re s ea rc hinst it ute s / ba hc m / st aff/paddybro ck
BAT TLE OF B LISTER
Genetic Moo & Dr Neil Dufton, Imperial College London
Duration: 5’54”

“We are the body. We are under attack.” And so the body’s immune system is triggered into action. A raging battle has
begun between pro and anti-inflammatory forces in the plasmic swirling interior of a blister.

Each sequence in Battle of Blister has been generated by human performers in an interactive film set. These
animations chart the escalation from fly bite to full scale engagement. Spreading, swelling, burning, fighting...
capturing the complex dynamics of inflammation; the never-ending battle between bacteria and the body.

GEN E TIC M O O

Genetic Moo build living installations in pixels and lights. Since 2008, they have been developing a series of interactive
video installations based on imagined future evolutions. In darkened spaces audiences engage with their fantastical
creatures which combine elements of the human and the animal. Their work draws broadly from science, particularly in
the areas of evolution, symbiosis, morphology, phylogeny, mutation and artificial life.

Their work, Starfish, received a John Lansdown Award for Interactive Digital Art at Eurographics (2007) and was
nominated for an Erotic Award (2012). They were recipients of the Lumen Prize Founder’s Award (2013), awarded to
artists whose work best reflects the uniquely engaging aspects of digital art.

They are currently working on Microworld: an experiment in creating digital ecosystems, where artworks react to each
other, to the space and to the audience.

g eneti cmo o.co m

DR NE IL D U F TO N

Neil began his scientific career after graduating in Pharmacology from University of Bath and obtained his PhD in
innate immunology and the resolution of inflammation at the William Harvey Research Institute (WHRI), Queen Mary
University of London. He spent two years working with Professor John Wallace at the Farncombe Family Digestive
Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, investigating the role of hydrogen sulphide gas in
regulating inflammation. Currently, he is a postdoctoral research associate at the National Heart and Lung Institute
(NHLI) at Imperial College London with Dr Anna Randi. His research investigates the roles that genes, proteins and
gases play in regulating the body’s response to inflammation.

Neil created a website to showcase his artistic and scientific capabilities, and aims to present current scientific
knowledge through his abstract and surreal illustrations, some of which have been published in international
publications. In 2014, Neil was shortlisted for British Heart Foundation’s Reflections in Research Image Competition.

imperi a l . a c.u k/p e o p le / n.d ufto n
I MM UNECRA F T
Eric Schockmel & Dr Megan MacLeod, University of Glasgow
Duration: 3’04”

Adopting the form of a video game trailer, Immunecraft presents a fictional game which gives users agency over
a real life cell culture to compete against opponent players. It explores the parallels between popular gameplay
mechanics and some of the most important principles of the human immune system, including cellular memory and
autoimmunity.

It understands itself as a piece of speculative design futures, commenting on the principles of multiplayer online
gaming in the age of DNA building blocks, printable organic electronics and biohacking, thus raising questions about
bioethics.

ERIC SCHO C K ME L

Eric Schockmel is a London-based moving image artist and director from Luxembourg. His work spans a personal
practice and commissions, as well as freelancing in the creative industries. He creates expressive artworks for digital
and physical environments, including installations, screenings, projections, prints, desktop, mobile and TV screens,
exploring themes at the intersection of art, science and technology. In 2015 he began directing an animated
documentary about the origins of science fiction.

Eric has an MA in Communication Design from Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London.

er icsch o ckm e l . n et

DR M EGA N MAC L EO D

Dr Megan MacLeod graduated from the University of Glasgow in 2001 with a first class honours in Immunology and
received her PhD from the University of Edinburgh in 2005. Her research took her to Denver, USA where she worked
with Philippa Marrack and John Kappler, two of the world’s leading immunologists. She is currently working at the
University of Glasgow, funded by Arthritis Research UK to examine the immune cells that are central regulators in
autoimmune disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Her research aims to improve our understanding of how the immune
cells, CD4 T cells, regulate immune responses in infection and autoimmunity.

g la.a c.u k/re s ea rc hinst it ute s / iii/ st aff/ m eganm acleo d
LO OP
Samatha Moore & Dr Serge Mostowy, Imperial College London
Duration: 6’10”

Loop is about what can be seen and what cannot, how scientists imagine their work and how they describe it.

The film is based on the work done in Dr Serge Mostowy’s lab on septin assembly in cells, using a zebrafish model. Lab
members describe the intricate sub-cellular septin dynamics and structure. Their explanatory drawings, and discussion
with the filmmaker about how they see the research, are incorporated into the animation.

Each person’s unique and idiosyncratic vision of the process brings a different facet to the complex and secret world
of septin cytoskeleton dynamics. The scientists’ different theories of assembly reveal the creative and discursive
nature of science. The scientists’ original sketches, included at the end of the film, emphasises how closely they worked
with the filmmaker to translate their individual vision to the whole.

SAM A NTH A M O O R E

Samantha Moore is an award-winning animated documentary maker. Her awards include one for Scientific Merit from
the journal Nature for her film about audio-visual synaesthesia, An Eyeful of Sound (Imagine Science Film Festival,
New York, 2010). She is passionate about the ability of animation to convey reality in new and surprising ways; for
her PhD she researched the way animation can be used to document perceptual brain states using collaborative
methodologies.
Samantha teaches animation at the University of Wolverhampton, and presents her research at conferences
internationally. She has given lectures on her work including to the Royal Institute of Australia; St Pölten University,
Austria; at the Melbourne International Animation Festival and she presented a keynote talk at the American
Synesthesia Association conference in Canada.

sama nth a m o o re.co.uk

DR SE RG E M O S TOW Y

Dr Serge Mostowy obtained a BSc in Physics, MSc in Evolutionary Biology, and PhD in Microbiology and Immunology
from McGill University, Montreal, Canada. In 2006, he was a postdoctoral fellow at Institut Pasteur in Paris, France,
studying the cell biology of infection. In late 2011, he moved to Imperial College London to start his own research
group, studying intracellular host defence to bacterial pathogens.

His research focuses on developing zebrafish as a new model for the in vivo study of Shigella pathogenesis, septin
biology and bacterial autophagy, with the aim of developing a more comprehensive understanding of host defence
at the molecular, cellular and whole organism level, generating important consequences for bacterial pathophysiology
and its control.

Serge was awarded a Prize Fellowship from the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine in 2015.

imperi a l . a c.u k/p e o p le / s . m ostow y
SLEEPLESS
Ellie Land & Professor Peter Oliver, University of Oxford
Duration: 5’30”

Sleep. Do we get enough? The latest developments in circadian biology research are uncovering the detrimental
effects that a lack of sleep can have to our well-being.

Sleepless is the result of a two year conversation between artist Ellie Land and scientist Professor Peter Oliver about
the links now being discovered between sleep and mental health. Its rhythm is inspired by the circadian cycle and
displays visual icons rooted in the science of sleep, whilst featuring the voices of a group of mental health service users
who share their experience of disrupted sleep/wake patterns.

ELLIE L A N D

Ellie Land is an award-winning animation director and is Senior Lecturer in Animation at Northumbria University. Her
practice and research is in the field of animation and documentary.

Ellie’s work is renowned for its boldness in portraying difficult subject matters using animation. She often uses
innovative collaborations with the people her films are about.

Her films have been showcased around the world at festivals such as Ottawa International Animation Festival, Canada;
Fantoche, Baden, Switzerland; and Hiroshima International Animation Festival, Japan, and have been curated at
exhibitions in venues such as the V&A and ICA. Her awards include Best Non-Factual from the Royal Television Society,
UK and Best Animation from Scinema International Festival of Science Film, Australia.

Ellie recently worked on Iain Cunningham’s part-animated feature documentary Irene’s Ghost, which was supported by
the BFI and the Wellcome Trust.

ellie l a n d .co m

PRO F E SSO R P E T E R O L I V E R

Professor Peter Oliver holds a degree in Biochemistry from the University of Bath and received a PhD in mammalian
genetics from the Medical Research Council’s National Institute for Medical Research, London. In 2000, he joined
Professor Kay Davies’ group in the MRC Functional Genomics Unit at the University of Oxford, where his research
focused on understanding novel gene function in the brain, using the mouse as a model system. He was recently
awarded a European Research Council Starting Grant and has established his own group in the Department of
Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics at the University of Oxford.

Peter’s research involves gene function in the brain and the consequences of gene dysfunction in disease, with focus
on the relationship between sleep and mental health.

d pag.ox . a c.u k/tea m / p eter - o live r
T HE SIGNA L A ND THE NOI S E
Charlie Tweed & Dr Darren Logan, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
Duration: 6’46”

Voiced by an anonymous group of hybrid machines, from some point in the near future, The Signal and the Noise
firstly exposes the parallels of computer coding and genetic coding in humans and animals. The work’s narrators look
at these creatures as inefficient machines and consider ways of editing and improving their code.

The film draws upon the latest advances in DNA sequencing technology, as well as new ways of controlling behavior,
such as Optogenetics, to propose a future vision of hybrid computing devices that are used to monitor and repair
living things, resulting in better performing humans and animals.

Whilst the work appears to be a piece of science fiction, all of the technologies and ideas discussed are based on
actual advances and research, and visions of how things might materialise in the future, including the concepts of DNA
and biological computing, and the recent technology for gene editing known as CRISPR.

The film operates as a way to trigger debate and discussion amongst its viewers getting them to question the limits
of the human desire to control themselves and the world around them. It asks the question what are the limits of
technological progression, what is the future of the ‘human machine’ and our relation with computers and what are
the ethics of fixing the code?

The Signal and the Noise draws upon the research and tools used by Dr Darren Logan in his work including the
investigation of genetically influenced behavior and the sequencing of DNA in order to understand this.

CH A RLIE T W E E D

Charlie Tweed is an artist and academic based in Bristol. He is currently a lecturer in Digital Media and Culture at
Bath Spa University. He has an MFA in Art Practice from Goldsmiths, London and an MA in Digital Media from Oxford
Brookes University.

He is currently completing his Arts and Humanities Research Council funded PhD at Kingston University where he is
developing a large-scale video installation titled The Signal and The Rock.

Recent group shows and awards include: dragged down into lowercase (Sommerakademie) at the Zentrum Paul Klee,
Bern, Switzerland; The Box Season 5 at Aberystwyth Arts Centre, Wales; The London Open at Whitechapel Gallery;
Experimentica at Chapter, Wales; SUB12 at Substation, Melbourne. Winner of the Galerie Klatovy Klenova prize at the
Start Point European Academy Awards 2008; winner of the ECO 09 prize; and Bloomberg New Contemporaries 2007.

Conferences include: Geologies of Value and Vestige at Kingston University, and Trans – What? Symposium in Berlin.

Solo shows include: Notes I, II & III at Spike Island, Bristol, Animate Projects and Alma Enterprises, London; i am
algorithm at Aspex, Portsmouth and Exeter Phoenix; residency programme at Grizedale Arts

char l i etwe e d .co m

DR DA RRE N LO GAN

Dr Darren Logan graduated from University of Bath in Biochemistry in 1999 before undertaking his PhD in the
evolution and function of genes that control pigmentation. He moved to The Scripps Research Institute, San Diego,
USA, joining Lisa Stowers’ group in 2005, where he was awarded a Skaggs Fellowship. During this time, he characterized
a novel family of pheromones that proved to be the first known example of gene-encoded signals to initiate a range
of innate behaviours in mice.

In 2010, he joined the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, and became an Investigator for Medical Research
Council’s Centre for Obesity and Related Metabolic Disease, leading a team of eight researchers to identify genes
involved in sensory perception, cognition, memory and behavioural psychiatric and cognitive disorder by combining
genetics, behavioural testing and neural activation studies.

His work involves studying the innate social behaviours of mice. Investigating how they communicate and interact with
each other, and with other species, not only enables revelations about how behaviour is encoded in our brains, but also
helps us to identify the genes that influence this behaviour and locate those responsible for behavioural malfunctions
in humans.

sang e r. a c.u k/p e o p le/ d irec to r y / lo g a n- d a r ren
APPENDIX 3
VIDEO MATERIAL
Links to the individual projects and animations:

A F TE RG LOW
http://www.silentsignal.org/Collaborations/afterglow

BAT TLE O F B L I S T E R
http://www.silentsignal.org/Collaborations/battle-of-blister

IMM U NEC RAF T
http://www.silentsignal.org/Collaborations/immunecraft

LO O P
http://www.silentsignal.org/Collaborations/loop

SL E E P LE SS
http://www.silentsignal.org/Collaborations/sleepless

TH E SIG N AL AN D T H E N O I SE
http://www.silentsignal.org/Collaborations/the-signal-and-the-noise

Video interviews with the collaborators https://vimeo.com/animateprojects/albums

Documentation of Invisible Signals workshop day at Central Saint Martins https://vimeo.com/176611613
APPENDIX 4
AUDIENCE FEEDBACK FORM

AUDIENCE SURVEY
We’d love to know what you thought about the exhibition! We would really
appreciate you taking a few minutes to give us your feedback below.

Please circle your answers.

How would you rate the exhibition?

★ ★★ ★★★ ★★★★ ★★★★★
(★ poor, ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ brilliant)

Did you find the way the animated looked at current scientific research
stimulating or informative?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(1 not at all, 5 quite, 10 very)

Please use this space to tell us more detail about your answer:

Have the films made you think (or feel) differently about your body in any way?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(1 not at all, 5 possibly, 10 definitely)

Please use this space to tell us more about this:

Has this experience made you think about becoming more involved in either
SCIENCE or ANIMATION?
Please also circle which one (or both) in the sentence above.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(1 not at all, 5 possibly, 10 definitely)

Please use the space below to tell us more about your answer:
AUDIENCE FEEDBACK
FORM CONTINUED

Could you tell us a little about you?

We will not use this information for any other purpose other than evaluation for our
funders.

Gender:

Male Female Other

Age:

Under 16 16-19 19-24 25-34 35-64 65+

Ethnicity:

Asian/South Asian/Asian British Mixed Heritage Other Ethnic Group
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British White

First Part Of Your Postcode (Or if non-UK the Country):

Are You Here As:

General Visitor School Visitor Family Visitor

Animator Academic/Researcher Artist Scientist

Health Professional Policy Maker Teacher/Educator

Thank you very much for your feedback. If you would like to be kept informed
about future events and news from the project’s producers Animate Projects
and the venue, please write your email address in the space below:

Email address: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX 5
COLL ABORATOR
FEEDBACK FORM

S I L EN T S I G N A L COLL A BORATOR Q U E S TI O N N A I R E
N OVEMBER 20 1 5

1. Can you describe the ways in which your objectives have been achieved? Please detail how these may have been
adjusted or adapted; where they may have been expanded or exceeded; and very importantly any ways in which
they may have proved difficult to achieve?

2. Could you tell us about particular joys and challenges you have experienced during the collaboration and
production period?

3. Please detail any surprises you noticed during the process? Again these can be of a personal/relational and/or
professional nature.

4. How has the project been of value to you? Could you let us know about any ways in which this process may have
had an impact on your professional development in the present and also any plans for the future?

5. Please can you list three (again personal and/or professional) hopes for the forthcoming public engagement
period as your artworks begin their journey of reaching out to the public?

6. How did you find the experience of working with Animate and Bentley Crudgington during the production period?
APPENDIX 6
WORKSHOP
FEEDBACK FORM

G E N ET I C MOO WORKSHOP

We’d love to know what you thought about the workshop! We would really
appreciate you taking a few minutes to give us your feedback below.

1. Could you describe your experience of the workshop - what you enjoyed and perhaps what you might have
learned through interacting and being part of the animation experience?

2. Would you like to draw any image which comes to mind following the event? Alternatively please write 3 words/
metaphors which best describe the experience of the event for you? (You can do this here or on the coloured
post-its)

3. And lastly, could you tell us a little about you? Please circle or tick the relevant information.

ARE YOU:
a. MALE FEMALE OTHER

b. Under 16 16-19 19-24 25-34 35-64 + 65

c. Asian/South Asian/Asian British Mixed Heritage White
Other Ethnic Group Black/African/Caribbean/Black British

d. GENERAL VISITOR SCHOOL VISITOR PERFORMER
ARTIST SCIENTIST (tick more than one if applicable)

e. First part of your postcode (Or if non-UK the Country):

Thank you very much for your feedback. If you would like to be kept informed about future events and news from
the project’s producers Animate Projects and the venue, please write your email address in the space below:

Email address: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------