European Academy of Participation

Roadmap towards future impact

By Lars Ebert
on behalf of the European Academy of Participation consortium.

This article reflects on 3 years of an Erasmus+ funded Strategic Partnership project on participation in and through the arts, its network dynamics, key outcomes and its embeddedness in a European policy context. It concludes with a brief outline of future activities.

Open here an illustrated PDF version of the EAP-Roadmap

The project

The European Academy of Participation is a community of educational and cultural institutions across Europe and Turkey and a network of practitioners and academics in the area of participatory art practice that have collaborated for many years. Some partners developed joint projects and exchanges under the umbrella of ELIA – The European League of Institutes of the Arts, others were engaged in the EU financed Multilateral project TimeCase – Culture is Memory in Action (2011-2014), and some partners collaborated informally. A core of 10 partners[1] formed the consortium by the name of European Academy of Participation led by Goethe Institute Lyon and Castrum Peregrini Amsterdam, funded by the Erasmus+ programme as a Strategic Partnership from 2015- 2018.

This Roadmap aims to summarise the main findings of the project, contextualizing them in the broader social-, political-, cultural- and educational policy framework of the European Union and creating an overview of the broader EAP network that will exist beyond the EU funded consortium as a co-created self-organising rhizome. All institutions and individuals engaged in this extra-institutional structure exemplify one of the main insights of the past years of collaboration: whilst participation may be the focus of everyone engaged in EAP, participation cannot gain one shape, size, content or rules. Participation does though always require to ask a similar set of questions to scrutinize each unique social setting and the role of the artist that engages in it. The exchange on the challenge of asking these questions and realising projects, learning from each other, empowering institutions and individuals proved to best function in a participatory way. Even if participation may not be easily taught in a traditional way, participatory learning, and creating alternative spaces of learning and critical pedagogies keep the focus of interest and the motivation to engage for everyone involved in EAP.

Participation is a spectrum
The point of departure of our project was formed by a Spectrum of Participation developed by Chrissie Tiller in the previous project TimeCase, see p.22/23. It shows that there is not one single mode of participation but rather a grid that ranges from more audience development work to real participatory practice, where the former often uses the term participation whilst most of the activities remain what is often referred to as spectating or enhanced engagement.  Tiller has marked this difference by starting with active engagement and moving through collaborative making to co-creation; to work that is completely initiated and led by participants: encompassing some of the important questions of why, where and how. There is sometimes an assumption that participatory arts projects inevitably lead to positive social outcomes.  But if traditional hierarchies have largely been maintained throughout the process there is little reason why this should happen. This analytical work is a very valuable reflective tool for cultural analysts, curators and funders but it is also of great practical benefit for practitioners. Through the spectrum they can question their own motivations and address the level of engagement they plan to work with.

Spectrum of Participation
By Chrissie Tiller
Active Engagement Collaborative Making Co-Creation Participants’ initiative
Participants are involved with or contribute to the making of the work through stories, ideas or performances. Artist/s remain in the leading creative role but participants have a direct involvement in the creation of the final piece, working together with artist/s. Power is delegated to the participants as they take growing control of the artistic creation through the creative process. Participants instigate and realise their own creative idea. They are the directors/curators of the piece.  Where professional artist/s involved is their decision.
WHO is involved? Professional artists and non-professional participants. Other partners from social contexts. Professional artists and non-professional participants. Other partners from social contexts. Professional artists and non-professional participants. Other partners from social contexts. Participants.  Other partners from social contexts.
HOW does the work take place? ‘Inventive’ (or devised) ‘interpretive’ (or already existing) – i.e. working on participants’ stories and concerns or on an existing piece.

May be single-authored/ signature piece with participants helping realise artists’ ideas.

‘Inventive’ (or devised) ‘interpretive’ (or already existing) – i.e. working on participants’ stories and concerns or on an existing piece.

Shared authorship. With artist/s still taking final directive/artistic decisions.

More likely to be ‘inventive’ (or devised) piece of work.

Shared authorship – with equal value being given to participants’ input. Shared decision-making.

Most likely to be ‘inventive’ (or devised) piece of work created by the group. Often process driven.  Authorship lies totally with participants.
WHAT happens? Workshops that may focus on collecting material. Performance. Artist/s share skills dependent often on whether participants are engaged in the final performance. Skills workshops. Performance.

Artist/s share skills towards participants making the performance.

Skills workshops. Performance.

Artist’s share skills. Participants share skills.

Skills sharing. Performance.
WHY? Social. Celebration/Fun

Skills Development

Own or others attitudinal or behavioural change

Improved Health and Well-being

Community Development

Economic Impact

Political Activism


Skills Development

Own or others attitudinal or behavioural change

Improved Health and Well-being

Community Development

Economic Impact

Political Activism


Skills Development and exchange

Own or others attitudinal or behavioural change

Improved Health and Well-being

Community Development

Economic Impact

Political Activism


Skills Development and exchange

Own or others attitudinal or behavioural change

Improved Health and Well-being

Community Development

Economic Impact

Political Activism

WHY? Artistic. Participants assist artist/s’ in realising their vision.  Honours participants’ input.  Often a greater focus on professional artist/s intended outcomes. More inclusive artistic practice driven by artist/s. Participants input is central. Strong focus on professional artist/s’ input into creative outcomes. More inclusive artistic practice driven by participants. Equal focus on shared artistic development.  Shared artistic vision. Participants as artists engaged in creative process. Participation is both the process and the product. Shared artistic vision. May employ professional artist/s to help them realise final product
WHERE? Traditional/less traditional spaces Traditional/less traditional spaces Less traditional spaces Less traditional spaces
EXAMPLES Theatre /dance/drawing on stories /lives of a particular group but performed by professionals. Opera where participants are trained supernumeraries. Community choirs mainly performing music selected for them. Choirs drawing on participants’ own musical cultures. Theatre /opera/dance working with themes identified by participants who may also perform. Professionals and non-professionals working together. Theatre /opera/dance in which the issues/concerns of participants are what drives the work.  Professionals and non-professionals working together but non-professionals may have increasing input as skills developed over time. Dance, bands, orchestras, choirs, theatre -performances led by the needs of a particular community to express themselves creatively.

Framework of reference
In the period between October 2015 – February 2016 all partners of the EAP project have collaboratively developed a benchmark statement about Participatory Art Practice following the Tuning Educational Structures in Europe methodology. The document is intended as a reference document that reflects the diversity of the field in Europe, as well as serving as a benchmark for curriculum developers, teachers, employers and academics and practitioners that work towards enhancing educational and practical advancements. It sets an MA (EQF level 7) standard and is published at

The document offers a broadly shared benchmark in the European Higher Education Area for educational providers who wish to extend their existing curricula with a specialisation or additional provision in the area of participatory art. EAP represented both, academic and cultural institutions, as well as cultural practitioners. Creative partnerships between Higher Education and cultural organisations offer significant potential for the students learning experience and the development of professional skills, capabilities and scholarship in the subject area.

To develop the document the partners adopted the Tuning Methodology under the guidance of the Tuning Academy at the University of Deusto in Bilbao, Spain, one of the project partners. The TUNING Educational Structures in Europe started in 2000 as a project to link the political objectives of the Bologna Process, and at a later stage the Lisbon Strategy to the higher educational sector. Over time Tuning has developed into a process, an approach to (re-) design, develop, implement, evaluate and enhance quality (first, second and third cycle) degree programmes. The Tuning outcomes, as well as its tools are presented in a range of Tuning publications, which academic institutions are invited to test and use in their own setting. The Tuning approach has been developed by, and is meant for higher education institutions.

The name chosen for the process ‘Tuning’ aims to reflect the idea that universities who want to create a common higher education space should not look for uniformity in their degree programmes or any kind of unified, prescriptive or definitive curricula, but simply for points of reference, convergence and common understanding.

At present the Higher Education sector is working with two existing European Qualifications Frameworks. A Qualifications Framework is a common reference framework which links countries’ qualifications systems, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. This document has consulted the Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks for the Creative and Performing Disciplines and for the Humanities that bridges the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualifications Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) at the level of academic sectors/domains. See (and/or

Based on this background, EAP partners have drafted a Tuning Document compatible or aligned with the existing Frameworks, – as an add on. The document describes existing study offers across Europe, the work field, as well as competencies on MA level structured in knowledge, skills and attitudes.  At its core, it defined the following proposition of the subject matter:

Four intensive short courses
The Tuning document formed the main reference for the intensive, low-residency course modules that EAP piloted in London (July 2017), Bucharest (May 2018), Amsterdam (June 2018) and Marseille (July 2018) with 200 international students (art graduates and mid-career artists) and 30 international teachers.
From the outset of the project the partners discussed the possibility of teaching participation. Some colleagues suggested that a certain maturity is needed for each artist to work in a social contexts, others were convinced that participatory art practice needs to be underpinned by theoretical knowledge, or that ethical questions are at the core of all practices. The experience of the London Pilot course was a tipping point in the perception of all partners: it became clear that participation can maybe not be taught, but that teaching about social engagement in the arts may be best taught in a participatory way. EAP hence planned to realise three additional pilots in 2018 to test a more case study bound model (Bucharest), a co-creation model (Amsterdam) and a more urban experiential model (Marseille). All three of these provided positive experiences for the participants and will be further developed by the partners beyond the life-cycle of the project.

Claire Binyon, Porto reflected in hindsight:

‘I want to highlight the quality of the encounters, the physical act of being there, and the value of the moment of contact, exchange and what this generates for the young artists that we had involved. The relationships forged was one great outcome of the project –  and the value of the residency for expanding the participants vision as to what is possible and happening in the world of social intervention leads to an expansion of their “employability” in their specific fields . This is what actually stays with me and what we didn’t have so much awareness of until after the event. It is also the major factor in an increasingly digital world and could be for me why participatory arts and residencies of this kind are essential in the current climate.’

And the group of the University of the Arts London participating in the Amsterdam course wrote this learning diary[2]:

‘Participants had the opportunity to address ethical and practical issues relating to participation, work with other dedicated artists and cultural practitioners from different European perspectives, and be able share their own knowledge and skills to their peers. The course took place in Castrum Perigrini , ‘the fortress of the pilgrim’, a WWII safe house in the city centre of Amsterdam which is a place of (artistic) research and encounter. It offers a protected environment for artists, thinkers, opinion leader and activists, to work in the context of the organisation and in exchange with its network and audience.

What is ethics of hosting? The parameters of housing, the demands of exchange, problematisation of the role of the host and the guest, in the current socio-political context?

Prior to meeting face-to-face, participants had access to a Moodle site on which they discussed the theme of ‘paradoxal hospitality’ and shared their lectures on ethics, art & politics, relational aesthetics and… international food recipes! Castrum Peregrini was our residency and ‘host’ for the week.

Day one was all about horizontal learning, starting with ice-breaker activities and lectures, in preparation for Open Space Technology for which some participants submitted work ideas which aided the formation of some new dynamic working groups. Throughout the week, participants also had the chance to contribute to different lectures ranging from Arts, Psychology, Sociology and Social Activism in-between reflective sessions. Ideas, motivation and deeper questions about meaning of our work sparked throughout the week, not forgetting that cooking and sitting down for dinner were key moments in the day for reflection, thus becoming a dedication of ours. These shared moments sprouted from everywhere: From techno vjing to Sinop Biennale in Turkey!

The film group worked around participative making based on collaboration and peer-learning.  Participant Caglar recalls: “The group was inspired by artist Gisèle van Waterschoot van der Gracht’s (historical house owner) on her life and own hospitality. The strong presence of history is felt in Castrum Peregrini. We were particularly interested in Gisele’s collection of objects and hiding place during WW2. With Lars’s generous permission, we have taken residency in Gisele’s art studio where we worked for one week to produce participatory film. We have learned to understand each other through creativity and making. As a multicultural group it was interesting to see how each of us interpreted the tragic events of WW2 in the form of art practice, and how each transformed their feelings to film. We also debated on ethical questions surrounding art-making about sensitive historical & current events.

It was a pleasure to organise a screening for everyone at the end. Overall, this alternative space of learning, with no defined hierarchies raised questions about the existing power structures and functions of art practice in the community.”

Pandora participated in the Lecture & Sourdough Group: “I’ve had a fantastic experience in EAP, ever since EAP provided me with an open space allowing me to develop my ideas with professional participants.

Through seeing other group’s presentations, I began to visualise the different working models between Artist’s and Curator’s. I found that some curators consider the audiences opinions far greater than that of the artist, and focus on the art market. This made me wonder who has the discourse to interpret artworks? These workshops encouraged me to recognise how important communication is for collaboration.”

Tongyao’s group explored different curational and educational models: “The openness and flexibility of this peer learning structure asked us, the participants, to throw out our own interests and formulate groups based on that, which is very different from the brief-orientated learning structure I am used to on my course.

This structure very much challenged individual proactivity throughout the whole process. By meeting community artists, curators and people from a wide variety of backgrounds inspired the vibrant conversation and discussion within the groups, sharing a similar interest of participatory art practice. This experience has helped to develop my understanding of participation, understanding the structure, innovation and relationship between the artist/host and its participants.”

As seen in these different participatory experiences, each group participated and took residency in a unique way, showing the variety of ways to produce and learn through the logic of hospitality and collaboration. Some explored the field research, some shared the importance of theory through lectures and some collaborated through art making or engaging in critical and reflective sessions. The last day was dedicated to presenting our final pieces followed by a celebration of this educational experience. The participants felt very much at home under the hospitality of Castrum Peregrini, and we truly hope these collaborations will continue in the future.’

International Conferences
During three international conferences (Dublin October, 2016; Amsterdam, October 2017; Marseille, July 2018) the project engaged with an expert audience of 300 delegates from participatory art practice, education and art theory to discuss the project’s ambition, progress and embeddedness in the international discourse.

For one of the conferences we took the title from Nato Thompson’s book Living As Form (2012). He asks whether it is time at the beginning of the 21st century to return Duchamps urinal from the museum to the real world. But the question arises whether it would be accepted by the ‘real world’ today, where one is suspicious towards arts and the artists in their supposed elite bubble. Art keeps engaging with life, trying to find new forms of expression and impact. What is the artistic form of live today, or should we rather talk about art as resistance? And how does education prepare the artists of the future for their role in these new realities?

European Academy of Participation has critically discussed the embeddedness of participatory practice in an international framework that has rapidly changed in the past few years. Before, participatory art was largely perceived through the historical lens of what happened since the fall of the Berlin wall. The ‘end of history’-feeling led to the long prevailing paradigm of neoliberalism, our current political order of free trade and open markets. In this paradigm the private sector takes the lead and the role of the public and that of the state supporting the public is pushed to the side. Simultaneously, alongside the positive effects of participation in and through art and culture, the term participation has been appropriated by the neoliberal policies to stress the fact that individuals need to take their own responsibility versus a withdrawing welfare state. Political support focused on the economy and the financial market, not the citizen. In turn, and quite ironically, citizens and artists were expected to compensate for austerity politics, being maneuvered into roles that would ‘art wash’ a misery that should have actually been solved by other professionals: care takers, city planners, social workers etc.

Meanwhile the world has changed. One could believe that in countries like the USA, Britain, Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands and Hungary, the revolutionary potential of people and their representatives, long considered to be the domain of the left, is now with populist and nationalist movements that battle principles of enlightenment such as human rights, equality and solidarity. In the fake and fact less news their representatives produce, expertise, high end culture and, consequently, artists are framed as the enemies of the ‘people’. Nevertheless, the basic question stays the same: how can artists engage with communities in a mutual beneficial way, towards progress and more culturally and economically inclusive societies?

EAP in a changing EU policy landscape
Throughout the project EAP has observed European-wide developments with genuine interest. It was obvious, that the learning process of project partners and the outcomes they produced will only create impact on transnational level if genuinely embedded in the broader context of European policy. In this effort the consortium has benefitted from the invaluable work of Culture Action Europe, to which its partners maintain close ties.

EAP was conceived in a pre-Brexit world. Since the referendum much has changed, – the feeling of European fragmentation has prevailed and in the midst of tumultuous negotiations it becomes evident that the EU will not be the same in the future. On a financial level the EU faces a tough challenge to draw up a budget with less contributions and equal, if not more spending. Without the UK the EU will face an approximate €12 billion annual budget gap with new priorities in the areas of defense, migration and border control requiring more funding​. Cuts across all EU programmes Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020. But culture brings added value to the EU and may be – with education and research – a crucial instrument against fragmentation and therefore urgently needs additional European funding. ​

Culture and the arts permeate all fields of our society and therefore affect a broad policy spectrum. Many studies published in the past few years show the positive impact of culture on health and well-being, social cohesion and equality, education, promotion of democratic principles, external relations, alongside with growth and jobs, research and innovation.

They all point out that culture must be at the heart of policy. Culture Action Europe’s publication “The Value and Values of Culture” summarises measurements of how culture contributes to different policy fields. Spending 1% on culture in every budget line will provide a sustainable quality of life both, in our cities and in our countryside and will serve to creating a more integrated society.

Creative Europe, the EU funding programme dedicated to culture, represents 0.14% of the EU total budget (2014-2020), out of which only one third (31%) goes to culture. The programme has a high threshold that is proven by low and decreasing application success rates, due to its significant popularity and insufficient finances. A great number of high quality projects are without the urgently needed support. Above all, limited resources are re-allocated towards a new and ever wider range of initiatives. The relevance and efficacy of the programme suggests the need for increasing its budget.

On 30 May 2018, the European Commission presented their proposal for the Creative Europe programme 2021-2027. It offers a more balanced approach across social, economic, artistic and cultural priorities. The new programme suggests increased opportunities for cross-border cooperation and cross-border projects. Simplification and greater flexibility will hopefully ensure easier access to the programme for small organisations amongst which many that focus on participatory, socially engaged art. New features are, amongst others, a focus on mobility for artists and cultural and creative operators, and a broader approach to the digital shift in the cultural and creative sectors.

The future Creative Europe programme also focusses on specific sectors, notably heritage, architecture, music, literature, design fashion and cultural tourism and recognises the importance of safeguarding artistic freedom in the current EU political context. Hybridisation of practices, convergence and increasing cross-sectoral cooperation, demand sufficient financial resources to ensure equal support across all sectors.

Regretfully, no tangible steps have been taken towards a focus on participatory art practice, socially engaged art, community art and the support of artists in all stages of their education and career to be impactful agents of change, empowered to face the ethical dilemmas that come with this work and sufficient funding to engage in long-term projects.

EAP partners also feel a strong need for the development of new indicators of successful project implementation that are less based on quantitative measurements but rather on qualitative, long term impact and social change.

Furthermore EAP partners would like to encourage ERASMUS+ to include better guidance on how to bridge the gap between non-formal and informal learning in the cultural sector and education (lifelong learning). Only if we manage to break through the existing silos we will be able to live up to the challenges of a society in which borders between sectors and disciplines are vanishing.

EAP contributes to building synergies between sectors
Culture must be intrinsically linked to learning, teaching, research, critical thinking, creativity and problem solving. Hence it is of utmost importance that the various EU programmes Horizon2020/FP9 (research), Erasmus+ (education), Creative Europe (culture) and Citizens for Europe (civil society) combine their forces and recognize that the silos they represent will soon no longer be representative of the work realities of the sectors for which they were originally designed. Culture and education are the responsibility of the same directorate-general of the European Commission and on a national level sometimes of the same ministry. Unfortunately, this often remains of symbolic nature and the potential to develop synergies between education and culture are not used due to internal divides. Creative skills and industries make a huge contribution to the economy and – more related to the EAP endeavors – from a social perspective learning about and through participation in culture represents tangible benefits for more inclusive societies. Vice versa education plays an important role for cultural literacy, enabling humans to participate in culture from an early age. ‘From cradle to grave’ is a slogan often cited when talking about Lifelong Learning. Contemplating about the mutual contributions of education and culture to each other’s domains the image of ‘life wide’ learning comes to mind: learning takes place in all domains of life, be it in formal educational settings, in informal or non-formal settings, in your family life, in cultural organisations, social organisations etc. The role that artists can play as catalysts for learning and change, is at the heart of EAP and should be at the centre of reflections on the intrinsic link between education and culture.

Civil society already recognises the need for a deeper, more wide-reaching integration of education and culture from a policy perspective. In 2013 the Lifelong Learning Platform, Culture Action Europe and Access to Culture released joint recommendations in their paper “Building synergies between education and culture”. Those remain valid today and EAP partners urge for their implementation. Nevertheless, in light of the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage and recent policy developments, including the European Commission’s 2017 Communication “Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture”, EAP partners feel that some key findings of the project can contribute to the further development of an integral approach to culture and education. Also the new dynamics as set out by Councils communication ‘Towards a European Education Area by 2025’ from November 2017 and the revision of the core competences of lifelong learning that were revised in 2018 are important cornerstones for the sectors to act together in the next years.

The negative developments of a fragmenting Europe with Brexit as a symbol, but also strong anti-democratic and fascist elements gaining democratic support in many EU countries, form the fundaments of the idea that identification with a supra-national, cultural inclusive approach may not be achieved by a monetary and economic union only but mainly also by a cultural policy that is trans-national, inclusive and accessible for all. The strong political support shown by all European institutions in recognizing this new reality is acknowledged by EAP partners and connected to the hope that it will enable courageous change as outlined above.

Anticipating new developments
EAP partners and the wider network of EAP, including their alumni initiative and a group of associated partners maintain the experiences and exchange established during the project. The EAP network is keen to further develop, integrate and formalize the educational modules, across national borders (north-south, east-west Europe), discipline borders (visual, performing, urban) and across sectors. It therefore follows with great interest the discussion around ‘European Universities’ initiated by EU leaders at their 2017 Gothenburg Summit, where they outlined a vision for increasing policy attention in Europe to education and culture. The Member States, the Council and the Commission agreed a.o. on the aim of  ‘…strengthening strategic partnerships across the EU between higher education institutions and encouraging the emergence by 2024 of some twenty ‘European Universities’, consisting in bottom-up networks of universities across the EU which will enable students to obtain a degree by combining studies in several EU countries and contribute to the international competitiveness of European universities’. EAP shares the aim behind this initiative, to bring together a new generation of creative Europeans, who are able to cooperate in different languages, across borders and disciplines, to address the big societal challenges and skills shortages Europe faces. EAP partners await with great eagerness further clarification of the possibilities that this new initiative will offer and are ready to bring in their expertise in this process or similar forwardlooking new programmes and funding calls.

The EAP network
A network of artists, academics and mediators
More than 400 individuals have participated in the various activities of EAP. Many of them have stayed in touch, have realised joint artistic projects, or have followed invitations for guest lectures and academic exchanges. On the initiative of a participant from the early stages of the project a closed Facebook group organises the alumni of EAP and now plans for yearly life-gatherings, supported by partner University of the Arts London.

A network of committed institutions
Partners have invited local and international organisations to contribute their projects, experiences and network to the Multiplier events and the Courses. Many of these have stayed engaged in the project as associated partners and expressed interest to be involved in follow-up activities, notably School of Music and Performing Arts Porto (ESMAE), PELE Porto, Burg Giebichenstein Halle, Friche La Belle de Mai Marseille, DAS Amsterdam, Mimar Sinan Istanbul and University of Utrecht.


Follow-up timeline

After the EU funding has ended the lead partners GI and CP together with the University Aix-Marseille will bundle main findings and boarder reflections on participation in a print publication at Synchron Publishers for which we encourage paper contributions to be sent to the editors Joachim Umlauf and Lars Ebert by the 1 December 2018 at the latest. The proposals should summarize the envisaged contribution in one A4 page max and be accompanied with a letter of motivation.

Sustaining the network
A core group of partner envisages a yearly meeting of EAP alumni. Alumni are brought together in a database that comprises all participants of multiplier events and intensive courses, approx. 400 individuals. It is open for newcomers proposed by existing network members. The first meeting is planned in October 2019 in London at partner University of the Arts London.

A core group of partners and facilitators will meet during a workshop as part of the 2019 Sinopale to discuss possibilities for further implementation of intensive low-residency courses provided by academia and the field. Approximately 15 participants. Open for representatives of interested organisations.

Academic implementation of low-residencies: ESMAE, UAL and UNARTE Bucharest are currently investigating possibilities of integrating the low-residency courses in their curricula of offer for short courses. Please follow the EAP website for further updates.

Participatory heritage making: Goethe Institut and Castrum Peregrini have secured a Creative Europe grant to implement the project Heritage Contact Zones in the framework of the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 in which methods to access and co-create future European Heritage in a participatory way is developed and implemented.

Are you a practitioner in participatory or socially engaged art? Do you represent an art organisation or an art school that wants to engage in future EAP activities? Join the EAP network and meet peers across borders. Visit and get in touch!

[1] Goethe-Institut, Munich, Germany; Castrum Peregrini, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; ACERT, Tondela, Portugal; Avrupa Kultur Dernegi, Istanbul, Turkey; National University of the Arts Bucharest, Romania; Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts, London, UK; University of Marseille, France; Universidad de la Iglesia de Deusto, Bilbao, Spain; ELIA The European League of Institutes of the Arts, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Create, Dublin, Ireland.