Throughout the process of observing the project and talking to everyone involved, we have collected thoughts, ideas, criticisms and areas of possible development, some of which are detailed below.

These are in no way intended to undermine the value and strength of the project, but merely show how this collective is constantly questioning its work and looking to the future. They also serve to illustrate how the project itself was inspirational, opening up a space for discussion and exploration into work for young children and their adults.

• Was the work about creating a stimulating experience for early years, or for their parents and carers to explore the importance of and how to play? Observations were made that the amount of adults accompanying groups of children inhibited the children’s experience. But if the work is also aiming to forward the adults learning, then they too need to be included. Could preliminary workshops for the adults have prevented their blocking of the children’s experience by introducing the environment and the methods of interaction used? The follow up adult workshops were extremely successful in this respect.
  
  
• CTC staff provided expertise on performance for early years. How would the project have been different if they had been on site from the beginning of construction? Would this have enriched the children’s experience? Would it have inhibited WSI’s wealth of experience in creating rich, visual, experiential worlds? WSI’s artists perhaps worked more from an adult perspective, remembering their own childhood. But in many ways this made it a more powerful experience for parents and carers, helping them to remember what it is to be a child, and therefore deepening their understanding of their own children.
  
  
• The collaborative nature of the work produced an exciting layering of perspectives, allowing the work to encompass and speak to a wider range of people. However, such collaboration is a difficult thing to navigate. Could stronger direction and more explicit connections between birthrites projects have provided a defined and clear space within which this collaboration could take place? Or did it prove necessary to keep all boundaries and possibilities open?
  
  
• The ‘under five’ age range encompasses huge developmental differences. What will stimulate a two year old may, for example be un-interactive or too fragile for a child of four and a half.
  
  
• Is it possible and practical to create a temporary work that is resilient enough for young children to explore alone as? During the performances the performer worked extremely hard to encourage exploration in a gentle, respectful way. Was it possible for this to happen without the performer in the open installations? Indeed, is it possible to simulate open-ended, free play in a contained gallery environment controlled by adults?
  
  
• In a Teacup held an informal, personal quality. It gave precious, unique moments to individuals and used word of mouth networks. Due to its scale, A Child’s Eye View didn’t always maintain this. How might such atmospheres be sustained with larger groups?
  
  
• Preliminary school visits by the performer put the children at ease, allowing greater interaction during the early stages of the performance. Would short visits to every group have enriched experiences? This may have also further established the reciprocal nature of the work.
  

Dreams of Future Dens.