The impulse is a workshop report framed in interdisciplinary subjects between educational science, cultural studies and arts studies. It describes forms of art education as kinds of methodological turn themselves (for examples see Mörsch 2012, 2017). The approach understands museums as real laboratories (see method) and it follows the interest of conceptualize, initiate and reflect different shapes of interplay and interactions. All topics are initiated on the basis of collaborations between the museum and diverse protagonists (see Simon 2010). The museum is therefore a place of collective and individual development that is to be understood in terms of a “doing culture” (see Hörning/Reuter 2004, Reckwitz 2003). It is part of the dynamic system of cultures and it can find its position as a democratic free(dom)space in constant transformation into a meta-location of a diverse society – a Möglichkeitsraum (see Rogoff 2010, Rogoff 2013, Jaschke/Sternfeld 2015) or contact zone  (Clifford 1997). Art museums are long established as an extracurricular learning location in didactic models of school education. Like other places of learning they are considered to be “places where direct, original encounters with spatial and technical content from everyday life can take place” (Birkenhauer 1999, p. 14.). In addition, it has been proven that these places of learning can contribute to the promotion of practical skills. The potential of these places can be transferred to education as a lifelong, reciprocal active process between the individual and the world - and it names the museum as a democratic place, an open source for negotiations about social and political issues (see Dewey 1985, original 1916). Starting from the collection of the Museum Ostwall at Dortmund U the impulse analyzes options and frame interactions that are installed in the collection rooms. Temporarily collaborative action concepts -scientific and educational settings - were implemented in the museum floors. They are results of deliberations and discussions about strategies of creating a diverse public sphere while becoming more open as an institution. It also pursues the goal to create opportunities for cultural outreaches. It gives an insight view of current collaborations between the museum and the TU Dortmund University like the “Schaufenster”-project. A group of interdisciplinary students experience the collection rooms as a curatorial workspace, where people and their thoughts and the objects as “cultural accelerators” (Lord, 2008) get together. With this series of events the museum initiates a new connection between everyday spaces of the public sphere and the museum and its visitors. The students work in the collection rooms, they research the collection, particular pieces of the collection, and formulate topics about artistic positions or institutional frame-questions. Teamed with a scenographer, a graphic designer and two culture scientists, the result is a curated room at the collection floor with a unique exhibition on public interests. The students will also run an educational programm, with lectures, curatorial talks and performances for visitors during the exhibition time. The projects are united by the interest in activating collection rooms - with contemporary strategies of curation and education and is based on the idea of opening up spaces of experience (Dewey 1989, original 1934) and the initiation of educational movements (see Mollenhauer 1996). This impulse reports about theexhibition “print print print” (2020) and “Revolution Beuys” (2021 see: https://beuys2021.de/en/revolution-beuys-dortmund). The initiation of thinking, interaction and interplay are active processes between the art museum and society. Because firmly stands: “Wherever there is talk of the museum - everywhere where there is talk of the museum is - at the same time we are talking about society. ” (Tyradellis 2014, p. 9. Tyradellis refers to Hamacher). 

The impulse categorizes the art museum as a place of objects with historical and contemporary relevance as well as a place of various actors. But most important the research intention defines the art museum as a real laboratory. Schneidewind defines the real laboratory as a social context in which “researchers conduct 'real-world experiments' interventions to learn about social dynamics and processes. The idea of the real laboratory transfers the scientific term laboratory to the analysis social and political processes. It ties in with the experimental turn in social and economic sciences. There are close connections to concepts of field and action research.” (Schneidewind 2014, online, p. 3. Schneidewind refers to wBGU Sondergutachten 2014, p. 93.) Further, real-life laboratories should also have a direct transformative effect. The idea of understanding an institution as a real laboratory opens up the possibility of observing, describing (Geertz 1983) and implementing change processes at the same time. This inter- /transdisciplinary and transformative research method tries to use democratic negotiation processes in which “science and society together initiate and examine processes of change” (Fokdal/Ley et al. 2018, online, p. 2.). The aim is to understand the art museum as a place of practical knowledge production in its social relevance. This transformative research wants to make statements about the location, the objects in the collection and the actors (groups) involved. "Complex learning processes and comprehensive innovations are mostly not initiated by the quality of the crisis diagnoses and cause analyzes, but only with the establishment of convincing new orientation offers and action concepts [...] and the opening of experimental platforms on which the familiar can be rearranged into the new." (Schneidewind 2014, online, p. 2. Schneidewind quotes wBGU Hauptgutachten 2011, p. 256.) Most forms of qualitative analysis of the actors and the institution could have caused a step backwards in the democratization process of project development and transformative research. Schneidewind describes the relevance of a suitable actor loyalty as follows: "Research in real laboratories requires cooperation with practitioners in 'transdisciplinary processes', i. H. in an encounter at eye level that perceives the interests and knowledge of the actors with the same validity as the interests and knowledge of science. All interactions follow the logic of filling the real laboratory art museum with different social topics and questions and discussing them with different actors and thus catalyzing change processes and generating action-oriented knowledge.

The contribution emphasizes the art museum as a democratic institution. It sees the institution as a social opportunity to communicate very own forms of freedom and to contextualize social processes, historical, present and future questions in the context of art. It is a place of collaboration between various actors. Educational strategies function as opening processes. Scientific and educational settings will increase cultural outreach. Curating - as a responsible practice – will sustainably shape the connection between the institution, diverse actors and an unknown public sphere. Collaboration is understood as an educational requirement - it opens up processes of identification and institutional self-image. Practical action in theoretical frameworks can promote educational movements. The art museum has a unique starting position: its resources, objects, spaces, knowledge, social status, institutional network and budget are the privileged basics for more frequent cooperation as educational form. The (art) museum is an open source with capacities only used to a limited extent. Martin Toth describes that kind of dilemma as: “To show courage is the order of the day, to speak and to contradict. [...] The cultural scene in particular can be much more than what they fear and colleagues who keep a safe distance trust each other. Democratic Institutions don't deserve this distance. It's too bad that much not at all of this intelligence apparatus in culture and science is used. It has just gone out of fashion to position yourself.” (Roth 2017, p. 89)

BIRKENHAUER, Joseph: Außerschulische Lernorte. In: Böhn, Dieter (Hrsg.): Didaktik der Geographie. Begriffe, München 1999, p. 14−15. CLIFFORD, James: Museums as Contact Zones. In: Routes. Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, Cambridge (MA) 1997, p.188-219. DEWEY, John: Democracy and Education (Original 1916). Introd.: S. Hook, Illinois 1985. DEWEY, John: Art as Experience (Original 1934). Introd.: A. Kaplan, Illinois 1989. FOKDAL, Josefine/Ley, Astrid, et al.: Empfehlungen für die Forderung und den Aufbau von Reallaboren. Ein Positionspapier der BaWü-Labs, 25.04.2018, online: https://www.quartierzukunft.de/Positionspapier- BaWue-Labs.pdf / last access 16.03.2019. GEERTZ, Clifford: Dichte Beschreibung. Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme, Frankfurt am Main 1983. HÖRNING, Karl H./Reuter, Julia: Doing Culture: Kultur als Praxis. In: Hörning, Karl H./Reuter, Julia (Hrsg.): Doing Culture. Neue Positionen zum Verhältnis von Kultur und sozialer Praxis, Bielefeld 2004, p. 9−18. HÜBSCHER, Sarah: Interaktion im Kunstmuseum – das Museum Ostwall im Dortmunder U, Bielefeld 2020. JASCHKE, Beatrice/Sternfeld, Nora: Zwischen/Räume der Partizipation. In: Verband österreichischer Kunsthistorikerinnen und Kunsthistoriker (Hrsg.): Räume der Kunstgeschichte – 17. Tagung des Verbandes österreichischer Kunsthistorikerinnen und Kunsthistoriker, Wien 2015, p. 168–181, online: https://www.voekk.at/ last access 03.01.2019. LORD, Gail Dexter: Museums. Lifelong Learning and Civil Society. In: John, Hartmut/Dauschek, Anja (Hrsg.): Museen neu denken. Perspektiven der Kulturvermittlung und Zielgruppenarbeit, Bielefeld 2008, p. 67−71. MOLLENHAUER, Klaus: Grundfragen ästhetischer Bildung. Theoretische und empirische Befunde zur ästhetischen Erfahrung von Kindern, Weinheim/ München 1996. MÖRSCH, Carmen: Sich selbst widersprechen. Kunstvermittlung als kritische Praxis innerhalb des educational turn in curating, 2012, online: http://whtsnxt.net/107 / Letzter Abruf. 08.02.2019. MÖRSCH, Carmen/Sachs, Angeli/Sieber, Thomas (Hrsg.): Ausstellen und Vermitteln im Museum der Gegenwart, Bielefeld 2017. RECKWITZ, Andreas: Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32/2003, p. 282−301. ROGOFF, Irit: Turning. In: O’Neill, Paul/Wilson, Mick (Hrsg.): Curating and the Educational Turn, London 2010. ROGOFF, Irit: Looking Away. Participations in Visual Culture, 2013, online: http://kvelv.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/irit_rogoff_looking_ away_participations_in_visual_culture.pdf / last access 20.12.2015. ROTH, Martin: Widerrede. Eine Familie diskutiert über Populismus, Werte und politisches Engagement, Stuttgart 2017. SCHNEIDEWIND, Uwe: Urbane Reallabore – ein Blick in die aktuelle Forschungswerkstatt. In: pnd online III/2014, abrufbar unter: http://www.planung-neu-denken.de/ images/stories/pnd/dokumente/3_ 2014/schneidewind.pdf / last access 16.03.2019. SIMON, Nina: The Participatory Museum, Santa Cruz 2010. Ebenfalls online abrufbar unter: http://www.participatorymuseum.org/preface / last access 13.03.2019. TYRADELLIS, Daniel: Müde Museen. Oder wie Ausstellungen unser Denken verändern können, Hamburg 2014.