T/O/M is a simple horizon of evaluation that accompanies a project from its initial PROPOSAL, through USE, to MAINTENANCE. It is not meant for scoring or ranking; rather, it consists of boundary conditions that help preserve the meaning and balance of the work.
T — Time / Durability of Use ensures that what is most valuable in a project — relationships, competencies, rituals, and access to shared resources — is sustained over time and remains workable within social, financial, and environmental limits.
O — Ownership / Shared Responsibility examines whether it is possible to build a community around the project: one that co-creates, co-decides, and takes care of the action, rather than merely “participating.”
M — More-than-human broadens the field of vision to include who and what the project affects beyond humans — animals, plants, ecosystems, night/darkness, water — and asks first and foremost that no harm be done, while introducing elements of regeneration and simple monitoring where appropriate.
We apply T/O/M ex ante (before the start) as a gateway: if any one of the three conditions is not met, we return to PROPOSAL. We then return to T/O/M ex post (after completion) to evaluate USE and MAINTENANCE. In this way, we avoid typical distortions of practice: “premiere-centrism” (a major opening followed by emptiness), “hero mode” (everything resting on one person’s shoulders), or an “aesthetics that harms the place.”
T — Time / Durability of Use
Durability of use asks what remains of a project in people and in a place after some time has passed — and whether this can be sustained within reasonable resource limits, without becoming tied to a single form and without escalating its scale.
In socially engaged art, durability should not be reduced to whether an object is still standing or whether the project’s name still appears on a poster. What we should ask instead is what actually remains after 6, 12, and 24 months: a network of contacts, a habit of meeting together, a new skill, open access to a space, or a ritual people want to repeat. Durability should be considered within limits — so that excessive costs are not shifted onto the people involved, the budget, or the environment.
In practice, this means paying attention to two common risks. The first is becoming bound to a single form: over time, a project may gradually solidify into a rigid formula or become centred around one key individual. Then more and more energy goes into maintaining the form, and less and less into maintaining meaning and relationships. The response lies in flexibility: different operational variants, a simplified version, the use of reclaimed materials and reuse, and, above all, the transferability of roles — so that others can safely take over care of the project.
The second risk is the rebound effect: success attracts greater scale, movement, and expectations, which overburden both the place and the people involved. A good practice here is a “just enough” scale — a clear capacity threshold, the distribution of events into smaller modules, days of quiet, priority for local participants, and documentation that does not fuel a spiral of further production. If it turns out that continued maintenance of the project has negative effects, there should already be a prepared strategy for phasing it out or transferring its care, so that what remains is a positive trace — contacts, short “how to begin” instructions — rather than a burden.
In this sense, durability means sustaining practices and bonds rather than places or objects. We favour repair over replacement, shared resources over multiplying equipment, and cyclical actions over one-off spectacle. In this way, a project has a chance to continue living — within reach of the people and the place for which it was intended.
O — Ownership / Shared Responsibility
Ownership / shared responsibility means that a community forms around the work or idea — one that not only “participates,” but co-creates, co-decides, and takes responsibility for caring for the project. In practice, this means clear rules of access and hospitality, defined roles (for example: curator/coordinator, host of the place, caretakers, participants), a rhythm of meetings, and a transparent way of arriving at decisions. Shared responsibility also includes care work — shifts, cleaning, translation, childcare, meals — and it is worth planning and compensating for this, so that the burden does not silently fall on the same people.
Two risks need to be watched closely, in the language of practice:
“Hero mode” — everything on one person’s shoulders
When the entire meaning and logistics of a project depend on one person (or a very narrow group), the project becomes fragile when the first crisis arises. Knowledge remains “in the head” of the leader, while everyone else becomes an audience.
How to recognise it: for example, can someone else lead a meeting using a short instruction? Who sets the agenda? Who has the keys? Who replies to messages?
How to strengthen it: for example, a circle of hosts instead of a single leader; simple shifts and rotating roles; a short “starter” instruction (1–3 pages); shadowing (an experienced person plus someone learning); a budget for care work, or — where no budget exists — a horizontal exchange of roles.
“Token participation” — invitation without real influence
When decisions are made in advance or “elsewhere,” and meetings serve only to tick off “consultation,” people do not take responsibility, because there is nothing for them to take responsibility for.
How to recognise it: for example, before a meeting, is it clear which decisions need to be made and which issues have already been settled? Is there a visible trace of decisions made collectively (minutes, a change in the plan)?
How to strengthen it: for example, a list of points open to co-decision (dates, rules, micro-budgets); a users’ council or open meetings with a clear agenda; transparent criteria for rejecting ideas, together with reasons.
Hospitality and access are indicators of O just as much as formal roles are: a low threshold of entry (using plain language), translation and accessibility tools, and a stable possibility for new people to join (a short “how to join” path). If an action is organised around a specific place, it is also worth establishing concise rules — hours, quiet, light, order — so that care does not dissolve into arbitrariness.
What should remain after the project?
At the very least: a small “circle of caretakers” capable of operating without the author; transferable roles and instructions; a habit of meeting (for example, once a month) that people genuinely return to; shared resources (a tool library, document archives, contacts). Shared responsibility does not mean a diffusion of responsibility — on the contrary, it organises and distributes it, making the project lighter, more collaborative, and more resilient.
M — More-than-human
The more-than-human perspective assumes that the environment is a co-participant and co-creator of the action — and that using elements of a living place (for example, plants, dead wood, rainwater, shade) requires caution and a plan of care. The aim is for the project not to worsen the condition of the site and, ideally, to preserve or slightly improve it.
If natural elements or processes must be used as active agents, their acquisition should occur at the smallest possible scale, locally and cyclically, in consultation with the site’s caretakers. Living materials should have a prepared care plan (who, how, and for how long), and after the work ends, whatever has been “borrowed” should either be returned to its place or transformed into a resource (for example, compost or potted seedlings for neighbours). We avoid introducing alien species or toxic materials into the environment.
Risks and countermeasures
1. An aesthetics that harms the place (noise, excess light, hard infrastructure on soft ground)
→ zones of quiet and darkness, temporary or directional lighting, dispersed micro-events, protective routes, weight-distribution layers.
→ zones of quiet and darkness, temporary or directional lighting, dispersed micro-events, protective routes, weight-distribution layers.
2. Extractive use of the living environment (“green” in name, degradation in practice)
→ extraction limits, recycled materials and native species, care/return protocols for living elements, a simple “what comes back” balance.
→ extraction limits, recycled materials and native species, care/return protocols for living elements, a simple “what comes back” balance.
What do we check?
⇒ Who and what beyond humans does the project affect here and now? (for example, nesting birds, bats, invertebrates, trees, a watercourse)
⇒ Where will there be quiet and darkness, and where movement and light? When is it better not to act at all? (for example, nesting periods, droughts)
⇒ What is the project made from, and with whom is it made — and what happens to it afterwards? (for example, reuse, return, composting)
⇒ Seasonality — adjusting the timetable to vegetation periods, nesting, migration, drought, and so on.
⇒ How will we verify that we are doing no harm? We introduce 2–3 simple before–after indicators, such as litter levels, trampling intensity, or the sudden popularity of a site.
Care after the event
We designate a caretaker of the site (a person or institution), provide a budget, and prepare a short handover protocol (what needs care, what and when should be removed / returned / composted). If improvement cannot be ensured — or at least a neutral balance — we choose lighter or more dispersed forms instead of realising the original concept.