We have worked with Daniel Valtueña on several projects before – this time we invited him to the European Solidarity Residency as an external expert to enrich the participants’ work with his experience and insights. Daniel accompanied the work through three online sessions, about which we asked him in the following interview:
When you first met the ESR residents online, what were your initial impressions of their needs and starting points as emerging cultural professionals?
When I first met the ESR residents online, what stood out immediately was their strong commitment to socially engaged artistic and cultural practices. They were already very clear about why they do what they do. At the same time, many of them were at an early professional stage where the main challenge was not ideas, but access: access to resources, professional networks, and concrete contacts that would allow their projects to actually happen. I saw a group of highly motivated emerging professionals who needed support in translating strong values and concepts into feasible and sustainable professional pathways.
Across the three residencies (Budapest, Czech Republic, Croatia), what differences or patterns did you notice in how participants approached “internationalisation”? What seemed context-specific, and what felt shared across countries?
Across the three residencies, a strong shared pattern was the desire to connect internationally. Most participants already had some form of international exposure through studies, mobility, or personal backgrounds, so internationalisation itself was not unfamiliar to them. What differed was how they related to it. In some contexts, international work was approached more experimentally and on a project-by-project basis, while in others there was already a clearer institutional or regional framework shaping those connections. What felt very shared across countries was the need to make international practices more sustainable, moving away from isolated projects toward longer-term collaborations.
Your workshop series highlights five dimensions that make the “international sphere” special (linguistic, economic, tax, legal, geographical). Which of these became most relevant for the ECR participants—and why?
Among the five dimensions, the legal framework became particularly relevant for the ESR participants. Many of them had strong international aspirations but were not always fully aware of the legal, visa, or bureaucratic conditions that can enable—or block—a project. Sometimes we imagine working in certain places without understanding the structural barriers involved, while other times we overlook more accessible opportunities that could be developed more effectively. Focusing on the legal dimension helped participants move from a purely aspirational mindset toward a more strategic and realistic approach to international work.
Can you describe a moment during the online sessions when you saw a clear shift in a participant’s thinking or decision-making? What triggered it: peer exchange, a specific exercise, feedback, a concrete example?
One particularly clear shift happened during the online sessions with the Budapest residents, when we discussed The Monuments Project. Seeing that project placed alongside similar practices from other parts of the world was very powerful. Participants realised that what they were developing locally was part of a much broader international conversation. I believe that recognition—that they were not alone and that their work could resonate globally—gave them confidence and helped them reframe their projects not as isolated initiatives, but as contributions to an existing international field they could actively engage with.
Workshop #2 focuses on “mapping the world” through resources and opportunities (from local to global levels). What research habits or strategies did you try to build with the residents—and what did they do particularly well?
Mapping international opportunities can easily feel overwhelming, so rather than aiming for exhaustive mapping, I focused on helping participants integrate research into their daily routines. What they did particularly well—perhaps also due to their generation—was using social media strategically. Following networks, organisations, platforms, and institutions that regularly share calls and opportunities allowed them to stay informed over time. This made international research feel less like a separate task and more like a sustainable, ongoing practice.
You also introduced AI-supported research and a 6-step prompting framework. How did the participants use AI (or not use it), and what best practices would you highlight for cultural professionals working internationally?
Most participants were already using AI tools, mainly as general search engines. What the workshop added was a more intentional and strategic approach through the six-step prompting framework. Instead of searching broadly for opportunities, they learned how to ask more precise questions tailored to their discipline, geography, and project stage.
Workshop #3 is about “pitching for the international.” What did you observe about how participants present their work, and what are the most common “missing items” in early-stage international pitches?
I was very impressed by how committed the participants were to communicating their ideas. Their passion and engagement were very clear. At the same time, a common issue in early-stage international pitches—especially in socially engaged arts—is that presentations sometimes begin with theory or abstract questions before clearly stating what the project actually is. Often, what is missing is a simple and concrete description: what the project is, what happens, where, and with whom. Once that foundation is clear, the broader conceptual and social questions become much more effective.
From your perspective as an external expert, what did you feel you “brought into” ECR through these workshops—beyond tools (e.g., mindset, confidence, language, strategic clarity, professional identity)?
Beyond tools, I believe I brought a certain professional mindset and lived example into ESR. As someone who has built an international career while remaining connected to my hometown, I could offer a model of internationalisation that is not based on constant mobility, but on strategic positioning and long-term relationships. I think participants could see me as someone relatively close to their own stage, who had learned how to navigate international resources pragmatically, and that helped demystify what an international professional path can look like.
What did this collaboration give you personally and professionally? Any new insights about mentoring, solidarity-based programmes, working with emerging professionals, or how you would adapt your workshops for future residency contexts?
This collaboration was deeply rewarding for me. It confirmed the importance of developing internationalisation tools specifically for emerging professionals who already have international backgrounds, but want to engage more intentionally and sustainably. Personally, it reinforced how powerful mentoring can be within solidarity-based programmes, especially when participants are actively developing their own projects.