Although it was my first guess, a recent NEA research report indicated the economic slowdown cannot be considered the primary reason for a marked decline in attendance to a variety of categories of live performing arts and museum events.

Still, the statistics are troubling, and mysterious. An article in Staten Island Live notes,

Between 2002 and 2008, percentages fell for moviegoing from 60 to 53.3, for jazz from 10.8 to 7.8, for museums/galleries from 26.5 to 22.7. Other categories with lower attendance include ballet, opera, musical and nonmusical theater, and art/crafts fairs and festivals.

The reading of “literature,” defined as “plays/poetry/novels/short stories,” was an exception, rising from 46.7 to 50.2, an increase NEA research director Sunil Iyengar credits, at least in part, to the growth of online reading. But the Internet did not stop a decline, from 56 percent to 54 percent, of reading of any kind that was not required by school or work.

I know some people read this and begin to panic, but I see opportunity. I do not imagine that the arts have squeezed their last ounce of creative juices out and are commencing a steady decline. Nor do I think live performance arts, museums, and galleries have permanently lost market share.

I also believe that one of the main reasons arts attendance has dropped has little to do with education or economics, but quality. Case in point – my husband and I are both trained artists, with degrees in art and music, respectively. While the economic downturn has certainly affected us, we try to make certain we do not deprive ourselves of creative sustenance. However, we have been repeatedly underwhelmed by performances we’ve attended and in particular, gallery openings of new art in the Metro Detroit area. Quality matters – and I believe it matters to people of all socio-economic backgrounds.

I am curious if the NEA report takes into consideration the quality of the shows or the level of enjoyment of the art consumers in question. Has art quality declined since 1982? Are people enjoying themselves as much? And why or why not? I think these are important questions to get a handle on.

Many people postulate that the Internet is to “blame” for lack of arts interest and yet, others simultaneously hail the Internet as the new arts frontier, since we are getting and creating more art online. While I find the Internet to be incredibly useful for exploration of arts and culture, I cannot say I particularly enjoy consuming art in this fashion. Certainly watching the Alvin Ailey Ballet on YouTube is enlightening, and provides greater access to audiences worldwide, but you would be hard-pressed to find someone prefer the Internet performance to a live one, holding all other factors equal.

I think the idea that television and Internet have resulted in decreased attention spans has some validity – but I cannot see how it could significantly contribute to a marked decline in arts attendance/consumption. However, I would also love to hear from people who know more about this than I.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 30th, 2009 at 6:37 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.