What New Audiences are Expecting

Via Andrew Taylor at The Artful Manager,

During the ‘lightening round’ session at the Arts Presenters conference, performing arts facility consultant David Taylor pointed us to the challenge of traditionally designed and constructed performing arts spaces, particularly in the face of evolving consumer trends. At the heart of his presentation was the ‘Ten Trends of 20-Somethings” identified by Marian Salzman in the Huffington Post last year…they are:

1. Real-time expectations
2. More intensely local lives
3. Radical transparency
4. Expecting cheap or free everything
5. Demanding entertainment
6. Worrying about the planet
7. Seeing luxuries as standard
8. Pro-business, anti-multinational stance
9. Wanting to regulate the heck out of media bias
10. Naturally Me but aspiring to We

Among the most compelling for the performing arts are 1, 3, and 4, that challenge the traditional professional performing arts organization — which is highly scheduled, opaque in administration and process, and costly to run.

Reading this, I immediately thought of two performing arts experiences that I thought fit the “What a 20-Something Wants” bill. The first was a 2009 Met live broadcast of La Sonnambula featuring Natalie Dessay (with brilliant Mary Zimmerman direction, I might add), the second was an interactive modern dance performance choreographed by Peter Sparling, where dancers performed via live feed from a remote studio, “controlled” by Sparling’s hands manipulating them from the live stage. (By the way, it seems Sparling has evolved this concept over the years and fully embraces new technology and its interplay with his art and audiences.)

What both had in common was “live feed” and a “behind the scenes” feel. As an audience member, I felt more intensely connected to the stage action than if the third wall was more rigidly constructed such as during a more “traditional” opera or dance performance. Philistine that I am, I actually prefer the Met broadcasts to being at the Met. Not only is the price tag cheaper, you can see more stage details, to the point you feel like you might just be a lucky chorus member participating in the action. Close-ups revealed the labored breathing and singing of what sounded like a vocally struggling Dessay (my fellow audience members mused about whether an understudy would take over after intermission.) During the Sparling performance, an all-black clad videographer was on stage, shooting the choreographer’s hands, which appeared on the walls of the Kresge Auditorium in Ann Arbor, inspiring the remote dancer’s movements from afar. In short – the effect was super cool, conceptually, and artistically. Again, I was reminded of the days of being behind the scenes myself, and the prototypical “tech guys” who always wore all-black to blend in with the darkened stage during scene changes.

Why Connecting with Audiences Is Critically Important, and Why (I think) Artists are Bad at It

Audiences do not want to be treated as somehow beneath the artists. Indeed, we do not want to get the impression we actually are philistines, which artists could do a much better job at. Is it just me, or do artists often-times appear remote and snobbish? I say appear because it is so rarely the case that they are (with the exception of the primi donne e uomini who are amusingly full of themselves). I believe that more often than not, artists are not narcissists, parading on stages to self-glorify, but to glorify the art. They may seem remote off-stage because they may have just spent every ounce of their energy, and post-performance have very little left to give, or because their on-stage personality is truly pretend, an outlet, and they could be quite shy in real life.

I am focusing on this no-really-artists-aren’t-snobs issue, because I know that I usually wanted nothing more than to duck out the back door after a performance, rather than do the requisite meet-and-greet of the audience. I was usually experiencing an exhausted kind of buzz, you know the kind, like when you’ve had too much caffeine? My body would feel like it was on fire, my mind would be completely blank, and I would have to plaster a smile on my face, turn back into Milena, and somehow muster charm? Not only that, I would begin to feel guilty accepting any compliments that came my way because I never really felt responsible for whatever talent I happened to be acknowledged for, and I think many artists would share this opinion with me – we feel inspired by something greater, and that our talents are just a gift, our bodies simply the receptacle through which that talent is miraculously allowed to flow.

So, What Can Artists Do?

As always, I try to emphasize that if you hope to make a living in the arts – business must come first, and you should not harbor any delusions that your talent alone can carry you. Artists need to recognize the above issues and find a way to overcome the challenges of performing in the 21st century, particularly if they practice old world arts. Often times, the way to stay relevant is to stay connected, and for today’s audiences, that might mean reaching beyond your limitations as well as your personal autonomous zone. You need to let audiences in, in a way that will likely make you very uncomfortable. You may have to take this quite literally and reveal far more personal aspects of yourself than you would like: start a blog, post YouTube videos of your practice sessions, accept all the friend requests you can on Facebook and Twitter, admit your faults, your fears. Audiences respond to this like a child might if their favorite doll came to life, with enthusiasm and eager for more.

If this all sounds exhausting, well, it is. If it sounds largely unnecessary, well, it’s not. It’s just what people are demanding these days. You have to muster all the energy you can, not only for your art, but for the longevity of the business side of your career or for the organization you represent.

The Guardian reports Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood will be scoring a film based on the novel by Haruki Murakami, Norwegian Wood, which was inspired by The Beatles’ song of the same name.

Now this is all fine, and full of contemporary art goodness, but what I find most interesting is the pop art collision with high art. We tend to think of Japanese novelists and Vietnamese-French art film directors as creating “high art” and The Beatles’ and Radiohead’s music as “pop art.”

Though I know more than one professional musicologist who would argue vehemently against my last statement (and I would not put up a fight) – the reality is – The Beatles and Radiohead are stunning popular and commercial success stories and household names, whereas the same cannot be said for novelist Haruki Murakami and film director Tran Anh Hung.

So does it follow that Greenwood’s forays into the high art world of film scoring has proven that a pop artist can successfully transition to the high arts and perhaps do even a little something to generate interest among Radiohead fans (let’s arbitrarily group them into the pop art fan category for the sake of argument) in new, high art forms (film scores, novels, and art films)? Greenwood won critical acclaim and a Grammy nomination for his scoring of There Will Be Blood, which seems to me to be evidence of more blurring.

Or perhaps this isn’t so much a “blurring” of pop and high art – but just another iteration of what successful high art and artist have always done – find ways to remain accessible to wide audiences. Even Mozart’s father urged him to write beautiful, simple pieces the layperson could play at home, “If you write anything for publication, make it popular and easy for amateurs.” Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier does something similar for a more proficient player, exhibiting a wide range of musical styles.

Arts advocates are constantly lamenting how high art is not reaching modern man – and lists among the causes a lack of public funding, to the commodification/commercialization of the arts, to lack of classical educational models, to plain old bad taste. Whatever the reason – I think it is important to recognize that examples of high art’s ability to reach the masses without watering down technique and artistry are still out there – and perhaps those of us that find them should try to do more to promote them.

Hat tip: Opera Chic

*Just curious: where were you when you first heard OK Computer? I was in high school, having been dragged to a house party full of under-age drinking by my then-boyfriend, having escaped to the basement to find the album playing and I sat and listened to the whole thing by myself.

Via History News Network,

Filthy lucre, booze and high drama – and that was behind the scenes. Archaeologists digging in East London have unearthed compelling new evidence of the seamier side of life at London’s oldest playhouse.

Excavations at the site of The Theatre in Shoreditch, which hosted premieres of several Shakespeare plays and which pre-dates The Globe, is shedding new light on a theatre that was called a “school for all wickedness and vice”.

Archaeologists, led Heather Knight of the Museum of London, have discovered not only traces of the original Shakespearean playhouse, built in 1576, but the remains of the ceramic money boxes where the earnings from each performance were temporarily kept before being emptied into a “common box”.

The broken, ceramic money boxes, which had to be smashed to give up their contents, have been traced to the playhouse’s accounts office. The earnings were the subject of dozens of lawsuits involving the actor and manager, James Burbage, and The Theatre’s other co-owner, John Brayne.

Burbage, originally a carpenter, had first become an actor and then a businessman and investor. Despite, or perhaps because of, his crooked, violent and ruthless ways, he made a modest fortune and died a relatively rich man.

Brayne, probably originally a grocer, initially provided most of the finance for The Theatre but he ended up being deprived of his share in the venture by Burbage and was finally reduced to bankruptcy, eventually dying penniless. The saga had all the ingredients of a Shakespearian drama…

What I love about this story is that it reveals this dark side of the arts. We love to chastise Big Business for being uncreative, money-grabbing, and soulless. We look to the arts to entertain, enrich, and enliven and presume that the makers of art remain innocently blameless in matters of money, scandal, and fraud.

In my experience, it seems people often mistakenly associate the arts and artists with being “above the frey” when it comes to things like how they deal with money and ethics. This type of conventional wisdom was expounded by arts advocate Ian David Moss on this very blog during a conversation about the likelihood of arts organizations following government mandates for fair pay of arts interns, “I say arts organizations, being nonprofits, are likely to be more sensitive to the spirit, not just the letter, of the law than fast food giants…”

I come across his type of opinion often. But I happen to think the motivations of man – whether artist or businessman – are both similar in that  they both have the capacity for great generosity and honesty as well as deceit and thievery!

A disturbing complaint from a site called ComplaintsBoard popped up in my Google Reader because it was arts-related in nature. The complaint was regarding a Philadelphia-based art studio catering to the disabled where the director is being accused of funneling money from the studio to build a new home.

Clearly, without any evidence and just this single accusation, there is no way to determine what is really happening. However, it struck me as sad that this person decided to write what seems like a rather earnest plea for help on an internet message board. With that, here is the complaint,

Members are observing that director is using funding for disabled artists to build a new home. Also is paying for services only to friends and family members. Studio is not growing. All disabled members are volunteers. Director is laughing on the way to the bank on our cause. What can we do to stop this?

This complaint brings up an interesting point for would-be whistleblowers in any organization. What could this person legally do to investigate the issue further in a reasonable, cost-effective manner? What is the most effective way to stop real or perceived fraud while protecting one’s own interests and not being accused of libel, for instance?

I found this conversation-starter on ArtsBizBlog to be a good one and enjoyed reading the comments that rolled in. The dilemma:

Sometimes it’s great to trade your art for a service or other product.

Then there are the times when you don’t really want what the other person is offering.

Matthew Kowalski wants to know: “What is the polite, friendly way of saying you would prefer to be paid with money?”

I particularly liked commenter “Carla’s” approach:

I have a barter policy written, and I can refer to it for these conversations. It is not posted for the public, but it reminds me of my boundaries.
The high points include:
Barter agreements are for no more than 50% of the price of the work.
I will discuss barter only if I am in profit that month.
I have a limited number of barter sales I will consider in the calendar year.
If I do not want what the other person is offering, I suggest a payment plan. In fact, that option is part of any barter discussion.

She’s one smart cookie. An unofficial or official barter and sales policy could go a long way to making those awkward “So, how much do you charge for something like this?” or “Would you be willing to reduce your price/barter/do this for free?” conversations go much more smoothly.

I barter my voice teaching services (in fact, that is how I scored this lovely web design as well as some incredible martial arts lessons from an Olympic athlete!) – so I think barter is appropriate in many situations where you really feel the value received meets or exceeds what you are offering (the definition of free and fair trade, actually).

However, I find truly valuable barter propositions are few and far between, especially when they are framed as “exposure.” Commenter “Erika” shares my annoyance at being asked to perform at events for mere exposure,

I get this all the time with the exchange being use of my art for ‘exposure’. I don’t want any more exposure – I want money! But they always seem to find an artist willing to do the freebie (I used to do that too, until I learned better).

Don’t get me wrong, exposure is great and incredibly important for artists who have no resume and are trying to build a reputation – but I’m not. I’m no superstar, but I have reached a level of involvement in teaching and performing where I’m satisfied and I do not need to do a bunch of free gigs to get my name out.

Furthermore, I already do a lot of free singing for things I think are important based on principle (part of my unofficial policy I suppose) – from volunteering my services for arts organizations trying to raise money, to celebrate and/or represent my ethnic heritage at a music festival, or for funerals and memorial services in particular – I often don’t feel right accepting money when I am  asked to sing for these types of events.

However, I feel that all too often, artists are undervaluing themselves and are afraid to put a high enough price tag on their talents, even though the competition can be fierce – with so many other artists willing to gig for free – at a certain point you need to start charging adequate prices for your services, especially if you are a proven talent.

A friend who is an accompanist quoted his rate to me once and I know he saw my eyes turn into giant saucers. He responded with, “Look, I’m not charging to put on a tux and show up for the 2 hour gig. I’m charging for the years I’ve spent practicing, the uniqueness of my repertoire, and the debt I’ve amassed educating myself – I am charging for my expertise, not just my body on the piano bench. That’s what doctors do!” All artists should have that kind of confidence to assess their skills and charge adequate prices for their services.

But pricing can be a confounding thing and there is no one-size-fits-all-artists solution, so if you are interested in more advice about pricing, I highly recommend some pages out of my favorite micro-business and entrepreneurism blogger’s playbook, Naomi Dunsford of IttyBiz, who writes about pricing strategies:

How Do I Figure Out Pricing?

Goldilocks on Pricing, or Why You Might Not Want to Charge $5 for your Ebook

Remember, as an artist, you are also an entrepreneur as you are often a one man or one woman show trying to prove yourself and your art/talent as a product in a mass market. You need to not only learn business skills but have the guts to implement them by assessing, then asserting your worth to potential buyers in the marketplace.

I had no idea the topic of unpaid internships was so contentious when I first blogged about it on Let’s Level the Playing Field by Ruining Everyone’s Chances, as it elicited vociferous and emotional responses from readers and fellow arts bloggers alike. I assumed it was clear that by forcing arts organizations to pay set wages for specific periods of time, it would reduce the availability of internships and ultimately hurt the pool of hopeful interns trying to get their foot in the door. In the already-competitive world of the arts, depriving interns of choices just makes it that much more difficult to get necessary experience and resume-building opportunities.

Since then, the unpaid internship debate has been making some headlines, with pro and con opinions abounding online.

Wall Street Journal, “War on Interns: Making It Illegal to Work for Free”

While the Department of Labor may insist the world owes these kids a living, the truth is that many young workers are willing to trade free labor for a chance to demonstrate their skills and build a resume for the next job. Especially in a bad labor market, the choice college students face may be to work without pay, or hang by the beach.

This isn’t exploiting young people. It’s letting young people exploit an opportunity.

The Washington Examiner, “Obama’s war on internships (and female employment)“

Pricing interns out of the market proves especially salient for women, who make up 76 percent of the internship pool nationwide, according to the American Psychological Association. When opportunities evaporate for would-be unpaid interns, women will be the hardest hit.

The Future Majority “Unpaid Internships Bridge on Slave Labor“

Despite the overall con opinion, even Future Majority writer says,

I’ll admit I did unpaid internships while in college full time and working part time and many of the innovative online experiments I run in campaigns I am only able to do with the support of a staff of unpaid internships because campaigns don’t want to pay their staff to try new things. So I rely very heavily on interns both for support staff and for new and sometimes crazy ideas.

To be clear, it appears the administration is only cracking down on unpaid internships with for-profit organizations, which seems it would not greatly affect non-profit arts organizations, but who knows what the future holds.

The major flaw in thinking with those who want to crack down on unpaid internships is they believe organizations will replace all previous unpaid job opportunities with paid opportunities and pull from the same pool of unexperienced workers. Like it or not, most internships often include a component of “real” work in addition to the educational experience that is supposed to be provided, and employers offering internships are likely to be more discriminating about the prior experience of applicants when they have to pay for it. Furthermore, it seems odd to have to pay a student to give them an education – this model is unlike any educational model I’ve seen – which all require payment by the student for their learning experience (either through tuition or taxpayer support).

The most amusing response I read on the topic shed light on the ultimate hypocrisy of our government in this debate. From Donald Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek:

It’s unclear, however, why the same young people whom the President judges to be unfit to choose for themselves whether or not to work as unpaid interns at for-profit firms are fit to choose for themselves whether or not to work as unpaid interns at not-for-profit organizations.  So I urge this administration, which is ever-vigilant at protecting us from our irrational and helpless selves, also to prohibit young people from working as unpaid interns at not-for-profit outfits – such as political campaigns.

Indeed, Mr. Obama should not only apologize to the thousands of young, unpaid volunteers whom he exploited in 2008 for his own profit – namely, to win his election to the highest pulpit in the land – he should also give to each and every one of them back pay (with interest) for their efforts on his behalf.

The bottom line in this entire debate is that people should be free to work for free if they want to. End of story.  The argument that young people are too stupid to make the decision to work for free and are being exploited because they are afraid to call out evil would-be employers is just laughable! I’m assuming they are equally free to quit the job? The argument that only rich kids can afford to work for free is equally comical.

Again, increasing the wage of internships will not increase their availability and many people need to work for free to gain experience. If someone truly cannot afford to work for free, their path may be longer and more indirect or they may need to work two jobs (one paid in an unrelated field and one unpaid) in order to gain experience. The reality is, an unpaid internship is simply a formalized extension of the oldest business and networking advice, “Do people favors for free.” This puts you on their radar, shows you are a go-getter, and makes you far more likely to get a paid position when it becomes available.

For those of us in the arts, building an audience is almost as important as, if not more important than developing your craft. You might be a genius musician, but it won’t do you much good financially if no one knows about you and, according to Greg Sandow, if you don’t make a point to connect with and get to know your potential audience.

Sandow writes,

As part of the project I’m doing at the University of Maryland, members of the school’s symphony orchestra went out to the student union, and started practicing their parts for Strauss’s Heldenleben, the big piece on their upcoming concert…Did the other students at the Student Union get more interested in the  orchestra? Did any of them come to the concert?

–

During my visit to the Yale School of Music last week, a student told me about something very like what the students did in Maryland…Some undergraduates started an orchestra, and held rehearsals in some public place on campus, to develop interest, and of course an audience. And in fact a lot of the other students who encountered the rehearsals seemed very interested.

And then what happened? Hardly anybody came to the performance!

So, what is the message here? Sandow is careful to note he is not making blanket assumptions about the outcomes of “guerrilla marketing” techniques such as providing free sneak previews of your work, but offers that simply showing up and giving people free stuff is not necessarily taking full advantage of the opportunity you have created.

He has some great suggestions,

It might not be enough to do guerrilla promos for an event. You have to follow up.

What would the followups be?

…you need to talk to people who watch you rehearse/practice/whatever unexpectedly in public. Make some friends. Get some names! Put these people on an email list. Make them your Facebook friends. Get them following you on Twitter.

You might also try what Peter Gregson did so successfully on the BBC Proms website last summer. Bring a video camera when you show up guerrilla-style in public, and film conversations with people hearing you who seem interested. And, maybe, with some who aren’t interested! Then put these conversations on a website, or a Facebook page. The idea is to get these people to send their friends to your page, to watch the video. And, of course, to find out about your project, as inevitably will happen.

He goes on to list a lot more great ideas, so read the full post. However, it strikes me that a lot of times artists are not short on ideas for promotion, even for free promotion – some of them just do not have the personality for promotion. Some of them are too shy to start a blog, be on YouTube or tweet about themselves. I think another reason artists do not do a great job promoting themselves is that they may simply not have enough time! It is a lot of work promoting yourself as an artist or your arts organization.

According to a fine art photographer I know who supports himself entirely with his art, he says he spends 90% of his marketing and gigging at art fairs and photography workshops. The other 10% of the time is spent shooting photos. Of the time he spends shooting, he says 90% of it is on capturing images he know will sell, and only 10% on things he likes (abstract images) that do not sell as well.

The reality is, being an artist is just like being an entrepreneur. Especially if your idea (your art) is unproven, you have to work that much harder to promote yourself. I think a lot of artists do not realize just to what extent the life of an entrepreneur is a challenge and exercise in sheer stamina.

Lily Allen does a disservice to the arts and her image,

“Smile” singer Lily Allen reportedly blew off the Institute for Contemporary Arts’ Annual Fundraiser Gala Party on Wednesday so she could go clubbing.

Allen, who was scheduled to perform at the event, backed out at the last minute, claiming she had come down with tonsillitis. But the purported illness apparently wasn’t enough to keep Allen from partying—the 24-year-old songbird was reportedly spotted at London club The Social on the night she was supposed to be lending her talents to the charity event.

Well, that’s just kind of sad. I don’t think there is much else to say.

If you are interested in taking out any latent aggression you have over the passing of the HRC in an artistic way – or celebrate the home run for your team – you may want to check out MOCAD’s “Smash Art” event on Saturday night.

This wild, Duchamp-ian activity promises to be a rollicking experience for all participants. Artists, collectors and hangers-on are invited to come to MOCAD bearing at least one piece of original art each. Participants will then be encouraged to collectively smash, mutilate and destroy the works that they brought. Everyone will then be encouraged to work together to create a new and different, monumental art piece as a collective with all of the remnants of the smashed works. Art works and the tools to destroy them will not be provided by MOCAD. We request that no glass, dangerous materials or any hazardous products be used.

The event is free to anyone and takes place on March 27th at 6pm.

I feel like ArtPrize just finished, and yet, here it is again, the world’s largest art prize – open to anyone anywhere in the world as long as they can match themselves and their art up with a venue in Grand Rapids, MI.

Venue registration runs March 15 to April 15; artist registration runs from April 19 to May 27. With a whopping first prize of $250,000, second place of $150,000, third place of $50,000 and $7,000 for 4th through 10th place – it would be crazy not to try!

ArtPrize is also one of the world’s freest competitions, in that anyone can compete with only a $50 entry fee and anyone can vote for the winner, online or via