Posts Tagged ‘Performing arts’

Old Arts, New Audiences, and Why Artists Are Not Snobs

Friday, January 14th, 2011
Natalie Dessay - Amina, La Sonnambula MET
Image by dapertuttotrubadur via Flickr

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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Archeologists Uncover the Dirty Side of Shakespearean Theatre

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

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!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fanning the Semantic Flame

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

I recently found myself caught in a bit of a hot spot while commenting on the arts administration blog, Adaptistration. One commenter, Lisa Hirsh of Iron Tongue of Midnight commented,

Boy, I hate where the outgoing president uses the phrase “passion for the product.” “Product” – such a commodified and anonymous way to talk about an orchestra.

I countered with,

I cannot see what is inherently negative in reframing artistic output as a product – this does not devalue art.

Just as a musician practicing his scales is not necessarily making creatively-inspired music; he is no less a musician.

Art that is objectively scrutinized for quality and profitability is still art, not less than art.

Admittedly my analogy was poor (that will teach me not to hastily comment on blog posts!), but it was my last comment which seemed to draw criticism that it did not make much sense, in that it did not relate to the definition of “product.” I can see why that was the case, and admittedly, I was adding meaning to Lisa’s comment that was not explicitly there by inferring that she (or others who dislike using the word product) believed calling orchestral output a “product” was tantamount to “devaluing it” or that necessarily following calling it a product is the action of “objectively scrutiniz[ing orchestral output] for quality and profitability” which is loathsome (particularly profitability).

Phew – looks like I have some baggage, eh? But seriously, I have this baggage only because I have encountered so much of it in the arts world. So, if indeed this is what was meant by Lisa’s comment, I stand by mine. Otherwise, for clarity I still think the answer to Drew McManus’ original inquiry in the post of, “whether or not term ‘product’ is appropriate to use in the context of describing live, performing art” is yes.

To state the obvious, there is no logical reason anyone should fear, be irritated by, or have any other negative connection to calling something a product. It is like calling the sky blue or a dog furry. A product is not inherently a negative thing, but a neutral thing, so to have a negative reaction is truly nonsensical.

Having said all that, I think something far more interesting, semantically, within the post is the use of the words commodification (Lisa’s use) versus commoditization (Drew’s use). I did not think they were interchangeable, and was interested to find out, according to one artist, author, teacher and documentarian Douglas Rushkoff, in his post on the topic, why not.

From Commodified vs. Commoditized,

Strangely enough, this little usage dilemma hasn’t been written about in any reference book or website I can find. And my copyeditors at HarperCollins want me to use the word “commodified” exclusively, since it’s the only one in Websters. But I see the words as very different, and have issued a big STET on that one. And so I am hereby declaring the proper way for these two words to be used, based on the way I’ve been hearing them, as well as seeing them used in magazines and books:

“Commodification” is a somewhat Marxist idea, referring to the way that market values can replace other social values, or the way a market can replace a communal system. “Our parties become commodified as Tupperware moves in to turn them into buying opportunities.” or “The techniques for proper breast feeding used to be passed down from mother to daughter, but now there is a market for lactation consultants. As a result, one of the most intimate human functions has become commodified.”

“Commoditization” is a newer and undocumented word (except in WIKI) referring specifically to the way that goods that used to be distinguishable in terms of attributes end up becoming mere commodities in the eyes of the market or consumers. “The collapse of Marlboro’s brand value in the early 1990’s convinced cigarette manufacturers that their products had become commoditized.” or “Unless Intel comes up with a new kind of computer memory chip, Japanese equivalents will commoditize RAM.” The problem with commoditization is that the only thing that left to distinguish one brand from another is price, so margins shrink.

Commodification is more of a crime of the market against humanity, while commoditization is more of a market problem for the manufacturers of branded goods.

So, if we apply Lisa’s defintion of “Product – such a commodified…way to talk about an orchestra.” Can we then infer the negative connotation of “product” stems from the idea that to commodify something is to commit a heinous act (according to Marx, et al) of replacing social values (art, beauty, the ineffable) with market values (money, marketability, the profitable)?

Drew’s usage of the term commoditization and its connection to “product” makes a bit more sense to me, as he is expressing concern over the usage of the word “product” in association with the phenomenon of “commoditization” as it relates to necessarily devaluing the orchestra’s output, such that replacing players would result in zero qualitative difference. As he states, this is clearly not the case.

My conclusion? Go forth and use the word “product” to describe the output of any performing art with the knowledge it means nothing other than output, creation, good for sale, etc. From there, you are free to make any qualitative judgments about said product, but nothing qualitative can be inferred from the usage of the word “product.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
 
© Powerered by Wordpress | Custom Template Design by NBurman Design