phys.org/news: Theatre arts are loss-making services that require subsidies to stay afloat. This type of practice has frequently come under fire as it is thought that theatre is consumed mainly by society's economic elite. A study published in the 'Journal of Cultural Economics' proves this notion wrong. According to its results, the so-called "intellectual class" prefers dramas, the "working class" opts for comedies and the wealthier are influenced by professional reviews when they have paid for a theatre ticket.
12 comments:
This article does not surprise me at all. It explains why Alan Rickman and Larry The Cable Guy are the way they are. The intellectual class is concerned with delving into that which scares us whilst the working class is, the majority of the time, dealing with that fear in real life. I'm not saying that there are working class people out there going through Death of a Salesman every day. Because that would be awful.
I do not find this study very surprising, considering dating back the Greeks plays were almost designed to viewed the same way. The comedies had a language that was designed to be viewed by the "working" or common class. Also much of the tragedies or drama had a much more complicated and poetic language that would match up well with what the study calls the "intellectuals". This correlation seems to expand theatre beyond these two time periods and just happens to be how people view theatre.
I disagree with Matt Rohner. Let us assume that Matt Rohner and I are in the same socio economical group. We are both poor grad student TD type people. Matt loves “Remains of the Day” and I cannot wait to watch Megamind one more time. Why is that? Take my wife for example. We live in the same household and she loves Losing Isaiah and do not enjoy enjoy any move that has any of the dramatic conflicts that people would face in real life. (This includes the works of Wes Anserson). I think that this data can be interpolated differently. I think that dividing this data purely on social economic boundaries is too pedantic.
I found this article interesting because of the fact that theatre can reach such a large cross section of people. The personal preferences of patrons allows for multiple types of theatre to strive. The study would be interesting if duplicated with the film industry.
I remember reading 'Show Boat' many moons ago and discussing in a class what was the big to do about going to the theatre and why was it so enjoyable by many, but especially, the working class?
The main reason my class had deduced, was that the theatre, and most forms of entertainment were period of escape. Where one could forget their daily woes in favor for something different and exciting.
And placing myself in the shoes of a person who works ten hour days I sure as hell want to spend my free time laughing.
I do not necessarily agree with this article. Although the study is interesting, and may be true for some people, it is definitely not true for all. I do not think people should be categorized based on their social class. Although the study shows that the working class enjoy comedy, I think it is much broader than that. People who are stressed or want to laugh or just want to experience a lighter play enjoy comedy simply because it is what they prefer. The same person who enjoys comedy may also sometimes be in the mood for a drama. And just because someone is attending a drama does not mean that they are necessarily within the intellectual class. While the study is interesting, I do not agree with the categorizing of audience members.
I liked this argument better when it was called Upper Class likes Noh and Lower Class likes Kabuki.
Its a cultural issue. We are looking at too closely. These two styles of story telling happen to both classes and both can empathize with each genre. There's no boundary to be drawn. So I would agree with Dale. Comedy and drama are human experiences and all humans can relate equally to both.
I wonder how much of it has to do with socioeconomic roles and stereotypes that people feel the need to fill or become. Do rich people really like opera? Or do they like to laugh? Are those art-house dramas actually comedies that take themselves too seriously because they are catering to a certain audience?
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to drink some chocolate milk and watch Remains of the Day again.
Sure, this article supports a point of view that can be gathered mostly by common sense. But at the same time, statistics are quite often skewed or manipulated to prove a point. Of course there are categories; everything comes in categories if you push it and stretch it hard enough. But there are confounding variables here that were not included in this article: the data may be hugely effected by age groups or religious beliefs or that are not addressed here.
Personally, and coming from a pretty poor background, I never really had the viewpoint that theater was elitist or only for the wealthy. As a child I certainly never went to any fancy shows in large theaters but I always enjoyed the smaller stuff I had access to be it drama or comedy. I'm sure that these three different classes and what they enjoy are true on some level but I think they have cats their net far to broadly with these classifications. There are many people in the working class who enjoy drama and many intellectuals who enjoy comedy. Offhand Shakespeare occurs to me as a fine example people of all classes came to see his shows and he had tragedy and comedy. Shakespeare also provides good evidence that theater is not considered to be an elitist thing as he was one of the most influential playwrights and a large portion of his audience were people of the working class
If the theatre industry wants to survive in the meaningful way over the next ten years as other forms of media become more prevalent, then the reputation live theatre has of being just for the rich must change. This should be the top priority of theatre people as a group.
What people like is, in my opinion, most affected by what they are exposed to. If all you have around to read most of your life is the funny papers, like me, then the funny papers are what you like to read. If any of this data is applicable to actual decisions that actual people would make in real time (and I think that's a big "if"), then it is an unfortunate commentary not on people's interest in intellectual art, but of what is being presented to people. Socio-economic status has ABSOLUTELY no link to intellectualism or taste. This is not political correctness, it is the truth. Many of the most compelling and thought-provoking philosophers and artists came out of or chose to live in abject poverty (George Orwell and Jesus Christ, for instance). If intellectualism was promoted as something a little more sexy in popular culture, then I believe studies like this would be shown to be what they are: augurs of self-fulfilling prophecies.
I feel that when dealing with this kind of survey, you can't take it literally. What type of theatre people want to view is subjective and shouldn't be categorized into class associations. Everyone is different and they don't need to be grouped into the kind of theatre they like based on their rank in society.
Post a Comment