Saturday, October 26, 2013
Questions for the Future of the Arts
Michael Kaiser: The Royal Opera House recently announced it would soon begin beaming performances to American movie theaters, mimicking the broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera. We have also seen several high profile theater productions transmitted in a similar manner. The rationale given for the value of these broadcasts is that they build new audiences, although the jury is still out on this. From my unscientific observation, it seems we are merely substituting one source of entertainment for another for the same, traditional audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This article opened my eyes to the changing nature of the performing arts landscape. I've heard about major opera and theater companies broadcasting their performances to movie theaters across the country before. My reaction was always positive, since, like many, I assumed that this would allow opera to reach out to a larger, different audience.
I think that if this becomes a widespread phenomenon, it won't actually have that effect. Large-scale lengthy operas will not become more popular if they are shown on a movie screen, since the medium probably isn't enough to draw in new audiences. If anything, opera loses much of its grandeur and fast on a screen, and without its "impressive" factor it will be much harder to create and reach out to a new type of audience.
I don't know if it will affect the attendance at regional opera and theater houses. If someone cares enough about the art form to go attend a performance, would they settle for what some consider a "lesser" version of a performance by a more prestigious company? I of course do not know the answer, but I sure hope not. I think that the audience that could be lost in this phenomenon is what I think of as "the fringe": people who enjoy live performances, but do not truly consider themselves theatergoers or art patrons because they simply don't go that often.
This article raises some very important points, and it will be fascinating to see how this situation unfolds. This specific topic is of course part of the greater conversation about the way technology is changing live theater/opera and how it is consumed.
I always find it weird when a performing arts company has such an extensive (and expensive) broadcasting system! If you are a performing arts company doing live performances, then keep it and make it that way. Make it an experience. I don't know if I would personally ever go to a broadcast of a live show. There are certain events that its OK for, but for opera and theatre I feel there is something that broadcast can't capture. I feel that broadcast should broaden and allow for more individuals, but never be a substitute for regional audiences. I am hoping, and as camille said, don't think that it will affect regional audience and theaters. There are great questions in this article though for why we are broadcasting.
These are some really great questions to be asking. My college began broadcasting the MET on weekends during my last year of school and I honestly thought it was kind of a cool idea. Did I go to said screenings? Nope. Did any college students? Probably not many…it was mainly older folks that being isolated in New Hampshire didn't often get a chance to see top-quality opera performances. Have I been to live opera? Yes, and as a student I take advantage of student prices! But, for average folk, going to the opera is a. expensive, and b. not really as accessible as it might have been in the past. I go to the symphony as often as I can too, but I have to admit that I mostly see older people filling the seats. I hope that live entertainment like opera and the symphony will not fall to more mainstream, action-packed, at-home viewing laziness. I also hope that companies will strive to make their art accessible to a wider range of folks and work to have affordable tickets so that everyone can enjoy live performances. It's completely different than watching on a screen and I really think we need to keep it alive.
While I do think the rise in the types of technology we are able to create effects the arts in all their forms, I do not believe that the more traditional format will ever truly become nonexistent. There is a reason they have survived so long, through so many hardships and generations, and that is because there is nothing like being there. Whether it is being an audience member of viewing a painting in a gallery, you simply can't beat being in the presence of art. However, for people who can't get there, I think movies and broadcasting art a great way to make some semblance of the pieces more accessible. I don't think it will really end up detracting from live performance, but more just provide a wider range of options for those who can't be in the presence of it.
There is something to be said that theater companies can broadcast their performances world wide in ways like the ones described in the article. I think that being able to watch an amazing piece of theater that is half way around the world is a thing that is beneficial to so many people in this world. That being said, I don't believe that regional theaters are in danger of anything. People go to theater not necessarily for the stories, but for the experience of watching people live on stage do something that is so different of normal life. Those large broadcasts are great for once in a life time performance that people my not be able to see (i.e., a show running two weeks with a special cast, the 25th anniversary special of Phantom, etc.) People want to see people perform live. There is an excitement to that and watching someone do that on screen is not the same.
I think its is very interesting that large theater companies are beginning to exhibit their shows in movie houses across the country. I don't think, however, that regional theater companies will go out of business. A specific type of person goes to see live theater, and most of the time it is because they want to see the actors on stage. I don't think broadcasting theater at movie theaters will decrease attendance at regional movie theaters because people still want the experience of watching live theater. It is not the same as watching people on a screen. I think that live theater will always be an important aspect of community and national arts programs, not matter how technology changes the experience.
While this article raises some good points, I feel like it is driven by an unsubstantiated paranoia. Mega-organizations are gaining accessibility simply because it is not economically feasible for some of the audiences to come to the performance. I would forward that those attending these broadcasts are the same audience that are attending local arts of varying calibers. Similarly, Mega-organizations operate on big budgets, economically limiting the number of projects. This is juxtaposed by a plethora of writers, directors, actors and designers hungry to create the next story or experiment with the way in which we tell older stories. Many of these projects are not ready to be picked up by mega-organizations, and similarly, mega –organizations would have no interest in investing in their development. Here is where the regional and smaller theatre scene really shines. Finally, there is a certain magic to live performance that isn’t even captured in live streaming. In personal relationships, it is like Skype. While functional, and yes, it most certainly serves its purpose, there is an authenticity that is lost. Most friends I have talked to would hands down prefer to actually be face to face with that person. The same is true of streaming, and so long as it remains true, live broadcasting will never overshadow live performance.
This article brings up kind of the same question as the article about the growing streaming music services online: the distribution method of theatre (and music) is changing, and in both of these articles, it seems that the prognosis doesn't look good. The problem in my mind with showing performances of a live opera or play in a movie theatre or on television is that there is then no incentive to purchase tickets for the actual live show. Like music, if something is available for cheaper (or free), why would you pay for it? It's too optimistic to think that everyone will still buy a ticket for the real performance, just like it's too optimistic to think that people who hear a new song on Spotify will then go to iTunes and purchase it. Sure, there will always be those people who make a conscious decision to support the arts or the band by actually purchasing a full price ticket or song, but to assume that everyone will do that is naive. If theatre is mean to be an art that is experienced live and in-person, then I believe that it should stay that way. If not, it risks going down the road of the music industry, which is now having to start dealing with the problems it describes in the previous article.
I think that broadcasting, albeit kind of diffusing the purpose of live theatre is actually an interesting way I feel to make performance art more accessible to the masses. I may compromise the intimacy and authentic nature of our craft and live productions, but it certainly does help solve soften the issue of people not having access to performances. Whether it be location, time, or resources.
Post a Comment