Thursday, October 24, 2013
The disvalue of the arts…when did it occur?
Audience Development Specialists Blog!: Yes, it might be strange to hear from me over the weekend. I had something on my mind I wanted to share. I have come to the conclusion that we in the arts are attempting to solve a puzzle without the actual background knowledge needed to solve it. We are fighting an uphill battle to have people value the arts again. We have our talking points that have been proven over and over again, yet the majority doesn’t seem to be listening, or they have come to not care about the arts the way we do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I absolutely agree with the assertions made in this article. As artists, we have become increasingly pretentious and full of ourselves, and look for praise rather than collaboration and improvement. We put up galleries, we put on shows, we make exhibits - but all of these are for show, to be looked at and appreciated, but never to be critiqued or interacted with. When an audience sits through a show, they are expected to be silent (unless, of course, something is funny, in which case it is frowned upon if there is no laughter). But human being are not all clones of each other; we each have different personalities and different passions. One audience member may be amused by something completely different from another audience member, and the magic happens when they laugh out of turn and from that the play completely changes pace and the entire audience now views it in a whole new light. In order for art to be embraced by audiences once more, artists must invite people in, be receptive of interaction, and learn from the audience. Then art will flourish once more.
I think I can agree with some of this article. Yes, I think the audience is pretty far removed from the art form, compared to how interactive it used to be. Yes, I do think there are instances when the audience could be more involved in the telling of the story and yes maybe this would further engage them to want to be more involved in the arts overall. But what about experiences like Sleep No More and some of the more experimental pieces being mounted? I think slowly audiences are getting involved again. Personally, I like the feeling of sitting in a dark theatre knowing a world is about to open for me, and I think in some plays, audience removal is just what the playwright wanted.
I don't know if I completely agree with this article or the authors assertions, but I do agree that there is something about art and theatre that seems like the audience is disconnecting with. However, I have never known anything different. Living in an age where I have almost always had technology in my life, I know no difference, but for generations above me, it must be interesting to look at how the integration of technology in the world has changed the way we as humans interact with people and art/theatre. I think more than anything, today is definitely MORE interactive in theatre and art then it used to be. I am definitely interested in looking into interactive theatre and seeing who the audiences are.
Reading this article I found myself in disbelief, as a whole is the theater really the reason the audience is disconnected? It just doesn't seem accurate, if the audience is disconnected I feel that falls on them. The theater is open for every person and is open for an individuals interpration. If the audience does not feel connected the show it is probably because they are pulling away from it and not accepting it for what it is. I do not beeline that the theater is shining the light on themselves and not the audience but the theater is shining the light on what the audience wants to see so they can be apart of the light.
I can both agree and disagree with this article. Yes, artists are pretentious and full of ourselves, but why does this article pin this fault down on the "artist." This is a human characteristic that everyone has. We know ourselves the most, and even that statement can be disputed. We don't truly know ourselves because we have a bias, but that is another argument. When I talk to people, the word I hear most out of people's mouths is "I." I think we like to talk about ourselves. We like to be self-interested and forget the world around us. I don't think there is a "starting time." I think this human characteristic has been timeless. Yes, artists are self-interested. But the audience is also self-interested. If they see an exhibit that they "don't understand," then they don't like it. There is the possibility that they want to feel smart and only like what they know, and I think artists get frustrated that audiences always want to "understand." No one will ever understand what goes on inside another person's head. Either the artist gets frustrated that the audience doesn't understand them, or they get frustrated that the audience is trying to understand when they shouldn't be trying at all. There will always be an ego problem with artists, but again this article pinpoints this problem on artists only. Audiences have egos too. They deem things right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, etc. They realize that they have this power, and the power kills their creative thinking. The average time that a person looks at a piece of art is 3 seconds. Before coming to a decision on a piece (not like that person's decision will actually make a difference in this world) a viewer must take time to study the piece. I think Shoshana has very high hopes for the future, and I feel bad for her. I don't think humans will ever lose their egos or self-interest. I believe that these will always remain as the wall between artists and audiences. There is no mending wall or bridges. "Good fences make good neighbors."
I've always thought that we disvalued art when the audience stopped dressing up to go see a show. I know this is my own personal opinion, and I'm sure not the moment, or even one of the reasons behind the way arts are viewed in the world. I think, and again this is my opinion, that we began to disvalue art, when art started to disvalue the audience. Theatre is a form of entertainment, yes, it is also art, but the purpose of entertainment is that it is an event, performance, or activity designed to entertain others. I want to go back to having our shows be about the audience and how we can service them. I highly dislike the quote she used, "The arts are not meant for everyone, but they are meant for anyone." I think we need to go back to theatre being for everyone.
I really don't see how this article really shows a shred of evidence supporting it's assertion that about the disvalue of art except for the claim itself. Which is true. Art really isn't valued or widelyl attended or supported anymore. This can be seen by the financial struggle and lack of attendance that many art organizations are facing. I don't disagree that audience outreach is definitely one of the more crucial avenues we as the artistic community should be exploring to reawaken the worlds connection and investment in the arts. However I don't buy that the world was more invested in the arts in the past. If you look historically at art and all its forms, who were the primary supporters? Who has access? And ultimately it was people with means, people with resources, and people with time. I think that we should focus on making art accessible and vital to the world, just as it is to us as artists. But I don't think these flimsy claims of "keeping the audience in the dark" is any useful change that will actually accomplish anything. I don't know what the change is, but I certainly know it is not how we as artists approach art that needs to change, but how we help others approach it.
Post a Comment