Saturday, September 26, 2015
The COPD of the arts – elitism
buildmyaudience.com | Audience development beyond arts marketing: Our language, our choice of venue, our outreach efforts, everything that we use to communicate to people what we are about needs to rise above elitism. Otherwise, the regular folks that might enjoy our arts offerings will simply turn a blind eye and deaf ear and state that we are not for them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think this is an interesting piece because I have talked in classes a bit and read about how a lot of Opera companies are trying to rid themselves of the ‘snob’ stigma. A large goal for companies is to be more accessible to people. Considering much of marketing is trying to get more audience members in seats, wanting to reach more people would make sense. It is sad in a way that so much of the dance community does not find the need to make their art form more accessible. It is even funnier to think that there are so many programs that are meant to bring dance to more communities, but patrons and participants who have been enjoying dance for years want to keep this more exclusive. As for So You Think You Can Dance, it can be considered “trashier TV”, but it could be a different expression of appreciation for dance and dancers.
I completely agree with Fanizza, the author of this article. Art forms die out when they refuse to adapt with the times, or at the least become inclusive. It’s good to hold our art for, theatre to a certain level, because everyone should set standards for themselves. But don’t act like theatre has some obligation to move people in order to be consider theatre. In my opinion theatre at its root is entertainment. It’s a great tool to educate, enlighten, provoke, but it is also entertainment. Why do we not want more people to be excited about theatrical productions? How can we complain about the lack of appreciation for what we do if we are lacking such inclusivity?
I love to watch SYTYCD, and honestly no one is trying to say that those 3 minute choreographed danced numbers represent the entirety of a dance show. But because of those 3 minute snippets, people who never even considered going to a dance show now have an interest. And THAT makes all the difference.
This article reminds me of Squonk Opera, the group of visual and performing artists that I researched for one of my projects. Squonk Opera is the exact opposite of this elitism in art, as they strive to create art that is accessible and transformative. For their most recent show, they even have long air-filled arms that reach out and touch the audience. Not only are they very inclusive during their performances, Squonk Opera has also done numerous workshops at local schools, colleges and libraries. I think this is something that the arts should learn - instead of closing off into little bubbles they should open up and connect with the community. Although Squonk Opera’s art might seem bizarre and hard to understand by some people, at least it’s not choked out by elitism.
This article brings up a great point. There is an absolute disconnect between older elitist patrons and the potential for new, young, and more diverse (read non-elitist) audiences. However I think the article neglects to address one specific problem. At some point you have to ask the question, am I negating or potentially harming the craft by watering it down for consumption? Not that SYTYCD is or is not watering down dance for primetime audiences. In fact, I know a couple of professors and professional dancers who have challenged me to consider the show as a different expression of dance (after all, dance could be considered one of the most subjective art forms). I am a huge supporter of bringing the Arts to the masses, but I do constantly ask myself ‘at what cost’ are we doing this? Is it merely the financial cost of making it more affordable, or are there questions of artistic integrity we are forgetting? I don’t really know the answer, but as artists I think you should always question, it is often the debate that reveals more than the answer.
This is the second "elitism and the arts" article that I've read today. Now, normally I'd make some comment about a recycled article, or the distinct lack of deviation etween the two author's treatment of the subject. However, this issue is too large and multifaceted to be summed up in two easily-palatable opposing viewpoints. Ben earlier brought up that there is a point at which making the arts accessible ends up detracting from the art itself. This is just on thing to consider when reading about these sorts of arguments. However, Ben's point is just one of many by-products of these huge issues. If someone at some point hadn't made the decision to mesh arts and accessibility, shows like SYTYCD wouldn't exist, but the art scene would also look different, in terms of the artists represented and the audiences privileged enough to experience the work in question. However, as many others have said, shows like SYTYCD don't accurately represent the full process behind the creation of such artistic works. Some would argue that having a more elite arts community may prevent such misrepresentation, while others would point out that whatever is lost in translation is gained by the richly diverse (but not as diverse as it should be, as I've commented on other articles) contemporary arts scene, which allows for a more inclusive arts experience. I don't know where I'm going with this article, but I know I want to see how this ends up playing out on the national stage, literally and figuratively.
Post a Comment