The idea of art process as appealing is a no-brainer, and to me, the very question about it reflects the extent to which public consumption of art has been focused on admiring unknowable products rather that understanding creative processes.

Think about the science analog; there are many TV shows, from MythBusters to CSI, that are about the process of science. Granted, these are better than reality TV, but most programs are.

This impacts cultural institutions as well. Science museums are in the business of revealing the process so that people can understand how science works, see how it's relevant to their lives, and imagine themselves as part of the scientific process. Don't we want people to have the same connection to art?

Hi there, Andrew.

Last night we had the kickoff launch party for our Community Supported Theatre (http://communitysupportedtheatre.org). One of the main components of the evening was a live performance of (relatively unrehearsed) highlights from the actor-generated work that came out of our recent creative retreat. Before presenting the work I said, "Many people ask me what the difference is between our Community Supported Theatre and traditional membership organizations, and I think that difference will be clear in just a moment, because what you are about to see...is not ready for an audience." We proceeded to show them some exciting (and sometimes ridiculous) rough theatre, after which one of the CST members said that not only does she enjoy seeing this "very first step" of our development process, but she wants to see the steps that led to that step, to see how the actors created the work we presented that night.

Long story short: clearly it is exciting for a certain sort of personality to witness moments of inspiration and creative problem solving.