I think arts organizations and the arts sector at large throw around the term “audience engagement” quite irresponsibly, using it as the new buzz word that makes us feel like we are doing something. It is no longer apropos to just focus on putting “butts in seats” or the more delicate euphemism “derrieres in chairs” or having educational programs that focus on the K-12 space with the hope it will pay off in developing audiences twenty years into the future. In this day of fast moving innovation, major cultural shifts, and more competition and information available than ever before, no one has the faith or time to see if the transactional or educational gambit will pay off. #
There was an interesting body of research done by the Pew Research Center that made the differentiation that the Millennial (18-29 year olds) generation may be the most connected of all generations, but they are also the most isolated as it relates to deep, meaningful relationships and experiences. With that said, when asked what defines their particular generation apart from others, the top spot goes to (no surprise) technology, but the second spot is reserved for music and pop culture. That should be incredibly meaningful to the arts sector if it could just find a way to be perceived as “pop culture.” And I think that is where the arts need to follow. What does pop culture have that we don’t? #
Popular culture has the ability to create a rabid fandom. They use their celebrities, their fan likes and dislikes, and their ability to attract an authentic niche following in order to create a continual conversation. It is a conversation that is fueled by advocacy and inclusion. Pop culture phenomena also understand that their rise to the top is fickle and fleeting and they must maximize the impact of whatever they do when they do it. There is no assumption that they will have a fan base to sustain them for decades like the legendary band The Grateful Dead, for example. #
We in the arts sector need to listen, observe, share, have conversations with the public (and not just our current audience) and be willing to change how we operate to gain perspective on and identify where these type of opportunities are being lost. I don’t believe the arts are increasingly irrelevant to the public as some opine, mostly because it hasn’t been my experience. I regularly introduce new people of every demographic and socioeconomic segment to opera (perhaps perceived by some as the most stoic and inaccessible art form of all) and they have at worse had a surprisingly pleasant and entertaining experience and at best an emotionally transformative experience. It also has been an experience that compels conversation with friends via email or social media posts, or often in casual conversation. The discussion sounds hauntingly familiar to the type they have about popular culture. If we can create memorable experiences once we get a new audience member in the theater, how come we struggle to get more people to give the arts a try unless we hold each person’s hand and talk them through it? Perhaps what we really mean when we say “engagement” is that we are looking for evidence that new audiences won’t have to be cajoled or bribed to give arts experiences a try and that we will learn how to empower our fan base to be our biggest advocates. After all, what we all want is an arts environment where artists and organizations and audiences are sharing collective meaningful experiences. And that begs the question of what makes an experience meaningful or memorable? Is it one single transformative moment, a series of interactions, or is it subjective to the particular audience member and their own set of values, history, and perspective they bring to the performance or experience? How do we maximize the impact of the experience? #
I work at an organization that freely encourages the public to post on its website, blog and any other social network site what their thoughts and experiences are in relationship to the art. We actively read, participate and monitor this dialogue. All comments are left to stand, positive or negative, and we trust the public to defend or debate the merits of the posts. To date we have never felt the need to intervene. But here is the rub. There are those that believe that in order to get more people over the threshold of our performance venues that the Holy Grail is just a technological keystroke or Facebook post away. If we believe that, we are deluding ourselves. I’m afraid it is much more complicated than that. It makes me think back to the Millennial study and the fact that even though this group of people can connect and share information with a record number of people via their iPhone or iPad, they have little exposure or experience with the type of connection and emotional investment that the arts demand and/or give. Unfortunately I don’t think any mobile device or technological invention will hold their hand and talk them through the door. Arts organizations are going to have to learn not only how to get their attention, but how to become a priority in their already information overloaded lives. #
I think the type of advocacy and intimacy that makes the arts irresistible and compelling begins with human beings having a conversation, a conversation based on passion not promotion, a dialogue on meaning not message, and most of all with enough space and discipline to hear what the other person thinks. And that is where we need to follow: by focusing on how to use whatever celebrities, rock stars, and rabid fans we have at our disposal to tee up a continual, inclusive conversation. Sounds pretty easy, but the last time I checked it was mighty quiet on the arts and culture front. #
#








RE: “Millennials put a high value on marriage and committed relationships, although only 1 in 5 say they have accomplished that. ” Has anyone considered that Milennials might be enlightened because they are delaying taking that final FOREVER step, (given the high rate of divorce in America) not out of fear but because they VALUE meaningful relationships and aspire for it?
RE: Lead or Follow arguement tread, I mean trail, I think of Ballroom and partner dancing and how at a beginner level you are instructed to lead or follow, black and white. If you take interest in the art and delve in further you learn both roles and develop the craft to switch on the spot with the purpose of instructing or providing the best possible visual example. When you become passionate enough to desire competition or feel confident in your current role, higher level coaching will impress upon you at some point that at moments you are following/at moments you are leading. Its interactive people. People are interactive by nature. Organizations serve people and are run by people, how can we think in black and white terms? No, I am not advocating for a push for pro-am movement leadership style , but yes, I do believe leaders are leaders for a reason. I agree with William’s point on funding being overlooked. (Maybe older generations need new blood to re-inspire hope for the possibility of massive change.) I give props to the writer who has CREATED a SPACE for DIALOG and INSTIGATED voices from all levels…..My summary: more $=bonus for artists…more/less $=art regardless…BUT ITS NO EXCUSE!