Chris Jones offers this interesting but odd opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune about the changing behaviors of arts audiences, and the disconnect with traditional practices in presenting the arts.
The core of his argument is as follows: ‘this is the age of arts consumer as an empowered co-generator.’
The piece is interesting because it tracks a bunch of different consumer behavior trends (less network television, more video games; less CD purchases, more downloads, etc.) and tries to attach an underlying motive to all of them: namely, that arts consumers are increasingly interested in controlling and curating their own experiences, rather than passively consuming other people’s choices.
The piece is odd because Jones makes massive leaps in his arguments in an effort to prove his point. Says he:
From its inception, the arts world has relied on the assumption that the content-provider knows best. Few things have been as seductive and precious to the artist as autonomous creative control. Movie directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, known for precisely shaping and honing the gaze of the audience, unleashed only one personally authorized version of their movies on the world at large. Narrative-obsessed bands such as Pink Floyd or The Who relished laying down tracks on their albums in carefully ordered sequence.
He goes on to suggest that the existing arts infrastructure isn’t ready for the big shift (which I will grant him, gladly):
Many arts constituencies, of course, are invested in the artist, not the consumer, remaining in control. From multimedia conglomerates to arts and theater schools to newspaper arts sections, the notion that artists need talent and training (and consumers need deference and a willingness to consume) has billions of dollars behind its ongoing defense.
There’s great stuff in this article, and the beginnings of some wonderful conversations. What seems to be missing, however, is a more nuanced understanding of the concept of ‘control’ for the audience. In Jones’ description, control is all about selecting the sequence of events (alternate movie endings, individual songs rather than entire albums, etc.) or the schedule for consuming (single tickets vs. subscription sales, TiVO rather than broadcast television). And yet shuffling the sequence and schedule of professionally produced creative work are just two elements of creation and control…both relying, in fact, on the existence of a creative work in the first place (each of those alternate endings, after all, were professionally produced; and no matter when the show goes on, it’s still a show).
The other issue is that arts as a ‘co-creation’ isn’t new, it’s just intensified and made more obvious through emerging technologies. Art has always been a co-creation of artist and audience, not a ‘passive consumption’ activity. The fact that many arts organizations have forgotten this point doesn’t make it less true.
The impulse after reading Jones’ arguments would be to add sequencing opportunities for live arts audiences (remember Sheer Madness or The Mystery of Edwin Drood?). But such efforts — when applied to art forms that weren’t intended for them — almost always feel forced and disrespectful to audience and art. Perhaps a better angle would be to recognize and reinforce, once again, the dynamic and highly interactive qualities of live performance or live arts experience. We’ve buried it a bit over the past three decades, but it’s in there somewhere.
