Photo credits below
As the example du jour in The Eightfold Path, I raised the specter of crowdsourcing as an interesting concept for dedicated engagers (OK, for most of the arts world) to consider. It took a long time for me to get my head around the meaning of Web 2.0, the source of the Arts 2.0 idea. (Of course, Nina Simon got there far earlier, titling her blog Museum 2.0, and Beth Kanter talked about Arts 2.0 “way back” in 2008.) Simply put, while the “old” web was a publishing vehicle (the cognoscenti call that “Push”), the “new” web (2.0) is about Push-Pull. That is, the essence is in the dialogue, the exchange, between individuals or between organizations and their stakeholders. Blogging, where people respond, is a prime example of Web 2.0. Crowdsourcing, seeking input from outside the inner circle as a means of improving the final product (and improving includes “make more meaningful”), is simply an extension of the basic principle.
I had a truly “Aha” moment (should I say “Click“?) at the Americans for the Arts Conference in Baltimore in 2010. I attended a session on social media and the arts. In the question period, someone from the audience worried that if they allowed community feedback, someone might say something bad about the organization. Now, the first response of many from the established arts world might well be that that was a real problem.
“And there it is.”
If an arts organization is so concerned about negative feedback that it doesn’t want to hear from people who are unhappy with (or simply confused by) its work, what does that say about its relationship with the community? And what does that say about its long-term viability?
As an old-timer out of academia, I long denigrated efforts like Wikipedia. How could anything worthwhile come from people who were not experts? I am gradually coming around. Acknowledging that problems can crop up, I have seen the self-policing mechanism that can be at work in online forums. With respect to the questioners’ concern at AftA, if a respondent posts an outrageous charge online, it frequently happens that others–from outside the organization–rise to its defense. In the end, that represents a win that is far better than had no opportunity for feedback existed. The supporters become more deeply engaged with the organization by coming to its defense. Moreover, as James Surowiecki argues in his book The Wisdom of Crowds, “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” (True confessions: I’ve not read the book yet. It’s on my to-read list.) I don’t know enough to debate that one way or the other, but I have seen evidence that in some cases, that idea can have merit. Yes, this is threatening to gatekeepers–academics (there I am again) and an arts world that is internally (and self-protectedly) focused.
I am intrigued by the potential of interactivity, whether online or F2F (abbreviating face to face that way simply proves that while I’m hopelessly out of the loop with respect to contemporary culture, some elements of it occasionally trickle in to my consciousness), is a productive path to engagement. Indeed, a commitment to interactivity forces an organization to pay attention to its stakeholders and, perhaps the broader community, in ways otherwise unimagined and unattempted. Arts 2.0 = Engagement.
This is potentially such an important tool for engagement that I’m designating it as another category for posts. In the future, watch for posts about fundraising, marketing, advocacy, and many more topics that can be aided by dialogue of this kind.
———————–
This week’s cool example is a (relatively) simple concept–a summer art program for teens in Madison, WI. Paste UP! Street Art Summer Camp was “a five-day workshop for more than a dozen teens, student artists tapped into things about Madison that inspired and angered them — the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the lakes, social divides, abuse, racism. Then they made images combining their own drawings and magazine cutouts, scanned them into a computer, enlarged them and pasted them onto buildings all over the near east side.” (I was pointed to this example by my fellow ArtsJournal bloggers at flyover: “Don’t be scared; just show yourself.”)
It’s a bit related to this post in that some of the teens worked together on common issues. A more likely option for further discussion related to this example is the “Excellence” question. Yep, I know it’s coming. I’ll get to that one soon.
In the meantime,
Engage!
Doug
Photo: 
Some rights reserved by James Cridland
Absolutely, Arts 2.0 is all about community/audience engagement. I think the survival of the arts and cultural sector depends on it. I’d rather have a ticket buyer post a question or negative comment publicly where I and others can read and respond, instead of secretly telling 50 people how “bad the show was.” Two-way dialogue creates deeper interest and support in the organization. However, to implement a successful engagement strategy, arts organizations must consider allocating human resources (at the very least) to managing and engaging people through digital/social media. We can’t just try to engage with people every other Tuesday, when we remember.
If you haven’t yet, please add _The Thank You Economy_ by Gary Vanderchuk to your “To Read” list. He comes from a for-profit business background but the essential idea of the book is just what you’ve said: engagement with your customers. Social media and Web 2.0 absolutely allow this to happen and is what the younger generation wants-nay-expects from any organization, non- or for- profit. As Christy accurately points out, we must allocate resources to the development, much as we would to fundraising appeals or marketing. In fact, the social media engagement would significantly increase both of those two things, if handled in a ‘Building relationships” mindset.