Most arts and community engagement workers at some point (if not frequently) make the case for the process being at least as important as the product in this field. This is heard so frequently as to have become a truism, even if little discussion of the idea takes place.
And discussion is important because, in the context of professional arts genres with origins in the European upper class tradition (the vast majority of professional arts in the U.S.), process is almost never seen as being in the same universe as product. The only conversations that come close deal with chamber music ensembles (most often string quartets) where the importance of “feeling as one” and the process of achieving that–”practice, practice, practice”–are acknowledged as significant contributors . . . to the product.
In this tradition, it is only the product that matters. It is the product–the art itself–that trumps all, sometimes even the audience and its experience. This attitude is seldom spoken; indeed, it is so ingrained as to be infrequently even thought. On the few occasions when I’ve begun the conversation with colleagues, it has sometimes taken them a bit of time to get their heads around my meaning. “But it is about the art, isn’t it?” So to suggest that the artistic process could be more important than (or even as important as) the product is to some minds revolutionary, that is it would be if they ever brought themselves to think about it.
Process being important means that some thing or things have significance in addition to the art itself. This is, to my mind, the central reason that there exists a disconnect between the arts establishment and substantive community engagement. Artists like to be valued, so something significant in the system must be standing in the way of them moving heaven and earth to connect with people, large numbers of people. Elitism and its stepchildren, condescension and class divisions, are certainly barriers. But where a central premise of the arts is that it is the art that is most important and all else is secondary, there is a structural barrier of immense proportions between that art and the community in which it exists.
The real need is to articulate the things about process that could be of importance and that can be seen as germane to the arts. The good news is that it is not a difficult list to construct and, with a little thought and encouragement, artists can fairly quickly get on the path to “Aha!” Healthier communities (e.g., enhanced social capital–more and stronger relationships, greater cross-cultural understanding) and healthier individuals (e.g., heightened sense of self-worth, enhanced self-esteem) are relatively easy to grasp as benefits of focusing on and valuing process in the arts. These are easy benefits to understand and easy to connect with the arts.
What I have not addressed here is the issue of who gets included in the process. Because when community engagement workers talk about it, they are almost always referring to processes in which participation is welcomed from outside the narrow circles of technically skilled artists. And there we get to the quality issue once again. Since any regular reader of this blog knows I’ve “done” that topic before (Quality and Community, Quality and Community-2), I won’t do it again here.
At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself, product and process are not either/or choices. Indeed, the best community engagement work stunningly hits both bullseyes. I am simply talking about rebalancing the mix not even, necessarily, to 50/50. The goal is simply to elevate process to active consideration in the established arts world.
——————
The day after I drafted this post I saw an article about the Jasper String Quartet. While they are not first-wave exemplars of community engagement, the fact that I referenced string quartets above and the following quote from the article made me think it was a sign that I should include them as an example for today.
Why are the Jaspers so intent on reaching out to audiences in various ways? It’s pretty simple, actually, or maybe pretty complicated. “If it takes us weeks or months to get inside a piece…,” Chonabayashi started and then she shifted tracks: “The main people are not the artists, it’s the audience. They are there for a special experience.”
While their actual work does not appear to blaze any new trails in engagement, the sentiment expressed here is an affirmation of my point that many artists are deeply motivated to connect. The question for them is how. This bodes well for the future if we can break through the wall of tradition to show artists how to value the public as much as they value the art. And give them tools to do so.
Engage!
Doug
Group Project Photo: 
Some rights reserved by Alex Dunne
This is an interesting question, not only from an audience perspective, but from a backstage/admin one, too. I asked myself almost the same question last summer: “if a [theater] show is a hit for audiences, does it matter what kind of hell the designers or actors went through to get there?” I was truly bothered by an experience I’d had as a designer. I came to the conclusion that having a positive process for all involved was preferable, as it made it easier for those folks to encourage audience members to come see the final product. I was loathe to tell my friends to see the show because the process for me was so bad. We must remember that the audience is not the only stakeholder in our businesses and we must engage everyone who touches our product.