{"id":4370,"date":"2016-02-03T02:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-02-03T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/?p=4370"},"modified":"2016-02-01T10:50:19","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T15:50:19","slug":"definitions-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/2016\/02\/definitions-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Definitions, Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Dictionary\"Last November Matt Lehrman, author of Audience Wanted<\/a>, ran a series of posts attempting to address the meaning of \u201caudience engagement.\u201d The need to do so will probably never end as we have so many different uses for those words and so many different factors to consider when we do so. Nevertheless, definitions are one of my abiding passions.<\/p>\n

I confess to great sympathy with everyone struggling with definitions. In the four plus years I have been shepherding Engaging Matters, I\u2019ve explored this topic many, many times. And I\u2019ve found my understanding evolving. So it\u2019s probably worthwhile, once again, to explore the topic. I\u2019m confident it won\u2019t be the last.<\/p>\n

The language has become fuzzy as a result of overuse and casual use of terminology as well as the need to use the same or similar terminology in vastly different settings. While it may seem overly \u201cacademic\u201d to look for clear(er) definitions, articulating differences among audience development, audience engagement, and community engagement allows us to take advantage of what each has to offer. A complicating factor in definitions is the need to articulate who is the \u201cactor\u201d and what is the intended result. As I discussed in Artcentric Engagement<\/a>, there is a way to understand \u201ccommunity engagement\u201d as community members engaging with the arts organization for the organization\u2019s benefit. While this may be a perfectly acceptable way to understand the combination of the two words, it does little to address the pressing long-term need to expand reach and increase community relevance.<\/p>\n

In another example of the difficulties with the terminology, Greg Sandow, in his contribution to Matt\u2019s series of posts (\u201cWords that Worry Me<\/a>\u201d), expressed discomfort with the idea of \u201caudience engagement\u201d as being an admission of failure. In reading his comments, which are spot on, it is clear that he is viewing this from the \u201caudience engaged with us\u201d perspective. Are they or are they not enthusiastic, committed, etc.?<\/p>\n

For the purpose of discussing the future of the arts and what arts organizations can do about it, there is considerable merit in viewing the arts organization as the actor seeking to interact with external publics. In this context,\u00a0 then:<\/p>\n