• Home
  • About
    • We the Audience
    • Lynne Conner
    • Contact
  • Other AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

We the Audience

Lynne Conner at the Intersection of Live+Digital

The Only Thing New in the World is the History You Don’t Know

February 2, 2014 by Lynne Conner 6 Comments

It may be hyperbolic, but there’s something important embedded in this oft-quoted Harry Truman line. For me, studying the past (and analyzing it) is a way of thinking. And when we think with history, to evoke cultural historian Carl Schorske, we learn to apply the complexities of the past as a means for orienting ourselves to the complexities of the present.

So here’s the history lesson: social interpretation used to be a standard way to measure both the value and impact of the arts.

Here’s the application: There is a clear historical link between a given community’s interest in attending an arts event and the opportunity to inform its meaning.

And here’s the orientation to the present: This reciprocal status between interest in attending an arts event and the opportunity to inform its meaning reflects a healthy balance between the needs of artists, producers, and audiences.

fruit thrower in 1870

Before the twentieth century, most arts environments were open to public interpretation because the arts event itself was a form of community property. The function of interpretation was understood as both a cultural duty and a cultural right; the arts event/object’s meaning could be discerned through a thorough interpretive process, which, by definition, included the audience’s perspective. This does not imply that there was regular, or even much, consensus in the process or protocol of interpretation; the history of arts reception is full of vivid examples of the violent ways in which artists, producers, and audiences disagreed. But that is just the point—art did not arrive with a fixed meaning. Rather, it was received by the audience as an inherently flexible commodity yielding ever-changing interpretations.

An arts experience, including witnessing an arts event/object and having the opportunity to participate in the articulation of its meaning and value, was a form of cultural capital negotiated largely through a wide array of public, internal, and backchannel discourses. The public context, what I call social interpretation, happened both inside and outside the arts venue. I write at length about both types of social interpretation in my new book. The stories I tell illustrate the ways in which western audiences, up to the end of the 19th century, exercised a kind of agency over their experiences with the arts—an agency that allowed them to interpret freely and with a sense of authority. And they reveal just how seriously audiences of the past took their aesthetics. Concern over the level of the acting at the Pittsburgh Theater in the early 1830s, for example, prompted the audience to hiss the theater manager off the stage during a curtain speech; he was accused of bringing in third-rate performers while saving his top-tier actors for his other theater in the more cosmopolitan Philadelphia. In the same decade in New Orleans, a touring Italian opera troupe cut the final scene of Rossini’s Semiramide (presumably for the convenience of the company) without warning the audience. The resulting riot nearly destroyed the theater and the next night the company restored the missing scene.

Importantly, a significant part of the audience’s power arose from what I call audience–community exchange: the audiences’ participation, as individuals and as members of various subcultures, in a variety of activities centered on public meaning making and evaluation taking place outside of the playhouse, concert hall and gallery. Prior to the twentieth century, audience-community social interpretation was commonplace in Western society in the form of querelles, pamphlet wars, audience leagues, arts appreciation societies, and many avenues of casual public arts talk. Early water cooler chats took shape in a variety of ways: the public debates that surrounded the annual tragedy festival in ancient Athens; the daily arguments in the coffee houses that lined the streets near the theaters of eighteenth-century Paris; the animated street corner conversations in early nineteenth-century Venice, where opera productions were a constant topic of conversation. Like contemporary sports talk, arts events regularly drew the attention of the public outside of the venue and fueled everyday conversation long after the event itself was over. Like contemporary sports talk, arts talk made its way into the fabric of everyday life.

This aspect of our arts going past, while not nearly so well known as more sensational forms of social interpretation (the riots and outcries that greeted Hernani, Rite of Spring, and The Fountain, for example), is fertile territory for understanding the relationship between interpretive agency and engagement. Where there is an audience engaged in some form of social interpretation there is inevitably evidence of how meaning making is constructed and how specific cultures enable it to flourish or to fail.

These and many other stories from my book underline the fact that historical audiences felt authorized to comment on aesthetic matters. And they point to how important the free expression of that commentary was to their sense of citizenship. The ability to engage with the aesthetics of an arts event/object was sourced in the audience’s belief that art played a significant role in defining their communities and their social selves within those communities.

CAVEAT: Of course I understand why many of us don’t want an audience interrupting our work (I personally can’t even handle the popcorn eaters at the movies, let alone people talking during one of my plays). But wouldn’t we like an audience so well informed and so invested that they had the capacity to interrupt with the kind of ferocity and authority exhibited in the examples above?  What pulls me into these historical anecdotes is the vibrancy embedded in these audience behaviors. The knowledge. Commitment. Passion.

What can arts workers learn from the past? How can we begin to think with history in order to distill this vibrancy and make it relevant to 21st century arts going?

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Ramesh Raghuvanshi says

    February 3, 2014 at 5:25 am

    Only thing new in the world is changes.We never steps into river twice,same way never uses the same brain twice.So saying only thing new in the world is the history you do not know..Our past we can remember second by second but about future we are ignorant.

    Reply
  2. Richard kooyman says

    February 3, 2014 at 7:10 am

    But historically hasn’t social involvement been tied to art in different ways. Before Modernism art was intimately tied to established social norms. When religion control dominated art, people’s reaction to art was a prescribed one.
    Modernism blew all that out of the water and freed Art.

    Reply
    • False god of modernity says

      May 11, 2017 at 11:54 am

      I beg to differ, it did not free art in any manner but changed the subcontext and topics. Demolishing old taboos but creating new ones.

      Piss christ or touch a vagina is considered art now while making a germanic phallic influenced statue of a Werhmacht general would never see the light of day unless you’re willing to face violence or jail.

      Reply
  3. Margot Haliday Knight says

    February 3, 2014 at 11:17 am

    Thanks for this topic. I often wonder when and how and why the arts became so precious. When the divide between artist and audience grew to create the pernicious idea that there are people who produce art and people who consume it. The reason why while all children will sing and dance at the drop of a hat, yet stop when someone decides they’re not “good” at it.

    Over time, this has made us forget that the creative impulse resides in all of us. And has contributed to a decline in the notion that art matters and is for all of us.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. ArtsJournal – Today’s Top AJBlog Posts 02.02.14 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 1:20 am

    […] The Only Thing New in the World is the History You Don’t Know Source: We The Audience | Published on 2014-02-02 […]

    Reply
  2. We the Audience | The Talking Cure, Part II (discussion and debate) says:
    March 30, 2014 at 10:55 am

    […] do not equate the arts-going experience with this kind of pleasure, but, as I’ve written in a previous post, our audience forebears most certainly […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Lynne Conner

Lynne is a theatre and dance historian, a playwright and director, a community-based arts activist, a college professor and a cultural theorist with an emphasis on audience studies. She realizes that this list of professional activities appears unconventionally broad, but from her perspective they all share a common root: the belief that participation in the arts (as audience members and as practitioners) is the best way to make sense of the world. And making sense of the world is, well, what we humans do. [Read More]

About We The Audience

Post by Hannah Grannemann, Guest EditorPart of the series: Audiences During the Pandemic I’ve developed a routine of watching theater online during the pandemic: comfy clothes, a specific … [Read More...]

Archives

February 2014
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  
« Jan   Mar »

An ArtsJournal Blog

Recent Posts

  • Relax and enjoy the show.
  • Holidays are canceled?
  • Appreciations of reopening
  • Is there anybody out there? Yes.
  • Finally: Arts Organizations Have Some Fun

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in