Arts Participation: Recalling Lessons from Good Will Hunting
Friday, June 19th, 2009 by Lucinda M. Dugger
Print This Post
The National Endowment for the Arts released this week research that shows new trends on how American audiences consume and interact with the arts. Arts Participation 2008: Highlights from a National Survey shows findings from the 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts.
Some of the findings are consistent with long-established trends of public arts participation, while others shed light on new consumer behaviors in the arts.
Findings show that the average age of attendees to performing arts shows is 45, which is older than the average US adult age. This does not surprise me as the aging of arts attendees has been a growing trend for decades. Because of this, arts organizations have often sought new ways to engage younger audiences.
Though some of us might suspect that the aging of the baby boomer population would be the main factor, it apparently is not the sole reason for the increase in age. According to the report, those in the 45-54 year age range show the steepest decline in attendance for most art events.
The survey also finds that educated Americans, who have traditionally been the largest audiences for the arts, are now participating less than before. In addition, adults with less education have significantly reduced their already low-levels of participation. The implication for arts organizations and other creators is that they will have to think creatively about how to reach and retain new and different audiences.
The most surprising survey findings for me are those that point to the use of the internet and mass media to reach more audiences for the arts. The survey findings show that:
• About 70 percent of U.S. adults went online for any purpose in 2008 survey, and of those adults, nearly 40 percent used the Internet to view, listen to, download, or post artworks or performances.
• Thirty percent of adults who use the Internet, download, watch, or listen to music, theater, or dance performances online at least once a week. More than 20 percent of Internet-using adults view paintings, sculpture, or photography at least once a week.
• More Americans view or listen to broadcasts and recordings of arts events than attend them live (live theater being the sole exception). Classical and Latin or salsa music were the most popular music categories (with 40 and 33.5 million viewers/listeners, respectively), and 33.7 million adults reported listening to, or viewing programs or recordings about books/writers. The same number (33.7 million) enjoyed broadcasts or recordings about the visual arts.
Though it’s really not surprising that more and more people are utilizing the internet and technology to access various art forms, there is an underlying piece that begins to concern me: the increase in consumer choice to access art through the internet coupled with the decline in actual audience participation.
In addition to the findings above, the survey also says that “between 1982 and 2008, attendance at performing arts such as classical music, jazz, opera, ballet, musical theater, and dramatic plays has seen double-digit rates of decline.”
I recall a scene from the movie Good Will hunting when the psychologist Sean (Robin Williams) is counseling Will (Matt Damon) right after he has a crucial breakdown in the movie. Will, who thinks he has experienced the world because he’s really smart and has read a lot of books, is questioned by Sean about his real experiences.
He says something (and sorry if I botch this up, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen this movie) like, ‘you think you know everything, but you don’t. Just because you’ve read about the Vatican, doesn’t mean that you’ve actually experienced the Vatican.”
Though this scene is trying to get to the root of Will’s psychological issues, I do think that there are parallels here with public arts participation. We have all seen a million pictures of Michelangelo’s David or Machu Picchu in Peru, but those of us who have actually been to these places and seen these things realize that it’s a completely different experience in person. There is something so moving about a great work of art that cannot be grasped in a photo or a movie clip.
Watching a clip from a concert on YouTube and seeing that same band live on stage produces two completely different experiences. Similarly, seeing a Norman Rockwell in person is euphoric compared to viewing the many reproductions online or in books.
I think a great determent will be had if society chooses to access art through one venue over the other. Art is meant to be experienced in a variety of formats, and we need to embrace the accessibility that the internet gives us with actual in-person experiences.
The study does point out that one cause for decline in public participation could be the sinking economy over the past year. But, I think that another issue is the shift in public values from active participation to passive observance. When we can sit in the comfort of our pajamas and watch a concert on the computer, then why would we need to actually go to the concert?
Am I solo on raising these concerns? Is my theory too far-fetched? I’m curious as to what others think about the decline in public arts participation and the rise of internet usage to access art.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:30 am
What about user-generated content and fan videos, which have turned passive observance into active participation, though over the Internet? Do you consider that a form of public arts participation?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
John,
Yes, I do agree that fan videos and other creative contributions on the internet can be active participation. Good question. Your other question is definitely challenging my more traditional perspectives on “public” and “interaction in a space,” so I think the jury is still out for me on that one. But, I’m going to walk you through my mental deliberations since I saw your post on Friday.
For me, it’s not so much about what kind of activity people are doing on the internet, but at what point is the internet considered public versus private?
I know there have been debates about this issue within the legal and policy worlds in relation to copyright and downloading (i.e. downloading vs. streaming, and public performance) and other areas, but I look at it more from a philosophical standpoint.
Here I have questions about the words “public” and “space.” In the physical world, it is easy to determine at which point a space is public or private. For example, I am sitting in a public space at the city park or I am in a private space in my home.
Yet, the virtual world complicates the issue because space is much harder to define. We both know that many internet-related activities (even creative ones) happen in isolation or in the private space, such as at home. So, when someone is physically located in a private space and on the internet, does that mean that she is engaging in private or public activity? At what point does that private activity become public? Or, is the activity never really private (because she’s on the internet, regardless as to where she’s sitting)?
I have read a lot about these issues in terms of (tangible) public art in both public and private spaces and the meaning it has, along with the decision-making that goes into it. So, that’s the approach I take to your question, and I’m afraid I haven’t done enough research to form a solid opinion in terms of public arts participation on the internet. But, I would like to look into it more!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
You are right. Why are you questioning yourself?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Dear Lucinda,
Thank you for making some very good points. I would say that we are living in a world
of greater choice of lesser quality experiences. We should view the “consumption” of art
as we do food, only art feeds our soul which is what makes life meaningful. This trend
adds up to living that is less inspired and less valuable.
I am a trained classical Indian musician and recording does less justice to the complexity
of this music that is so rich with overtones and unusual resonances than it does to other
more prevalent forms. So I’ve always listened more to live concert music than recordings.
But recordings do have an important place and I have enjoyed being exposed to interesting
music on MySpace–recordings can tell me whether I should attend a concert or not.
Blessings, Sangita
June 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Though I have yet to read the full report, it seems as though you are jumping to conclusions. To me, the data, which is clearly measured on the basis of traditional forms for consuming art, shows show one thing only: older people connect with older art in older mediums.
I don’t mean to be cynical of the study nor your post, but if this was the early 20th century, when jazz was burgeoning, I bet the NEA wouldn’t be gathering data on participation in the backstreet clubs of Harlem. I am 25, living in a reputedly “unartistic” city, and I am surrounded by creators and contributors to a local art scene. Most of my friends are playing in folk bands, sculpting, working as graphic designers, publishing editorial photography, hosting art shows, galleries and blogs, and more. And no, I don’t usually see 45 year-olds in our midst.
The internet is not killing public participation, but enabling it. Participation flourishes outside of the traditional facets. If you want to start a ska-rap-country/metal-fusion collective, you can probably find 4 or 5 other people online who want to try the same, then connect to a local art dealer, who happens to be presenting a ethnic-influenced mixed-media exhibit with gothic undertones and was actually thinking a ska-rap-folk/metal fusion collective would match perfectly with his private installment.
The truth is, the “younger audience” does not feel bound by the upper echelons of an exclusive art society. Part of the reason consumption of modern art among young people doesn’t happen is that, either a) it sucks (who would pay to go see a urinal on display?) or b) its expensive (why pay 50-100 bucks to go see someone play when I could get together and play my own tunes with my friends every week, and hang my other friends’ paintings on the walls?).
You got one thing right - art ciricles “will have to think creatively about how to reach and retain new and different audiences.” There is actually less passive consumption, and more active participation in new art, and THAT is what is hurting the established art scene. People don’t want to stand on the sidelines, nor do they have to anymore. There is little to no barrier to entry, especially with advancements in digital cameras and recording equipment. Perhaps galleries should try to get young people involved in a way that is natural to both - Art galleries that have hosted local musicians, local photographers, local painters are succeeding. Art galleries that assume they can foist their bad but expensive ideas off as art to the general public, well… there audience will dwindle as it grows older. And I personally think they deserve to die slowly.
But what do I know… I’m just a 25 year old.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Hi,
Interesting topic. This link was forwarded onto me. Here are two things that I believe are at play here.
1. Competing activities. There are more”options” than ever of things you can be doing for entertainment. There are a myriad of them within the arts and music fields alone. When you combine that with sporting interests and other social activities, the aggregate number is staggering.
2. 9-5 Work Schedules are disappearing. In today’s world, people are working a variety of time shifts at work. Additionally, many are working other jobs to help make ends meet. I myself work from 7:00 p.m. until 3:30 a.m. in the morning. Very few of my close associates work a straight nine to five anymore. It is some variation on this or they are logging more total hours over a work-week.
Some people are working weekends now either because of need or due to schedule variations. Because of these schedules, it makes it difficult to attend performing arts shows at the times they are showing “live”.
When you add in the crazy economy to the two things above, I can see why the trend is where it is. People are tired. They want to relax, unwind and watch things at their “convenience”. –Dan
June 24th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Let’s assume the dbl. digit decline in participation over the last 25 years to the performing arts is not as simple as pointing to the computer “internet Activity”. Factoring in and weighing extremely heavy are the costs associated with the in person approach to the activity. Television programming, NPR radio, and a web page found from goggle, or other forms of instant knowledge sites on a subject or artist has taken precedence. The overlapping events while quenching ones thirst of a art form can be adjusted at a real time schedule. We have become a multi-tasked society.
Let’s put a number to this thought. OK, lets go to the concert tonight. First lets establish who is the average couple. Guessing it would be parents with 1.5 children that will need a sitter. The cost of 2 tickets, note this is average so your only in the middle of the audience. Even with the jumbo-tron screens the visual is limited. The sound itself is not only delayed but also either loud or not defined for ones liking. Don’t forget the early arrival, the mad scramble out, and traffic delays.
This is all fun when your under 40, and possibility not married so that itself puts an entirely different spin on the event.
From your home one can take a tour of a Museum, be in the front row of a Concert, Play, Zoo, Alaska vacation, a Spaceship Ride, a Lecture. It will soon all be at your fingertips for very little cost. You control the volume, one can stop action, zoom in on something of interest to you personally. The providers of these marvelous events will not see the major part of their return from personal participation. It is still a necessity to capture it in high def and surround sound. The investment is tremendous for the producers. So in turn their copyrights and performing rights return has to be secured and protected.
There are changes coming weather we like it or not. We are witnessing a shift in programming now. A prime example is the reality programming that has, and will soon dominate our entertainment demands. We all want to be there, but the mass’s just can not pull it off financially. There is so much to consider when releasing these events for public consumption. I remain optimistic, but excited about how performing rights societies will conquer the revenue split for the writers, producers, investors, and artists.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Very interesting points and questions. The Internet is a powerful tool. I studied voice for 31 years with a brilliant teacher and pedagogue. He passed away in 2008 just 3 days short of his 97th birthday. He taught his students to teach. I thought that a vocal pedagogy group should be organized which would meet once a month. Before I could even suggest it to my fellow teaching-students, a Yahoo group was organized, and all the discussion has been done via group e-mails!
Similarly, I started an e-mail newsletter in the mid-’90s for my high school class, which I send out 2-4 times a year. We have a reunion every 5 years. But lately I’ve been wondering whether there will be any interest in people coming to NY to have an in-person reunion.
Are we just getting lazy, or are the arts pricing themselves out of business?
June 24th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
There are other issues raised here which have not been delved into sufficiently. One is the very definition of art itself. Regarding this, if a mother considers her precious child’s finger-paintings “art” that’s all well and good — the family will enjoy seeing baby’s little “masterpieces” up on the internet, but I personally wouldn’t pay it much attention. Or, if your office mate, who dabbles in guitar, decides to write a song, and it’s patently crap (even if you wouldn’t be so ill-mannered as to tell him/her) it’s still crap.
With this in mind, do we still consider the child “an artist” and the colleague “a songwriter.” At what point can you make a distinction? On the other hand, if no distinction is made for quality in art (since it’s so subjective…) then everything is art. But — put still another way — if no distinctions are made, the ultimate result is the devaluing of even the best art, because (as with currency, wherein “bad currency drives out good”) calling everything ‘art’ ultimately devalues great art.
It’s all rather an interesting problem….
June 25th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Lucinda, my read on this research is that social(ization) norms are changing and value(s) of experience are changing, so arts participation is changing. When folks view texting their friends and family to be on par with face-to-face interactions or voice interactions, and when folks enjoy watching movies at home or playing online video games over going to the movies, or spend more time on Facebook than television, it seems obvious that physically presented arts would take a hit. The business models for newspapers, magazine, music, film, television are all in jeopardy due to this shift in audience behavior. Again, it seems obvious that the arts would suffer, too.
While I personally agree that physical participation in the arts (and newspapers, magazines, music, film…) is preferable to the virtual equivalent, the trend is that physical and virtual representations are equally useful and relevant, and choosing one over the other will greatly depend on contextual factors (probably totally outside the control of the presenter).
It is no longer enough to simply be the best “physical” arts space/event/org in your area, you must also compete against all the virtual spaces/events/orgs.
My advice is to embrace and excel in the virtual as well as the physical and give audiences the choice on how to participate.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
For me the answer is much simpler.
It it goes a long way in explaining at least part of the reason for the decline in the current music industry.
I will use music and basketball as my example.
We took arts out of our public schools.
We never took sports out of our public schools.
Because kids grow up playing basketball in school, they can begin to grasp what it must take to play on the level of a Kobe Bryant.
But with no music education in school, they can’t even begin to appreciate what it takes to play at the level of Eddie Van Halen or Ludwig Van Beethoven.
I think the same applies for the other arts as well.
Take the arts out of public schools and we raise a generation that doesn’t know how to appreciate them.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am
[...] graying of arts audiences is one oft-cited fear among arts administrators who manage the more traditional art forms such as [...]