What effect does this have on you? If you repeat the word over and over, does it lose meaning? This word has become an industry buzzword (not only in the arts) that has lost meaning, to me personally. Although, I understand the word is important to stimulate arts involvement, its overuse and abuse has driven me mad. There is artist engagement, audience engagement, employee engagement, industry engagement to name some. You know name it, engagement is attributed to anything and everything. Just a thought, we all know this needs to happen, it is time to focus on the mechanisms to accomplish this, which can be executed through robust Education and Outreach activities.
The problematic notion here, which was addressed in class, is that the differences between Education and Outreach are murky. How do Arts managers separate the two out and is it necessary to do so? Could a collaborative effort across all departments that has executive leadership support help be the answer? The possibilities are endless in creating the repeat offender of an arts org (moving passive audience members into customers), but how can efforts be pushed to a new level?
Where arts organizations are stuck is in repeating the same techniques year after year to ‘engage’ audiences that have been done since Dionysus (not seriously, though). Innovative techniques are being done across the industry to spark new and returning audiences. Some are working better than others and it is good to evaluate what works well.
The cultivation of artists both young and old is the best way to ensure that the arts are getting out into the community and attracting (which is a synonym for engage) people to the organization. This summer, at New York Theatre Workshop, I had the opportunity to witness first hand an excellent combination of education and outreach that created art. Mind the Gap, is an intergenerational playwriting workshop that is supported by both the Education department and Artistic departments. By bringing together a spectrum of ages - half are teenagers that are between 14-18 and the other half is comprised of adults that are 60 or older - people learned by doing and interacting. “The goals of the program are both to teach writing and theatre skills as well as to foster better communication and understanding between these two age groups.” They also have 7 other methods of developing artists both young and old.
To me, this is an intelligent approach to education efforts, while at the same time producing a piece of artwork that is then produced in a reading, but this is a part of the Workshop’s mission. The mission and size of the organization can be deciding factors in how organizations approach education and outreach, through engagement (yes, I said it again). An additional variable that affects approach is location. That being said there are two many variables across the industry to say what would work best because each institution is different for a multitude of reasons. That being said, I am not sure there is a single fix to this problem, it is dependent on too many factors.
Amen to that! Hurray for engagement and participation! - Check out the post that I just made about engagement and technology both online and offline. I expand upon a lot of these ideas through examples I heard of from NAMPC.
To attract an audience the program that you mention makes the audience the stars, the actors, the writers, but where does that leave the professionals?
I believe there are truly two types of performing arts models: the one where engagement and production from the audience gives them free reign over the medium (see Mike's comment about no limits, no one telling the participants how to make art)
and two: the model that allows the professionals to "put on a show." It says, come see, sit, listen, and absorb from those who have practiced this craft their entire lives in some cases.
How can we combine both of these program models into one super-attractive-engaging-participatory-high-quality-performance?
I really like the point that Stephanie has brought up. I agree that there seems to be two types of models. I am very torn with the need to have outreach and education programs on the one hand, and the ability for a professional artist to be creative on their own terms on the other. I have no answer on how these two models can be combined or if combining them is truly the right path, but I do think caution is necessary. I believe professional artist need the opportunity to truly create without parameters of specific programing . I think there is a threat of loosing something crucial if everything revolves only around programming.
I really like the point which Stephanie and Elizabeth are discussing above. Thinking about the two different performing art models and the role that educational programs play in it, another question comes to my mind: Where should we draw the line between professional and non-professional if every audience member can be the artist in these days? Is there a definition for a professional artist at all? From my point of view, this is one of the aspects that make the arts such a unique system in the world. Even in times when there were no special education or outreach programs, everyone could be an artist. All this goes back to fact that there is no strict definition for the arts or the required skill set of an artist. Sure, you can argue that professional artists need to have some kind of degree or certificate which shows that they studied the profession longer and more intense than other people. But in contrast to that, the history had shown us that thousands of artists without artistic educations were able to become famous and successful and were therefore seen as “professionals” by the arts market.
But, I think that by involving the audience and allowing them to have some modicum of the experience that the professionals have in practicing their craft, you are allowing them to forge a deeper bond with the medium. (I'm also assuming that they're not all on their own in these workshops, and that some professionals are on hand to lend their help and expertise.)
I feel like, by participating in these programs, patrons are not only indicating their interest in theater, they would become more likely to buy tickets to a show down the line - they'll feel more attached to the organization. There's something to be said for a place that lends its time and facilities to help people learn something new. The program that Eric describes serves a dual purpose - It's great outreach, and also excellent marketing. And I don't think that you need to choose one over the other - if you have a strong outreach/educational program set up, you should be getting a significant chunk of the group that you're serving in the door to see your regular programming.
In the arts we are all very aware of having to prove why what we do is important and worth continuing. This means reconciling the traditions of live musical performance or music or theater styles with what the future holds for the arts. This is the bare bones argument I wanted to bring forward. This is why arts administrators are proving the importance of the arts and traditional art methods through other means (because intrinsic value might not be enough).
Why is the oboe (or ballet, or live theater) vital to society in 2012 that we should continue the tradition in teaching? What if expressing yourself (and making art in general) in ways that do not have an academic or long-standing tradition are just as good? I'm having trouble accepting this and want to carry on the traditions in many ways.
I think the best engagement engagement models I've been a part of have been a mixture of the two models Stephanie described. There certainly is a tendency, especially in more traditional art forms, to "put on a show" and have engagement be a one way street. Combining this expertise with the freedom to "do" Mike and Eric discussed is certainly possible. I would describe it best as "here is what I do, and here's how I do it...now what would you do?", and continue the conversation and participation from there.
Great conversation overall. And, Eric, I included the various words to indeed show that they are used randomly and at times in a very David Mamet mode (kill the meaning via overuse). Interestingly -- the primary synonym for engagement is 'employment'. I tend to prefer participation versus appreciation, which is sitting in a seat, walking through a gallery. participation, then, has various levels -- novice, amateur, professional . . . and, yes it is mighty complicated :-)
So, a multi-generational participatory engagement creates so many intersections of excellent educational frameworks with measurable results, I am not surprised you were enamored of it. That being said, there is value to something inbetween (more than appreciation but less than participation) that allows yet another learning style to intersect the art.
Regardless -- the relevance of nonprofits is measured on a different scale than for-profit products (movies). What is the difference between fan-style engagement in sports (should I raise the spector of the Steelers?) and patron engagement in the arts? I sometimes wish we could go back to the more 18th century French model of fan-infused theatrical entertainment (where some rising stars would actually hire audience members to begin creating their fan base).
Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement. Engagement.
ReplyDeleteWhat effect does this have on you? If you repeat the word over and over, does it lose meaning? This word has become an industry buzzword (not only in the arts) that has lost meaning, to me personally. Although, I understand the word is important to stimulate arts involvement, its overuse and abuse has driven me mad. There is artist engagement, audience engagement, employee engagement, industry engagement to name some. You know name it, engagement is attributed to anything and everything. Just a thought, we all know this needs to happen, it is time to focus on the mechanisms to accomplish this, which can be executed through robust Education and Outreach activities.
The problematic notion here, which was addressed in class, is that the differences between Education and Outreach are murky. How do Arts managers separate the two out and is it necessary to do so? Could a collaborative effort across all departments that has executive leadership support help be the answer? The possibilities are endless in creating the repeat offender of an arts org (moving passive audience members into customers), but how can efforts be pushed to a new level?
Where arts organizations are stuck is in repeating the same techniques year after year to ‘engage’ audiences that have been done since Dionysus (not seriously, though). Innovative techniques are being done across the industry to spark new and returning audiences. Some are working better than others and it is good to evaluate what works well.
The cultivation of artists both young and old is the best way to ensure that the arts are getting out into the community and attracting (which is a synonym for engage) people to the organization. This summer, at New York Theatre Workshop, I had the opportunity to witness first hand an excellent combination of education and outreach that created art. Mind the Gap, is an intergenerational playwriting workshop that is supported by both the Education department and Artistic departments. By bringing together a spectrum of ages - half are teenagers that are between 14-18 and the other half is comprised of adults that are 60 or older - people learned by doing and interacting. “The goals of the program are both to teach writing and theatre skills as well as to foster better communication and understanding between these two age groups.” They also have 7 other methods of developing artists both young and old.
To me, this is an intelligent approach to education efforts, while at the same time producing a piece of artwork that is then produced in a reading, but this is a part of the Workshop’s mission. The mission and size of the organization can be deciding factors in how organizations approach education and outreach, through engagement (yes, I said it again). An additional variable that affects approach is location. That being said there are two many variables across the industry to say what would work best because each institution is different for a multitude of reasons. That being said, I am not sure there is a single fix to this problem, it is dependent on too many factors.
Amen to that! Hurray for engagement and participation! - Check out the post that I just made about engagement and technology both online and offline. I expand upon a lot of these ideas through examples I heard of from NAMPC.
Delete=)
ReplyDeleteTo attract an audience the program that you mention makes the audience the stars, the actors, the writers, but where does that leave the professionals?
ReplyDeleteI believe there are truly two types of performing arts models: the one where engagement and production from the audience gives them free reign over the medium (see Mike's comment about no limits, no one telling the participants how to make art)
and two: the model that allows the professionals to "put on a show." It says, come see, sit, listen, and absorb from those who have practiced this craft their entire lives in some cases.
How can we combine both of these program models into one super-attractive-engaging-participatory-high-quality-performance?
I really like the point that Stephanie has brought up. I agree that there seems to be two types of models. I am very torn with the need to have outreach and education programs on the one hand, and the ability for a professional artist to be creative on their own terms on the other. I have no answer on how these two models can be combined or if combining them is truly the right path, but I do think caution is necessary. I believe professional artist need the opportunity to truly create without parameters of specific programing . I think there is a threat of loosing something crucial if everything revolves only around programming.
ReplyDeleteI really like the point which Stephanie and Elizabeth are discussing above. Thinking about the two different performing art models and the role that educational programs play in it, another question comes to my mind: Where should we draw the line between professional and non-professional if every audience member can be the artist in these days? Is there a definition for a professional artist at all?
DeleteFrom my point of view, this is one of the aspects that make the arts such a unique system in the world. Even in times when there were no special education or outreach programs, everyone could be an artist. All this goes back to fact that there is no strict definition for the arts or the required skill set of an artist. Sure, you can argue that professional artists need to have some kind of degree or certificate which shows that they studied the profession longer and more intense than other people. But in contrast to that, the history had shown us that thousands of artists without artistic educations were able to become famous and successful and were therefore seen as “professionals” by the arts market.
But, I think that by involving the audience and allowing them to have some modicum of the experience that the professionals have in practicing their craft, you are allowing them to forge a deeper bond with the medium. (I'm also assuming that they're not all on their own in these workshops, and that some professionals are on hand to lend their help and expertise.)
ReplyDeleteI feel like, by participating in these programs, patrons are not only indicating their interest in theater, they would become more likely to buy tickets to a show down the line - they'll feel more attached to the organization. There's something to be said for a place that lends its time and facilities to help people learn something new. The program that Eric describes serves a dual purpose - It's great outreach, and also excellent marketing. And I don't think that you need to choose one over the other - if you have a strong outreach/educational program set up, you should be getting a significant chunk of the group that you're serving in the door to see your regular programming.
In the arts we are all very aware of having to prove why what we do is important and worth continuing. This means reconciling the traditions of live musical performance or music or theater styles with what the future holds for the arts. This is the bare bones argument I wanted to bring forward. This is why arts administrators are proving the importance of the arts and traditional art methods through other means (because intrinsic value might not be enough).
DeleteWhy is the oboe (or ballet, or live theater) vital to society in 2012 that we should continue the tradition in teaching? What if expressing yourself (and making art in general) in ways that do not have an academic or long-standing tradition are just as good? I'm having trouble accepting this and want to carry on the traditions in many ways.
I think the best engagement engagement models I've been a part of have been a mixture of the two models Stephanie described. There certainly is a tendency, especially in more traditional art forms, to "put on a show" and have engagement be a one way street. Combining this expertise with the freedom to "do" Mike and Eric discussed is certainly possible. I would describe it best as "here is what I do, and here's how I do it...now what would you do?", and continue the conversation and participation from there.
DeleteGreat conversation overall. And, Eric, I included the various words to indeed show that they are used randomly and at times in a very David Mamet mode (kill the meaning via overuse). Interestingly -- the primary synonym for engagement is 'employment'. I tend to prefer participation versus appreciation, which is sitting in a seat, walking through a gallery. participation, then, has various levels -- novice, amateur, professional . . . and, yes it is mighty complicated :-)
ReplyDeleteSo, a multi-generational participatory engagement creates so many intersections of excellent educational frameworks with measurable results, I am not surprised you were enamored of it. That being said, there is value to something inbetween (more than appreciation but less than participation) that allows yet another learning style to intersect the art.
Regardless -- the relevance of nonprofits is measured on a different scale than for-profit products (movies). What is the difference between fan-style engagement in sports (should I raise the spector of the Steelers?) and patron engagement in the arts? I sometimes wish we could go back to the more 18th century French model of fan-infused theatrical entertainment (where some rising stars would actually hire audience members to begin creating their fan base).