Project-based tours are defined as “tours that put an artist/company into a community for an extended period, for repeat visits, and/or for commissioned work” (Shagan 130). The biggest advantage of project-based tours is the higher quality of engagement between artist and audience. With investing in an artist/company for an extended period of time, the presenter has the chance to leave the path of familiar and “safe” artistic works. The reason why he could do that is the presence of the artist who helps the audience to understand more complex works through lectures, visits in school, etc. A project-based tour is therefore no “passive delivery system” (Shagan 131) of art. Instead, it’s an open dialogue between artist and community which (in the best case) generates a feeling of excitement, interest, and ownership within the audience. Beside the different extend of community engagement, project-based tours have several other benefits for the presenter and the artist/company. On the one side, it is easier for the presenter just to work with one artist or company instead of booking several companies for “one-night stands” in his venue. Additionally, the salaries for long-term residencies are (cumulated) normally lower than the salaries for multiple companies. On the other side, staying in just one community for a longer period of time is a benefit for the artist, too. Although the salaries might be higher if he/she would tour around the country/world, a project-based tour gives a lot more safety. From a personal point of view, the artist is normally happy about having kind of stable life situation for a few weeks. From an artistic point of view, project-based tours are a chance for the artist to improve his/her own artistic skills – especially when commissioned work is a part of the residency. During a longer stay at one place the artist has the luxury of time for extended rehearsals in a venue that he knows very well.
On the contrary, there are several reasons why the project-based touring system is not the normal way of artist tours in the market. First of all, the period of days/months the artist stays in the community is very hard to define: How long is long enough? At what point does the audience engagement have a sustainable impact? When does the program get boring for the audience? Second, project-based tours are not that easy to sell to presenters because the relationship between presenter and artist is much closer and intense – oftentimes like the relationship between a patron and his protégé. Therefore, presenters aren’t able to have more than a few project-driven residencies in one season because they need additional staff to handle the residencies – a luxury that especially smaller presenters cannot afford. From a practical point of view, residencies could also be the reason for “dark-nights” in the venue. Especially when a completely new work is part of the residency, the artist needs time to rehearse on the main stage. These are the nights in which the presenter loses money because he couldn’t bring in another company. Another aspect of project-based tours that might be a disadvantage is the competition between local artists/companies and the resident artist. The reason for bringing in an outside artist should be the additional value/education this artist can give to the community – not the cut out of local art groups. Finally, there could be disadvantages of project-based touring for the artist/company as well. With being a residency, the artist is obligated to stay in one specific area – if he likes it or not. Problems could emerge if artist and presenter don’t have the same opinion about the commissioned work or the dimension of the artist’s community engagement. Although this kind of aspects hopefully are fixed in a contract, bad tensions between presenter and artist can make a long-term stay very exhausting for both sides. From an artist’s point of view there is also the question if a project-based tour can build the same prestige as a country-wide or international tour.
I strongly agree with the pros mentioned here that Project Based Touring gives the higher quality of engagement between artist and audience. Additionally, I would like to add that this higher quality of engagement will eventually widen the breadth of arts patron base.
Project Based Touring expands the spectrum of “Audience participation,” which has been discussed as a crucial topic for the arts. There is an interesting research from NEA regarding participation in the arts. Participation in the arts is composed of three different modes: “arts attendance, personal arts creation, and arts participation through electronic media” (Novac Leonard & Brown, 15). Interesting finding in this research is that one out of four U.S. adults participate in the arts exclusively through modes other than attendance (Novac Leonard & Brown, 83). In other words, a quarter of U.S. adults participate in the arts through personal arts creation or media-based arts participation. I see a big opportunity here in that when Project Based Touring provides a wide variety of activities other than one-time performance, it will widen the community’s exposure to the production approximately as much as a quarter of the community. Perhaps this widened participant group, those who have not attended performance, may possibly develop their interest to the performance, which will lead to increase in the attendance to the performance.
I would like to comment on my experience with presenting both a project-based residency and traditional touring shows for an arts council serving a rural county in Ohio.
In my experience, Yejin is spot on with regards to the increased audience participation, engagement and appreciation that comes with project-based touring.
We were presenting in an area with very little school-based arts education (aside from marching band) where high-school sports were the most popular form of weekend entertainment. It was a working class area with virtually no local performing arts companies. The council had a history of presenting a variety of touring companies (theatre, musicals, dance, music, etc.) with very mixed reviews. We frequently received high praise for our programming from a few select members of the community, but many other people felt that our offerings were too "artsy" or didn't have anything to do with their lives.
As an experiment we brought in a circus performer who worked with school children for several days to create a community circus based on the experiences of the children and told through traditional circus techniques. While a few of our regular patrons were put off by this project, we reached an audience who had never attended anything we had presented. Parents, children and community members were engaged in the performance in a way we had never seen. It gave them a voice in the arts that they had not considered possible.
As someone who has grown up in the performing arts, I easily forget what it's like to find art unapproachable or irrelevant, but I think that this is the reality for a significant portion of the population. Finding a way to connect with our communities through the performing arts, and teaching our communities that art is theirs are two of the greatest benefits to project-based touring. As Christina mentioned, I think that it also goes a long way to reconnect artists with the inspiration and meaning behind the art that they create.
Everyone in this thread so far has mentioned how great project-based touring can be for audience engagement - I whole-heartedly agree with this assessment. In essence, the artist is given an opportunity to become an honorary member of a community. Residents are able to get to know the artist and his/her work on a deeper level.
But, in the "Trends for the Future" chapter reading this week, Jackie Davis is quoted, talking about how prior discussions with her colleagues centered around "marketing performing arts events" rather than how the artists are engaged with the community while they are there. I'd just like to make the point that an extended/repeating project engagement by an artist is a really excellent marketing opportunity-and although engaging the community should and will likely be Priority 1A, this should not be ignored. I imagine that the local press and news outlets would be extremely interested in covering the engagement as a story (especially if this sort of engagement is a more rare or first-time occurrence), and that this would perhaps attract an audience from a radius beyond just that particular community.
So, in addition to engaging the community, I think that PR/Marketing should be turned on at full capacity during a project tour. This can increase prestige of the artist, increase the number of touring opportunities for presenters within the community, and greatly expand audiences for events within that community.
Although I agree that the extended nature of project-based tours (i.e. more than one performance) can strengthen ties between artist and community, the short-term/temporary aspect of these tours can also be beneficial for organizations that both present and produce. For example, a symphony orchestra may technically be the "resident organization" of a venue that also presents a number of one-off shows outside of the regular symphony season.
Since by definition, the term "project-based" carries a connotation of being short-term, presenting this kind of touring show is a valuable marketing opportunity, since it can create a sense of urgency and buzz that may not occur with a longer-run show. Knowing that an intriguing performance will only be running for a couple of weekends might very well be the impetus that someone needs to get to the hall to experience it. In an age when fewer and fewer people are truly interested in committing to a 21- or even a 7-week subscription to the core season (whether due to simply not being able to plan so far in advance or any other rationale), it would behoove performing arts organizations to consider shifting toward a more project-based model in order to broaden their audience reach. It isn't only about the quality and variety of art we provide -- adapting to major changes in our current and prospective patrons' rationale and eventual behavior is essential if we want to remain relevant.
My issue with project-based touring is diversity, not in the racial sense but in the artistic sense. Usually the organizations who are able to commission artists for a project are highly bureaucratic (ie large universities, endowments, and foundations), and these organizations tend to stay away from works that are both politically and socially challenging as to not align themselves with any statement that may cause upset, and the idea that artists who choose to present a more defiant work could not be allowed the privilege to explain themselves to a greater community somewhat disturbs me.
I think the diversity issue is relevant to location and mission and budget, for example, the Univ. of Maryland's engagement/presenting model is highly controversial for part of the work and more 'mainstream' for the rest. However, some organizations in the middle of the country my stay more mainstream to prevent backlash. All programs and planning of seasons take local frameworks and intention to diversify.
Project-based tours are defined as “tours that put an artist/company into a community for an extended period, for repeat visits, and/or for commissioned work” (Shagan 130). The biggest advantage of project-based tours is the higher quality of engagement between artist and audience. With investing in an artist/company for an extended period of time, the presenter has the chance to leave the path of familiar and “safe” artistic works. The reason why he could do that is the presence of the artist who helps the audience to understand more complex works through lectures, visits in school, etc. A project-based tour is therefore no “passive delivery system” (Shagan 131) of art. Instead, it’s an open dialogue between artist and community which (in the best case) generates a feeling of excitement, interest, and ownership within the audience. Beside the different extend of community engagement, project-based tours have several other benefits for the presenter and the artist/company. On the one side, it is easier for the presenter just to work with one artist or company instead of booking several companies for “one-night stands” in his venue. Additionally, the salaries for long-term residencies are (cumulated) normally lower than the salaries for multiple companies. On the other side, staying in just one community for a longer period of time is a benefit for the artist, too. Although the salaries might be higher if he/she would tour around the country/world, a project-based tour gives a lot more safety. From a personal point of view, the artist is normally happy about having kind of stable life situation for a few weeks. From an artistic point of view, project-based tours are a chance for the artist to improve his/her own artistic skills – especially when commissioned work is a part of the residency. During a longer stay at one place the artist has the luxury of time for extended rehearsals in a venue that he knows very well.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, there are several reasons why the project-based touring system is not the normal way of artist tours in the market. First of all, the period of days/months the artist stays in the community is very hard to define: How long is long enough? At what point does the audience engagement have a sustainable impact? When does the program get boring for the audience? Second, project-based tours are not that easy to sell to presenters because the relationship between presenter and artist is much closer and intense – oftentimes like the relationship between a patron and his protégé. Therefore, presenters aren’t able to have more than a few project-driven residencies in one season because they need additional staff to handle the residencies – a luxury that especially smaller presenters cannot afford. From a practical point of view, residencies could also be the reason for “dark-nights” in the venue. Especially when a completely new work is part of the residency, the artist needs time to rehearse on the main stage. These are the nights in which the presenter loses money because he couldn’t bring in another company. Another aspect of project-based tours that might be a disadvantage is the competition between local artists/companies and the resident artist. The reason for bringing in an outside artist should be the additional value/education this artist can give to the community – not the cut out of local art groups. Finally, there could be disadvantages of project-based touring for the artist/company as well. With being a residency, the artist is obligated to stay in one specific area – if he likes it or not. Problems could emerge if artist and presenter don’t have the same opinion about the commissioned work or the dimension of the artist’s community engagement. Although this kind of aspects hopefully are fixed in a contract, bad tensions between presenter and artist can make a long-term stay very exhausting for both sides. From an artist’s point of view there is also the question if a project-based tour can build the same prestige as a country-wide or international tour.
I strongly agree with the pros mentioned here that Project Based Touring gives the higher quality of engagement between artist and audience. Additionally, I would like to add that this higher quality of engagement will eventually widen the breadth of arts patron base.
ReplyDeleteProject Based Touring expands the spectrum of “Audience participation,” which has been discussed as a crucial topic for the arts. There is an interesting research from NEA regarding participation in the arts. Participation in the arts is composed of three different modes: “arts attendance, personal arts creation, and arts participation through electronic media” (Novac Leonard & Brown, 15). Interesting finding in this research is that one out of four U.S. adults participate in the arts exclusively through modes other than attendance (Novac Leonard & Brown, 83). In other words, a quarter of U.S. adults participate in the arts through personal arts creation or media-based arts participation. I see a big opportunity here in that when Project Based Touring provides a wide variety of activities other than one-time performance, it will widen the community’s exposure to the production approximately as much as a quarter of the community. Perhaps this widened participant group, those who have not attended performance, may possibly develop their interest to the performance, which will lead to increase in the attendance to the performance.
(Reference source:
http://www.nea.gov/research/2008-SPPA-BeyondAttendance.pdf)
I would like to comment on my experience with presenting both a project-based residency and traditional touring shows for an arts council serving a rural county in Ohio.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, Yejin is spot on with regards to the increased audience participation, engagement and appreciation that comes with project-based touring.
We were presenting in an area with very little school-based arts education (aside from marching band) where high-school sports were the most popular form of weekend entertainment. It was a working class area with virtually no local performing arts companies. The council had a history of presenting a variety of touring companies (theatre, musicals, dance, music, etc.) with very mixed reviews. We frequently received high praise for our programming from a few select members of the community, but many other people felt that our offerings were too "artsy" or didn't have anything to do with their lives.
As an experiment we brought in a circus performer who worked with school children for several days to create a community circus based on the experiences of the children and told through traditional circus techniques. While a few of our regular patrons were put off by this project, we reached an audience who had never attended anything we had presented. Parents, children and community members were engaged in the performance in a way we had never seen. It gave them a voice in the arts that they had not considered possible.
As someone who has grown up in the performing arts, I easily forget what it's like to find art unapproachable or irrelevant, but I think that this is the reality for a significant portion of the population. Finding a way to connect with our communities through the performing arts, and teaching our communities that art is theirs are two of the greatest benefits to project-based touring. As Christina mentioned, I think that it also goes a long way to reconnect artists with the inspiration and meaning behind the art that they create.
Everyone in this thread so far has mentioned how great project-based touring can be for audience engagement - I whole-heartedly agree with this assessment. In essence, the artist is given an opportunity to become an honorary member of a community. Residents are able to get to know the artist and his/her work on a deeper level.
ReplyDeleteBut, in the "Trends for the Future" chapter reading this week, Jackie Davis is quoted, talking about how prior discussions with her colleagues centered around "marketing performing arts events" rather than how the artists are engaged with the community while they are there. I'd just like to make the point that an extended/repeating project engagement by an artist is a really excellent marketing opportunity-and although engaging the community should and will likely be Priority 1A, this should not be ignored. I imagine that the local press and news outlets would be extremely interested in covering the engagement as a story (especially if this sort of engagement is a more rare or first-time occurrence), and that this would perhaps attract an audience from a radius beyond just that particular community.
So, in addition to engaging the community, I think that PR/Marketing should be turned on at full capacity during a project tour. This can increase prestige of the artist, increase the number of touring opportunities for presenters within the community, and greatly expand audiences for events within that community.
Although I agree that the extended nature of project-based tours (i.e. more than one performance) can strengthen ties between artist and community, the short-term/temporary aspect of these tours can also be beneficial for organizations that both present and produce. For example, a symphony orchestra may technically be the "resident organization" of a venue that also presents a number of one-off shows outside of the regular symphony season.
ReplyDeleteSince by definition, the term "project-based" carries a connotation of being short-term, presenting this kind of touring show is a valuable marketing opportunity, since it can create a sense of urgency and buzz that may not occur with a longer-run show. Knowing that an intriguing performance will only be running for a couple of weekends might very well be the impetus that someone needs to get to the hall to experience it. In an age when fewer and fewer people are truly interested in committing to a 21- or even a 7-week subscription to the core season (whether due to simply not being able to plan so far in advance or any other rationale), it would behoove performing arts organizations to consider shifting toward a more project-based model in order to broaden their audience reach. It isn't only about the quality and variety of art we provide -- adapting to major changes in our current and prospective patrons' rationale and eventual behavior is essential if we want to remain relevant.
My issue with project-based touring is diversity, not in the racial sense but in the artistic sense. Usually the organizations who are able to commission artists for a project are highly bureaucratic (ie large universities, endowments, and foundations), and these organizations tend to stay away from works that are both politically and socially challenging as to not align themselves with any statement that may cause upset, and the idea that artists who choose to present a more defiant work could not be allowed the privilege to explain themselves to a greater community somewhat disturbs me.
ReplyDeleteI think the diversity issue is relevant to location and mission and budget, for example, the Univ. of Maryland's engagement/presenting model is highly controversial for part of the work and more 'mainstream' for the rest. However, some organizations in the middle of the country my stay more mainstream to prevent backlash. All programs and planning of seasons take local frameworks and intention to diversify.
Delete