By Yvonne Smith
The role of aesthetics in art is unappreciated and overlooked. Scientifically, it is defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values and therefore, an important factor in attachment and commitment levels of audiences. The study of aesthetics in general is often associated with art, but philosophers argue that anything in nature; food, sports, even sex, can be viewed aesthetically. In her journal article “The Aesthetics of Scratching an Itch” Sherri Irvin points out that people view the most mundane incidents in everyday life, such as itching and scratching, as legitimate aesthetic experiences. Appreciation of the arts itself is not objective, however its level of tangibility is determined by the reach of its audience, which is further determined by the atmosphere in which they exist and the beliefs they are compelled to accept.
An example would be early American views of art. It is no surprise that the arts began in America as the forbidden fruit. While European tradition demanded state support for the arts, early Americans were very critical and apprehensive towards the subject. Apparently, in pursuit of liberty the arts were considered a link to the extravagant and wasteful behavior of monarch and aristocrat nations. Nonetheless, for the sake of democracy, support for the arts was not prohibited, although greatly challenged.
In “Government and the Arts: An Overview”, Cummings portrays the magnitude of this cultural gap between European and American perspectives through the public mocking of sculptor Horatio Greenough’s statue of George Washington2. The statue was so controversial in nature that it was removed from the Capitol’s rotunda, to its rear, and eventually to be stored with the collections of the Smithsonian Institution.
In retrospect, it was apparent that if the arts were going to survive in this new country it would eventually transform this European model to translate the aesthetics of freedom, democratic pride, and American loyalty. Eventually artists won the hearts of its fellows through landscapes of the “new” land and portraits of American leaders. During this period, these artistic endeavors were a reflection of what the country stood for and what it was becoming. This impression of America gradually transitioned in the twentieth century as the rise of multiple religious groups and democratic ideologies gave way to the more controversial expressions that were previously rejected by its precedents.
Now at the turn of the millennium the image of American is transforming to incorporate a vast portion of cultural differences. Census studies predict that minorities, who are now one third of the population, will become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. Expressions such as the “American dream” or the “American way”, are now unqualified to describe the complex experiences of today’s Americans, in which the majority are no longer of European descent. This presents an opportunity for the arts to celebrate its true self while shifting the stereotypical stigma that certain art is for certain people. Maybe too anxious to breakthrough, however, in their attempt to attract non-traditional audiences, non-profit art organization’s first mistake is devaluing art to be afforded, when really it makes it even more unattractive.
This reference towards devaluing is not a reflection of price, but the unnecessary manipulation of certain art forms in order to make them more appealing to new audiences. The Mississippi Opera Company’s "The Gospel of Colonus," was a wonderful initiative to attract black audiences from its region. The original depiction of the show was a musical created in New York City in 1985 and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. The added gospel elements from the play into the opera seemed to attract many African American audiences, and also received positive reactions from its targeted market. However, the risk at hand when communicating the performance as an opera are the future expectations of its audiences. An alteration of one unique art form to take on the uniqueness of another can cause a conflict of interest between the aesthetic preferences of old and new audiences. In this case the opera company will have to decide which audience to best serve: gospel lovers or opera lovers? Needless to say, choosing the first could possibly take the organization away from its mission, depending on the basis of its influence.
The key to engaging new audiences to treasured arts and art forms is not changing the nature of the art, but illuminating the beauty of the piece as relevant to the eye of the beholder. In Social Class & Arts Consumption, Maggio & Useem highlight three relevant components of audience consumption amongst various classes and cultures. One component is that Art appreciation is a trained capacity that is initially carried through tradition. According to DiMaggio & Useem, appreciation and familiarity with the high arts requires access to training, usually passed on from tradition.
The second component of audience consumption is that Art appreciation is contextual. A comparison of two theatrical views confirms this. The typical American Opera constitutes certain behavioral reaction to its plays, by means of applause during appropriate times, while the majority of the show is performed to a silent audience. On the contrary, modern African American plays consists of active audiences; howls when the lead walks on stage shirtless, and loud “ooohs” at the climax of the performance. An audience member familiar with the latter, may be uncomfortable in a setting in which expressing feelings towards the show during the performance is considered disorderly. Likewise, one familiar with more formal settings, may feel out of place in the midst of audience arousal during a play.
The last and most important component is that art consumption builds social solidarity and class cohesiveness. This particular notion makes audience diversity sound like an impossible task. The idea suggests, assuming that distinction of class is based solely on trained aesthetics, audience members with distinct tastes cannot coexist without conflicting interests. It also suggests cult-like barriers in which audience participation is influenced by certain social waves, which means in every audience there will always be a majority. From this perspective creating diversity could possibly mean changing faces altogether. In their attempt to diversify their audience, organizations may unintentionally swap one audience for another.
An interesting approach in the arts towards audience development is the RAND model (McCarthy & Jinnette, 2001). The model suggests segmentation of audiences based on their likelihood of participating in a particular art form, and developing strategies to reach out to particular segments. Potential audience members are divided into three groups: already participating, ready to participate, and not interested in participation. The strategy is then to measure the factors that contribute towards influencing the disinterested group into progressing to the participating level. This tool is helpful in preserving the essence of art forms and the mission’s of arts organizations by identifying a distinct facet of the art that would appeal to a certain audience, without changing the art form altogether. It is almost like an honest cars salesman approach, in which its not about falsifying the product to get it out of the lot, but making sure the product meets the needs of the customer it is being marketed to.
However the elements that contribute to this model are very broad, and do not specify influential factors that cannot be easily measured. An article in the International Journal of Arts Management, recently presented a reinterpretation of the RAND model that takes multiple factors into consideration. The motivation/Ability/Opportunity model (MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989) further implies that participation is also based on whether the consumer has the motivation to participate, the ability to participate, or the opportunity to participate. Those most likely to participate have all three, while those who do not possess any of these motives are more than likely not going to participate.
The combination of both the RAND model and the Motivation /Ability /Opportunity model helps create accuracy in audience segmentation. The purpose of segmenting is to identify potential participants, but it does not bridge the social gap that exists among participants who have different motives for attending. This approach does not guarantee an audience variety. This is important because it may contribute to an individual’s comfort level and their decision to participate again or not.
This is also why an understanding of cultural aesthetics does not replace the need to foster relationships between cultures. While any organization can open its doors to new audiences, and celebrate its prowess in achieving a fleeting moment of diversity, it will take clever planning to transform first time visitors into longtime supporters, without losing the current audience base.
Ironically, the relationships that exist amongst an arts audience will start with the people inside of the organization. Much pressure is place on board diversity in the non-profit sector, but most organizations focus on meeting mandated requirements instead of realizing the challenging opportunity that board diversity presents.
While Board diversity is a strategic advantage necessary to advance an organization, staff and board commitment to its mission, combined with a well-developed and positioned brand, is the real key to attracting a variety of different people from different backgrounds. For instance, Shakespeare's Othello is a play that can be related in several ways, tell the same story, and still be embraced by individuals with their own unique tastes and aesthetic views. In the same way, an organization should consider its art form as a diamond with many faces, worn in many different ways and adorned for many different qualities, but nonetheless still a diamond.
No comments:
Post a Comment