Audience?
Could we change the relations in art production if we find better words? "Audience" is used in many strange ways, as a sort of abstract collective behaving as an individual with certain needs and desires. As discussed in a recent article in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, "audience" is basically a useless concept in terms of describing the wishes and expectations of a group of people, and shows the absurdity of trying to speak about what "it wants".
So, could we change the way we think and perform the function of art, by finding better words when we invite to artistic proposals?
"User" is probably the clearest attempt to point to the functionality and potentiality of a piece. But in he same way as in the case of participation, isn't the use of the word user often an easy way out in order to show an interest for public engagement? Another expression of pretend-democracy?
In Swedish, "audience" is called "publik", wich is yet another thing in English. Spectator, viewer, player, co-creator, consumer, reader, spect-actor? Maybe it is mainly about saying "an audience" in stead of "the audience"? Should we separate the specific audience in the actual space of the artistic proposal from the public - the potential audience?
I guess this discussion goes together with the movement towards individual expression, the resistance to speaking as a representative for a collective. In the same way as it is not very productive to say "Swedish dance is this" and try to sell it abroad in a bundle, or to insist on efforts to get people with different views to "speak in one voice" instead of speaking in a thousand unique voices - maybe the "audience"-concept needs to be diversified even more? How? Is the resistance to speaking about "target-groups" a good, a naive or a conservative one?
In Sweden there has recently been a big discussion about the financing of culture because of the ongoing Inquiry on Cultural Policy, and there was a proposal from a neo-liberal think tank that the financing of culture should be distributed directly to the consumers of culture - the audience - in the form of a "check" that they/we could spend on any culture we want (I'm not sure if food and wine is included in this culture). This would keep only the culture that "the audience wants" alive, and the idea was that this would be the ultimate democratic way to "include" the public in cultural production. This is not a very surprising proposal, coming from that angle, but I'm interested in the connection between the obvious market idea of the consumer and the idea of the user.
What's your thoughts on "the audience?"
Hmm....
My thoughts about the audience.
I'm not very clear when writing, this is better discussed over a cup of tea with me sitting calmly down and making big gestures with my hands and eyes.
I like to think about the audience as humans. People. Individuals. Yes, perhaps they, we, do behave in a certain way when in a performance a la black box context. So many unspoken rules how to behave in various contexts. I say be brave. Be you, and don't follow the crowd if it doesn't feel right. This is the responsibility we all have towards each other, and ourselves.
My thoughts go a bit beyond the idea of an audience... bare with me.
Personally I'm not interested in the words consumer and market. When I make a piece, a production if you prefer to use that word, I'm not in the first hand interested in selling it. I would like to share it with others yes, and survive while doing so, but in my naive world the first thing I'm interested in is the meeting. The meeting between all those lovely people out there and what has been created. Together it becomes something new, something unspoken. Otherwise, Why would I be on a stage? In a theatre setting?
I don't need to of course if I want to share with people. I could ask them kindly to go out of the box. This is what I mean. Why them, and us? Why box? Tickets?
Well, this can be discussed.
Just putting it out there.
The world is changing, perhaps our words should too? Definitions are tricky.
It's great that you've started this project with möte09, it does need a closer look.
I'm up for it.
Thanks
Maria Svensson
"Liza's thoughts on audience on tuesday morning in april"
The articles above, got me inspired to write about the “audience”. What is it? Where is it? Did anybody ever talk to it? And if so, could you please give me his/her email?
In the article from DN, I can agree upon the description of an audience, as a phantom- like creature. A phantom, that we, artist , lately, have been giving too much attention to. We are all worried and curious what the audience thinks, wants, knows, what does it want to know, is it intelligent enough, is it with us, and if not, how can we educate it, so that it can follow, or like they say in swedish “hang with” ( a direct translation from a swedish expression “hänga med”).
But since the audience is, presumably a phantom, how on earth are we to educate it or find out what it thinks?
I think, in this whole debate about the audience, artists are loosing focus. Focus from THEIR work. Focus on what THEY think, what THEY want, what do THEY want to know, what do THEY want to challenge, what keeps THEM interested and how are THEY to continue to communicate.
I like to think of an artist as a farmer. An artist works with his media, with the same urgency as the farmer works with his. They are both crafting. If the farmer is true to himself, he will grow carrots and cabbages and potatoes and whatever else, first of all, be cause he enjoys doing that, and be cause spending time with his feet deep in the earth gives him pleasure. Or, lets say, its just his “need”. Even if there is no need for him to grow anything, as he could go to the closest supermarket, and bye everything and more. Still, he will stay in the earth. He could start selling his product, which could lead to ability to expansion of his land, so that he can spend even more time in the earth. If so, more time would be required. But since its his “need”, the extra time spent, is not a “chain around his feet”.
Same applies to the artist. He questions, be cause, he likes to question, he will keep questioning even if a encyclopedia of answers would exist. In russian, they say “ you don’t need to feed him bread, he will still be doing it”.
A farmers “working process” is neither far from an artistic “working process”. An artist plants the idea, nourishes it, grows it, and eventually its time to harvest.
I know this comparison might be a bit too simple, but Im going to give it a go:
A farmer, as well, has an audience. The phantom lets him know, that filling his fields with only one kind of potatoes is really good. That is what the people, the public, the audience, the Phantom wants. More potatoes!!!!! they scream all together. But why? the farmer thinks. Potatoes is so boring and easy. Its almost fast food. You just boil it without even pealing it.What about wheat and buckwheat, and barley and all the rest nourishing foods? Oh, no no no, says the phantom. Its too long cooking time and the taste is just too foreign, and you have to chew it so much! No. Give us some potatoes. We like potatoes!
Some farmers will grow endless fields of potatoes but some farmers, will continue growing those products he wants to grow despite the public opinion. He might not be as progressive as the farmers that grows only potatoes that is sold in the supermarket, but he will still, be a farmer. And one day the Phantom will come to him, and say: Im tired of potatoes, its so boring to eat potatoes all the time! Give me some new stuff! And the farmer will have a garden filled with variety.
I guess i could invent a similar story about an artist. The farmer is the artist who doesn’t want to produce easy “potato” art, and keeps to his more nourishing “wheat and barley” ideas, that need more energy from the mind. What does the phantom want? a high easy carb- energy fast cooked reality show or a more long carb- energy chewy piece in the theatre. But there is no need to invent. J.S Bach was one of those artist that despite the phantoms opinion, kept on writing his fuges and gigues, and could hardly survive on his teaching income, but still kept writing music. Billy Holiday was neither as beloved as she is in our time. Well, there are of course many many more posthumous artists. I am not suggesting death as a inspiration. But none, of those people cared what the phantom had to say, and kept doing their work.
So if we keep doing our work, because we have a need to communicate, and as long as we think that artist is NOT an entity with intelligence or abilities exceeding normal human standards, we will communicate. As long as the artist can stay focused on his/her idea, stick to the questions, that keeps him/her intrigued and not constantly try to please the phantoms wishes, we will communicate. If I am interested, there has to be somebody else who might share or at least be taken for a moment by my art. Im not alone in this world. I am not a super-human, I just choose a different language to communicate.
But my main question as an artist should be, not only WHAT to communicate, but also, HOW to communicate? How to reach out to the world that is trapped in a capitalistic thought without supporting further development of the capitalistic ideas in arts?
Then of course we can start a whole new chapter about the audience in the theatre. First of all, we have to think back into the history. And realize, that before, the theatre was a place where people could meet and hear the latest ideas of a philosopher or latest writing of a writer, news, announcements etc. It was a public space, where ideas were spread. Does the theatre have the same function in our days? Now, that the theatre has to compete with other forms of media spreading such as Tv, internet, books, magazines, newspapers. And if we are concerned why the audience feeling alienated from the work they see presented in the theatre, maybe its us, who needs some education and realize, that times has changed. Do we need to be inside hidden in a box? Maybe it is time go out on the street? Attack “youtube” and create an ‘art-tube”? maybe, its time to not be so dependent on the theatre and be more focused on the communication?
Post new comment