Utility
Sterling Lynch wrote a guest post over at Unfolding on the topic of arts versus arts marketing. For me, one of the things that stood out in his post is his suggestion that a shared focus on the goal of exhibiting art aligns the efforts of artists and arts marketers.
The notion of “focus”, and the idea that his post might be seen as “fundamental marketing information” in almost any other context, got me thinking about something else. You’re going to have to bear with me, now, as I lead you through some possibly-repulsive material in order to arrive at my point.
Much of the modern theatre world is slow to pick up on things (like the basics of marketing, for example… but I digress). Included among those things is the embrace of modern communications tools (I refuse to say “social media”, even though I’m now going to use Twitter as my primary example.. but I digress again).
When I talk to theatre friends and other artists about why they don’t use services like Twitter, I get a spectrum of familiar responses: I just don’t see the point; it’s so banal; nobody says anything interesting; etc. Those of us who have worked successfully with a tool like Twitter grin-and-bear these responses because we understand that Twitter is not a destination; its value is intrinsic in its definition as a tool. It is a merely a means to an end.
The “ends” or goals I set for my use of Twitter are aligned with my goals for living a well-rounded life: use it to meet people who share my interests; find out about interests I didn’t know I had; keep on top of discussions that interest people, and participate in those discussions as best I can. Small successes lie in using Twitter to connect with people I would not have otherwise met. Massive successes lie in using those connections to facilitate real-life interactions, where I get to be in the same physical space as the person I met online, talking or playing or creating or debating or volunteering or working.
When I line up my “Twitter goals” alongside my goals as an artist, I can’t help but notice an alarming similarity. Which brings me to another parallel thought, and my point: theatre is also just a tool.
I’m oversimplifying, now, but let me lay this out as basically as I can. Just as people who are frustrated or bored with Twitter get that way because they use Twitter just for Twitter’s sake, people who are frustrated or bored with theatre get that way because they use theatre just for theatre’s sake. In order for the form to be useful, it must not be the end, but the means to the end. To ignore the notion that theatre must exist to effect something is to bolster the claims of many people who don’t go to the theatre, when asked why they don’t go to the theatre: I just don’t see the point; it’s so banal; nobody says anything interesting; etc.
I’ve been reading a great deal of depressing commentary on the nature and utility of art (for a meaty and supremely filling meal of such commentary, check out the most recent Lapham’s Quarterly). One of the most common ideas that has come up in this reading is the feeling that art of all kinds must now be completely commodified in order to “succeed”; it therefore serves no driving societal purpose. You see it in how the impact of a painting is measured in terms of its monetary value; you see it in a culture that predominantly thinks actors should just act, and stay out of the worlds of commentary and politics.
This is, in many ways, a trap that has been forged for us by the forces that shape our western culture. But it’s also a trap in which many theatre artists toil blindly, responding by using the medium to “connect” with society — as if that is its intent — instead of using it to mold and guide society. The symptoms are myriad, evident in everything from the idea that “real” theatre can only take place in a theatre, to the idea that the way to market theatre is to advertise work to existing theatregoers. Theatre creators all over North America are in the business of building screwdrivers, and have forgotten why people need screwdrivers.
Theatre — like all technology — is just a tool. This is something we used to know, but seem to have forgotten. The roots of this amnesia date back decades: in the immortal words of Bertolt Brecht (or was it Mayakovsky?), “art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it.”
I’m rather pleased with myself for making this observation. My problem now — my crisis — is that I have no idea how to move from seeing the hammer to knowing how to hold it, wield it, and start driving some nails. I don’t even know if the hammer is the right tool for the job I want to do.
May 11th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Very interesting topic you bring up here Kris and you do a great job of unwrapping some of the questions I think a lot of the arts need to look at. I studied Fine Arts and have some thoughts on the silos of elitism that we create. I do not think that it always needs to be commodified as you say in terms of money to be successful. I don’t think the Canadian art world looks at it this way at all. The general public may but that public in Canada is not an art buying public.
From my experiences of artists and the art world in Canada, most have a repulsion to making money. At the university level, there is an unspoken belief passed on that artists have to be starving and dependent on the state to make “real” art. You ask for an arts grant and hope to get plugged into the system. Anyone that makes art that isn’t just about the dialectic of art for those initiated into the artists is seen as a sell-out and would probably never ever be considered for a grant. If for some reason they decide to make money with their art outside the institutional system they are out for sure. and stay out of the worlds of commentary and politics. If you are becomes an overtly political or social statement the elitists will question if it really fits into the category of art.
You are quite right though I think in exploring the need to market yourself and your message as an art since art is both transformative and reflective of our society. It does not need to be only reserved for the few. It can be a change agent in the worlds of social commentary and politics. I am sure as you explore yourself and your art with all the new tools you have like your blog and twitter (regardless of the others who have disdain for it) something will unfold. The new tools can bring a new expression to your art AND a new audience. It is in your discomfort in standing outside the norm, you can be sure you are onto some growth. How exciting.