It’s always a kick to hang out with Elizabeth Streb, which I got to do last weekend during a special course at Carnegie Mellon’s arts administration program. Course instructor Matt Dooley had invited me, Elizabeth, and theater scholar Lynne Conner to express and explore how the audience/art relationship might be changing (or not changing fast enough).
Lynne Conner (who I’ve blogged on before) has a fabulous overview on the history of audience/art interaction (at least in Western tradition) since the Greeks. And her overview makes one wonder if the ”sit quietly in the dark in assigned seats” model isn’t just a short-term anomaly of arts experience, rather than the standard form.
And while Lynne and I think, write, and talk about the subject a great deal, Elizabeth Streb is actually changing the game. Her company’s studio/lab in Brooklyn challenges so many traditional expectations of professional creative space, that it’s hard to know where to begin.
Elizabeth despises the constraint and construct of the traditional proscenium space. So her studio is a ”come as you are, come when you want, leave when you want, talk if you want” free-for-all — even during what we would usually call a performance. If your phone rings and you want to answer it, answer it. She figures you can decide if the work her dancers are doing is more worthy of your attention. The seats aren’t fixed. There’s popcorn (”the smell of popcorn just makes you happy,” she says). And the building is open whenever any staff is working there (she even encourages public use of the restroom and water fountain, since the city stopped providing such amenities long ago).
Contrast this space to the rigid rules and expectations of our traditional cultural spaces — building hours, strict behavior expectations, restrooms for patrons only, seating bolted to the floor, specific start and stop times.
It’s not to say that all arts spaces should be like Streb’s. Just that perhaps more could reconsider the rules they live by, and wonder if they all serve their stated goal.
I hate to be the one to bore readers with semantics… but as a Carnegie Mellon arts management student, I prefer ‘arts management’ to ‘arts administration.’
The latter conjures too vivid an image of myself and colleagues ‘administering’ shots of culture into the arms of our audience, in the vein that it will be good for them, even if a bit painful.
I personally prefer something along the lines of ‘Cultural Enrichment Facilitator’ or ‘Creativity Advocate’… but don’t expect those to catch on any time soon. I do get sympathetic smiles, though, when I call myself a Martyr for the Arts.
I agree with Tara that more evocative titles could better inform the public and motivate managers; for instance, in addition to the title “managing director” I often also use the title “Chief of Custodial Services” – whereas my Artistic Director is usually referred to as the Head Groundskeeper.
I was thinking the other day as a burst pipe in the stairway to our theatre’s basement sprayed my shoes and pants with freezing water “how shall I manage this” – which was a far more appropriate phrase than “how shall I administer this?”
Happy Holidays everyone!