This is SUCH a great thought-provoking conversation, I’m thrilled for it to continue…
Again, delighted (and grateful) to share the wisdom of respected friends and colleagues on the question:
What is the meaning of the word “engagement”? And how does an arts organization know if it is succeeding?
————-
Bob Booker – Executive Director of the Arizona Commission on the Arts
When two people make a statement of love, support, and promise to move forward in a relationship, we call it Getting Engaged. Can we image that this simple example speaks to engagement issues in our industry? Can we acknowledge that engagement in its basic form is a combination of love, trust, support, commitment and a drive to move forward together?
————-
Leonard Jacobs – Founder & Editor Emeritus of The Clyde Fitch Report
Audience engagement requires an acknowledgement that most art ultimately needs a dialogue between the work and its observers, and then choosing from a seemingly infinite set of strategies whose aim and result is the engineering of that dialogue. (It would seem that the one exception would be art that artists make purely for themselves—but even in that scenario, it’s a dialogue of one.)
————-
In a post by Shoshana Danoff Fanizza of Audience Development Specialists on another platform – I found this just-published note:
“There seems to be some debate and attention (through various blogs and arts formats) about the term “audience engagement.” I feel that we are splitting hairs about the term when it would be better to concentrate on what engagement can do to build our audiences. Engagement is about getting your audiences more involved in ways that make them feel more a part of the art/organization. Once they feel more engaged, the likelihood of them becoming more supportive is real.
“Engagement could simply mean that they feel more involved during the event. When an event truly draws you in, the engagement level goes up. Engagement can also mean the extra efforts that surround your event to involve the audiences in a more hands-on fashion.
“We can debate about terminology all we want, but I rather see action oriented programs to get our audiences more involved to build happier and more loyal audiences overall. Let’s talk about the solutions and steer all the energy that is going into the mumbo jumbo discussions into more action oriented inspirations.”
Thanks for weighing in, Shoshana! I just posted this reply:
The definition of “audience engagement” is neither a debate nor a “mumbo jumbo” discussion.
The series, “What is Audience Engagement?” appears this week on my Audience Wanted blog- www.artsjournal.com/audience – in order to explore the term’s rich variety of meanings. The goal is to enable us all to be more mindful and purposeful in our audience development efforts.
As the saying goes… “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.”
———–
So, what is YOUR definition of “audience engagement”? Please post your comments below!
Stay tuned – I’ll post more tomorrow!
Just for the record, I was commenting on some of the discussions I have seen in general over the past few weeks. This particular conversation has evolved to an entirely different level, and I am enjoying seeing some very thoughtful, action-oriented comments!
Audience engagement – I know it when I see it. Sometimes perhaps a simple description of something can help to illustrate what we are grasping to define. Recently in two different dance performances by Java Dance Company in New Zealand the audiences, aged 3 to 70+, were totally engaged. I wrote in a review:
“OK here’s the thing – part way through this delectable delight of an aromatic performance my reviewer’s pen becomes a percussion instrument and prevents me from writing as, encouraged by the five joyous and captivating performers, I have no hesitation from being in the moment. As an interactive audience member, tapping along with abandon to the infectious music is just one of a cascade of many such moments.”
and
“Indeed, throughout the audience are gently led into playing many roles in the show. Some of us are fed and treated to a drink, others become haplessly in the middle of a war in which imaginary missiles are thrown over their heads. Copland is inclusive in ways that many fail to reach; another characteristic feature that is so Copland and captivating. ”
http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=8647&utm_source=emailcampaign782&utm_medium=phpList&utm_content=HTMLemail&utm_campaign=Review%3A+The+Wine+Project+%28Aauranga+Arts+Festival%29
Maybe this helps to illustrate how agency in action can be an important part of audience engagement.
What a wonderfully vivid example! I adore the point of “audience engagement” as “…no hesitation from being in the moment.”
OK. Despite the fact that I was out of the country when this series kicked off, I can’t not weigh in here.
The language has become fuzzy as a result of overuse and casual use of terminology. While it may seem overly “academic” to look for clear(er) definitions, articulating differences among audience development, audience engagement, and community engagement allows us to take advantage of what each has to offer. A complicating factor in definitions is the need to articulate who is the “actor” and what is the intended result. As I discussed in Artcentric Engagement (http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/2015/09/artcentric-engagement/), there is a way to understand “community engagement” as community members engaging with the arts organization for the organization’s benefit. While this may be a perfectly acceptable way to understand the combination of the two words, it does little to address the pressing long-term need to expand reach and increase community relevance.
For the purpose of discussing the future of the arts, we should view the arts organization as the actor seeking to interact with external publics. Audience development, then, is any set of activities for increasing immediate arts participation (ticket sales and/or attendance) and donations. Audience engagement is the work of deepening relationships with current audiences for the purpose of improving retention, increasing frequency, and expanding reach through their networks. Community engagement is the development of relationships with groups of individuals. If these are groups that have little current contact with the organization, the outcomes sought are long-term (often very long-term) enhancement of reach and frequency within the groups. In some circumstances, community engagement can also support access to non-arts funding and a vastly improved public policy environment.
Engagement, whether audience or community, implies relationship building. Best practice in community engagement demands a mission-level commitment on the part of the organization and mutuality of benefit–both the arts organization and the community gain from the work done.
Doug Borwick
“Engaging Matters” http://www.artsjournal.com/engage
Building Communities, Not Audiences (http://www.artsengaged.com/bcna)
Engage Now! (http://artsengaged.com/engage-now)
Thanks for your thoughtful & informative reply, Doug. I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that “audience engagement is the work of deepening relationships…” How satisfied are you that the field embraces that concept? I have to admit that I am repeatedly surprised and disappointed by how often “audience engagement” is considered merely a by-product of artistic efforts rather than the PRIMARY PURPOSE of those efforts.
In folk and tribal performances, lines between performer and audience are often blurred. There is not much emphasis on virtuosity or monetary gains, but more on bonding and festivity.
Great insight. Perhaps “audience engagement” is like some elusive physics particle – something that ceases to exist if we have to look for it.
I think the important element that this series of articles highlights is that the term is being used to cover a broad spectrum of perspectives, definitions and activities. That we’re having this conversation is evidence that it is a grey area! But perhaps the grey is okay? ‘Audience engagement’ (can) blend marketing, education and artistic thinking, which is bound to be a bit messy.
I think this makes it necessary for each of us, as individuals/organisations, to figure out what our own definition is (thank you Matt Lehrman for the prompt), and to be up front about this when planning/doing/reporting our ‘audience engagement’ work.
On another note, I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s perspectives. Thank you all.
Glad you enjoyed the posts, Anja! Thanks! I absolutely agree that organizations should articulate their own definition of “audience engagement” but don’t you expect that even among one organization’s Staff & Board that there will be (like there are on this blog post) a large variety of approaches? In my experience, people work hard to be INCLUSIVE of as many perspectives as are offered. Perhaps that’s why the term means so many different things.
So, perhaps the question we should ask is: Is there anything upon which we can agree that “audience engagement” is DEFINITELY NOT?
So from the last comment, ‘we can agree that’ trying to be ‘INCLUSIVE of as many perspectives’ is ‘DEFINITELY NOT “audience engagement”‘.
I am seeing two ways here: the ‘exclusive group’ (e.g. underground music) and the ‘mass following’ group, each with their own rules of engagement. Then they might also give birth to each other at some point, calling for a change in rules.