Post-COVID Arts Observations: #3. The Future is Hybrid (or Not)

The past eighteen months while live performance venues were shut down has said a lot about how arts organizations see themselves.

During COVID Lockdown

1. Some went into hibernation, not having the resources or in some cases the imagination to go online, or else determining that the live in-person experience was essential to what they do.
2. Others scrambled to get archived performances online or streamed modified remote zoom performances.
3. Still others decided to use the time as an opportunity to experiment by producing specifically online streaming events.

As in-person performances resume, the big question is whether digital events will continue and if so, how. Maybe an even bigger question is whether they should.

We’re seeing lots of declarations that “the future is hybrid” and that many organizations “can’t imagine not working in a hybrid way.” There are aspirations to create a “Netflix of the Arts”, and many arts organizations, including the Dallas Symphony and the Los Angeles Philharmonic have made big investments in digital platforms. Predating the pandemic, of course, there were already many arts streaming services, including Medici, and in a groundbreaking way, the Metropolitan Opera HD Live in movie theatres around the world.

Where we are…

Consensus seems to be that the COVID lockdown didn’t so much “change everything” as accelerate trends that had already taken root. Most arts organizations were already using virtual tools as part of their work, if only as behind-the-scenes collaboration like Zoom. The internet was flooded with new and recycled content during COVID, and some of the original content was compelling as viewing soared. But I would say overall I’m disappointed that more progress wasn’t made.

When we’re talking about “hybrid” in the arts, perhaps it’s useful to think about it in three ways:

1. Performances/events offered in-person and on some sort of digital platform (the artistic offerings).
2. Virtual tools/platforms that facilitate access (the audience tech infrastructure/design).
3. Behind-the-scenes virtual collaboration and community engagement (the artist/administrative infrastructure).

Three issues:

1. Failure to embrace the culture of the web as its own distinct canvas. Most of the content was repurposed “facsimile” content. That is, it was created for a live space, captured in video and sound, but an experience second-best to being in the same room with it. Its chief advantage compared to in-the-room experience was convenience. Some particularly well done events offered beautiful visuals and in some cases superior sound or camera angles. But again, this approach — familiar going all the way back to MTV videos of the 1980s — does not take advantage of or speak in the unique culture of the web. Ideally, you want to offer a web experience that offers compelling advantages over being there in person. The Met HD broadcasts, for example, are conceived of and shot cinematically and speak in the language of film. In some significant ways, seeing these in the movie theatre is a very different intimate experience than in the opera house. Your see the sweat on the faces. The director can focus your attention on details you might not notice on the stage. The backstage interviews as the performer walks off the stage. These all make for a different experience than the one you have in the theatre. Some would say not better, but certainly different. Facsimile content on the other hand doesn’t give you better, it gives you less.
2. Content satisfied with “it works” rather than “it’s fun.” Tech companies spend significant resources on designing user experiences that are fun and addictive. Arts tech still largely dwells at the level of “it works” (hopefully). I’m talking about donation buttons that dump you out of watching what you’re watching so you can pay. Platforms that are generic and clunky and a pain to navigate. Cluttered interfaces and little ability for the viewer to customize their experience. If you think about your platform as the theatre or hall or gallery in which you perform, then think how much is spent on beautifully designed buildings, why are we satisfied with generic all-purpose platforms that don’t really make what we’re doing look or act their best? Then there’s the almost complete failure to make arts content easily discoverable. This ought to be the most basic arts infrastructure, a kind of universally accessible arts genome that aggregates online and IRL (in real life) performances and is searchable. These kind of listings are labor-intensive to gather in the traditional way, which is why listings are so badly done. But an investment in automatically-generated AI-directed listings in the form of an rss/xml-type universal feed that is easy to list on and easily accessible and customizable by publications and end-users would have a major impact on accessibility in the arts.
3. A model to support Hybrid content/programming: Outside of a few homeruns, most arts organizations have not cracked the code of a business model to support hybrid programming. That doesn’t necessarily mean “earn money from online activity” or to make it profitable. There are plenty of strategic reasons to use hybrid content to further artistic goals that don’t have to be around making money. But ultimately the model, whatever it is, has to make sense. Right now, most of it doesn’t. Right now, most of it is “let’s throw content online and see what happens. After 18 months we need to move beyond that. Music downloading didn’t make sense until Apple invented the iTunes store. Music streaming didn’t make sense until Spotify made it easy. There were dozens of different newspaper subscription models that didn’t work until the New York Times and Washington Post cracked the code. The point is, a sustainable online model for the arts will require lots of smart experimentation before someone really figures it out. There hasn’t been near enough of it during the COVID lockdown.

Where we go from here

So will most arts organizations be “hybrid” going forward? Arts fairs and auction houses and museums will. Online galleries and fairs were a surprise success during lockdown and fairs and auction houses made money at it. As for the performing arts, my guess is no. Yes, there will be attempts for awhile to continue to offer online content. But the imperative to find a workable model is diminished and in the absence of demand that pays for itself, efforts will tail off.

If I ruled the world…

1. Hybrid actually is the future. But virtual content needs to be approached as its own artistic medium. Core to web culture is interactivity, of being able to have absolute choice over what you consume and how. Video game platforms are the best current example of this. Massive multi-player games are interactive, collaborative and competitive. Addictive content isn’t passive. So how to make an orchestra performance interactive? Don’t just have multiple cameras controlled by a director, make the cameras chooseable by the audience. If I want to see the conductor view, let me switch to that view. If I want to focus on the oboe or the horn section, let me choose that and zoom in. Give me the option of having a scrolling score. Or audibly highlighting an instrument so I can control my mix. Or give me the view curated by the director. It’s also important that I can “see” other people in the audience. Gamers choose avatars and register reaction. Social media is addictive because it makes our communities visible and us visible in them. How might we give audience members the ability to show their insight and expertise? Set up experiments to find out. In a theatre or concert hall being interactive (aside from applauding) is undesirable because it imposes on other audience-members. Online, interactive is the key to participation. And it’s an added value you can’t get in the theatre.
2. We need a different scale of experimentation. Foundation support for technology development in the arts has, in my opinion, been largely wasted, funding me-too projects like websites that don’t fundamentally bend the curve of innovation or help us learn. Yes, the visual quality of video streaming is better, but that doesn’t make it more consumable or addictive. We need investment in interactive performance design and UX and interactive engagement across platforms. We need to assemble a field-wide consortium to make technology that makes the arts more “visible” and easily discoverable online. No one institution or even sector can do it alone. Given the non-profit sector’s ties to commercial arts, which tend to have vastly more investment dollars ,and face many of the same problems, it makes sense to forge creative partnerships and alliances cross-sector, both for access to dollars and to expertise.
3. Hybrid thinking requires a different culture. Producing online doesn’t just require new technical skills, it requires a different culture — one that comes out of traditional practice maybe, but isn’t the product of it. The culture of TV may share some things with the culture of the live stage, but they’re very different. Try grafting one on the other and it doesn’t usually work well. Likewise, though there are obvious synergies between video and web, the web has a different mindset and aesthetic. To those who come out of video or stage the differences might not be obvious, but to those who have grown up in the web, it’s screamingly clear. But it’s not just content that requires a conceptual rethink. Ways of working need to evolve away from traditional in-house proprietary staff to more nimble and porous networks. Hybrid organizations more easily interact with the outside world and have better access to talent.

This is #3 of a series. Next up: A New Post-COVID Context for culture?

Others in this series:

1. Arts Finances coming out of COVID
2. The Great Resignation and the Arts
3. The Future of Hybrid Performances (and Organizations)