One of the real pleasures of working on the book Building Communities, Not Audiences–that will indeed be complete before too much more time passes–is reading the insights of my contributors. I’ve recently been working with David Dombrosky, Chief Marketing Officer at InstantEncore.com and former Executive Director at Carnegie Mellon’s Center for Arts Management and Technology. His article for the book is about social media, the arts, and community engagement. I’ll say more about some of the article’s conclusions in another post, but the process of reading it illuminated something for me.
As a society, we have for decades been moving away from an authority-based environment. The upheaval of the Sixties and the public scandals of which Watergate was a prime example voided the social contract in which institutions and authority figures were given the benefit of the doubt. This is not news. Police, teachers, doctors, pastors and priests all have less unquestioned respect than was true in the 1950’s.
The technologically-mediated means of individual communication available today have amplified that trend. Each of us (that have access to the Internet) have a ready platform to voice our questions if not our outright mistrust. Web 2.0 (the online sharing of ideas, opinions, and information) has created an environment in which increasing numbers of people expect to be heard. Again, that is not a particularly new idea.
What is a relatively new thought for me is a particular way this applies to the arts. Ours has been an authority-based industry. Experts decide what cultural experiences to provide. The public’s job (when the public has had a job) has been to appreciate them. While, as I have often remarked, this is not true of the whole history of the arts in all cultures, it is true of the European-rooted art forms that are the focus of much of the not-for-profit arts industry in the U.S. With the rise of “participatory culture” built upon online communication tools, people are no longer content to passively accept what experts offer them. They have an expectation of input. This is not a trend that will fade.
Demographic, economic, political, and social changes are necessitating an increased focus by arts organizations on the cultural needs and interests of the broad public. The “new” for me here is that technologically-rooted changes in the relationship between individuals and the organizations with which they interact are doing so as well. There may be those who rail against this new world, but the railing won’t make the need to alter our approaches (and mindset) go away. The good news is that the mechanisms that have precipitated this particular shift also provide us the means for addressing it. Social media are a cause; they are also an answer. It is far easier to interact with large numbers of constituents than ever before in history.
Let’s not try to deny (or ignore) the inevitable.
Engage!
Doug
Photo 
Some rights reserved by humberpike
I like to think of the difference between old school arts marketing and social media in terms of where we sit when we decide how to communicate with our audiences.
In the old media model, we sat in executive conference rooms with fellow elite insiders dreaming up clever ways to talk to the world outside. Then we’d packaged those messages into neat little rectangles and ‘send’ them out to remote ‘targets’ comprised of people with whom we’d rarely, if ever, interact.
Social media, on the other hand, demands that we come out of the conference rooms, come out of the executive offices, come out of the theaters, concert halls and galleries, exit the venues, walk across the street, sit down on the fence and engage – in person and as equals – with regular folks who are talking about all sorts of things and, if we’re lucky, willing to let us convince them that we’re worth their time and money.
The irony of social media is that it requires us to engage with our potential audiences first, so we can know how and when to invite them to engage with us.
First, I am a bit troubled by the language used to frame the way cultural events have been made available. Isn’t it a bit hostel to use the term “authority-based” and construct a position in a pejorative
manner?
Isn’t the creation of art an autocratic not democratic process? I am all for ‘collaboration’ and I don’t discount the growing influence and presences of a ‘dialogue’ with the community that arts institutions are there to serve, but I have one question for the author.
Where would the arts world be without the ‘authoritative’ leadership of people such as Harvey Lichtenstein of BAM, Joe Papp of the Public, Ellen Stewart of La MaMa, etc.? The list could go on.
I worked at BAM for six years under the leadership of Harvey. Do you think that artists such as Robert Wilson, whose first work presented at BAM, had fewer than 100 individuals left in the audience after the light came up, 12 hours later, would have ever gotten on stage if polling the community was part of Harvey’s choice? That can also be said for Pina Bausch and Peter Brook. Harvey Gave Merce Cunningham his first NYC engagement. Would any of these artists, now regarded in their own right as well as influencers on new and developing artists be first seen if the initial public was polled on their first exposure? The list goes on.
Granted, new economic constructs dictates sensitivity and awareness and yes, inclusiveness as to the interest of the audiences cultural institutions serve. But if arts organization move too much toward being influenced by public opinion in programming, then how would cultural institutions differ from politicians ‘polling’ on issues to see what they should advocate and champion in public discourse?
Let’s not confuse having a public dialogue with audiences (which I believe is a healthy and vital component of the social contract arts institutions inherently have with their communities), with potentially dictating what essentially should be a singular and clear reflection of the mission of those institutions we value and support.
You are, indeed, pointing out, very validly, the danger of extremes. In general, I write from a position recognizing that *serious* community engagement is not part of the everyday fabric of a significant number of arts organizations. That’s a fact of life having to do with too much to do, too few resources, and, as I am suggesting in this post, history. I would not call pointing out an element of the industry that stands in the way of engagement (since I believe engagement is central to the healthy future of the arts) hostile.
You are absolutely correct that artists are visionaries and compelling visions will, over time, provide cultural leadership. But there is also a difference between visionary creative artists and isolated arts institutions. I am concerned about finding ways for those institutions to break out of cultural echo chambers that do not always value public engagement. I would like to see arts institutions opening themselves up to their communities more. Participatory culture is here and will become an increasingly powerful force. It is inevitable. I think it has the potential for being a healthy development for us. Finding mission-appropriate ways of responding to it is an important task for the future.
In addition to working with/for a variety of visual and performing arts institution I have not only dealt directly with boards, but also have served on two – a presenting institution and an originator of both established and new content. Board involvement and support is critical to the mix, dialogue and eventually outcome as to the success, or lack thereof, community involvement for greater dialogue and forward action.
I think part of this hinges on what is meant by “authority.” Doug’s discussion of authority seems to me to allude to assumed, institutional authority (verging on arrogance and elitism, as Trevor points out) — the authority derived from social position, collections/wealth, and a power differential with the audience. That’s completely different from genuine authority that derives from knowledge, experience, commitment, and vision.