Changes: are we paying enough attention?

One cannot exhaust a subject in one post. Actually, one needs some discipline in order not to turn a simple post into a long treaty. Many things are left to say, to analyse, to explain better. The task becomes more stimulating when we are able to exchange thoughts with other people. This blog has not become a platform of public discussion yet, but in private I have already received, on a number of occasions, the feedback of friends, as well as of people I do not know personally.

This is what happened with the post on new audiences. It poured down questions, as well as arguments. Why is culture important today? How does it relate to society, to life, to a city? Is talking about new audiences just a fashion? Why should someone go to the theatre? Is live experience more valuable than home consumption? Is a person that does not attend live performances less cultured? What can surprise an audience that is not used to ateending performances? What is the programme that can motivate people to go to the theatre?

I shall not try to answer here each one of these questions. I shall try to pick up from where I left it in the post on new audiences, that has a lot to do with these and other issues. And I hope this will bring up more questions and debate. Who knows, maybe in public.

The existence of museums, galleries, theatres and cultural centres would not make sense if there were no audiences. These are places of encounter among artists and people. They are places of incitement, dialogue, confrontation, emotions; places of discovery, learning, enjoyment. They are also places where people go of their own free will and not because they are obliged to; and they are also free to like the experience or not, to come back or not. The concern to create access to these experiences for an ever growing number of people has to do with their mission, with the reason they exist; but it is also e necessity.

The enjoyment of the arts is a right of the people. Our institutions are at the service of this right. They exist not only for those who have the habit of attending, but also for those who don´t have it, either because they prefer other forms of cultural participation or because this kind of participation was never a part of their lives, so they don´t know it or they don´t consider it relevant. Building bridges, talking with people, getting to know them better, showing them what we have to offer, trying to adapt it to different needs and levels of knowledge are some of the ways through which cultural institutions seek to fulfil their mission. On the other hand, it is also a necessity. If we are not concerned about renewing, enlarging and differentiating our audiences, we are going to stagnate. We shall be all working for the same people and there will be a moment, if it isn´t here already, that offer will be greater than demand. There will be not enough audiences for all the performances, exhibitions, concerts and other events we produce.

There are not more or less legitimate ways of enjoying and creating art and culture. People are free to choose the ones that better respond to their needs and interests. But we are in the live experience ‘business’, we believe in its value, we want to keep it alive, we work so that people can enjoy it. However, the way we have been doing it still shows a certain detachment and ignorance regarding ‘the other’. We take up the role of the only and absolute gatekeepers of ‘true culture’, the culture of quality and value. Many of us are still happy to be working with and for the “few, but good ones”, those who understand, who have been initiated; and those #2few, but good ones" enjoy this status, as well, and quite often they react negatively to any attempt on the part of the institution to open up, they react to what they consider popularization and dumbing down. On the other hand, there are also many of us who advocate ‘access’, but access to what we define as valid culture. But what if we tried to get to know better the communities in which we are inserted? What if we opened up our spaces (which are also theirs), involving them, creating comfort (physical, psychological and intellectual) and a feeling of belonging? What if we programmed together with them? What if the artists were them?

I recently read two very inspiring texts, which call for culture professionals to pay attention to the changes that have taken place in the forms of cultural participation and their impact on our institutions. John Holden, in Culture and Class, and Diane Ragsdale, in The Excellence Barrier, talk about the urgency, importance and necessity to look outwards; to try to understand the habits, tastes and expectations of the communities we aim to serve; to try to create a relationship with them, making our offer more relevant to their lives, creating demand together with them.

John Holden defends in his text a neo-cosmopolitan attitude, as opposed to the attitude of the cultural snobs (who embrace just certain forms of artistic expression and try to condition access to them) and the cultural neo-mandarins (we wish to share their enthusiasm, who advocate access for all, but want to be the ones who define what constitutes quality culture). “The new cosmopolitanism”, says Holden, “involves action, production and participation. Whereas the old cosmopolitan felt at home in the elite cultures of different cities, the new cosmopolitan is at ease with different cultures in her own city”. Thus, he defends an eclectic attitude, that seeks to open up the definition of what quality culture is to different forms of artistic expression, and not just to those traditionally associated to the so-called “high culture”, thecreation and enjoyment of which involves today various means (especially those made available on the internet) and places (including our own homes).

Diane Ragsdale presents an interesting and amusing analogy to the slow food movement, in response to fast food, which adopted three strategies: the defense of biodiversity in the enjoyment of excellent food; 2. taste education so that people could re-discover the joy of eating, the interest in knowing where the food came from, who did it and how; 3. linking producers with consumers, in the fairs, markets and other special events. In a ‘slow arts’ movement, our cultural institutions would understand that they are only a part of the making of art and culture; they would encourage participation and involvement of all people; they would make available the means and tools that would allow to demystify the experience; they would create social networks in which new participants would feel integrated and comfortable; they would know the community in which they are inserted and they would seek to propose a culturally relevant programme; they would be concerned with their impact on people´s lives, and seek to achieve both excellence and equity; and they would permanently pay attention to the changes that take place around them. “To attract and retain new audiences, arts organizations may need to stop selling excellence and start brokering relationships between people and art(ists).”

More food for thought for our thinking on cultural enjoyment and new audiences. Which we don´t exhaust here.

Note

Happy coincidence: The New York Times published yesterday an article on the director of Lehman Center in Bronx, New York, Eva Bornstein. The title is Bridging Cultures Onstage.

Museums: new churches?

Recently, in his programme A Point of View on BBC Radio 4, Alain de Botton talked about museums. More specifically, he was asking why museums are so uninspiring (the full text of the programme is available here).

De Botton compares museums to churches and identifies some similarities: they both enjoy an unparalleled status; they are spaces where we would take a group of foreigners to show them what delights us and what we revere; we wander around museum galleries with the same sort of quiet reverence as we manifest in churches.

And this is where similarities end for De Botton. He considers that religions give people the orientation they need, not only the tools to develop a critical thinking; and they use religious art as a means to inspire us to faith, to remind us to be healthy-minded, good and godly people. “Christianity”, says De Botton, “never leaves us in any doubt about what art is for. (...) Look at that picture of Mary if you want to remember what tenderness is like. Look at that painting of the cross if you want a quick lesson in courage. Look at that Last Supper and train yourself not to be a coward and a liar.”

Talking about 'new' audiences...

Very frequently, we hear those responsible for cultural institutions talking about ‘new audiences’, their ‘creation’ (in the english-speaking world it´s called ‘development’), about ‘doors open to all’. I´ve been thinking about what this means in practice. ‘New’ meaning young or ‘new’ because they might be coming for the first time? They are ‘created’ because they didn´t exist before? We open the doors and wait for them to come?

I feel that in many cases ‘new’ mainly means ‘more’. More of the same. An effort to bring more people to our exhibitions, shows and activities, people whose socio-demographic profile, though, is not far from the usual. Because if we wanted it to be different, our work would have to be something more than simply reinforcing the promotion and publicity of our offer; it would have to be a joint effort on various fronts.

Cultural participation, let´s call it like this, takes various forms and develops at different levels of involvement:

1st level through the media, such as TV, radio, DVDs, CDs, the Internet.

2nd level attending live events, such as theatre or opera plays, concerts, visiting exhibitions and participating in activities that complement these activities, such as conferences, debates, educational programmes, etc.

3rd level through greater personal involvement in what concerns cultural /artistic practice, as it happens with amateur artists, volunteers in cultural institutions, board members, etc.

Having said that, we may conclude that the big majority of people do participate, one way or another, in cultural experiences. So, they are not exactly non-audiences. At the same time, the big majority prefers to - or is obliged to -participate from a distance. One of the challenges for culture professionals it to manage to convince more and more people to consider ‘changing levels’ and to have the chance to do so, should they wish to. ‘Changing levels’ not because one form of participation is more valid than the other, but because the experience, when crossing from level 1 to 2 or 3, may be more profound, enriching, liberating. And also because it can bring about a different and better understanding between the professionals and the public.

We do not lack today studies and reports on cultural participation, on the motivations and expectations of people when choosing one form of participation or another. Or none. (The links to some of my most recent readings are listed at the end of this post). Respecting everybody´s choices of participation, but wishing to promote and facilitate ‘the changing of levels’, I thought about what ‘new audiences’ can actually mean, after all, and how it can affect our work.

Enlarging existing audiences is one part of our work. ‘New’ in this case would mean ‘more’; more people among those with a predisposition for the consumption of culture, but who very often stay away for practical reasons: lack of information, problems in what concerns access/parking, opening hours / timetables, presence of young children in the family, etc. Issues related to styles of life, which we need to understand better in order to look for answers, and be able to facilitate the participation of those interested. This is about eliminating practical barriers, really.

But ‘new’ can and should also mean ‘different’. Another part of our work should be about diversifying audiences, making an effort to reach those people whose socio-demographic profile and habits of cultural participation (or lack of them) keep them away from our premises. In this case, barriers are not practical, they are mental and psychological, resulting from lack of previous experience, knowledge and practices. In these cases we usually speak about ‘creating’ (developing) new audiences. If we take a look at the various forms of cultural participation, though, we cannot exactly say they did not exist before. They are not ‘our’ audiences, they are not consumers of our offer. Our aim is to create the conditions for them to be able to taste it: raising curiosity, showing its relevance to them, making it somehow tangible, creating confort (mainly psychological), well, building bridges, as Donna Walker-Kuhne would put it. In many cases, we will have to open the doors; not only for them to come in, but also for us to go out, to leave our confort zone and go to meet them.

Still, another part of our work is about deepening the experience, in the sense of a greater involvement, with both cultural and social aspects: involving or training amateur artists, integrating volunteers in the teams, involving members of the public in the programming, including non- professionals in the boards, attracting sponsors, etc. ‘New’ in this case would mean... ‘in a new role’? Yes, I believe we can say that.

The work of ‘creating' (developing) new audiences in culture is mainly associated to education and communications (that is, when ‘new’ doesn´t mean ‘children and teenagers’ and when we do not consider this to be the responsibility of schools...). Nevertheless, if we could just leave aside the idea of ‘creation’ and concentrated on that of ‘building bridges’, I believe it becomes obvious that this is a work that involves the whole institution, and in particular the joint effort of programming, education and communications.

These three objectives – enlarging, diversifying and deepening – make sense in our work; somehow, they are an obligation we must take on. They make sense, but they also give it a sense. Among the three, the one that most appeals to me, that motivates and touches me the most, is the second. When four years ago São Luiz had its first theatre session with interpretation in portuguese sign language, the television interviewed a deaf lady when leaving the theatre, visibly emotional. She had just seen Moby Dick. “I am 74 years old”, she said. “It´s the first time I came to the theatre. Why?”.

That´s what it´s all about.

Readings

Holden, J. (2010). Culture and Class. Counterpoint

McCarthy, K.F. and Jinnett, K. (2007). A new framework for building participation in the arts. RAND

National Endowment for the Arts (2009). 2008 survey of public participation in the arts.

Ostrower, F. (2005). Motivations matter: findings and practical implications of a national survey of cultural participation. Urban Institute

Walker, C., Scott-Melnyk, S. and Sherwood, K. (2002). From Reggae to Rachmaninoff, How and why people participate in arts and culture. Urban Institute

Walker-Kuhne, D. (2005). Invitation to the party: building bridges to the arts, culture and community. Theatre Communications Group

Wallace Foundation (2009). Engaging audiences.

Where is everybody?

Rocco Landesman (Photo: Arts Marketing blog)

I´ve been following with great interest the debate provoked in the USA by Rocco Landesman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). On January 26 Landesman attended the presentation of the seven projects selected by the initiative New Play Development Program. In his speech (that may be seen here), he referred to the decrease in arts audiences (5%) and the increase in not-fot-profit arts organizations (23%), and said: “There is a disconnect that has to be taken seriously. (…) You can either increase demand or decrease supply. Demand is not going to increase, so it is time to think about decreasing supply”.

It was these words that triggered an immediate and passionate discussion in the american social media and newspapers. A few days later, with the controversy at its peak, Landesman went back to this issue in the NEA blog, taking the opportunity to better explain his point (read here). He clarified that a decrease in supply was a possibility, but it shoundn´t be the only possibility on the table. Other points that could be considered:

1. Increase arts education, because this is one of the main guarantees in future audience building;

2. Consider related demand, in order to make the supply more relevant;

3. Offer free samples, for example through the broadcasting of shows on the outside of the buildings;

4. Take advantage of new technologies, since research indicates that people who ‘consume’ art via the Internet or electronic media are nearly three times as likely to attend live events, that they attend a greater number and a greater variety of events;

5. Examine the infrastructure and try to make it less institutionalized, in order to bring more creativity to more audiences more often and even be able to pay the artists more.

Rocco Landesman believes that they are there to ensure the survival of the most creative and most dynamic.

At the end of this post, you will find a series of articles and posts that have been published in response to Landesman´s remarks, words of support, but also of total and ferocious disagreement. My intention, though, is not to comment on those, but on the debate itself.

We could say that Rocco Landesman is the equivalent of the Director-General for the Arts in Portugal. I think it is extremely important that he´s the one who, through his provocative and controversial remarks, has triggered, encouraged and fed this debate, wishing that the NEA played a role in the conversations.

On the other hand, I admire and I envy the involvement of various culture professionals, more or less known, in this discussion and its intensity. It makes me think of our reality. Of the fact that it doesn´t exist a permanent debate on issues that are permanent themselves, bur rather reactions – at times intense, but almost always brief – to ministerial announcements.

At present, who is actively and constructively debating culture funding? Studying foreign models and their possible adaptation or making concrete proposals prepared locally? Who is supposed to provoke the debate, create working groups, bring together and analyze ideas and opinions, prepare proposals? Are previously published and/or publicly shared opinions and suggestions being put to use? Why do voices become silent almost as suddenly as they are heard? And what does this mean: resignation, forgetfulness, conformism, tiredness, lack of hope? The crisis, I said in a previous post, may and should be an opportunity. But if we lay back and wait for the intervention of a Deus ex machine, I am sure that in twenty years from now we´ll be exactly where we are today.


The debate in the USA
You´re mad - What are you going to do about it?, Arts Marketing

Dear Rocco Landesman, We Don't Want Your Theater Death Panels, Arts Dispatch
Landesman Comments on Theater, The New York Times
Fighting Words from Rocco Landesman, Arena Stage Blog
On Rocco Landesman, Theatre Ideas
Dear Rocco, 2AMT
The fewer, the thinner, The Artful Manager
Theater talkback: What Rocco Landesman should speak about next, The New York Times
Which demand is which, Mission Paradox

Also
Overstocked arts pond: fich too big and fish too many, Jumper

Of all and for all?

In our sector, quiet a few people believe that working in Communications is a matter of ‘inclination’. Communications is mainly understood as Public Relations, the main requirements being a polite attitude and a nice smile.

In what concerns the production of promotional materials – another task considered by some people to be the ‘essence’ of Communications -, the main criterion is that of aesthetics, so almost everybody feels they have the right to give an opinion, leaving behind issues such as those of functionality and efficiency. Quiet often, aesthetics win the battle.

We may also consider here partnerships and supports, the way they are sought and negotiated. Cultural institutions usually assume the role of the poor relative, apparently unaware of the value of their ‘product’ and offering anything (and usually the same) in exchange for a necessary or unnecessary, small or big support.

There are people with and without professional training working in Communications in the cultural sector: in museums, galleries, cultural centres, foundations, theatres, orchestras; but also in publishing houses, music publishers, production companies and artistic agencies, the radio and the television. As a consequence, in many cases we are speaking different languages. We are spending too much time in discussing practices that should be common, understood by everyone. Worse, important issues are considered ‘details’, and those who defend them weird, unwilling to collaborate, stubborn. Up to now I haven´t been able to come up with a sufficiently convincing answer when confronted with the statement “Why should we do it like this, when everybody else does the opposite?” (although I´ve learned to doubt the statement “everybody else”).

Communications is an area of work that requires technical knowledge, just like every other. There is a need for adequately trained professionals in order to develop a plan that may assist a cultural institution in reaching its objectives in what concerns acknowledgment and notoriety, audience development, access to its offer in general – access that should be cognitive, physical and financial. These objectives are reached through branding, marketing, public relations.

In a context of crisis, in an environment that has always been highly competitive, cultural institutions should not continue being less demanding in what concerns Communications. We should not ignore the need and importance of the creation and management of a brand. We cannot simply produce and expect the audience to show up. We cannot expect people to come back shouldn´t we create and maintain quality services. It´s not enough to put letters on a photo in order to have a poster. It´s not enough to send a press release in order to foster a relationship with the media. It´s not enough to have a polite attitude, a nice smile and good taste in order for Communications to happen (although they contribute considerably to the final result).

All tasks mentioned above as examples, as well as many others, need to be planned and carried out by people with specific technical knowledge. But I would say more. Although a team that aims to function like one shares, analyses and discusses its activity, there are decisions that cannot and should not be taken by majority vote. There are decisions that must be trusted to those who have the necessary knowledge in order to be able to take them.

What´s Communication, after all? It´s the way we relate internally and with the outside world, it´s a dialogue that is being established, it´s a way of being and projecting one´s self. Communications aim to give a voice and an image to our institution´s mission and vision. Artistic creation and cultural production are not hobbies. Why should communications be?

We, cultural hybrids

When last November I decided to attend the conference “Migrations, minorities and cultural diversity”, organized by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, it was because I was very interested to hear about the ‘others’. I had never thought of myself as ‘migrant’ or ‘minority’, not while I lived in England nor here in Portugal. Perhaps because of the reasons that took me to these countries and because, although in different ways, I quickly felt as ‘being part’ of them. Listening at the conference to the testimonies of Portuguese who decided to live and work abroad, or to those who chose to come back after living abroad for many years, I realized that my position was different from the one I had intended it to be. The conference was about me too.

Today we live in a period of intense cultural interaction. We are born in a country, travel to others, sometimes we stay, we go back, we leave again. We meet and mix with people from all over the world. We give and take. Some long for these encounters, they are looking for them. Others are afraid of them and feel the need to defend at any cost something they wish to preserve. Nevertheless, one way or another, we are all ‘touched’. How to we define ourselves, then, in the middle of all this? Who are we? What will happen to our cultures in a globalized world? Are we all going to embrace a global culture or we will manage to preserve our local culture? Or we will rather learn to be ‘bilingual’? The book Cultural Hybridity, by Cultural History and Theory professor Peter Burke, aims to answer these questions through the analysis of the processes of cultural encounter, interaction, exchange and hybridization over the centuries. It aims to place the debate on the globalization of culture in a historical perspective. Contrary to what one might think, this is not the first time certain things are happening.

The book is divided in five chapters. In the first chapter, Varieties of objects, Burke presents the variety of objects that are hybridized. We find examples of cultural hybridism in most domains of culture. There are hybrid objects (architecture, fine arts, literary genres, translations), hybrid practices (religion, music, language, sports, festivals, cuisine, types of governance) and, finally, hybrid individuals and groups (children of parents from different cultures, people who converted – voluntarily or unvoluntarily -, groups who, for religious, political or economic reasons, have moved from one culture to another).

The second chapter, Varieties of terminology, was the most interesting. The author analyzes the big variety of terms and theories used to talk about cultural interaction, that is about processes which are very diverse in their specificities, determined to a bigger or lesser degree by the human agent. The main terms used are metaphors drawn from economics, zoology, metallurgy, food and linguistics. Respectively: borrowing, hybridity, melting pot, stew and, finally, translation and ‘creolization’. Burke finds weaknesses in all of them, but prefers the linguistic term, considering it the most helpful and the least misleading when talking about the emergence of new cultural forms out of the mixture of old ones.

These cultural encounters take place in different situations, contexts and locales, analyzed in the third chapter, Varieties of situation. Besides a geography and a chronology of hybridization, there is also a sociology. When an encounter of cultures takes place, some individuals or groups participate more than others. Burke makes a distinction between encounters of equals and unequals (for example, the encounters of catholic missionaries with the population in China or in Latin America took place under quiet different circumstances); between traditions of appropriation (Japan, Brazil) and resistance (Islam); and between locales of encounter (the metropolis and the frontier are particularly favourable to cultural exchanges).

There are various ways of reacting to the encounter with the unfamiliar, as we can see in chapter four, Varieties of responses. From acceptance, which the author calls “the fashion for the foreign” (italophilia in the Renaissance; francophilia in the 17th century; anglomania in the 18th and 19th centuries), to resistance, that aims to defend a culture by closing it, isolating it (Spain in the 16th century or Japan in the 17th); from cultural segregation, that aims to maintain part of a culture free from foreign contamination, leading people to a kind of double life, to adaptation, a double movement of de-contextualization and re-contextualization that lifts an item from its original setting and modifies it, in order to fit its new environment.

In the last chapter, Varieties of outcomes, Burke considers the consequences of hybridization over the long term and presents four possible scenarios in relation to what might become of world cultures in our age of globalization. There is the scenario of cultural homogenization. The author believes, though, that despite the signs of an increasingly global culture, one should not underestimate the creativity of reception and the renegotiation of meanings. Historians today are less and less convinced that similar movements in the past, like hellenization or romanization, were actually successful. Another scenario is that of counter-globalization, the revolt of the regions. The resisters may not halt the course of history, but Burke believes that they will affect the cultures of the future. Another possibility is that of ‘cultural diglossia’, the possibility of all of us becoming bicultural, leading a double life. The frontier is now everywhere, said the anthropologist Néstor García Canclini, we will all become immigrants. Finally, there is the creolization scenario, the birth of a new order, the formation of new oicotypes, the crystallization of new forms, the reconfiguration of cultures. For Burke, this is the most convincing one.

And where does all this leave me? I left Greece when I was 23 and went to London, where the world opened up to me. I lived the euphoria of encountering people from all over the world, of discovering other ways of being and expressing one´s self, and I relive it every time I go back. I came to Portugal, I adopted a second country and I was adopted by it. I´ve lived almost as many years abroad as I lived in my own country. I am Greek, although I´ve always been a rather ‘atypical’ one, especially after living abroad, which has allowed me to look at my culture not only with pride, but also with a more critical spirit. A ‘creole’ Greek? Perhaps. I know that today I am considered as ‘foreigner’ there as I am here. I don´t mind anymore. I believe I am lucky and I feel richer, for being able to live together with many different ‘languages’ and know how to appreciate them, giving and taking. But I am Greek, in a way that can only be felt and not explained. And I am curious to see what my son will be; who, when I told him we were going to Oporto, asked me: “What language are we going to speak there?”.

Note on January 31
Black? White? Asian? More young Americans choose all of the above, an artice in The New York Times.

Judging by the cover

One of the greatest pleasures in life is to be in a bookshop for no special reason, that is, not with the intention to buy a specific book, but with the desire to look at titles, names and covers, read summaries, discover, be tempted, not resist, buy, leave with a number of them anxious to start.

Last May I had read an article in the Guardian about the different covers the same book might have in different countries (read the article here and see images of covers here). “Why don´t publishers replicate covers that have been a success abroad”, asked the author of the article. There are designers and publishers who think that readers in different countries do not need different covers. Other professionals in these fields believe that one should start from zero and, when working on the cover of a book that has already been published, they even avoid looking at the existing covers. The reasons invoked in the article for creating distinct covers are cultural (“It´s a cultural thing, as taste-driven as different countries eating different things for breakfast”) or relate to marketing (“…literary fiction is an easier sell in mainland Europe than in the UK or the US, so publishers there can be less overt in their attempts to grab the attention of customers” or “The UK book market is more competitive, all the covers is shops shouting ‘Buy me!’”) or might even be α question of pride.


Photo: Observer

I thought about the factors that determine my choices when I am off to ‘an expedition to the unknown’. I won´t deny that it´s the combination of title and cover that makes me pick up the book of an author I don´t know. It´s important that the cover is elegant and attractive, for my taste (many times these covers have no image, just letters and excellent design). Then I read the summary. And then the decision is made.

I don´t think I have ever questioned whether the cover and the summary transmit the same ‘essence’. Actually, I think I never expected a cover to be a sort of summary of what I would discover inside, unlike the summary itself, which is supposed to provoke my curiosity. At the same time, I don´t remember ever having felt cheated for having loathed a book the cover of which had instantly attracted me. But I do remember the opposite: how uncomfortable I felt on two occasions when reading very good books that, in my opinion, had cheesy covers. The first had been recommended to me; and I had read about the other one in the newspaper. Otherwise I am sure I would have never picked them up if I had simply seen them on a stand together with others. It´s a question of aesthetics, of taste. But also of branding. Because in many cases the cover design identifies a publishing house, which, when considered of quality and allows for an instant visual identification, may win the battle in the middle of intense competition.

One of the most discussed issues in our professional field is that of a show´s poster. What it is and what it is not. What it is for and what it shouldn´t be for. I rememeber that at the time I read the article in the Guardian I had forwarded it to a number of colleagues because I could see quiet a few analogies between book covers and show posters.

What´s a poster? It´s a promotional tool. It has got a functional character. It serves to inform (what, when, where); it serves to stengthen the image and identity of the proposing institution; it serves to attract the audience. Unlike what happens in other countries, the cultural supplements of certain portuguese newspapers are full of advertisments of shows. Some times we have four ads sharing the same page. Just like in the streets we find a series of posters of different shows ones next to the others. Competition is fierce. Who will manage to overtop and attract the public´s attention in order to gain customers? The one that has a good design, that is, the one that will allow to rapidly identify who proposes, what and where.

What a poster is not? It´s not an extension of the show. It shouldn´t aim to transmit its essence over other functions, that should be a priority, such as to inform (actually I think that only those directly involved in the creation of the show are able to identify or feel its essence in a poster). It shouldn´t serve to present the names of all those involved, filling the image with letters, helping to bury the information that is essential for the show´s promotion; in fact, a poster is not produced in order to serve as a register. It shouldn´t either serve to include the logos of all those supporting the show. When these issues prevail, quite often the result is a bad poster, a poster that is not functional.

The process of creating and approving a poster may become quite tense, mainly when the proposing institution is not a ‘space on loan’, but an institution with a strong identity (and a strong visual identity). The challenge for the designer is to create a proposal that fits in the institution´s general line of communication, but which at the same time is distinctive of each project. For communication professionals the challenge is to defend the institution as well as the project, to create the conditions for the process to be as fluid as possible, defining from the beginning, in articulation with those involved in the show, the objectives to be reached through the poster. The evaluation of the quality and efficiency of a poster cannot and should not be reduced to aesthetic criteria (it´s nice, it´s not nice) or to be made with the aim to be ‘fair’ (either all names or none). The true issue here is: Does it fulfill its purpose? Does it inform? Does it identiify? Does it attract? The rest should be a discovery. And, regardless of what one might discover, I doubt the public might ever blame the poster for not telling the whole story…

Reading suggestion

Navigating the design minefield

Note on January 20:
Regarding book covers, another article in today´s Guardian, Can you judge a book by its cover?  Once again very relevant in what concerns the issue of show posters.