What can make the difference?



Photo taken from http://www.londontheatredirect.com/

War Horse is a production of the National Theatre in London which premiered in October 2007. In 2009 it moved to the West End. In 2011 it crossed the Atlantic to be presented in Broadway. In 2012 it will tour the US. It is a multi-award-winning production, adored by the public and theatre critics alike, and a huge commercial success. The annual profit of 3 million pounds from the West End presentations made the cuts in the Arts Council England´s grant insignificant for the National Theatre (read article here).

In May 2010, the Guardian published the article Theatre trailers: missing an opportunity. The journalist was encouraging theatres to become a bit more ambitious in the promotion of their productions, citing as good examples the National Theatre and Sadler´s Wells. It was in that article that I found the link for this trailer:

It was the first time I had seen a piece of this kind, reminding of film publicity, for the promotion of a theatre play. I remember to have felt delighted: the whole trailer edition (the rhythm, the choice of scenes, the music) made me wish to see the play, to get to know the story, to find out what happens in the end. Could this trailer be War Horse´s secret of success? Probably not. The secret – which is not a secret at all – is that those people who had seen the play loved it and told many-many more people about it. Could this trailer have made the difference in the decision process of those who saw the play in the opening? I don´t have concrete data, of course, but it is quite probable that it influenced them, a lot even, given that, among so much competition, among so many other options in London´s theatre offer, and not only, this approach marked a difference, generated emotions, fed word-of.mouth, created the need not to miss this play (in a much more tangible and effective way than the statement “Not to be missed!”, which many producers, especially in the music field, insist on using on every possible promotional material, from press releases to posters).

This issue of trailers for theatre plays came up once again recently in an article in the New York Times, Trailers to tempt the theatergoer. A more technical text, that presents some examples and makes available information regarding the producers, means and techniques, costs and, above all, the objectives set to achieve through the use of this medium: from presenting the aesthetics of a company to clarifying possible prejudices regarding the content of a play and, of course, reinforcing in people´s mind the strengths of a production, the reasons why one shouldn´t miss it.

These trailers made me think once again of the challenges Communication professionals keep facing when constantly looking for new ways and new means of reaching the audiences. The environment in which we operate is constantly and quickly changing: the offer is bigger; the purchasing power, at this moment, smaller; the technological means at our disposal (and that of the public) are deeply affecting the relationship between ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’. What can make the difference in the minds and hearts of people? What is needed in order to draw their attention, arouse interest, generate enthusiasm, convince them to come all the way to our theatre, museum, gallery, auditorium?

I am certain of onw thing: no more publicity is needed. ‘Publicity’ in the format of a newspaper ad with information regarding what, where, when. I believe that this medium is still useful, although it is not the main one anymore, in order to keep informed those people who normally follow the city´s cultural offer, who attend performances, who visit exhibitions and who bring along or recommend a specific activity to other people; and it is also useful, mainly useful, in order to reinforce a cultural institution´s image, to ‘mark territory’. The newspaper ad – as well as the TV spot, I could add here – is today a means for institutional marketing and not programmatic marketing. Actually, was it ever, given the not so inspired use we have given it?

What can make the difference, then? Imagination. Innovation. Simplicity. The intention to demystify, to make accessible. The wish to touch, marvel, inspire people. To make them think. And also to make them forget.

How can this be done? It can be a trailer like the one of War Horse; it can be a campaign like “Do you want to see in 3D? Come to the theatre”, promoted two years ago by the D.Maria II National Theatre - Lisbon (a bright exception, in my opinion, in what is normally understood as “publicity campaign” by portuguese cultural institutions);

it can be a video like this one of the series Le Louvre Invisible, which shares brief moments of our institutions´ day-to-day life; it can be a programming director who makes a point of explaining to the employees at the box office what are the strengths of each project, why the public cannot miss each of the proposals, in a way they, the employees, and, through them, the audience may feel more clear and informed, curious and interested, and maybe even more prone to take a risk with something new (I am referring here to João Godinho´s practice when he was responsible for programming music at the Belem Cultural Centre, Lisbon); it can be the simple emails more and more artists, museum directors, curators, programming directors send to their, more or less extensive, circle of friends and acquaintances, personally presenting their work and inviting to attend/visit, in a much more direct, personal, accessible and enthusiastic way – inevitably turning that same circle of people into messengers; it can be an initiative as simple, funny and involving as It´s Time we Met of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, now in its fourth edition;  it can be a special way of wishing “Happy New Year”:

Read Nina Simon´s post Open thread: How does your institution say happy new year?

Disconnected examples of things I have read and seen recently. What is common in all of them is the wish to reach people, to extend the invitation, to make a connection, to demonstrate relevance, to create involvement and complicity.

Wishing the journey is a long one

It all started six months ago, in a museum: the National Museum of African Art in Washington. No, it wasn´t an object. It was a film. A screen in a small corner showing a film about senagalese sculptor Ousmane Sow and his impressive and powerful figures. I had never heard of him before. I stood behind other people trying to watch. I got completely absorbed, seeing him while he was working, listening to his voice and his beautiful french. I went back the following week just for the film. Fewer people this time, but still no place to sit, so I sat on the floor and watched it again. Twice.

Ousmane Sow (Photo taken from http://www.africultures.com/)

So, no wonder, when I started thinking of my next destination, Senegal was first on the list. I bought the guidebook and started reading and searching on the internet. It´s always exciting preparing a trip, but this time I realised I was preparing to go to a country I knew absolutely nothing about, apart from having a vague idea about its strong musical tradition. I knew nothing about its political history nor about its peoples, its cultures and arts.

Until recently, Africa below the Sahara didn´t exist in my mind (and in my readings) before the 15th-16th century. I was confined to the arab north, which always fascinated me (only to be confronted recently with a statement in the blog Africa is a Country that “‘arab’ is an imperial and ahistorical term that creates a false distinction between ‘North’ and ‘Sub-Saharan’ Africa”. Point quickly taken...). Little by little, I delved into the world of emperors and warriors and preachers who made history in the west african region before the arrival of the europeans and whose deeds are sung by the griots (praise singers, guardians of oral history).

More on Volker Goetze´s documentary here.

And, despite thinking initially that this was a men´s world, I´ve come across the griottes and, among them, a very special senegalese lady, Yandé Codou Sène, who passed away in 2010 and who was proud of her art (it´s worth seeing the video below; once she overcomes her anger, she actually sings – in minute 5), respected and cherished by her people (see here).

From oral history, I moved on to the written word and one of the first figures to come up was Léopold Sédar Senghor, Senegal´s first elected president, but also a thinker and a poet (among his most known poems, Femme noire and Poème à mon frère blanc), the first african to enter the French Academy. Some of his speeches on négritude (a concept he firmly imposed on the political dialogue of his time, that places the emphasis on black african ideas and culture as opposed to the french colonial policies of assimilation) may be heard here. Regarding other writers, I was initially limited to the ‘classics’ presented in my guidebook and I got particularly interested in two ladies, whose books I rushed to buy. Mariama Bâ, a feminist who was profoundly concerned with the fate of african women (their right to get educated, their place in a patriarchal and polygamistic society), wrote in 1981 a short story called So Long a Letter. Aminata Sow Fall, a critic of senegalese society – its inequalities, the power of the political elites –, is the author of four novels, the most famous one being The beggars´ strike. My search then took me to the younger generation, whom I look forward to ‘meeting’ in Dakar´s Athena bookshop: Sokhna Benga, Fama Diagne Sène, Woré Ndiaye Kandji, to mention a few. And, to mention also a man, Boubacar Boris Diop, author of Murambi, the book of bones, and a writer who, a few years ago, decided to write again in wolof, one of the languages spoken in Senegal (read article here).

Music is what really marks senegalese culture. It´s undoubtedly the biggest chapter in my guidebook. Once we start searching, there are so many names, so many different genres. What particularly caught my attention, though, in the middle of so much information, is the involvement of the the music world in the upcoming presidential elections, scheduled to take place next month. Apart from the country´s most famous singer worldwide, Youssou Ndour, being a candidate, there is a movement of young rappers, called Y´ en a Marre, challenging the actual President, Abdoulaye Wade, who tried to change the Constitution in order to be able to run for a third mandate (read the article in Le Monde here). The movement can be found on Facebook.

Senegalese cinema was another art I knew absolutely nothing about. I was so excited to find Ousmane Sembène´s (Senegal´s most known cinematographer; 1923-2007) Moolaadé fully available on You Tube, only to find out it had no subtitles in a language I could understand (those who understand bambara can find it here; the rest of us can get a feeling of it from the trailer).

And just as Sembène deals in his movie with female genital mutilation, Joseph Gaï Ramaka (1952 - ) is breaking other taboos in Karmen Gei, approaching sensuality and lesbian love.

There is very little one can find on the internet regarding Senegal´s big reference in photography, Mama Casset (1908 – 1992), namely photos. But my search took me also to the younger references. I particularly liked the work of Boubacar Touré Mandémory, especially, among his albums available on Flickr, the one entitled Émigration Clandestine.

Photo: Mama Casset

Among the various senegalese fashion designers who are leaving their mark in their industry internationally, I was very-very impressed with Oumou Sy and her particular way of mixing tradition with contemporary design (video of one of her fashion shows here).

Design: Oumou Sy

Another reference, in what concerns senegalese textiles, is Aissa Dione, here in a very interesting interview for CulturaDakar (a cultural initiative of the Spanish Embassy in Dakar):

It was dance/performance that brought me back to the man who inspired this trip: Danielle Gabou´s Hommage à Ousmane Sow (see here), which I found deeply touching. Moving on from there to contemporary senegalese dance, I was amazed at the performance of Assane Thiam Contemporary Sabar Dance Group in the streets of Dakar.

So, these are some of the references I came across while preparing for my trip to Senegal. Soon I´ll be on a plane to Dakar and I can´t wait to discover for myself everything one cannot find in a guidebook: the smells, the tastes, the noise, the silence, the mood and wisdom of people. The feeling of spending the night under the sky of the Lompoul Desert.

Photo taken from http://www.gite-africain.com/

Note: The diary from the journey to Senegal is published here.

2011 was special also thanks to...

Two books

and

Three documentaries

and

and

One film

Two performances

and

The 'encounter' with Ousmane Sow at the National Museum of African Art in Washington



Photo taken from http://www.africultures.com/



And the journey to the marvellous 'end of the world'

Crise oblige? (ii) Programming challenges

"Community relevance is the first and foremost element of sustainability.”

WolfBrown In Is sustainability sustainable?

I was asking myself a few months ago if we were paying enough attention to the changes that are taking place in the socio-cultural environment in which we are acting. I had just finished reading two texts that showed me new ways and helped me structure my ideas regarding the relationship between cultural institutions and their audiences: Culture and Class by John Holden and The Excellence Barrier by Diane Ragsdale. There were both defending the urgency, importance and need to look outwards; to try and understand the habits, tastes and expectations of the communities we are here to serve; to try and relate to them, making our offer more relevant to their lives, creating demand together with them. Engaging them.

A photo from the exhibition In Your Face (Art Gallery of Ontario, 2007), an exhibition of portraits collected from the general public to celebrate the inividuality and diversity of Canada.

I have now read a third text, a report on a research that was undertaken in the USA, UK and Australia, called Getting in on the Act: How arts groups are creating opportunities for active participation. It presents the various ways in which we can get the audience involved (from the spectator who´s simply a receiver to the member of the audience who gets involved as an artist) and brings to us a number of case studies from various institutions and initiatives. It also presents some conclusions which stengthen some of my ideas and confirm some intuitions regarding the way forward for us here as well:

- It is believed that, now more than ever, the arts organizations that will thrive in our current environment will be the ones who create new and meaningful opportunities for people to engage (p.2);

- Culture is not ‘being shaped’ by someone or something else. We all are shaping our culture. We all are creating what is meaningful, vibrant and real – the amateurs and the experts, the institutional and the individual, the privileged and the disenfranchised, the mainstream and the alternative (p.4);

- Technology has fundamentally changed the way people interact, learn and think about culture. What is different now is the unprecedented ability of the average oerson to access, make and share art and ideas on a global scale (p.6);

- It is important to recognize that the young people entering today´s cultural scene are not aesthetically bankrupt. More often, their creative interests lie elsewhere – beyond attendance (p.11);

- It is becoming more difficult to satisfy everyone with one experience. Audience development, therefore, is not just a marketing problem. Primarily, it is a programming issue. Attracting the new generation of audiences and visitors will require a transformation in programming, not just better marketing (p.11).

In my previous post I raised some questions regarding the impact the currebt crisis might have on the way cultural institutions are being programmed. Even in periods where there is no crisis, any institution, any business, any sector knows that there are factors that affect their activity and force them to re-evaluate and adapt. These are external factors – social, political, economic, technological – which are beyond our control, but which we cannot ignore, since they present us with opportunities and threats. These are realities we must always be aware of. Thus, I would say that the crisis ‘simply’ makes it urgent for us to wake up, to react, to not continue doing everything the way we´ve always done it.

I don´t think the crisis will make people less willing to partiicpate and get involved in cultural activities. On the contrary, demand might even grow. There is no doubt that people are being much more careful in the way they invest the, little, money they have. But they continue to invest on what they consider essential, unmissable, relevant, entertaining, inspiring. There is no doubt that, due to the crisis, audience numbers have recently decreased, but there are still shows that sell out or sell a significant proportion of their seat capacity. And it is also at this time of crisis that people form a long queue to visit the dinosaur exhibition currently showing in Lisbon, despite the high ticket price (and bad quality of the exhibition).

The question here is: do we know what is essential, unmissable, relevant, entertaining, inspiring for the people we aim to serve in order to, through our programming, keep the relationship with them alive? Maybe not... I believe the majority of us belong to the group John Holden calls “the new mandarins”: we fight for access to culture, but to that culture which we consider valid; we fight for the ‘democratization of culture’ but haven´t realized that this concept has developed into another, that of ‘cultural democracy’. Can the crisis force us to become aware of what has been happening, for quite some time now, around us; to abandon our role of ‘guardians’ and also consider what our audiences crave to experience, discuss, debate, create, share? Can the crisis make us share the responsibilty of programming? Would we be compromising its quality?

The idea of sharing this responsibility is not completely new for cultural institutions. All over the world, there are museums that choose the subjects of new exhibitions and create contents for them with the help of members of the communities they are serving - their opinions, knowledge, memories and objects; when I visited Tate Britain a few years ago, next to the labels written by curators I found those written by visitors – equally interesting and, in some cases, more understandable and touching; and, to give one more example, Concord Museum in the USA is celebrating its 125th anniversary with a temporray exhibition – with the suggestive title Crowdsourcing a Collection -, where members of the public were asked to choose and talk about objects from the museum collection that have a special meaning to them. Also in the field of the performing arts we can find this kind of experiences. For example, in 2009, the Theatre Royal Statford East (known as 'the theatre of the people') started consulting the audience for the preparation of the programme of the first semester of 2012 (read here).

Nevertheless, and although these initiatives demonstrate great willingness on behalf of cultural institutions for a more active involvement of the public, these are still decided and ‘guided’ by them. It´s not exactly sharing the responsibility of programming. The change that is occurring at this moment demonstrates a willingness to co-curate. Just as the public is willing to finance cultural projects (crowdfunding initiatives are multiplying all over the world), there are lots of knowledgeable and interested people willing to contribute for selection or creation of a cultural product. It´s the so-called crowdsourcing. Ian David Moss and Daniel Reid, authors of one of the most inspiring texts I have recently read, Audiences at the Gate: Reinventing Arts Philanthropy Through Guided Crowdsourcing, explore this idea and suggest a wikipedia-like system in order to discover and finance new artistic projects. In this context, I found extremely relevant for the future of theatres a piece of news I read a few days ago about the Slowbizz network, which aims to connect talented musicians and music fans for small, in-house concerts (read here).

Join the Slowbizz.com artists community from slowbizz on Vimeo.

Does this path towards shared responsibility for programming make sense for our cultural institutions? Probably more than ever, especially in what concerns public institutions. Because the changes in the way arts and culture are being created, distributed and consummed (and the place where this occurs) are a reality; because the volume of production is so big that we would not be able to know and follow everything, in order to remain updated and relevant; because there are, indeed, people, non-professionals, but with an excellent knowledge and experiences, willing to share them. And because, at a moment where people are forced to make choices, the cultural institutions that will win the race are those that will better engage their audiences in their activity and remain relevant for them. We don´t know everything, but I am sure we know enough to be able to manage with honesty, intelligence, creativity and quality (and also with humility) the sharing of such a responsibility, as the programming of a cultural institution, with those we are here to serve.

More readings

Roy Strong, Return of the culture vulture

Tom Jacobs, Are the arts irrelevant to the next generation?

Jane Howard, We don´t need your traditonal legitimate taste or how the youth are redefining culture

Libby Maynard, Expanding community participation

James Page, Is Leonardo worth the wait? Ask the audience, not the experts

And more

Gripsrud, J., Hovden, J.F., Moe, Hallvard, Changing relations: Class, education and cultural capital (report on Norway)

Shirky,C., Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators

Crise oblige? (i) Some questions

In times of crisis, financial or other, many people find in the arts, and culture in general, a shelter. A book, a film, a theatre play, a song, dance, painting, writing open windows, show us the way, help us find a sense, bring beauty, serenity, inspiration, enthusiasm, motivation. In countries like Argentina or Greece, theatre attendace rose significantly during the times of crisis. Not only because people looked for that ‘shelter’, but also because theatres and theatre companies were able to address that new reality ‘repositioning’ themselves, adapting to their socio-economic environment. Yorgos Loukos, artistic director of the Athens Festival, when interviewed by The New York Times last summer together with the directors of other festivals, referred to the sale of an extra 35.000 tikets (a 24% rise compared to the year before; the performance of Richard III with Kevin Spacey sold out at the Epidaurus theatre, with a 10.000 seat capacity) and to the greek governement´s commitment to support the festival again in 2012. Other festivals also registered high attendances last summer, but their directors are conscious of the impact the financial crisis will have on culture and the need to face it.

A year ago, after the first announcement of cuts, many of us were saying that the crisis could (and should) be an opportunity. Twelve months have passed and we are probably at the same point: reacting to the cuts, asking (as we must) the State for more and better, but not duscussing, at the same time, alternatives to a model which, just as it is, it hasn´t been functioning for a long time. The hope expressed by some people responsible for portuguese cultural institutions that the cuts will affect ‘just’ the programming, makes us think: what kind of relatiosnhip can these institutions maintain with the audiences, with society, should they abdicate, in the first place, from their main activity, from their true mission, from their raison-d´-être? And what are the alternatives?

In these difficult, confusing times, that bring about a certain desorientation, that force us to adapt in order to survive, it´s good to go back and read Michael Kaiser. His structured and clear thinking reminds us of what is essential to remain healthy and relevant.

Michael Kaiser has been responsible for the ‘rescue’ of a number of dying cultural institutions, about to close their doors due to financial trouble. In his book The art of the turnaround: Creating and maintaining healthy arts organizations (which I read for the first time three years ago as if it was a novel) he shares his vast experience and presents five case studies: Kansas City Ballet, Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre Foundation, American Ballet Theater, Royal Opera House e The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Michael Kaiser´s experience does not only relate to the american and british realities. He has worked as consultor in many countries around the world. From his book, I would highlight here three important lessons:

- The problem with most arts organizations is revenue and not costs. Actually, arts organizations have learnt how to do a lot with little. Organizations that focus simply on reducing costs will continue to get smaller and smaller and will never create the economic engine that is required for long-term stability and growth (p.6).

- When one cuts artistic initiative and marketing, one cuts the very reason people supply revenue to the arts organizations – buying tickets and supporting them financially. Audience members and donors are attracted to exciting work. When art and marketing are sacrificed to balance budgets, the organization virtually always suffers a loss in revenue (p.xi).

- Many arts executives have suggested it would be foolhardy to plan further into the future since the future seems so uncertain. And yet, if one does not plan far into the future, it is virtually impossible to develop the large, exciting projects that will reinvigorate the audience and donors (p.7).

How can Michael Kaiser´s lessons help us face our specific reality? I believe that some of the questions we should be considering are the following:

- Just like it happened in other countries, many people will continue attending cultural activities, live performances in particular. Actually, as Argentina and Greece have shown, the willingness may even grow and ‘infect’ more people. Nevertheless, due to the lack of money, they will be even more careful when choosing where to invest. And in cities like Lisbon, they have a lot to choose from. How is the current crisis going to affect programming? Considering the needs and interests of people implies limiting, conditioning the quality of the programming? Would it make sense to share this respinsibility, of programming, with people who represent actual target audiences and who have the knowledge that is necessary in order to contribute? Would we be risking becoming populists, compromising our mission?

- Michael Kaiser believes that the main problem in most arts organizations is revenue and not cost. Especially, I would say, in countries like Portugal, where public cultural organizations are not particularly worried about it (neither about income from ticket sales nor about fundraising from individual donors, for which there is no tradition). Will the cuts force us to consider different management and funding models? Can we do it without compromising (financial) access to our offer? What should we demand from the State?

- We do want to plan in advance. But how, when we don´t know how much money we are going to have? When, even after we have committed to the production of certain projects, we are surprised with cuts? Where to cut and how to cut? Should we sacrifice the programming in the first place? Could employees themeselves have a role in the development of a trategic plan for the future?

These questions, which are not new, came up once again when I heard the news about the cuts and the increase of VAT for live performances (from 6% to 23%). I am thinking about them and they are raising even more questions. Mission, funding, programming, management are issues which interconnect. There are urgent aspects, which need to be handled in the short term; but there are also structural aspects, that refer to a more distant future (but which is still going to be our future) and should start being considered right away.

This 'coming back' post, written a few weeks ago, is especially dedicated to AL, CF, CR, HH, MP, MS, MT, NS, SA. With my most sincere thanks.

To be or not to be (free on Sundays)? That is not the question

Once again, I couldn´t agree more with the Secretary of State for Culture. “Free entry is not a good principle”, said Francisco José Viegas when he announced the end of free entry to museums on Sundays. But, once again, his arguments in defense of this position seem to be extremely fragile.

The Secretary of State actually explained that the percentage of paid entries to museums is currently 36% and that the ideal level for these institutions´s sustainability would be 80%. He also said that paid entries are necessary in order to preserve museums and they would allow for the generation of more income in order to fund longer opening hours.

I haven´t got any concrete data at the moment, but wouldn´t it be true that the biggest part of the 64% of free entries to museums refers to school groups (probably the most significant visitor group in portuguese museums) and not to those people visiting on Sunday mornings? Because we shouldn´t forget that entry to museums is free on Sundays until 2pm. Can we really believe that putting an end to half a day of free entry per week will solve the problem of funding necessary for preserving museums? And why to consider longer opening hours if the big majority of the Portuguese don´t visit during the actual opening times? Was there a study that inidcated that people don´t visit because opening hours are not convenient?

Neither the revenue from Sunday morning visits will make museums sustainable nor is there a need, for now, to consider longer opening hours. The big priority, and a long-term objective, is to create a relationship with the portuguese society that will become strong and lasting and could be the base of museum sustainability in general, and their financial sustainability in particular. Museums that are irrelevant and incomprehensible for the majority of citizens, that continue to work with and for the same people, that are not sufficiently promoted, haven´t got a great future ahead of them. On the other hand, museums that see themselves as live units inserted in a specific socio-cultural environment, that pay attention to the changes taking place around them, to the needs and anxieties of their audiences, museums that are involving, surprising and accessible at all levels, are museums capable of creating their own ‘family’. A family composed by those people who love what museums do, who feel good in them, who take ownership and are ready to support them: paying the entry fee; becoming volunteers and placing their time and knowledge at their service; and, why not, supporting them financially in a more substantial way than simply paying the value of the ticket.

The base of sustainability are the people we relate to and exist to serve. Which doesn´t mean that the State is exempt from any responsibility. The responsibility to create long-term objectives that don´t change every time the Minister changes; to contribute so that museums can have the financial and human resources to carry out their functions; to value access; to reward good practices and good results.

Once again, political leaders go ahead and make announcements that reveal quite a superficial analysis of reality. Once again, one starts from the end. Maybe because one is thinking about the next four years (and in the area of culture they are not usually as many...), instead of the next ten or twenty. In the last years, there was not even one Minister of Culture who shared a vision for the cultural sector (museums included), who announced long-term objectives and was able to translate them into concrete short and medium-term actions that would help achieve the ends. There has been a complete lack of strategic and structired thinking. There has been a lack of visionary political leaders, concerned not only about their immediate reputation (usually, short-lived), but about the dreams and the way to make them come true. And there is a constant lack of a sector that vindicates, that acts and doesn´t react, that is permanently on the alert.

Note: The ICOM Portuguese National Committee is organizing on the 7th of November, at the Soares dos Reis National Museum (Porto), the conference Museums and Financial Sustainability.

Still on this blog

Free entries (I) Museums

Back to numbers

The difference between ‘more’ and ‘diverse’

Back to numbers

Photo taken from the website of the newspaper Público.

The Secretary of State for Culture is absolutely right when he says “I don´t think it´s fair that a company, a director or a producer does not express concern regarding the audiences”. But this is where our understanding ends. Because concern regarding the audiences is not only and in the first place proven based on box office results. And because "the creation of new audiences” has become yet one more politically correct, but empty, concept.

I feel less and less comfortable with the expression ‘creation of new audiences’. Because it comes to reinforce the role of ‘god’, of ‘guardian’, taken on by many of us working in the cultural sector. We are the owners of cultural institutions, we (and only we) know what should be presented in them, what is of quality, interest, value. What the others, the ‘audiences’ we aim to ‘create’, should see and appreciate.

We know a lot of things, that´s true. We shouldn´t be working in this field if we didn´t. But there is a lot of knowledge, many experiences, visions and ways of enjoying culture and the arts also on the ‘other side’, among the ‘audiences’ out there, who exist and with whom we haven´t established contact yet. Thus, when I think about these issues now, I prefer the concepts of ‘participation’ or ‘involvement’.

Having said this, to express concern regarding the audiences doesn´t mean, in the first place, to consider box office results. Because, in the first place, a company or a director or a producer doesn´t express concern when he´s not conscious or insists on ignoring the specificities of his socio-cultural environment; when he´s out of touch with the different realities existing in it, with the art and culture that is created and consumed there; when he does always… what he´s always done, without any sort of adaptation to new trends or needs; when he sees Communication as an accessory, sometimes an ‘inevitable’ one; when he´s concentrated in creating, as he should, but is not available to consider the necessary timings in order to communicate to the outside world (the one we want to buy tickets…) what´s the dream, the aspiration, what´s being done, how and by whom; when he refuses to give interviews, when he doesn´t go to TV Show X or Y (because he considers it to be representative of ‘low culture’), when he makes the press wait, when he does not allow filming and photographing during rehearsals, when he does not collaborate in the scheduling of interviews and dress rehearsals (just as all technical aspects and those related to production in general are scheduled in advance). A company, a director or a producer do not express concern regarding the audiences when they don´t want to realize that it´s not enough to create, there is a need to communicate as well. It´s part of their job.

But because I am not only concerned with theatre and cinema box office results, but with museums as well, I don´t think they should be left out. Because a museum director or curator as well must express concern regarding the audiences. And he doesn´t when, just like other culture professionals, he´s concentrated in his museum without considering the surrounding environment; when he doesn´t know or ignores the motivations, interests, concerns of the people he´s supposed to serve; when he doesn´t find ways of involving them in the museum´s activity; when he writes texts (that elementary means that all museums possess) that are understood only by him and his peers; when he´s only worried about exhibiting an object - beautifully and elegantly, placing (or hiding…) a minimal label -, but at the same time does not give the visitors the means to interpret those objects, discover their story, to become fascinated, touched, surprised, to surrender; when there are no channels for visitors themselves to be able to contribute to the choices, interpretations and approaches that are being made; when he doesn´t put people at ease in the museum environment (physically, psychologically and intellectually). Museums that are mystical, closed in themselves, that communicate only with those who know them already and appreciate them, become irrelevant for a large part of their community and they are not ‘used’, even if entrance is free or tickets very cheap.

The answer to give when concern is related, in the first place, to box office results is not at all complicated, neither for theatres nor for cinemas nor for museums: we programme what is more popular; we distribute more invitations; we allow for more school group visits. And thus we strangle the experimental; we put aside what is not known; we finish off with quality in museum visits. Spectator and visitor numbers are important, yes. But before they become performance indicators (and they don´t indicate anything just by themselves), there is a lot to do in the way cultural institutions relate to people. Let´s take care of the relationship first, with respect and honesty. And let´s not forget that the State itself has got responsibilities in building this relationship, in what concerns the objectives it must share with culture agents and the resources, both human and financial, it must make available. As well as we cannot forget that a support with public money should also result in certain responsibilities regarding the 'public', namely in what concerns access – physical, psychological, intellectual.

It´s a good thing that evaluation, numbers included, takes place a bit later and relates to all those involved.

Still in this blog

Talking about ‘new’ audiences

Changes: Are we paying enough attention?