Benefits of the participating in the arts

To start off, I thought we should review some of the benefits of participating in the performing arts. As arts presenters, we sometimes lose sight of what business were in. We get so caught up in the day to day activities we forget the why behind what we do. I would argue there is a good "chunk" of our activity has little to do with the arts at all. There are lots of ways to create economic activity, create community vitality or improve test scores. And its not that the arts don't contribute to these public goods, its just not intrinsic to the arts experience. In fact many of the well meaning actions actually compromise and diminish the impact of attending a live performance.

The Rand Corporation published a series of studies that I have found useful in thinking about the benefits of participation in the Performing Arts. Many of you will be familiar with them but I share them here as part of the foundation of "an idealized" presenting program.

If you haven't read them, they are well worth the time, here's the links:

A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts (McCarthy Jinnet, 2001)

The Performing Arts in a New Era (McCarthy, Brooks, Lowell, Zakaras, 2001)

Gifts of the Muse - Reframing the Debate About Benefits of the Arts (McCarthy, Ondaatje, Brooks, Zakara, 2004)

McCarthy et al make the case that instrumental benefits are derived from the personal intrinsic benefits individuals experience. Intrinsic benefits identified include "captivation", "pleasure", "expanded capacity for empathy", "cognitive growth", "social bonds" and "expression of communal meaning".

They conclude that more emphasis should be placed on cultivating demand by first creating "gateway" experiences that are positive and meaningful. These gateway experiences are especially effective during childhood and creates an openness to further participation. As we get older, gateway experiences involve a much greater social component and often occur through friends, family and social networks.

Continued participation is dependent on access to ongoing high quality experiences, the individual develops knowledge and familiarity of different art forms they are drawn to. Some are drawn to music, some to dance and others to theater. And within each discipline there is a wide range of experiences from the experimental to the traditional. As example, jazz encompasses a number of styles each appealing to a unique subset of the "jazz audience". And although some individuals are omnivores enjoying several styles, most have a favorite they are drawn to.

It has always amazed me how different audiences are from one discipline to the next. The audience for a classical concert has a much different "vibe" than that of a modern dance performance. Even with in the same discipline, a very different audience is "Waiting for Godot" than takes "39 Steps".  Different people, different expectations, different interactions.

As presenters, we are responsible to both the artists and the audience for creating a context that the needs of each are aligned with one another. We make choices as to which audiences to serve (or which artists), those choices have consequences to both the quality of the experience and ongoing viability of the organization. Different choices require different levels of capital, exchanges and channels of communication. How well we align our facilities, our business processes and our people with our intended purpose is key to creating value in the marketplace.

An effective and efficient organization begins with being clear who the customer is. As much as I support the idea of "arts for everyone", expecting one organization to provide arts programming for the whole community is unrealistic. Effective organizations make choices.

I think we too often think of arts audiences as a cohesive one dimensional group; that has not been my experience. What's your experience?