Did TV, Film, Internet, and mass entertainment hurt the arts or did have people found new ways of socializing?
Often arts practioners moan and groan about how increased competition for people's attention has drasitically lowered attendence and made it very difficut to reach audiences. Needless to say we should be using these mediums to reach audiences - and we aren't doing that enough, but I want to pose a different hypothesis. What if what has really changed is how people socialize and how conversation about events is generated? And what do we do if the hypothesis is true?
Let's look at how over the years people have entertained themselves. It used to be that people would gather in someone's drawing room or home, and read, sing, and entertain one another. Or go to the theatre or the opera to see a performance. People sought out group experiences and these experiences lead to conversations.
What technology allows is for people to "experience" something individually but they can still maintain the conversation. The technoligy allows each person to expereince the same thing. This is what the solidiaryreading a book has always provided. We live in an ON DEMAND culture in a CONNECTED WORLD. TV shows, YouTube video, Blogs, and Movies (which most people watch at home or on netflix anyway) are experienced by individuals or in very small groups but they are the topics of "mass" conversations.
I recently joined facebook, twitter, plaxo and a whole slew of social networking sites. Even though I am a total technology junkie, it took me a long time to come around to social networking. I just didn't get it. But all of a sudden I am aware of what is happening moment to moment in friends and aquaintances lives. I am actually closer to several friends because of the technology. It was the same feeling I had when instant messaging became so popular or current day texting. It is a "live conversation" more often than not. Everyone has the story of some kids they know sitting within 3 feet of one another texting.
Live seems to imply in person, but really doesn't it mean real-time? If it does, what does LIVE theatre really mean? Look at the simulcasts that the MET is doing - it is changing the opera world. Is that a live performance. Do you need to be in the same room to have a live experience? Is it now true that an individual experience is also group experience?
Labels: artists, Communication, Technology, theater, theatre
1 Comments:
With regard to the 'live' experience, there is a musician called Ryan Adams who is rather eccentric about the way he records his music: he doesn't allow his fellow musicians to use headphones while they are recording because he looked into the science behind hearing and found that something like 80% of what you experience listening to music is not absorbed through your ears, but through the rest of your body. Now there's a scientific argument for the quality of true live theatre.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home