It is not news to anyone's ears for me to say that the existence of an audience is key to the likewise existence of theatre itself. It is just common sense to see how a play performed to an empty room has no effect, no real meaning at all, beyond the narcissistic indulgence of the cast and production team. Indeed, there is a very good reason why theatre companies hold scratch nights for new writing, why newspapers have an arts and culture review section, why we bother with marketing and audience development at all. Because it is that instant response from a wall of individuals that can dictate whether a story is working or failing.
That is to say, it is the audience who holds the real power in theatre. The opinion of the writer, director or producer is not necessarily the same opinion as the frowning, laughing, crying face in row D of the auditorium. This is clear, also, in the mixed reviews that a production can receive: one doesn't have to think too deeply to recall productions that were heckled with damning reviews but that were instrumental to a new face of theatre. And why? Because they sparked a response, they made people think and reflected something in the audience that struck too strong a chord. The play, here, is merely the catalyst. The audience dictate what happens next.
With this in mind, it is a topic of debate as to whether it is right for theatre to employ an 'us' and 'them' attitude to the audience, as if they are cattle to be herded or children who need to be told what they do and don't like. This arguments applies more furtively to regional theatre than to the larger producing houses in our cities, because, arguably, a West End musical or a Michael Grandage production is not primarily intending to bring the community together. But if this is the case, why do I feel like the larger theatres are catering to my whims and fancies more perceptively than most other theatres in my region? Why do these regional theatres struggle to fill an auditorium, even for a brilliant touring company and exciting new work?
Honestly, I don't have the answer. If I did I would be single-handedly fixing the audience development scheme for the entire UK. And the point is, it's not up to any one individual, not even one organisation: it's up to everyone.
There is a movement called What Next? which has grown recently out of arts organisations across the country coming together to discuss the future of the arts. It is built on a volunteer basis, and brings together companies across a region to talk about how 'audiences', as individuals and communities, can actively voice how and why arts and culture are important in their lives. It is not a case of organisations sitting back, putting their feet up on the desk and saying, "Okay guys, you tell us what to do." No: it's about a conversation - a mutual dialogue - to quite frankly, justify why we bother with arts funding, spaces and projects at all.
If the 'audience' really are the life force of the continuation and recognition of the arts, this movement is crucial to encouraging us all to join the debate and ensure that arts and culture continue to thrive. To look at it more simply, the arts are are for people, about people and intrinsically dependent on people. Therefore, theatres need to stop programming and marketing like the three wise monkeys and listen - let's have a chat about it.
"Why do you value the arts?"
No comments:
Post a Comment