Between 2009 and 2011, arts participation “increased” from 35% of the population to nearly 75%. Clearly we should have witnessed a paradigm shift in the arts comparable to the Renaissance in these two years, but sadly that’s not what happened. Instead, the National Endowment for the Arts, faced with a mountain of disappointing news about the rates of participation in its 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), commissioned 3 separate monographs and wrote several notes of their own to explain the data, which led to a broadened definition of arts participation that covers three-quarters of the population. Because the SPPA data has been discussed in numerous other research documents and blogs, I will keep the summary of the original report to the most highlighted bullet points and spend more time outlining the history of the analysis.

SUMMARY

The SPPA has been conducted five times by the by the NEA since 1982 in partnership with the United States Census Bureau (with the exception of the 1997 survey, which was administered by a private research firm and is not comparable to other years). The report presents detailed findings from the 2008 SPPA alongside data from prior years. To allow data to be compared with previous years, the survey questions remain relatively stable.

The survey tracks the following kinds of participation:

• Attending arts events
• Experiencing recorded or broadcasted live performances
• Exploring arts through the Internet
• Personally performing or creating art
• Taking arts-related classes

The key indicator for participation for this and all previous versions of the SPPA is attendance at “benchmark“ events:  jazz, classical music, opera, musical plays, non-musical plays, ballet, and visits to art museums or galleries. In addition to the core benchmark activities, four modules within the survey included questions about internet and other media use, arts learning, reading, and leisure activities. To increase the response rate for the 2008 SPPA, respondents were only asked about 2 of the 4 modules. New questions focused on Latin Music, attendance at outdoor festivals, and technology. Sections on trips away from home and desire to attend more events were dropped. The response rate was 82%, for a total of 18,444 adults interviewed over two weeks in May 2008 by phone.

The report itself describes the results as “disappointing.” The percentage of adults attending at least one benchmark arts activity declined from 39% in 2002 to less than 35% in 2008, the largest drop recorded in any survey interval. Just as striking is the long-term trend; participation levels never dipped below 39% since the first survey in 1982 and even rose in 1992 when participation reached 41%. Exceptions to the recent declines are musical plays and art museums, which are both flat from the 2002 SPPA, as well as literary reading, which is also up from 2002.

Attendance at Benchmark Activities

In contrast to the population more generally, most audiences at benchmark activities held at least a college degree and/or pulled in an annual income of $75,000 or greater. Latin music, outdoor performing arts festivals, and art museums drew younger audiences than other genres, while arts and craft festivals, parks and historic sites, and jazz were more successful in reaching lower- and middle-income audiences. These profiles may not be surprising, but what has people concerned is that those aged 45 to 54, historically a large component of arts audiences, showed the steepest declines in attendance, and even the most educated Americans are attending benchmark activities less often than reported in earlier surveys. One possible factor is the economy, which had been in a recession for six months at the time of the survey. This might help explain findings that low-cost, low-travel activities such as researching art over the internet and reading rose compared to the previous survey.

Arts Creation, Performance, and Learning

Since 1982, the number of adults reporting that they had taken arts lessons at any time in their lives has been declining, and substantially fewer young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have had lessons. For example, in 1982 61% reported having had music lessons of some kind, but only 38% reported the same in 2008.

However, the study shows some forms of participation and creation on the rise, with 10% of respondents reporting participating in at least one of the art forms within the past 12 months. Singing in a choir or vocal group drew the most participants, with 11.6 million adults, or 5.2% of the population, participating. Photography and film‐making increased from 12% in 2002 to nearly 15% of all adults.  Classical music performance or creation increased to 3.1%, after falling to 1.8% in 2002 from 1992 levels  (almost all forms of creating and performing dipped between 1992 and 2002). On the other hand, dancing, weaving/sewing, and pottery/ceramics continued to see long-term declines.

Media Participation

More Americans engage with performances through broadcasts or recordings through radio, internet or other electronic media than attend live arts events. Overall, 41% of adults watched, listened, or explored the arts through some form of electronic media, and the total number of adults watching or listening through broadcast media is double the number that attend performances. Only live theater still attracts more audiences than broadcasts or recordings of its equivalent, not including television or movies. Online, 39% of all Internet‐using adults, or 62 million Americans, viewed, listened to, downloaded, or posted artworks or performance at least once a week. (Keep in mind that this study was conducted four years ago.)

State and Regional Patterns

There are regional differences in how communities choose to participate in the arts. For example, the New England and Pacific regions reported high levels of attendance at most benchmark activities. The East South Central region, which includes Kentucky down to Alabama, reported the lowest participation rates in benchmark activities, but also showed the highest participation rates in choral singing.

History of Analysis

Soon after reviewing the SPPA results, the NEA commissioned independent researchers to mine the SPPA data for details on the following topics: arts education; the personal performance and creation of artworks; and the relationship between age and arts participation.

Case against Demographic Destiny

In Age and Arts Participation: A Case Against Demographic Destiny, Mark J. Stern of the University of Pennsylvania reports that it’s not the audiences that are greying, it’s our country. It’s true that Generation X and Millenials are participating in benchmark events at lower rates in their young adulthood than previous generations. But overall, age and generational cohort accounts for less than 1% of the variance of the total number of arts events that Americans attended between 1982- 2008. Other influences, particularly educational attainment, have a much stronger role in explaining arts participation. Although WWII and Baby Boomer generations do attend a broader array of benchmark events and attend more often, Stern argues that younger generations also have an appetite for diverse arts experiences and that “the ability of established or emerging arts groups to attract participants will have less to do with the age distribution of the population than with their ability to connect to the creative aspirations of their potential audiences.”

Beyond Attendance

WolfBrown’s Beyond Attendance: A Multi-Modal Understanding of Arts Participation suggests that the current participation numbers do not accurately reflect how Americans are choosing to participate in the arts. Using a broader definition of arts participation, Jennifer Novak-Leonard and Alan Brown conclude that three out of four Americans participate in arts activities. The new definition includes a fuller variety of artistic genres, including participation via electronic media, and personal arts creation. Interestingly, approximately 23% of U.S. adults participate in the arts, but do not attend arts events or institutions in person, suggesting there is an opportunity for arts organizations to engage communities through arts creation and performance without expecting that they will ever attend a performance or exhibition at a traditional venue. Finally, although arts attendance at benchmark activities has declined, rates of arts creation have remained stable at 41% between 2002 and 2008. This stable rate is sustained by the increase of online participation.

Arts Education in America

Nick Rabkin and E.C. Hedberg from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) conclude in Arts Education in America: What the Declines Mean for Arts Participation that the most significant predictive factor for arts attendance at benchmark activities is arts education, rather than educational attainment or income. While it is not surprising that adults enrolled in art classes or lessons are most likely to have also participated in benchmark arts activities, it is important to note that most Americans who had arts education as an adult also had had arts education as a child. It’s clear from the data that childhood arts education has been declining over time, and Rabkin and Hedberg argue that reversing this decline will be necessary if arts education is to play a significant role in stemming the erosion of adult arts participation. Perhaps most notably, the report suggests that we need to know more about what kinds of arts education experiences inspire people to continue participating in the arts as adults.

NEA Research Notes and Audience 2.0

Three research notes and an additional research report from the NEA further analyze the geographic, community, and technological contexts of arts participation.

The first research note, “Art-Goers In Their Communities,” reports that Americans who attend arts performances, visit art museums or galleries, or read literature are particularly active members of their communities. For example, while more than half of adults who attended art museums or live arts events volunteered in the past year, only a third of the general population did so.  While it’s not possible to draw a causal inference based on this observation, it suggests that arts, literary, sports, and civic organizations may benefit from the creation of innovative partnerships to reach a larger shared audience.

The second note, “State and Regional Differences in Arts Participation: A Geographic Analysis of the 2008 SPPA,” takes an in-depth look at the regional differences already explored in the original report, including a detailed analysis for 32 states. For example, Oregon consistently ranks among the highest in attendance of the performing arts, including opera, jazz and classical music concerts.  Nebraska ranks high in the number of adults pursuing creative writing.

“Come as You Are: Informal Arts Participation in Urban and Rural Communities” focuses on the differences in participation patterns between rural and urban areas. The analysis reinforces the finding that arts participation in benchmark activities is greater in urban areas, but when “informal arts” (arts activities that are self-initiated, community-based, and often occur in homes, schools, and churches) are added to the mix, urban and rural areas participate at the same rates.  In addition, the study found that arts participation does not increase with metropolitan size beyond 250,000 people.

Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation reported that people who engage with art through media technologies are two to three times more likely to attend a benchmark activity.  Older adults, rural, and  minority groups are more likely to use media technologies to access certain art forms  than attend a live event. For example, more than half of Latinos used electronic media to engage with Latin music, and 20% of African Americans, more than any other ethnic group, used media to explore jazz.

Other Perspectives and Reactions

In 2009, the League of American Orchestras conducted its own study with McKinsey and reversed a long-held assumption that audiences will replenish themselves. The League’s “Audience Demographic Research Review” confirmed that participation is declining within and between generations and “we cannot assume that people will attend more as they enter the 45+ age group.”

Also in 2009, the NEA publicized a press release that used the survey results to declare the success of its Big Read literacy program.  For the first time in the survey’s history, literary reading increased from 46.7% in 2002 to 50.2% in the 2008.  Then Endowment Chairman Diana Gioia remarked in the press release that “this dramatic turnaround shows that the many programs now focused on reading, including our own Big Read, are working. Cultural decline is not inevitable.”

ANALYSIS

The SPPA’s high response rate (82%) and large sample size makes it the most reliable and representative longitudinal audience survey available to us. Because longitudinal analysis has been so essential to the implications of the data, though, it is worth taking a second look at the methodology from a historical perspective.  The first three surveys were conducted as a supplement to the Census Bureau’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the 1997 edition was conducted by a private consulting firm as a standalone survey. It was only starting in 2002 that the Bureau conducted the SPPA a supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), and although both the NCVS and CPS are based on a random sample of households, the two sampling designs do differ.  However, the impact of these differences have already been measured by the Census Bureau.

Other differences should be noted when comparing the surveys. Earlier surveys were conducted in person, rather than over the phone. This could increase the rate of affirmative answers as people may be more inclined to try to please the interviewer than over the phone. Furthermore, some earlier versions were conducted over a period of a year, rather than just a few weeks, which could impact either seasonality of attendance. Lastly, the fact that spouses or partners were used to collect data in 2008 could contribute to slightly more erratic attendance reporting (if spouses inaccurately report frequency). Taken individually, these are only minor differences, but collectively, could all of these changes lead to lower  reported rates of attendance? Possibly, yet it seems likely that all of these minor differences can be taken into account in a detailed statistical analysis and that there is very little, if any, impact on the participation numbers.

Given the strong correlation between arts education and participation, it would be helpful if the questions surrounding early arts experiences could be further developed. In Arts Education in America, Rabkin and Hedberg highlight that “participants were not asked about the depth, intensity, or longevity of their study in the arts, nor were they asked about their subjective experiences — how much they enjoyed or cared about learning in and about the arts. Private weekly piano lessons for 10 years and recorder lessons in a class of 30 second-graders for a few months are equivalent in SPPA data and recorded as childhood music education, provided that those experiences are remembered and reported.” Future versions of the survey might address this deficiency by asking about respondents’ early arts experiences in more depth.

It’s surprising that actually the reverse has occurred – arts education questions have been eliminated as others were added to keep the survey at a manageable length. Eliminated questions asked about arts lessons during specific age brackets and about in-school vs. out-of-school learning. Although Sunil Iyengar points to the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) for K-12 arts education as a tool for learning more about arts learning in the country, it doesn’t help us to cross-tabulate early education experiences with adult participation.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the “disappointing” results of the 2008 SPPA, should we be as concerned as we are about the future of the arts?  With the exception of museums and musical plays, attendance is declining, subscriptions are down, and ultimately sustainability is in question for arts organizations large and small.  This year’s Americans for the Arts Convention was titled “The New Normal,” suggesting the financial difficulties artists and art institutions currently face won’t disappear with an uptick in the economy.  As the 2008 SPPA research notes and monographs point out, current trends in arts attendance are beyond the scapegoats of demography or the economy.  It seems these downward trends in attendance stem from deep changes in how we choose to engage not only with the arts, but  nearly all kinds of information, entertainment, and culture.

The flip side of The New Normal is that other kinds of arts participation, including active participation and engagement through technology, are at least remaining stable, and photography and filmmaking are showing significant increases. Furthermore, it’s important to note that more Americans engage with performances through broadcasts or recordings than attend live arts events.

So if The New Normal has an upside, why do we continue to give so much weight to attendance numbers? Is it productive for us to focus on “benchmark” percentages? I would argue that it’s only productive if we are convinced other modalities are not equally valuable within the spectrum of arts participation. It’s not enough to value live attendance over other kinds of participation because of institutional models that yield significant earned revenue from ticket sales. If Americans are showing an interest in participating through choirs or viewing art online, then arts organizations have an opportunity to connect with their audiences through active participation and through online media. Perhaps if we could find a way to monetize participatory arts experiences, arts organizations wouldn’t be as concerned about the effect of dwindling ticket sales on the bottom line.

Regardless of how we value the various participation modalities, we still need to have audiences for America’s best theater, dance, and opera. Nick Rabkin’s and E.C. Hedberg’s monograph Arts Education in America asserts that the most significant predictive factor for arts attendance at benchmark activities is arts education, rather than educational attainment or income.  Furthermore, Jennifer Novak-Leonard and Alan Brown in Beyond Attendance find that “having had any arts lessons increases the likelihood of arts creation by 32%.” Meanwhile, Novak-Leonard and Brown report that 23% of adults participate but do not attend, indicating that there may be certain kinds of participation that do not necessarily lead to attendance. All of this suggests that the SPPA should ask more in-depth questions about the kinds, duration, and intensity of individuals’ arts education, including formal and non-formal types of learning. We could then learn more about which types of educational experiences might lead to attendance and which will not.

Overall, it seems like the real story here is not about the decline in arts participation, but the shift in how we choose to participate. If Americans are still seeking a deep a personal relationship with art, perhaps our increased demand for personal involvement and social connectivity are creating new demands for participatory arts experiences. New research from the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance shows that increased active or online participation can “be a gateway” to attendance, and this shift to participatory arts may point toward a broadening of consumption of the arts rather than a decline. Online, 39% of all Internet‐using adults, or 62 million Americans, viewed, listened to, downloaded, or posted artworks or performance at least once a week, and 45% participated in some form of creation or performance activity. It’s time for the SPPA survey to reflect this shift in participation through development of a new survey protocol, rather than continue to rely heavily on questions that are now over 30 years old.

Fortunately, the NEA agrees. Recently, the agency announced that it was revising the 2012 SPPA, noting that “it seemed time to revisit the way we ask about the arts in America.“ The primary purpose of the survey will be “to create baseline rates of arts participation inclusive of both traditional and non-traditional modes of participation.” The new survey questions will improve the ability to measure participation in emerging art forms and modes, including electronic media and non-formal learning opportunities. It will also ask more specific questions in regards to arts learning, asking specifically about informal modes of learning and whether early learning took place in our out of school. In perhaps the biggest shift in language, questions relating to attendance will not be tied to venue; the SPPA will ask if respondents attended an art exhibit, and if so, where. To maintain some ability to compare this study with previous ones, the 2012 SPPA will have two sets of core questions – the old core will be the benchmark attendance questions, and the new core will include the emerging art forms and modalities. By 2017 the old core will be completely replaced by the new core questions.

The 2012 SPPA will capture arts participation patterns in the aftermath of the biggest recession in 80 years, the heyday of social media, and the mainstreaming of the mobile web. Kickstarter, which arguably has helped democratize access to arts creation, didn’t exist in 2008, nor did the curatorial social media network Pinterest. Etsy, part of the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) movement where artists and artisans sell their wares online, has been profitable since 2009 and has raised $51 million in capital. Meanwhile, we know that arts attendance is down, but the 2008 survey does not prove that other types of participation are increasing. We shall see more clearly when the 2012 edition comes out (sometime in early 2013) if those who are participating online and in active art-making are at the vanguard of a long-term shift in participation away from attendance.

Further Reading:

• Sunil Iyengar, Taking Note: Accounting for Audience Impact — What Were They Thinking (and Feeling)!? (Art Works)
• Greg Sandow, Dire data (ArtsJournal)
• Webinar: Preview of Three New SPPA Reports 
• Betty Farrell and Maria Medvedeva, “Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums“
• Molly Sheridan, And the Survey Says: Considering the NEA’s 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (NewMusicBox)

Photo by Dave 3024

In April, the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra (SPCO) announced the launch of a Netflix-style membership model where you could “get all the SPCO you want for $5 a month.” Still relatively untested in the arts world, this pricing model allows subscribers to see an unlimited number of performances for a low monthly fee. Additional perks may be included, but the key differentiator between this membership model and traditional subscriptions is that subscribers cannot select their seat and can choose to go (or not go) at the last minute.

The Netflix model, although currently under the gun due to strategic misfires, was the go-to in the home movie business for most of the last decade due to the convenience of mail delivery, Netflix’s wide selection of DVDs, and affordability. Its success was a disruptive innovation that permanently changed the video rental market. The Netflix model is now the superlative example for new or existing businesses that want to increase share of wallet (and time) of existing customers.

So how does Netflix translate into the world of the performing arts? The existing subscription model ties a customer to an annual fee for a fixed number of pre-determined performances. We’re well aware that audiences are increasingly reluctant to commit to 12 or even 6 concerts ahead of time. Although choose-your-own subscriptions allow flexibility in the subscription package, they still demand commitment to a set program far in advance as well as substantial upfront costs. A Netflix model allows subscribers to attend any performance on an organization’s schedule at the last minute and importantly, spreads out the financial burden.

What makes this model really interesting is the psychology behind it. The approach captures an individual’s desire, not commitment, to attend more arts events. Arts marketers know that in order to become a subscriber, an individual must first have been a single ticket buyer, then a multi-ticket buyer. The Netflix model’s purchasing psychology is different; people decide that they can part with a small amount of their monthly earnings to have the opportunity to see art. There is less upfront financial commitment than a subscription and a lot of promise that they will become closer to the art form. Latent demand may be captured in ways that single tickets or traditional subscriptions do not.

Another interesting facet of the Netflix model is that memberships are able to capitalize on excess capacity. On any given night at the theater or concert hall, seats go unused. If there are too many seats left available, marketers will try to paper the house with free tickets. The membership model doesn’t necessarily address the issue of empty houses, but it does allow arts organizations to sell unoccupied seats at a discount, acting as an additional source of cash when the monthly memberships come in. Even if no subscribers of a monthly membership attend a performance, a fraction of their monthly fee can be attributed to the performance. Similar to gym memberships, you can have many more members than can actually attend the concert because 1) there is no guarantee that you will get a seat and 2) it is highly unlikely that all members will attend the same performance.

So where’s the rub? Essentially free money for seats that you had anyway?  Arts marketers have plenty to say about why this won’t work. Just like Netflix or any subscription, after a while, if it goes unused for too long, members eventually cancel their account. Additionally, the amount of staff time it takes to run such a program might not be worth the incremental revenue it would bring in.

Research by TRG Arts shows that people who attend once are only 30% likely to return, but if they attend twice, that number doubles. If purchasing a membership encourages repeat attendance, those who are able to attend even twice within a season are more likely to become loyal to the organization. You can almost think of the membership model as trial pricing. It can be a low-cost entry to increasing the lifetime value of an audience member.

In Seattle, this model has been working for the ACT Theater, which has created a Netflix-style subscription called the ACT Pass. Becky Lanthrop, marketing director for ACT, says that two-thirds of their members who have an ACT Pass use it on a monthly basis. Launched in 2009, the program started with 40 subscribers and grew to 1200 in 2011. At $25 a month ($20 if you are under 30), this fee is more expensive annually than ACT’s subscription for 4 performances for $200. Thus, the ACT Pass could cannibalize the theater’s traditional subscribers, and yet the company would not lose revenue. In fact, ACT might even reduce marketing costs, as annual renewal campaigns are no longer be necessary when subscribers have to opt out of the program in order to end their subscription. Regardless of whether the ACT Pass becomes the primary model for subscriptions, it’s clear that the goal of the ACT Pass is to increase revenue and loyalty to the theater company.

The SPCO’s goals are quite different than ACT. At only $5 per month, the SPCO claims the goal is to increase access, not revenue or members. Ticket sales are a marginal source of revenue and the SPCO is not focused on increasing earned revenue from subscriptions. Marketing Director Jessica Etten has this to say about the project:

Over 80 percent of our revenue is related to philanthropy and less than 20 percent comes from ticket sales. We exist because people come to the concerts and fall in love with what we do and want to support the organization. So, we’ve always said that what we need to do is make it possible for people to come to concerts and come often and come over a long period of time, so the SPCO becomes a big part of their lives.

With prices for single tickets starting at $10, this new program seems to be aimed at audiences who already know they want to see the SPCO multiple times per season. Although the program is well positioned to increase access for existing audiences, it may not be as successful in attracting newcomers. There is nothing wrong with this, except that increasing access in the arts typically refers to broadening participation rather than deepening it.

There is another major difference between the ACT’s and SPCO’s model. ACT’s inventory of performances is a bit larger than the SPCO’s. ACT works with other venues and companies to produce additional shows, significantly expanding their choice of offerings. In addition, they produce shows all year, so subscribers do not run the risk of not having enough selection during the summer months. Although SPCO presents concerts in ten venues across the Twin Cities, there is no summer season and its typical season has 100 concerts. This is the biggest issue for any performing arts organization considering the Netflix model. Unless an organization has a large and diverse selection of productions or partners with other arts organizations to increase its offerings, the value proposition just isn’t strong enough. Netflix’s model hinges on its inventory – even now, one reason Netflix is struggling because its streaming business does not have as large a selection of new movies as its DVD business.

Lastly, targeted marketing and compelling pricing is necessary when adopting a membership program. The ACT Pass had a very clever marketing campaign, including videos, clear pricing, and purchase channels. The ACT Pass is listed separately across the top navigation of the webpage, and you can start ordering online with one click. Although not too difficult to find, the SPCO’s membership is listed under “Concerts & Tickets”, and you can purchase online, after clicking through 2 or 3 pages. I did find a zinger in the SPCO model  – you have to keep with the program for a year or accept a $50 cancellation fee. The ACT Pass only requires that you stay on 3 months. This latter approach is in better alignment with the commitment-phobes who are likely attracted to this program in the first place.

After years of working to expand audiences, it turns out that performing arts organizations’ problem is not with attracting new people; it’s getting them to come back. The membership model can be part of a retention strategy for certain performing arts organizations with a wide selection of offerings and excess seat capacity. Regarding the SPCO, it’s likely their program will increase attendance by loyal audiences, but I’m not convinced the new pricing structure or marketing messages are going to broaden their audiences as they claim. Even so, if the program does increase loyalty of current audiences and increase attendance, it will send a strong message to other orchestras that this model is worth trying out.

Alan Brown and Rebecca Ratzkin in a recent report, Making Sense of Audience Engagement, define audience engagement as:

A guiding philosophy in the creation and delivery of arts experiences in which the paramount concern is maximizing impact on the participant.  Others refer to this vein of work as “enrichment program­ming” or “adult education.”

In their view, an audience engagement philosophy:

• Encourages each audience member to be a co-creator of meaning
• Respects the many pathways that people take through the art form
• Appreciates that not everyone relates to art on an intellectual basis
• Integrates ‘engagement thinking’ into artistic planning
• Values audience feedback as a means of engagement

As Richard Evans notes in his response to Michael Kaiser’s blog, many who are truly entrenched and committed to audience engagement do not even use the term. They “describe the pursuit of broader reciprocal relationships with community members – expressive relationships created through, and embodied in, art.”

This notion is reflected in Nina Simon’s book The Participatory Museum, which is all about audience engagement, yet doesn’t regularly use the term (if at all):

I define a participatory cultural institution as a place where visitors can create, share, and connect with each other around content. Create means that visitors contribute their own ideas, objects, and creative expression to the institution and to each other. Share means that people discuss, take home, remix, and redistribute both what they see and what they make during their visit. Connect means that visitors socialize with other people—staff and visitors—who share their particular interests.

So if audience engagement is about utilizing the work of art to facilitate authentic, personally-relevant connections with others and the work of art itself, it seems we have an army of individuals waiting in the wings to be asked to the party. Teaching artists, still frighteningly in the margins of our quest to reinvent arts institutions, are experts in audience engagement. They do the following things exceedingly well:

• Teach cognitive skills needed to think artistically and creatively
• Teach aesthetic education, or the ability to make sense of art, not skills-based art-making
• Understand how to create questions and activities that are relevant to diverse ages and levels of arts education
• Work across the community, from performing and presenting works for discerning adult audiences as well as in schools in rural and low-income neighborhoods
• Understand that what they do is spiritual in nature, and help create a link to individuals’ higher selves.

This is a distinct discipline from learning one’s art form to produce finished works of art. A teaching artist is not just an artist or an art teacher; they study and are inherently interested in how others experience art. They are able to craft lesson plans, events, and performances that help facilitate deeper intrinsically-motivated experiences for all types of audiences.

Historically, teaching artists have been relegated to education departments across the nation. In Eric Booth’s The History of Teaching Artistry, the “first national marker of (a) teaching artist commitment was the 1970 launch of a modest Artists-in-Schools Program at the recently established National Endowment for the Arts.” Since then, educational departments and professional development for artists working in public schools have grown tremendously. There is now a generation or two of experienced, highly-professionalized teaching artists who are clawing their way into artistic conversations at large institutions and creating their own non–profits to work with adult audiences.

Programs such as Carnegie Hall’s songwriting program for homeless shelters, led by master teaching artist and composer Tom Cabaniss, are rich with experiences for participants that deepen their relationship with music and each other. (It’s not surprising that Sarah Johnson, director of the Weill Music Institute at Carnegie Hall, began her career as a teaching artist.) Classical Jam, a young ensemble led by NY Philharmonic teaching artist Wendy Law, performs orchestral works with the audience as performer – in this video the connection between the school audience and performers during the performance is palpable.

The point here is not that teaching artist work exists – it certainly does and has been around for at least a couple of decades. The point is that teaching artists can offer the kind of thinking needed for core artistic decisions and even market strategy to help develop truly innovative programming. Designing the experience with a work of art is now as important as the work of art itself, and we need new kinds of talent making key decisions if arts organizations are to survive.

In August, the Seanse Art Center in Oslo, Norway will hold The World’s First International Teaching Artist Conference. With teaching artists from all over the world convening to discuss this still-emerging discipline, I am eager to see how they view teaching artists’ role in the equally adolescent field of audience engagement.

Already on Andersen Cooper’s Rediculist, this social experiment could go south pretty quickly. Sales pitches and one-liners could have you writhing in your seat in minutes. Beyond all the normal pitfalls of online dating services such as inaccurate profiles and stalkers, the real question is, do we want to be more connected on airplanes?  Is there no peace and quiet to be found even on an airplane?  Personally, I’m not so sure I want to eavesdrop on a first date for three hours.

Photo credit: Daquella Manera

What about the implications of this new seating option for performing arts organizations?  Putting operational logistics and financial barriers aside for the moment, would this be good for audiences? Perhaps a blessing in a blind-date situation, audiences can only talk at very select times, which could actually work to participants’ advantage.  If the conversation is going nowhere, no need to pull out headphones or a book – the performance will start shortly.  Of course, there still could be some awkwardness if one person is engaged while the other is feeling quite cold about the encounter.

Moving away from the speed dating idea, using a social seating tool to meet new friends with similar interests and backgrounds may be a better approach.  Arts organizations are getting better at segmenting their audience and can help shape specific questions to connect “social serenity seekers” or “cultural omnivores.”  Furthermore, it might be possible to utilize this personal information (with the appropriate permissions) to shape new programs and connect with audiences online.

Regarding feasibility, there would be some significant operational roadblocks.  Matching participants at different price points is clearly a challenge.  Would ticket buyers first choose where they want to sit and then choose a seatmate, or could they browse all program participants’ profiles and opt into a higher price point just to meet Ms. Interesting? Furthermore, matching subscribers and non-subscribers would be challenging as well, but this could become a value proposition.  Subscribers could choose who they sit next to over the course of the season, thereby developing new friendships in the community and strengthening their relationship to the arts organization.

The real question is – do we want to meet the person sitting next to us at an arts event?  My guess is specific audiences would enjoy exchanging niceties and hearing a little bit about neighbors’ post-event musings if given the opportunity.  Attending an arts performance is an inherently communal experience, and enabling those who desire to connect with others could be transformative for the industry.  Because audiences are attending for a common purpose – to hear or see a work of art – this idea is perhaps even more relevant for arts organizations than it is for airlines. Now, if we could choose who is sitting behind us to keep from overhearing candy wrappers and Aunt Susie’s back problems, we truly would be in business.