Are the Arts “a biggie” for Next Gen Audiences in Indiana?

Comment

Comment by Andrew Ball on February 24, 2008 at 12:13pm

I'm not as prolific a writer as you are, so I thank you for expounding on the concept.

Comment by Dan Adkins on February 24, 2008 at 9:16am

Hi, folks. It's an interesting question and one that is being asked across the country in one form or another. I think Andrew is so accurate in asking how we define art. However, I also think that there are certain art forms that have been represented in Western society for hundreds of years and will probably remain. Then, there are new forms of the same general type of art that have forged their way into our society and culture. And there are new types of art that are being conceptualized and presented throughout our culture.

Traditional art historically changes. Some changes are in style - from the dark ages to the renaissance, stylistic changes across art forms was pretty dramatic, some are in extension - classical music was extended into jazz and pop and rock, some are in total evolution to a new art that supplants the old art - I'm not sure, but architecture might be an example of that (building codes and new materials turning that art form into more of a functional form with totally different materials and goals).

Then the question really seems to be, "Are the more traditional arts important to the next generation audience in Indiana?" The answer will be recognized only after we're long gone, but the arts certainly seem to thrive in this broad community. There is still a symphony, there are art galleries, theatres, sculptures and performances of many types.

Many of the more traditional performing arts haven't done a great job of recruiting youth audiences. They haven't introduced their art forms very well to upcoming generations and, as a result, audiences have gotten smaller. Historically, art forms have thrived because they have appealed to their markets. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel because he thought it would be a good idea, he painted it because the pope thought it would be a good idea and virtually forced the work. Art patrons in earlier centuries were the wealthy and artists still had to appeal to them to be in favor.

Today, art has become more affordable, but many popular performing arts are not as available to younger audiences, but are there for a more affluent crowd. Why? Because that's who pays the bills. Some efforts are made to appeal to the youth market, but it's costly and doesn't usually generate cash. While I can go to the theater to see a touring Broadway show for $25 or $30 for the cheap seats, I can go to the Music Mill and see a touring act for considerably less. On a young person's budget, that's more appealing and there will be a better relationship with that music than they will with the opera, symphony or any theater in town.

It's a difficult dilemma, but there are many ways that performing arts could be more pro-active in appealing to a younger audience. The same can probably be said of other art forms. It's difficult for a gallery to appeal to youth when prices of art are geared toward a higher income crowd.

Exposure early on is the key. Enthusiasm is generated by doing and seeing/hearing experts do and that can be accomplished on some level in schools and youth organizations. Offering opportunities for elementary through college students to see things that might appeal to them, having someone dynamic help them to understand it and taking it out to them are ways to capture the imagination and interest of those audiences forever. It's happening too few times with traditional art forms, but newer art forms are finding a way to make that work.

Comment by Andrew Ball on February 22, 2008 at 1:11pm

So how do you define "Art"? I think it evolves with the audience. My parents go to the symphony, opera, ballet, stuffy art museums. I prefer performance art such as a live bronze pour or a night time iron pour. Or pieces you can walk through and around instead of looking at in the 2 dimensional world of the flat painting - not that there is anything wrong with paintings - the walls of my home are covered with them. I prefer to create the art through sculpture or watch a live performance at the Phoenix.

There's a group working on trying to create a day long event on the Market Street Ramp with muralists, music, food, etc. before it is torn down. Some of us are talking about acquiring some of the bridge steel to make a large sculpture. To us this is art. For some of my local friends who are "old school" and very conservative, they think of it as graffiti, loud noise and threatening to their organized peaceful lives.

Art evolves with its audience and the same would apply to how it is "marketed". But to answer your real question of "Are the Arts something that is important to the Next Gen Audience in Indiana?" I would say YES!!! it just depends on how you define it and will you recognize it as "art" in the same way that the audience sees it. To paraphrase someone else: Art is in the eye of the beholder.