Without the real promotion of arts in college, will society replenish the shrinking, “graying audience?”

A recent article from the Boston Globe excerpted “Patronizing the Arts,” a new book by Marjorie Garber, chair of the department of visual and environmental studies at Harvard University, and director of the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts. In her book, Garber asked if we should push for a higher level of arts patronage

from colleges.

On the same day, an article from the Los Angeles Times talked about the idea that performing arts patrons represent a “graying audience,” an audience that is old, and dying off.

These writers from different coasts address different topics; but together, I think they present one issue.

Graying Audience for Performing Arts

The National Endowment for the Arts reported that the average age of those attending a classical music performance in 2002 was 49, up from an average age of 40 in 1982. This trend is repeated in ballet audiences. In 2000, the average age of the Pacific Northwest Ballet’s season ticket holder was 55 years old, up from 53 years old at the last survey, less than a decade earlier. [1. What Arts Organizations Are Doing to Attract Younger Patrons, by Mary E. Medland. "Philanthropy Careers." April 22, 2002.]

The Los Angeles Times article offered explanations for the “graying audience” phenomenon. For one thing, the average age in the US population has increased. Also, older people can devote more time, money, and attention to performing arts, while younger people must attend to education, careers, and children. But still, data suggests that the age of audiences is still increasing faster than the age of the general population.

Even if we can name some causes for the the “graying audience” phenomenon, it’s still critical for arts organizations to reach younger people. And Jesse Rosen, executive vice president of the League of American Orchestras, told the Los Angeles Times that as we reach out to younger audiences, we have to realize that audience expectations are changing.

“We did some research five or six years ago about audience motivation that showed that today people come to a concert to be moved in some spiritual sense.” He added that patrons want to find “something that is very human and personal that connects with them… the experience of being touched by live performance.”

Rosen recalled a story about the Boston Symphony: “that up until the 1960s, they would send out a letter listing their repertoire, and, based on that, they sold out their series — that was all that was necessary.” But, new audiences aren’t attracted in the same way.

So, how do arts organizations discover the secret to attracting new audiences? And, is the potential audience really interested?

Arts in the University -vs- University Arts Programs

Art won’t evolve without support: this is one of the arguments for university involvement in the arts.

And the quality of support is key.

“The idea,” the Boston Globe article read, “that universities should house makers of art is as reasonable, natural, and logical as the idea that the university should contain and nurture other makers: engineers, or chemists, or applied mathematicians. And like those other makers, artists, no matter what arts they practice,

need space, materials, training, and assessment, as well as a tolerance of imagination, ‘genius,’ stubborn dedication, or eccentricity.”

This type of support is what arts organizations need so that they can develop pieces that will attract new audiences, the type of audiences that don’t line up for the traditional repertoire.

One of the problems in the way colleges treat arts is that they often give arts curricula less attention than they give traditional academic curricula, in programs like math, science, or engineering. Many schools advertise their dance, theater, or music programs as added bonuses, not as main attractions.

Garber introduces this call to elevate the arts curricula, and she admits that advancements will require real change within universities. Along with funding the programs and creating facilities, Garber says that the change “would mean building instructional staffs with the rank and clout of professors…rather than largely adjuncts or visitors. And it would mean having the institutional confidence to assess creative work as work: admirable, difficult, challenging, controversial, field-changing.”

Symptom and Source

Does the unbalanced treatment of arts and academics reflect the demands of students, who just aren’t into ballet and opera? Or, has this imbalance created a young audience that is disconnected from the arts? It’s difficult to say–but I think a relationship exists.

Of course, you can argue that in the past centuries, people just knew the value in arts like ballet. But, as Rosen pointed out, we have so many entertainment choices today, and attending a ballet takes more effort than renting a movie. The ability to choose the most valuable entertainment, instead of the easiest entertainment: colleges can teach this to students while they give artists the means to develop their art.

Photo Sources:

• by Jaako on Flickr
• by Soon. on Flickr
• by rachellake on Flickr