September 8, 2006

Multimedia Guide to Bartók Quartets

On the Bank of America Celebrity Blog, I came across a post, "Digging Bartók with the Emerson Quartet," that describes a multimedia guide to the string quartets of Bela Bartók. I highly recommend that you access this interactive multimedia resource on the Carnegie Hall website.

I'm very intrigued by multimedia guides for the arts that give both audiences and artists a richer means of learning about performances that they are about to see or have just seen. It would be great to see this type of in-depth coverage for dance performances.

Here's an overview of what you'll find in "The Emerson String Quartet: The Bartók Quartets - A Guide for Performers & Music Lovers":

From the opening page of this Flash-based presentation, you can access video overviews for each of the six Bela Bartók string quartets:

Here's an example of one of the video guides:

For me, the most intriguing element of this guide is the section where you can watch video of rehearsals to see how The Emerson String Quartet goes about the process analyzing the score and rehearsing each of the quartets. Plus, ass the music is played, the appropriate portion of the scrore is highlighted. (By the way, to access this section, start by accessing the video for any of the quartets. Once you are watching this video, click on the "Continue" button on the bottom right of the video.):

My question is how could you take this concept and create viewer guides for dance?

Posted by Doug Fox at 9:54 AM - Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

September 6, 2006

Rethinking Art Reviews and New Marketing Approaches - Part II

This is part two of the post I started yesterday with the same title.

I closed yesterday with a few thoughts about the uproar that resulted from theater critic Hedy Weiss' review of Stages 2006 Marathon, a showcase of new musicals that are in the development stages, which took place in mid August in Chicago. I'd like to elaborate on these thoughts in this post:

1) The amount of energy generated by this issue is excessive and unwarranted.

I think that theater, dance companies and other performing arts groups place to much weight on reviews of their works in local newspapers. The marketing landscape has changed and reviews in publications are just one of a number of avenues for promoting upcoming performances.

My guess is that many within the theater community are motivated to speak out on this issue because they are wedded to the notion that art critics still play as important a role as they used to. I'm actually not commenting one way or another about the quality of reviews. I'm just pointing out that the role of the critic emerged with mass circulation newspapers throughout the 20th century. And as more corporations, especially consumer companies, increased the size of their advertising budgets, newspapers could afford to hire critics to review local performance. Over time, art critics became a primary intermediary through which prospective audiences learned about performances and decided which ones to see.

But with the rise of the commercial Internet in about 1995 or 1996, the landscape started to shift. Newspapers have lost readers and advertisers, and audiences can learn about upcoming performances through many more online and offline channels than previously. The end result is that theater and dance critics have been partially disintermediated - they no longer play as important a role as intermediaries as they used to. So while many performing arts critics continue to characterize themselves as audience representatives, this is only partially true - they can now be more easily bypassed as theater-goers access audience reviews and information about these performances through other channels.

So when I read the many emails sent in support of John Weidman's (president of the Dramatists Guild of America) strong criticism of Hedy Weiss' reviews of work in progress, my reaction was that this anger is misplaced. I can't read anybody's mind, but my hunch is that many of these letters, some written by leading playwrights, spring from a 20th century notion that art critics still play an essential role as intermediaries and that their reviews are disproportionately important in influencing how audiences spend their entertainment dollars.

I'm going to skip over my second and third points from yesterday because I pretty much addressed them above. So jumping to point four:

4) It would be immensely helpful for some artists (those who are inclined) to explore new avenues for exposing their works in progress to the general public in order to receive constructive criticism during these early or middle stages of the creative process. And this effort of sharing the creative process - even with all the potential downsides - will help build a loyal audience as well.

What really struck me were two paragraphs in John Weidman's letter to the editor that harshly condemns Weiss' review:

Ms. Weiss’s decision to review these eight shows at this early stage in their development, in violation of the express wishes of the theatre, was a shocking and irresponsible betrayal of one of the fundamental understandings which makes the creation of new work possible.

These musicals were presented in workshop. Every musical in workshop is understood to be a work in progress. Workshopping a new musical provides an opportunity for writers to evaluate their work as it evolves, protected from the consequences of critical appraisal. This security allows writers to take chances, to be bold, maybe even to embarrass them­selves—in short, to do their work.

I'm putting aside Weidman's claim that Weiss was expressly told not to write reviews about these works in progress - this claim appears to be inaccurate since Weiss was given a press release and pictures for publication.

What I'd like to focus on is what appears to be a sacrosanct notion that theatrical works in progress should not receive "critical appraisal." As with outdated notions about the importance of critics, the premise that public criticism of works in progress poses a dangerous threat to artists is equally antiquated. I would like to propose the exact opposite: Artists can benefit in many wonderful ways if they are willing to share works in progress with as large an audience as possible consisting of both critics and art enthusiasts.

Here is what I think is a wonderful example of what happens when a writer intentionally makes a work in progress accessible to a large audience. Greg Sandow writes a Blog, The Future of Classical Music? One of his online projects is a book that he is writting about, as you might imagine, the future prospects of classical music. As he writes each chapter, he posts it to his blog. Each chapter is clearly in unperfected form and Sandow's primary objective is to seek feedback from readers. You'll see at the bottom of each chapter there is a lot of great feedback. And Sandow follows-up the comments with his thoughts. By not thinking that he has to present only a finished, perfected product to his audience, Sandow creates new possibilities for interaction with his audience - likely buyers of his future book by the way - that did not exist before. In addition, he gets on-going, free feedback from a diverse audience to help him think through each section of his book. So he is clearly being presented with ideas and perspectives that he might not have considered if he wrote his book in isolation.

Another example is the TV show Project Runway that consists of up-and-comming fashion designers competing against each other on a weekly basis. What I like about this show is that you get some insight to the creative process at work. You go from watching designers sketch out their initial idea, design their outfit and make alterations, and then see the finished garment on the runway. The underlying premise behind this show - and other reality shows - is that what leads up to the finished garment or performance is equally as important as the finished garment or performance itself.

So what I'm recommending is that artists discard some of the notions that they hold close to their hearts. It is not always necessary to show a perfected work to an audience. In many cases, there are important advantages to exposing a work in progress with all its weaknesses and blemishes. Audiences - in the Internet age - are more interested in participating in feedback and creation than focusing on just your final, perfect work.

Then, consider this sentence from John Weidman's letter that I quoted above:

This security [of not being subjected to public scrutiny] allows writers to take chances, to be bold, maybe even to embarrass them­selves—in short, to do their work.

I understand Weidman's point of view, but, as I've explained above, this is just one perspective and not the only acceptable or meaningful approach to creativity. As I think my example of Sandow's online book in progress shows, the act of making a work accessible to the public as it is being developed does not by definition mean that a writer will embarrass themselves or that they will not be able "do their work."

So, here's where I'm going with this:

1) I think that an excessive focus on the importance of art critics distracts artists from considering ways to communicate directly with their current and future audiences.

2) I think that too much emphasis is placed in the notion of perfection and that many artists would benefit by allowing professional critics and audiences at-large to examine and critique a work throughout the creative process. And,

3) I think that dancers, actors, choreographers, playwrights and others should explore different models - often with an online component - of enabling their audiences to offer constructive criticism and feedback throughout the entire creative process. By taking this approach, audiences have an important stake in your creative work, artists receive unfiltered and helpful feedback, and the actual performance is likely to be attended by larger audiences who feel a stronger connection to your work because they had an opportunity to contribute.

Posted by Doug Fox at 10:15 AM - Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

September 5, 2006

Rethinking Art Reviews and New Marketing Approaches

I'm back from a month of no blogging. Hope everybody enjoyed the summer.

I don't think that there is any question that the traditional role of art critic is changing - often disappearing. Large-circulation publications (print and web) are running fewer music, theater and dance reviews. Just to reinforce this point, in the September 1st issue of the New York Times a story ran with the following title: "Village Voice Dismisses 8, Including Senior Arts Editors" -- clearly self-explanatory.

While the number of art reviews has been cut, artists and the arts community at-large seem more intent then ever to ensure that the reviews that are run serve their marketing and creative objectives.

Here's an intriguing story that erupted because artists, in this case playwrights, didn't like how their works in progress were reviewed. After I provide some background and links for this story, I'll offer my thoughts about why this battle over how a theater critic should or should not go about writing a review is misguided.

To the story:

The Stages 2006 Marathon, a showcase of new musicals that are in the development stage, took place August 11-13th at the Theatre Building Chicago, an "incubator for emerging theatre companies." On August 16th, Chicago Sun-Times theater critic Hedy Weiss wrote a review, "Stages' Eight Musicals Show Serious Flaws." An uproar followed.

The main criticism directed at Hedy Weiss is that she should not have written the review of works that were clearly in progress. (Read about story in New York Times and Orlando Sentinel.)

It's also worth reading the letters to the editor that were run after Weiss' August 16th review. Weiss offers her response to the criticism at the bottom of this page of reader letters. After reading the letters and Weiss' response I lean toward supporting Weiss' side of the story.

But the story gets even more heated. John Weidman, president of the Dramatists Guild of America, adds his voice in a letter to the editor that is harshly critical of Weiss' review. Plus 22 members of the Guild wrote letters as well expressing their dismay.

A Few Thoughts:

1) The amount of energy generated by this issue is excessive and unwarranted.

2) Artists and the arts community put too much weight in the marketing value of reviews in publications that run after the fact - after the curtain has already come down.

3) Many people within the arts community are making too many unexamined assumptions about how art goers make decisions about attending performances. And,

4) It would be immensely helpful for some artists (those who are inclined) to explore new avenues for exposing their works in progress to the general public in order to receive constructive criticism during these early or middle stages of the creative process. And this effort of sharing the creative process - even with all the potential downsides - will help build a loyal audience as well.

This post is getting a little longer than I intended. I'll elaborate on these four points in my next post - probably by tomorrow morning.

Posted by Doug Fox at 11:45 AM - Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)