The Creative Audience: The Collaboritive Role of the Audience in the Creation of Visual and Performing Arts

Reivention

INTRODUCTION

When I first thought about writing this book, it was an attempt to answer a question about the creative process. I wanted to explore whether it mattered or not if a work of art, once completed, is experienced by an audience? When a painting or a sculpture is created, do they not really exist as a work of art until the moment they are perceived by an audience? While this may sound like an imponderable question, it really goes to the heart of the creative process. The act creating is in itself not enough. In order to be complete, an artistic work should be perceived and reacted to by an audience. Without that, the creative endeavor lives within a cosmic vacuum wrapped inside the artist’s imagination. However, the real purpose here is not to explore the validity of whether a work of art exists without being perceived. I will leave that argument to the philosophers. I want to explore the creative process and the audience’s passive or active role in it. This question can be framed within two different perspectives. The first, the micro point of view of the individual artist and secondly the macro point of view of the audience which experiences the work. Let’s look at the artist (micro) point of view first.

Who is an artist anyway? At some point in all of our lives, we have undertaken creative endeavors which required our imagination implemented through inert or acquired skills. But does that factor alone, constitute calling ourselves an artist? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines an artist as:

One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.

A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill.

One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.

One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.

This definition covers the entire spectrum of individuals who could create a painting, a sculpture, write a play, make a movie or film their own television show. But there’s something else – going on here – the term aesthetic value. This is really a moving target. Aesthetic value is composed of one or more criteria which determine whether or not what is created is considered a work of art. What are those criteria? This is the moving target because they are a complex set of rational values determined by what is acceptable or not acceptable within our culture at this particular moment in time. That means that the final creative product undertaken should have some connection to the underlying idea which inspired its conception and that that idea is appropriate at the time it is presented. But who determines what is appropriate at any given moment in time? Is appropriateness relegated to society, an artist, professional critics or a particular audience or all of them? The ancient Romans had the capability of slaying up to five thousand animals in one day at the Coliseum for the purpose of entertainmening the masses. This spectacular presentation was considered appropriate during that period of time but would invite the wrath of animal activists if such an event would occur today. So what has changed between the first century AD and now? First of all, the audience has changed and with it the value system that sets the parameters of what is and what is not acceptable as art. If five thousand animals were slaughtered today as part of a Super Bowl half time entertainment, the network carrying the broadcast would have to face the onslaught of public indignation and fines from the FCC. However, the irony is that the same modern culture that vehemently opposes the mistreatment of animals thinks nothing about the extreme levels of violence presented to audiences every night on prime time television. Secondly, the technology by which an audience is delivered a work of art has changed.

We no longer have to sit in a large arena to experience the event. We can receive through a continually growing array of delivery systems including live presentations, movie screens, billboards, hi definition televisions, smart phones and pad devices. In addition we no longer have to experience the event collectively as one present audience but rather we can access what is presented at any time and any location as a solitary unit. Our social and cultural values are also constantly evolving based upon any number of factors including social trends, historical events, econmic conditions and cultural evolution. All of these elements and more can have an affect on an audience’s view of a particular work of art. Social trends can include the way we act or dress in relationship to a creative stimulus. In the early 1960’s men all over the world grew the hair longer to emulate the hot new rock band called THE BEATLES. The hair style was even called the Beatle cut. Historical events like the manned landing on the moon, the end of the cold war or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 can have a major impact on audience belief systems and behavior. Economic conditions, while they may seem to have only periferal influence, can influence the subject matter and audience view of a partiuclar work. In the 1930’s during the Great Depression audience’s flocked by the millions to attend Busby Berkley musicals which were light hearted frivoulous comedies featuring wealthy characters. Audiences of the day, sought to escape (if even for two hours) the hardship of the Depression times they lived in. Cultural evolution can also play a part in determining what is appropriate for an audience. As America has served as a melting pot of almost every culture on earth, the composition of audiences and what they deem to be appropriate is filtered through their particular ethnic base. For example, the United States in the last decade has seen almost explosive growth in the number of Spanish speaking radio and television outlets. The programming presented by these Spanish speaking outlets and the values represented are rooted directly in these ethnic cultures and have no base to American culture. So what may or may not be appropriate for a particular audience is truly a moving target which changes with the tastes and values of society. What about us as individuals, are we artists?

We have all made things for purely creative purposes from time to time. Then, should we consider ourselves artists? When I was in fifth grade, I carved a very authentic looking six inch high giraffe out of a bar of brown soap. I painted the figure yellow and put lots of spots on it and can remember being very pleased that I was able to turn a brown rectangle bar of smelly brown soap into a recognizable and elegant creature. I imagined my creation slowly lumbering across the Serengeti nibbling leaves off the tops of trees as the sun set slowly behind the hills. My giraffe was exhibited in a cabinet at the entrance of my school and was universally praised by my teacher and fellow classmates. But I’m not planning to see my soap giraffe displayed at the Museum of Modern Art any time soon. Because it just doesn’t fit the definition. My teacher gave us an assignment: Create something out of a bar of soap. That was it. There was no concept intended when I started other than trying to do what she had asked. I started carving away with my safety knife and the soap bar slowly gave way as the figure just emerged out of the block. It could have just as easily been a tiger, a dog or cat. I think the bar of soap became a giraffe because I stood it upright and it was long. Out of the natural long shape of the bar, the slender neck evolved. After that, the rest was just following the dynamic which evolved naturally out of the shape of the bar of soap. That was it. The creation of my giraffe was the product of a school assignment not the creation of an artist. The creation I made out of the bar of soap was more an accident of fate than a planned execution of an imaginative inspiration. We all at some point in our youth have also have performed in school plays and holiday pageants playing anything from goats and lambs sitting in the manger to toad stools. Having played those roles, we don’t call ourselves actors. Why? The same aesthetic value rules apply. The role that we played in the holiday pageant is framed within the reality of a community based educational presentation rather than a true artistic work. There is no artistic vision which when employed reveals a particular point of view to the audience. We will discuss what a work of art is later in this book. A soap bar giraffe, school play or holiday pageant are not works of art in the true sense because they are not created by an artist capable of infusing the work of art with aesthetic value. The same applies to natural phenomena as found in nature or made by other creatures. A sunset may be beautiful but it is not a work of art because there is not the inspiration or thought of an artist behind its creation. It’s the same reason my Chihuahua’s paw prints making a pattern on a canvass are not a work of art. Although my Chihuahua is very intelligent and is capable of communicating complex thoughts such as: get up and take me out or I’m hungry she doesn’t, as least as far as I am aware, ponder her own existence or the nature of the universe. This is a function which so far is reserved to mankind and in the creative arena, to an artist – and it all starts with an intellectual idea, a feeling or a physical reaction to stimuli.

The smaller question, then, is from the artist’s point of view. I have this intellectual idea or feeling to create a painting, a sculpture, a play and movie a television show.Do I just do it because it’s a wonderful concept and I am compelled to do it or should I test the waters first to see if there is any interest in it? For artists such as painters, sculptors, and writers this is not a deterrent because they can work individually within their own dynamic. The painter can put up a blank canvass and begin to paint. The sculptor can get a block of stone and carve away. The writer can put ideas on a sheet of paper or word processor. On the other hand, the collaborative artist has a more difficult time. The creation of theatre, film and television require the participation of many people who contribute their particular expertise to an entire work. Each member creates a portion of the piece. The script, lighting, set design, use of music, acting, directing, cinematography, editing and sound. Because of the complex nature of this creative process, the ultimate product which is presented to an audience requires some sort of financial investment. This is not to say that you can’t write a play and put it on in your living room make a short film using a home camera. However, unless your endeavor is a one person operation, you’re going to need writers, actors, lighting people, costumers, set designers and others to fully assemble the parts of your creation. This is all before one single audience member has arrived. I always, held the belief that all modern artists, even the non collaborative arts have a difficult time creating today because of the financial requirements of production. But I am sure even the greats like Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Shakespeare had to rely upon willing patrons to support their efforts such as Popes, wealthy merchant families or members of nobility in order for them to create their works. Also, that such patronage, by its very nature, had a direct influence upon the type and nature of the work that was created. For example, when Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for Pope Julius II, he only did so under great distress and pressure from his patron. Yet within that framework, Michelangelo was able to create a masterpiece which still speaks to audiences today. Shakespeare, in his time, also had to create at the pleasure of the Master of Revels, to a certain extent his audiences and ultimately Queen Elizabeth. So, while many say that all art today" is beholden to commercial interests and therefore lacks any substance. The argument can be made that really, not much has changed from a creative standpoint. What has changed though is the who which brings us to the macro point of view of the audience.

The cultural fiber of Western society has been altered significantly since Michelangelo’s time. Western culture, once agrarian, has evolved to an urban society connected by fiber optic cable, high speed internet and sattelite communication. In addition, the widespread use of technology has created a socio political evolution which has empowered mass audiences in determining what is created commerically. Artists are no longer beholdant to an omnipotent church, a wealthy merchant class or authoritative nobility. These sources of societal, political and creative influence are no longer the driving factor in determining what type of art is created or not created in contemporary society. In fact, in the case of the omnipotent church, when the Passion of Christ was banned by the Pope in Rome, the box office numbers went up. This is not to say that government does not have some influence over the content of certain art forms and imposes rating standards for what is acceptable. Modern technology has also played a vital role in developing an endless variety of delivery systems and media which make creative works available to large mass audiences virtually twenty four hours a day at will. When this is looked upon in comparison to the availability of artistic works from any previous period in Western history (including the Renaissance), the 21st Century appears to be the forefront of a cultural revolution as significant as the invention of the wheel. The theory behind this revolution is that through an amazing array of new technologies introduced at a dazzling pace to consumers, audiences will posses more choice and power then they have had in the history of mankind. In short, a college student, homemaker, business man or truck driver living in this time period has more audience power available to them than Pope Julius II, Queen Elizabeth and the entire Medici family had in their period. If technology is mode of delivery, what is the driving force behind this mass audience? The answer is buying power and all its manifestations including box office sales, gallery receipts, book sales, advertising revenue, television ratings and by extension ancillary revenue derived from remake/sequels, commercial tie-ins, merchandising and product placement. The audience, armed with the power to purchase goods, services and programming, has been empowered by the creative community to determine what type of art is created and how (by what method) it is created. This on its face value may appear to be very proletariat allowing audiences the sole power to determine the creative product we all experience. However, it doesn’t take into consideration the influence of corporate consolidation, mass commercialism, cultural sensationalism and the disintegration of the creative process itself in favor of conformity or simple deference to what is the most popular. On its face, it would seem that modern audiences have more power to choose than their Renaissance counterparts because they possess more variety and creative output through a multitude of delivery systems. However, they really are only experiencing a fraction of what is or could be created. Why? Most of what they experience is presented to them within a framework of repetition and duplication. It’s not by accident that once a film or television show is found to be successful what follows are