What do audiences want?

Hey Katherine,

I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts and the subsequent debates that ensue. At times I admit to feeling a little saddened by the priorities of the debate from replied comments but with this question you've brilliantly brought it back on track; back to the audience.

You are excellent.

So, to answer: I have been pondering your question for a while and I think it comes down to an ontological state of being for the protagonist and the audience.

I know that sounds a little tossy - so in a less tossy way what I want as an audience member is a clear journey for the protagonist - a change that they and therefore the audience/me goes through.

With this in mind, a clear objective for the protagonist needs to be stated so the story will know what obstacles it needs to challenge the protagonist/audience/me.

Finally, as an audience member, I need to feel in safe hands from the writer from the outset. The clearest way of achieving this for me is for the work to be clear in its exposition - the information the audience needs to know to understand the story.

So often I read/see work that tries to be clever or hasn't given me the information I need to know to understand that story. Therefore as an audience member I get lost, give up, go home or go to sleep.

Very keen to hear other's thoughts on this key question.

Ta KLW - love to the family.

Here's and interesting discussion happening in the UK about this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2009/feb/20/theatre-audience

Thank you for this forum, Katherine.

I'm posting my idea here as well as on "to post or not to post," because it seems relevant, being about audiences. Apologies for the redundancy if you're reading that thread too.

In a nutshell, here's my idea:
Funding from diverse sources equals DIVERSITY in the arts
equals a broader audience base overall
equals a higher community value placed on theatre and other arts
equals motivation for funding sources to continue to fund.

There were a few things that struck me about Brisbane when I first moved here:

- There is a lack of corporate and foundation GIVING (as apposed to sponsorship, which is usually dollar-for-dollar). There isn't yet a culture of philanthropy, which means that government alone has to bear the burden of funding the Arts, an impossible task. Companies are bitchy and unsupportive of each other because they are all in desperate competition for the same pie, effectively the only pie.

- Government-sponsored art is generally safe and lacks diversity. The government wants a return on its investment, so there is little or no risk-taking. Taxpayers also don't like edgy, failure-prone work to be funded with their money. No risk means the state-of-the-art doesn't move forwards.

- There is a huge divide between the big and small players, with very few medium-sized companies. Therefore the community sees the arts as being either Art with a capital A - housed in the big cement buildings in South Brisbane - or amateurish and not worth finding parking for unless created by friends and family as Tibor says in the "what about the actors?" blog (my experience as well). The design values of small companies are shoe-string, which means audiences often equate 'small' with 'amateur,' simply because small unfunded companies can't provide decent sets or costumes.

- If small companies that can't get funding don't have quality tech or stage management support, it makes shows unpleasant and too much work for the actors, never mind the lack of pay. I'm not against actors doing non-acting work, I'm against actors being stretched to the limit and required to do things they aren't qualified or trained to do, for nothing; but then in small theatre, who will do it if they don't?

- Maybe because of this, there are commitment issues among some actors here (not all, obviously) Brisbane was the first place I'd ever performed where actors would constantly turn up late to rehearsals, or where I ever knew an actor to leave a show, one time a week before opening. Hard to do a decent production under these conditions.

I spent most of my acting career in Minneapolis (a city about a 3rd of the size in terms of population). Minneapolis has a diverse arts community and supposedly more theatres per capita than New York. When I left I was making about 90% of my income from acting (not teaching acting, not arts admin but ACTING), and had been doing so for about three years. Many, many of my friends were also making a good portion if not all of their livings from acting. None of us were rich, but we were paying our bills on time and eating and driving our own cars.

Prior to this time I was a grant-writer there for a few years, which has given me perspective on the differences in the funding climate from Brisbane.

In Minneapolis/St. Paul there was: a deaf theatre; an African-American theater; and Asian theater; a Jewish theatre; a puppet theatre; a theater in a bowling alley; the nationally-recognised Children's Theater; several gay/lesbian theaters/producers; a number of avant-guard theaters, dance theaters and physical theater companies; the big, well funded, nationally-recognised Guthrie Theater; and many commercial theatres catering to a diversity of audiences, but still using local talent. And that's just what I can remember. So you didn't need to like Theatre with a capital T, you just needed to like whatever kind of theatre you happened to like, for whatever reason.

This diversity was only possible because different corporations and foundations funded specific kinds of theatre, according to their specific funding priorities. Individual donors would happily add their $10-$10,000 gifts to theatres the corporations and foundations were funding. Some of these theatres could take big risks only because they were funded. Actors could get paid, even if it was a pittance; there was usually a weekly stipend, for all shows, even the small upstart companies. There were always comparatively decent costumes, sets, and tech/sm support.

Because Brisbane theatre lacks such diversity, much of the community doesn't see theatre as relavent to their lives. They can't find a place they feel at home in. So it's a big cycle - the community doesn't value theatre, so corporations and foundations don't give money, so small companies fail when it comes to consistency, longevity, and decent production values, which means that audiences don't want to attend theatre because they don't know what they're getting or if it's going to be any good (Rebecca Scollen has done some v interesting research into what make audiences tick; about why non-theatre goers don't attend, or more importantly, don't go back after seeing their first show - http://search.arrow.edu.au/main/results?subject=Drama%3B+Theatre).

The actors are the last to get paid - after tech, sms and administrators - because there are ALWAYS too many for the number of jobs available, so they are the most replaceable - this isn't the fault of the Unis offering degrees, and this isn't only true in Brisbane - it was certainly also true in Minneapolis.

And it isn't that the administrators - who are totally necessary in these days of increasing liability issues, legal requirements, general admin crap paperwork and web-stuff to worry about - are stealing the actors' piece of the pie. It's that there need to be more kinds of pies to go around - some small pies, some big pies, and lots of medium-sized pies, with many different flavours on offer. Wouldn't that be great?

Kudos to companies and groups that are, despite all odds, creatively and courageously surviving anyway, too many to mention. Except maybe one: LaBoite. It is absolutely ridiculous that this company struggles so much for funding when it fulfills such an important role, speaking to the community so directly and relevantly.

My 2 cents.

Anne Pensalfini

The audience is a strange beast. There is not one audience, there are many. Simply saying “give the audience what it wants or die” is somehow not enough is it? I can think of no single recognized great art work of the last 200 years or so that was actually “wanted” when it was made. Like who wanted cubism? Who wanted Stravinsky? Who wanted “Waiting for Godot”? If it’s just about the audience then it’s not the arts we are talking about...its showbiz. (Aside#1: I have nothing against showbiz, my mother worked in it all her life.) I like a good laugh as much as the next person…but it always seems that showbiz has something against art doesn’t it? They really hate us artists for not entertaining people; I thought that was their job!

Arts don’t entertain and they have never, ever, claimed to, they upset..(Aside#2: best Australian art in recent times: Bill Henson). Showbiz and art are two different things and they have two different audiences that sometimes cross over. Confused?

As far as I can see “Government” in Queensland rarely funds art as I understand it at all, it pays arts administrators to carry out the strategies of its arts policies. If you don’t fit you don’t get funded. If you don’t give the audience what they want you don’t sell tickets. So if you actually make art my advice is to get out of Queensland as quickly as possible, or find another job. Compared to other cities and states the Brisbane/Queensland funding is simply laughable, just check the ABS figures.

There is only one daily newspaper of record in Queensland. That is a major cause of such a moribund culture. If you are not sanctioned by News Ltd or the Government then you do not exist, even if you exist, if you know what I mean? Audiences will never get the chance to find you, let alone decide if they like you or not. My experience though, tells me that if an audience actually finds art they love it…and they come in droves (GOMA, Warhol, Picasso, Asia Pac. Triennial)…which is why the showbiz fraternity hate it all so much…maybe?

If you do a www surf from the USA across Europe and Asia and then into Victoria, Sydney and lastly Queensland – and all you do is look at the major civic and national arts centres in the world (the Lincoln Centre, the Barbican, France, Singapore, Hong Kong…anywhere really) and you have a look at what you could actually buy a ticket for that day…the Queensland Performing Arts Centre remains by far the most boring and the most conservative. There is a reason for that.

Of course some art is sometimes entertaining and some entertainment is definitely art..film is one 20th century form that proves this I think as does music. The theatre as a place of laughter and as a place of ideas, has changed a lot in the 20th century. In Brisbane actors tend to walk onto the stage and talk, or occasionally sing and dance. Theatre is now so much more than that. Film does actors talking to each other and interesting storytelling really really well. Theatre has moved away from storytelling, in some cases completely, to explore what it’s really got going for it..the liveness, the visceral of audient and performer in the same room at the same time…(…these days also then web cast or linked to multiple live audiences via various bits of purpose built hardware and software). The Theatre was never, ever just about actors and writers.

The 21st century theatre has huge audiences worldwide, and (given Australia’s relatively small population) large audiences here (in Brisbane rarely tapped by other than Powerhouse and Metro Arts – but never continuously). It is not the same (but there is of course a crossover) audience that regularly goes to La Boite, or QTC or QPAC. There are vast constantly touring and producing networks of small, medium and large scale productions and projects that attract this international audience, it’s an audience that in very many cases does not go to something called “a theatre” to see the Theatre anymore.

There is no continuously dedicated, well resourced venue, organisation or regular platform for this kind of work to be developed in Brisbane, or to present the touring national and international work of standard in Brisbane. Melbourne has many, for example the current Malthouse programs, or the Arthouse programs; in Sydney the Opera House Studio has consistently supported new work for new audiences, The Performance Space has been a centre of new work and audience development for decades, in Adelaide the Arts Centre has the Space, in Perth PICA has also consistently supported new work in the new theatre, and so on…

…And let’s be clear..the work I am talking about is not up itself weird and inaccessible (it has a proven huge audience worldwide) it is just what the Theatre looks like now. And to be frank, it’s no more inaccessible than a writer trying to tell me their innermost angst about something by having actors walk on stage with a nice set (nice, lovely) and good lights (so good) and talk (or occasionally sing and dance ;-).

It is not that I don’t like a good story…I love the well made play…it’s just that in Brisbane, nothing else has been regularly and well supported so that an audience can be built up over many years…that is all there is, ….plays, and without anyone pushing and jostling for new audiences and challenging the dominance of the play…some of the plays are not very well made at all. And don’t get me started on dance…have a look at http://www.dancemassive.com.au/ an event across three venues that simply could not happen here, there just isn’t enough support for that large a diversity of dance artists. And we can’t go on saying…”Brisbane’s a smaller city, the audiences just aren’t here” while (Andy Warhol the ultimate artist entertainer sells out) also saying “the fastest growing most livable city in Australia”. It just doesn’t wash.

And in the spirit of joining Mr Ryan in quotations: as Noel Coward (the Master) once said “People are wrong when they say opera is not what it used to be. It is what it used to be. That is what's wrong with it.”

What a fantastic mature and interesting to read blog. I have enjoyed watching this slowly grow and open up.

It's a big topic but I will agree a lot with Zane, because this is where I sit most comfortably. I am completely turned on and lit up by (I sound like a light bulb...) by theatre that I don't see coming in the way that I'm sure that folk never saw cubism or Waiting for Godot coming.

I personally choose to curate our season (s. We are well into the next 2 years now), with plays that I would want to see and I know that there are a few like minded folk, but that may not be the majority. I then make it my business to have this work be available to as many members of our community as possible, and to give them the opportunity to experience something new to them. People may or may not enjoy the piece but at least they have had the opportunity to experience it. When I worked almost full time in the 'real' world I brought many people to the theatre who had in some cases never been. They are now regular theatre goers. (One couple in particular still comment on some of the language and scenes from Closer, saying they never thought they would see or enjoy something like that! And that The Kirsk was so intense even though the submarine was symbolicly represented on stage, not realistically as per the movies).

I will now become that 'blogger who quotes other bloggers'. Elaine - you said: I’ve had discussions with people who say they’re tired of theatre - they want more than to sit politely, watching for an hour and a half, then politely applaud, then leave. Rob Pensalfini loves theatre that is very much other than 'them in the dark, us on stage'. QSE's Shakespeare's Shorts 2 years ago had the audience in house lights and invited to openly engage. Again, a mob that I brought to that show couldn't believe they could interact this way and still talk about it! (Rob they also would like a return season!). In fact most QSE performances operate in this manner.

When you apply for funding, you have to prove that there is an audience for your work. But if you are aiming to push boundaries, open theatre up, feature contentious subject matter, and (dare I say it) CHALLENGE audiences, this becomes almost an absurdity. Therefore in some instances I have observed little growth in theatre thus meaning that audiences GET a similar faire regardless of what audiences want. They may WANT something other than what is available, but when something other is not readily made available how can they go and be counted? Please note: This is not a criticism of Artistic Directors (I am one, that would be silly), but on the constraints in place to even begin to address what audience may or may not like/WANT.

Zane you said: There is only one daily newspaper of record in Queensland. That is a major cause of such a moribund culture. If you are not sanctioned by News Ltd or the Government then you do not exist, even if you exist, if you know what I mean?

How the hell can audiences want any of what is actually out there and happening when not all of what is out there and happening is given equal footing in the press? I have missed knowing about quite a few things as I am busy and need more than a tag on a web page I may not regularly visit. Time Out mag in London literally has EVERYTHING running in all fields a fortnight at a time. Useful, user friendly publication. I have read a blurb about something I may not have ordinarily gone to and checked it out because at least I knew it was on.

I think that Brisbane Festival Under the Radar this year will give possibility and accessibility to theatre other than the 'dark pros arch', as they asked for applications that could work in theatres, studio spaces and out and about in Brisbane. A joyful and transforming theatrical experience I had was going to see site specific work that was as far away from the traditional play as you could get: The LIFT festival 1999. I went up a disused tower block and sat with angels. http://www.liftfest.org.uk/

I don't know what audiences want (actually I do, they don't want to be patronised and short changed.). What I do know are the stories and experiences I want to share and why I want to share them. And in the face of little agreement from 'the powers that be' I will continue to do this as I know that there are audiences that WANT what I WANT, and that there is a possibility that there are others that didn't know that they wanted it and will have that light bulb experience too.

(PS. Elaine you also said: 'And I think it’s about recognising that empty space within the performance – and leaving it alone, letting there be a place where the audience creates, just as the performers do.' A week before we open this was a lovely thing to read and to offer me reflection. Thank you)

No need to clarify - totally loved your posts. I get nervous in cyber space as it leaves potential to misinterpret. Mostly here I think I am agreeing with what went before from all.

I read back over my stuff sometime as go 'Meh? That is illiterate!' being dyslexic gives me a bit of freedom here! I have just re read what I wrote and discovered a contradiction. I''l leave the writing to you and Matt in future..!!!!

Well, the writing about scary woods and gay aliens...