For awhile now I have been pondering the 20/20 hindsight elevation of past practices in the arts as a yardstick by which we should measure the current situation. I often find fault with the reasoning, as do many others, when people start using the phrasing “if only people would do X” to propose that seats would fill as a result.

Recently though people have been using the same thought processes about behavior at arts events and I am just as uneasy about it. The example of the audience being rowdy in Mozart’s day is often called to justify why people shouldn’t be glared at when they clap between orchestra movements. Andrew Taylor had entries on his Artful Manager blog a couple weeks ago citing that people used to interact and talk more during performances before the 19th century placed the audiences in a position of being performed at.

I’m not saying that people should be glared at for clapping or that audiences should be passive receivers. I think the current situation is sitting at an extreme and needs to move toward a happen medium. I just don’t agree with wistfully looking to the past for guidance.

When I think back to the times people are evoking, I wonder how much respect the performer received. As an undergrad I did a research paper on Shakespearean actors and it was a testament to an actor’s power if he could make the audience and food vendors stop and quiet down.

I wonder how many great composers and musicians went undiscovered because their efforts were drown out by chatter in a concert hall or in a salon where they were providing background music.

It seems to me a good thing that audiences started to take a respectful posture toward artists. I do agree with the observation Taylor cites about the arts ending up being placed on too much of a pedestal. A middle ground between ignoring and enshrining needs to be found.

The fact that one of the most frequently asked questions at a play Q&A is “How did you memorize all those lines?” just proves to me that audiences are too far divorced from the arts and the process. That they marvel at memorization means they lack the tools or confidence to evaluate much of anything else happening on stage. The absence of that question would herald great things to me.

The irony is that the methodology for assessing works is fairly highly developed and thanks to the internet, becoming more democratic. When I was researching for that Shakespearean actors paper the one thing I noticed and still remember to this day was that the great actors of yore could do no wrong and could cure cancer with their inspired recitations. As time progressed the actors’ performances started to develop flaws until they became downright human. (Perhaps too much so in the case of the Barrymores.)

As time has progressed, some people have developed skills at assessing performances and were able to critique and criticize. While I think most people have an innate sense of quality, most don’t know what specifically about the performance is good or bad. People have relied on reviewers to tell them what is quality further reinforcing their isolation from the arts.

Blogging on the internet is opening up new opportunities. It is allowing educated people who have never been hired by a newspaper to speak. It is providing a forum for people who have never expressed an opinion publically. Most of what this latter group produces is godawful. And unless they are motivated to improve their technique by internal or external forces, it is going to remain godawful. They are taking the first step to becoming engaged though.

Ultimately, I think trying to go back and make the arts as we know them interactive is futile. The horse has left the barn on that one. I think it might be possible to make it more interactive, but not too much more so in the current physical environments. People have become used to the spectator format for entertainment. If they are fidgeting in their seats it is because they want their experience tailored specifically for them.

On surveys for attendance at movie theaters one of the top reasons people say they aren’t going to the multiplex is that there is too much noise in the theater. Now with a big screen TV at home, they have an alternative choice to the movie theater. Chances are there is a good bit of noise at home but they can shush the kids at home.

The same is true for experiences where you expect a lot of noise. A recent article in the local paper said attendance at the university football games has been dropping steadily while subscriptions to the pay per view for the games has been rising. People have cited the fact that it is cheaper to have a bunch of people gather around their big screen at home than to buy tickets. They also talk about the comfort and convenience of cooking at home and watching in air conditioning.

I have some ideas which I will share tomorrow about how to get people interested in leaving their homes. As I mentioned before, I think the future of live performance will be found in different physical surroundings which are more conducive to interaction. I also think the performance space and discipline may be called by a different name to avoid negative connotations that terms like “theater” might present when trying to convince people to leave their big screen TV.