From Freakonomics blog:
Terry Teachout, meditating on a rare outburst of booing at the Metropolitan Opera in New York, wonders if classical music and theater are being diminished by a superabundance of standing ovations and a scarcity of negative feedback. What if theater and orchestra audiences behaved more like blog commenters?
What are the options? You might argue that older people are less grumpy but I'm not sure that approach will succeed.
"Signaling refined taste" comes to mind but that, taken alone, requires some negative feedback as well. Try listening to what informed viewers say to each other in art galleries. There is plenty of negative mixed in with the positive, even if you think the blend is a phony one.
I believe that the opera-going demographic wishes to signal "magnanimity." When these high-status people are slighted, as they might be by a bad performance, their privately optimal response is to ignore the slight. Reacting to the slight suggests that they have let it bother them; it is a sign of low status to be bothered by what are ultimately low status entities.
Magnanimity is an underrated concept in signaling theory, in part because it has such quiet manifestations. It is Holmes's "dog that didn't bark."
That so many people signal magnanimity in the very public opera house, but less so in the private art gallery, is a telling indication of how you should interpret much of the positive public feedback you receive.
How many of you are into signaling magnanimity?
If I may give my humble opinion, as I have given this topic some thought:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this article on a couple of threads of thought.
I really have strong opinions about the engagement of an audience member when seeing live theatre/opera/dance. Live performance is exactly that, LIVE. It's living and breathing. And part of this living thing is a relationship. As a performer, you can FEEL the energy emanating from the audience. We feed off of it. Often times, we come offstage and say, "that's a weird audience today. They're not into it." WE CAN TELL. The ultimate point I'm trying to make is that we, the performers and the audience, are both showing up to share and communicate.
Garnering a truthful reaction, whether positive or negative, from the audience, IS THE POINT. To make people feel, to make people think, to make people experience or see something new, different, fresh is why we get up on that stage. Why we create.
The first performance of "Rite Of Spring," choreographed by Nijinsky and composed by Stravinsky started a riot in Paris when it premiered in 1913. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Spring) It struck that strong of a chord in people. AMAZING!
After performing in my theatre piece on Sunday, I heard a soft, "huh.." from an audience member. This, in fact, I took as a great compliment. And after the performance, learning who had made that sound, made it even more of a compliment.
The other point I want to make is something of my own theory. It is the "Dancing With the Stars" effect. On that TV show, audience members clap at ANY and EVERY little flourish or flare done on the dance floor. Yes, the steps are difficult. Yes, it's pretty. BUT, WHY OH WHY MUST WE APPLAUD AT EVERYTHING DONE?! It's the celebration of mediocrity. And while I do recognize that this is a great medium to introduce millions of people to movement and dance and has actually gotten people off their couches and into classes, it has dumbed people down (duh, it's TV).
I have personally witnessed this as an audience member at some performances.
Overall, if one is going to attend a live performance, do so as an educated and open audience member. You don't have to like it. You don't have to "get it." Just be open to what it viscerally does to you.
Thanks, Ashley. Good points, one and all. I'd like to respond to this. It might take me a few days
ReplyDelete