Responses

Ironically, fewer of you participated this month, when the question was about . . . participation. Maybe that’s an answer to the question.

Those of you who did contribute fell into two camps. Some of you challenged the assumption built into our question (that passive consumption is morphing into active participation), and you did so on two grounds.

First, you reminded us that for many cultural organizations—especially the smaller, community-based arts centers—this really isn’t a shift. For such organizations “the key to cultivating demand has always been through participation” rather than one-way presentation, noted the deputy director of a community art center.

What is changing, in his view, is the shape that those participatory programs take. They’re no longer always led by an artist or expert, because easy access to the technologies of creative expression means “you don’t need an expert.” The organization can just provide the opportunity, setting, and tools for people to express their own artistry or expertise.

Second, you wondered—bucking the trend—whether participation is really becoming the dominant mode, and indeed whether the phenomenon will be self-limiting. “All I hear is how pressed people are for time,” observes Norman Bradburn, a veteran social researcher and former provost of the University of Chicago. “Participation takes time. Where is it going to come from? You can only multi-task so much.”

Others accepted the premise of our question but seemed a little anxious about the shift. What happens to quality? How far should cultural organizations go in adapting themselves to the new rules, and what kind of expertise will be valued in this brave new world? In that vein, one performing arts manager wondered what kind of training the cultural workforce of the future will need, given the rise of participatory programming, and whether arts management schools are retooling to meet that need.

And yes, some of you welcome the rise of participation with open arms, citing examples from your own institutions and enthusing about the new energy and new audiences these efforts bring. The challenge, in the words of one arts marketer, will be to integrate the old and the new modes of programming so the organization doesn’t feel like a split personality.

* * *

Interesting “takes,” and we thank you. But for CultureQ to remain viable, we’ll need more responses in future months. If you value this dialogue, please help spread the word. Email your colleagues to invite them to weigh in, or share your own response with them as a thought-starter. We’ll be grateful for your help, and you’ll benefit from a richer back-and-forth in future CultureQs.