by / par Inga Petri
Literature Review – draft ready for your comments
2011/07/14 10:05:52 PM in Updates/Mises à jour by Inga Petri
We would love to get your feedback and reactions to this concise review of the publicly available literature on the value and impact of performing arts on individuals and in communities. How do you interpret some of the data and concepts shown here? Are there additional insights that are available in the literature you can point us to? Do you have proprietary research insights to illuminate the role of presenting in some way? We’d love to hear about any and all of it.
LiteratureReview_Value_Draft-3 (.docx)
LiteratureReview_Value_Draft-3 (PDF)
(Une version française est disponible aussi.)
What we find, to the most part, is that the research is focussed on performing arts in general terms and does not specifically address the function of the performing arts presenter. On a positive note, we do benefit from the profound reflection on the role of performing arts presenting in Quebec and have included insights from that work here.
Thanks to Frédéric Julien’s invaluable support in helping us create this draft.
Now, take a read and then comment below.
Thanks Inga!
Reading with interest… much appreciated.
eb
Ottawa Storytellers Facebook page had a couple of comments relating to literature recently. https://www.facebook.com/groups/30685992697/
I have copied and pasted it here:
Jennifer Cayley: The Intrinsic Value of Performing Arts Paper is very interesting if you have some time to look at it; the measuring of captivation seemed elegant and brave!
August 24 at 2:52pm
Inga Petri: That piece of re: captivation, relevance and impact was interesting to me as it revealed the role preparedness or readiness plays in the audience’s performing arts experience.
August 29 at 11:14am
Jennifer Cayley: There is an interesting piece here about the use of statistical analyses. Many of the singular stories you hear from people about being turned onto the arts, either as artists or as audiences, come from people who have a transformative experience for which they have had no preparation or expectation. While these happenings are deeply important to the individual and may even contribute substantially to the development of the art form, they are likely to be statistically invisible and in terms of growing audience numbers not even important!
August 29 at 11:33am
And this comment also via Ottawa Storytellers Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/30685992697/
Bob Davies: I’m also very intrigued by the Wolf Brown study on ‘Impact’ mentioned in the lit review, though the next section mentioning Hill is less compelling. Your note that “In essence this graph shows that the more someone attends performances and other cultural activities the more likely they are to attend more”, illustrates that the graph doesn’t actually say much of significance. People who go and like it (as per Wolf Brown’s relevance observation, I expect) go again and more. I’m not sure that’s a discovery
Interesting too that ‘spiritual’ is at the centre of the impact graph, with the Identity section below in red describing sense of self, self-confidence, personal achievement, pride and self-esteem. I’m not sure what ‘spiritual’ designates here – if the work intends a connection, then that seems rather Winfrey-like in its source. It’s at least not really defined academically, and if work built on this research intends to go further, talking about Presentation as a kind of cause and the lives of people as a kind of effect, then some solid work will need to be done to define what features within people are really in view. Spiritual, nowadays, doesn’t mean anything except some general new-agey feelings of . . . whatever a person happens to feel that they think is spiritual. For academic work, it’s just empty of content. The foci of ‘spiritual’ experience as the ‘self’ runs contrary to any healthy perspective that I can imagine anyway. To the contrary, ‘spiritual’ is to connect with something more than ourselves; it’s the recognition not of our greatness, but of our smallness and weakness, and often then also the responsibility to give up what’s ours in pursuit of the greater things that need to be done in this world. That spirituality leads to psychological and social health and people willing to sacrifice themselves for great things, like, for example, God and His work. The former ‘spirituality’ of self has only personal benefit at it’s heart, and cannot produce people who contribute to the lives of others (unless you take the Winfrey twist and suggest that the real reason we forgive is not for the benefit of others, even though it costs us personally, but is rather because only by forgiving others and letting go can WE feel good.) The latter is self-centred, and while incredibly popular today, for that reason will be ultimately devoid of long term beneficial effects on the lives of others.
The point of all this, is that if someone is going to evaluate the impact of presented art on a populace, then clarity about what is actually happening in people’s lives that makes them different or act differently is critical.
My only other thought is that this work has a dark side, eh? I suppose it should be a solid arms length from any government . . . this is the groundwork of Goebbels!