A few weeks ago I posted about an orchestra in Bremen, Germany which is based out of an elementary school. The situation has been something both the students and musicians have found to be constructive and enjoyable. In addition, the partnership has helped improve the reputation of that part of town.
In reaction to this story, there were a few “we should do that here” type of comments made in a handful of places. Recently, I was pleased to learn that a somewhat similar program exists in Cleveland where some music students of the Cleveland Institute of Music live in a retirement home.
The arrangement was born out of a lack of housing at the Cleveland Institute but has grown into a more formalized program. Students from the institute perform for, and occasionally with, residents of the retirement home. The students take their meals and interact with the other residents. On the whole, the arrangement seems to have had a positive and somewhat therapeutic impact on the lives of the regular residents.
So this is great! Music students will gain a better understanding of potential audiences!
At least that was my initial reactions until I recognized, as we often joke/bemoan, residents of a retirement community are the main demographic attending symphony halls and chamber concerts.
While these students may potentially develop insights and skills for better interacting with potential audiences, the truth is arts students live, work and play with those on the lower end of the coveted “young people” age range in university dorms and apartment complexes for years at a time and don’t necessarily develop these skills.
To a greater or lesser extent, we all live among members of our target demographics, but it doesn’t guarantee we will learn to relate with these groups and talk about our work in a way that interests and engages them.
Perhaps part of what is required is to take a page from Bremen and Cleveland and just go out and practice in plain sight.
I say practice because a performance in the park, flash mob in a train station or shopping center can have enough formality associated with it to prevent people from approaching you lest they disturb you. While being a familiar figure frequently visible in the park or other common area, pausing and restarting your practicing, can incite some curiosity and conversation.
The years one is in school probably provide the best opportunities an artist has to understand how to present themselves and interact with their peers.
Operating within the context of an educational environment may give both the performer and the observer the most permission they will ever have to ask stupid questions and give awkward answers. In other words, both get to learn to talk about the arts.
There is a lot of conversation about the need to teach arts students to be entrepreneurs, but I am thinking an important part of that might be requiring students to spend X amount of time each month practicing their discipline outside of rehearsal studios and practice rooms in places like dorm quads, university center lounges, sidewalks, green spaces etc.
During this time, they should be departing from discipline and orthodoxy of the classroom to play along with music on a boombox, create an impromptu soundtrack for actors performing a scene, paint/sketch an interpretation of the music/dance/acting piece being performed.
You know, essentially embodying the cliched movie plot of the kid who has the skills to be great, but wastes their talent rebelling and involving themselves in some expression of pop culture.
Except this time, it is instructor approved effort in experimentation, collaboration and conversation.
After a few minutes of playing with an idea, they can turn to any spectators and ask “what do you think?”
That can be the start of a conversation that can gradually contribute to the development of both performer and spectator. If the spectator says, “I don’t know,” and the performers says “I don’t know either, it was just something I was trying,” that is perfectly fine because it gives everyone involved permission to be imperfect in execution and understanding.
If spectators jump in to participate in some way, that is great because it provides the basis of a conversation between people who have a connection to the performance/interaction.
There is always the possibility that a spectator will launch into a scathing critique in an attempt to humiliate the students practicing. That is something else all artists need to learn to deal with.
Chances are, the face to face encounter won’t be as harsh as a criticism on social media. Though instructors need to recognize the potential for their students to be recorded and belittled on social media.
Really, unless they are trying something extremely ambitious, kids wiping out on their skateboards or while attempting a parkour move are much more interesting fodder for a video of Epic Fails.
Even if no great, incisive conversations ever develop from an arts student’s efforts, just the fact that it made seeing an artist perform/create as normal as seeing a skateboarder can have a long term positive effect.
There may even be a greater impact if it is a high school/college age peer performing/creating masterfully. After all, a teenage skateboarder is a lot cooler and impressive than a 45 year old skateboarder (Tony Hawk notwithstanding.)
Having performers or students reside and perform in a public arena outside the standard/predictable locations leads to way more important results than “a better understanding of potential audiences.” It has the potential for the artists to provide impact and connection with a community while reevaluating what their art means. I think the real crux of this entire point comes down to this half a sentence “…effort in experimentation, collaboration and conversation.” That is where the arts can really shine – in their potential to make us question, think, and connect with others.
If we aren’t providing rich and varied arts experiences for some larger impact then what are we doing? When I heard about the music students in the retirement home my first thought was “Wow, are they connecting to any research that shows therapeutic effects of consistent interaction with music or the students themselves? Heck are they, themselves, conducting any research around this?”
Practicing in public could be a great (and easy to execute) start, if by doing so students become fixtures of the surrounding community – building the connections, talking with the public, asking questions. And if building connections is what it is really all about where/how are we integrating that into the curriculum?
Lots of food for thought here.
Amanda-
Thanks for your comments. Part of what I was trying to get at was based on the notion going around that artists are taught how to perform well in structured settings, but aren’t being taught to manage their careers or be entrepreneurial. I saw this idea of practicing outside as something of a transitional step between not having any idea what to do and having to organize your own events. Just sitting around rehearsing in full view is relatively low stakes and provides the opportunity for collaboration and conversation.
Visual artists aren’t saddled with all the performance expectations that actors, dancers and musicians are, but they can obviously benefit from collaborating with others or just exposing passersby to their practice in an en plein air type of setting. At the very least, gaining the skill and confidence to speak about their work is a plus.
We had a local merchant turn over the walls of his showroom to students in February. Even though they had to paint it all back to white about 5 days after the opening, the opportunity the students had to talk about their work with people outside of the classroom environment was really great.
But these guys were ambitious on their own. Many students need a little nudge to think about doing such things, especially since it isn’t typically the focus of a training program.