Executive Director's Note:
Getting in the Act by / Brad Erickson

Back in fall, The James Irvine Foundation released “Getting in on the Act,” what many are calling a “groundbreaking” study on how Californians today are—and are not—participating in the arts. The foundation notes that attendance at traditional arts venues (what one leader in the field dubs “big box arts,” like theatre), is down and has been declining gradually for some time. On the other hand, other indicators are way up—the sale of guitars, for instance. As Irvine’s researchers WolfBrown put it, “From the resurgence of knitting circles to the growing legions of rusty musicians and aspiring storytellers, Americans are activating their own creativity in new and unusual ways.”

Irvine sees a push toward “participatory arts” while “spectator arts” (again, like theatre) are slowly losing popularity, especially among the young. The researchers diagram a continuum of participation that goes from an offering where the audience sits and watches others creating art (what most theatres present on most nights) to an event with no division between audience and arts-makers—everyone is up and acting, singing, and dancing.

In between are multiple steps, different methods for “engaging” an audience besides witnessing a performance: talk-backs, preperformance lectures, backstage tours and postshow drinks with the actors. These offerings add another layer of participation that goes beyond sitting, watching, leaving. And social media technologies—blogs, Facebook, Twitter—provide theatres with new platforms for engaging patrons around the work, sparking ongoing conversations between artists and audience.

Some companies go even further, creating productions where the audience is not just watching but actually involved in realizing the work onstage. The British troupe Punchdrunk is having huge success with this technique, intermingling patrons with the actors in a nontraditional setting. Its current production, “Sleep No More”—a quasi-takeoff on “Macbeth”—has been running for months inside a retired New York City hotel after an equally popular premiere run in London.

But certainly not every piece of theatre is best served by literally mixing up the artists and the audience. The actual play “Macbeth,” for instance, is probably a good example. I for one—eager as I am to experience “Sleep No More”—also really want to see a beautifully executed performance of Shakespeare’s original play, with great actors and designers who’ve worked for weeks rehearsing with a brilliant director. Call me old fashioned—or just old. But I don’t think I’m alone.

What every theatre company wants is to deeply engage its audience in the work. And what every audience member wants is a fully captivating theatrical experience. When we come to the theatre we want to laugh, we want to think, we want to cry. The question Irvine’s study seems to be posing is whether patrons would rather laugh/think/cry from their seats or from the stage.

Can theatres present textual work, fully rehearsed and produced, before an audience sitting more or less peacefully in its assigned seats, and at the same time find a way to break beyond the talk-back and get audiences up on their feet, speaking the lines, learning the steps, calling the cues?

Our big-box neighbors in the classical music world offer some models. The San Francisco Symphony has begun creating opportunities for avocational singers and instrumentalists to rehearse with the music directors and professional section leaders in workshops of upcoming concert fare. The first two $20 workshops presented in Davies Symphony Hall were hugely successful, with many workshopgoers returning at a discounted price for the professional concert. Instrumental workshops will launch this spring. Just last month, the Oakland women’s ensemble Kitka, which dedicates itself to Eastern European a cappella choral music, premiered its own community sing of Slavic winter songs. With both the Symphony and Kitka, the traditional professional concert was not thrown out for all sing-along Messiahs all the time. But both groups are experimenting with ways to let patrons make art themselves, right alongside the professional artists in the professional hall. What might this look like in a theatre?

Interestingly, new research that Theatre Bay Area’s Clayton Lord recently reported makes one wonder how distinct the division between participatory art and spectator art really is—at least in our heads. Scientists examining brainwaves are finding that people caught up in the experiences of others can be as mentally and emotionally active as the storytellers or active participants themselves. This research points to a truth veteran theatergoers and theatre-makers have always known: that a powerful production can scoop you out of your seat, swoop you into the world of the play, and have you laughing, weeping and wondering right along with the actors onstage. In the really great show, hearts are racing, feet are tapping, eyes are tearing with laughter or sorrow—audience and actor, participator and spectator alike.

Brad Erickson is executive director of Theatre Bay Area.
Email him at brad@theatrebayarea.org.