"I Saw It on Facebook"
In our lives, social media has taken over. For most of us, we are addicted to staying connected with friends via the internet. With apps such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn, and so on and so forth, it's pretty easy to see exactly what someone is doing at any given moment (thanks to them posting every minute of their lives). How does that effect highbrow art?
Reviews of plays used to be in the newspaper as advertisements to go see a specific show. Now you can find them posted all over the internet. Despite what you may believe, it has a huge impact on the theatre, even though it is considered highbrow culture. Let's forgot about community theatre for a bit because social class of the audience is somewhat unimportant there seeing as kids in the shows invite friends and family, discounts are given out, and season ticket holders tend to pay a specific amount in the beginning of the season and don't pay for each individual show. This all means that it is easy to attend a local show, whereas higher end theatres are pricey and sometimes not affordable to the lower classes.
Performance reviews that circulate social media influence what type of audience attends. Wesley Shrum states, "In addition, there are matters of prestige involved: status climbing and interactional rewards (or dangers)" (349). Like previously stated on the "Society" page of this website, perceived status is a huge deal when it comes to highbrow events, which is why attending in jeans and a t-shirt is looked down upon. The people who want that boost in status climbing tend to go to later shows while those in matinees seem to be of a lowbrow status. In fact, Shrum points out, "Unexpectedly, for highbrow, but not for popular genres, later start times are associated with larger audiences" (369). I actually found this interesting and embarrassing at the same time. When I want to see a show on Broadway I tend to want to see the matinee. One factor is because I don't feel like driving three hours to get back home after a performance lets out at 11pm. Another factor is because the tickets tend to be cheaper. So lowbrow classes will tend to go for lower ticket prices, where as class climbers and highbrow purists will spring the money for the more expensive shows.
Are critics very important to the audience? Why should I care what someone else has to say? I didn't see it and how do they know my taste? Personal feelings are not important when it comes time to make a decision on what play to see. Shrum hits the major point with "Since the discriminating sensibility associated with high art does not depend on direct perception but rather on the refined evaluation of aesthetically relevant production features, the critic plays an important role in the definition and maintenance of performance standards" (369). Honestly, the plot, characters, themes, and actors do not initially have an effect on whether or not I want to see something. The aesthetics really determine it. Beautiful sets, costumes, and props have more significance in determining a successful show. Then the actual performance of the actors come next. Were they pleasing? Were the leads quite attractive? Did the relationship of the actors between their characters flow well? All of these are the important factors when trying to build an audience. Anyone can write about a show to influence friends and readers to go see it if they know what to look for.
Reviews of plays used to be in the newspaper as advertisements to go see a specific show. Now you can find them posted all over the internet. Despite what you may believe, it has a huge impact on the theatre, even though it is considered highbrow culture. Let's forgot about community theatre for a bit because social class of the audience is somewhat unimportant there seeing as kids in the shows invite friends and family, discounts are given out, and season ticket holders tend to pay a specific amount in the beginning of the season and don't pay for each individual show. This all means that it is easy to attend a local show, whereas higher end theatres are pricey and sometimes not affordable to the lower classes.
Performance reviews that circulate social media influence what type of audience attends. Wesley Shrum states, "In addition, there are matters of prestige involved: status climbing and interactional rewards (or dangers)" (349). Like previously stated on the "Society" page of this website, perceived status is a huge deal when it comes to highbrow events, which is why attending in jeans and a t-shirt is looked down upon. The people who want that boost in status climbing tend to go to later shows while those in matinees seem to be of a lowbrow status. In fact, Shrum points out, "Unexpectedly, for highbrow, but not for popular genres, later start times are associated with larger audiences" (369). I actually found this interesting and embarrassing at the same time. When I want to see a show on Broadway I tend to want to see the matinee. One factor is because I don't feel like driving three hours to get back home after a performance lets out at 11pm. Another factor is because the tickets tend to be cheaper. So lowbrow classes will tend to go for lower ticket prices, where as class climbers and highbrow purists will spring the money for the more expensive shows.
Are critics very important to the audience? Why should I care what someone else has to say? I didn't see it and how do they know my taste? Personal feelings are not important when it comes time to make a decision on what play to see. Shrum hits the major point with "Since the discriminating sensibility associated with high art does not depend on direct perception but rather on the refined evaluation of aesthetically relevant production features, the critic plays an important role in the definition and maintenance of performance standards" (369). Honestly, the plot, characters, themes, and actors do not initially have an effect on whether or not I want to see something. The aesthetics really determine it. Beautiful sets, costumes, and props have more significance in determining a successful show. Then the actual performance of the actors come next. Were they pleasing? Were the leads quite attractive? Did the relationship of the actors between their characters flow well? All of these are the important factors when trying to build an audience. Anyone can write about a show to influence friends and readers to go see it if they know what to look for.
Just like the history of theatre, reviews of performances had different phases throughout history. Shrum writes, "The interactional phase before the late 17th century, although characterized by a lack of differentiation between spectators and critics, did not involve the absence of criticism" (350). More often than not, the critics would direct comments to certain actors instead of the overall performance. They were also prone to taking notes during this time because there would be comments called out thanks to the audience which the critic would then incorporate into their review. Shrum then says, "The role of the critic shifted from the abusive to the celebratory, as critics became advocates of dramatists and performers" (350). Now critics gave better reviews. This influenced more people to come out and actually attend the performances. Now, as Shrum states, "The modern phase of criticism emerged gradually as critics began to take an independent evaluation role-comparing, opining, teaching, and recommending-in ways not necessarily to the liking of the performers" (350). As you can see, the opinions and reviews of performances changed over time, just like the audience. In Greece, where theatre started, everyone could attend the play. Now, as times and social norms change, the audience now include those of the purists: the highbrow people. Those people who can afford to pay for an expensive ticket of a well reviewed show.
Although the critic has hold over who will attend the future performance and the size of the audience, the size of the audience when the critic attends the show holds influence over the review. For example Shrum writes, "A cultural mediation argument predicts that the more positive the review, the larger the size of of the viewing audience. In the absence of an audience, the success of an artwork, artist, or style is likely to be minimal" (353). If there is few people in the audience, that will influence the person writing about the show. That is why the crowd is just as important as the critic. If those in attendance are viewed at a higher social standing, the more of a success the show will seem, which is why a highbrow audience is sought after.
So what happens if a review is bad? Instead of losing out on an audience due to a poor critique people will play that review up to get audiences out to see the show. At that point, it doesn't matter who is in the audience. Shrum says, "Even mediocre or negative reviews are better than no reviews at all because they can be carved up (strategically edited) to present a show in a favorable light" (368). Any type of review is for publicity. The better the reviews, the larger the highbrow audience. However, a show without any review will get very few people out to see the show. I know from experience in community theatre.
Although the critic has hold over who will attend the future performance and the size of the audience, the size of the audience when the critic attends the show holds influence over the review. For example Shrum writes, "A cultural mediation argument predicts that the more positive the review, the larger the size of of the viewing audience. In the absence of an audience, the success of an artwork, artist, or style is likely to be minimal" (353). If there is few people in the audience, that will influence the person writing about the show. That is why the crowd is just as important as the critic. If those in attendance are viewed at a higher social standing, the more of a success the show will seem, which is why a highbrow audience is sought after.
So what happens if a review is bad? Instead of losing out on an audience due to a poor critique people will play that review up to get audiences out to see the show. At that point, it doesn't matter who is in the audience. Shrum says, "Even mediocre or negative reviews are better than no reviews at all because they can be carved up (strategically edited) to present a show in a favorable light" (368). Any type of review is for publicity. The better the reviews, the larger the highbrow audience. However, a show without any review will get very few people out to see the show. I know from experience in community theatre.