Miranda Sawyer and Charles Saumarez Smith were recently invited to trade opinions in the Observer on the question of “Are blockbuster art shows worth queuing for ?”The specific focus of the debate was the current Leonardo show at the National Gallery. To paraphrase, MS regards the blockbuster as something far less than a once in a lifetime show, due largely to the crowds that must not only be endured but also seen over, around and through in order to gain a glimpse of the art. In her opinion a painting should be looked at alone or with one or two others. She believes the blockbuster can only be defended if one accepts the crowd as part of the experience.
Which was just as well, because CSS argues that people prefer the experience of looking at art as part of a crowd, something which enhances, rather than diminishes, the experience.
Now everyone likes to see a full and frank exchange of views and both participants in this exchange made their points well. However the discussion was revealing in a number of ways, not just in terms of the views of the two protagonists, but also as a natural tendency within the cultural sector to ask itself how it's audiences think, feel or act rather than go direct to the audiences in question.
Of course MS and CSS can only respond to the question they are asked, but one couldn’t help thinking that the question, which is an important one, mightn’t be better to answered by speaking to the people in the queues themselves ?
We have.
Our recent research into blockbusters demonstrates that cultural consumers are indeed willing to pay and queue for those shows that are perceived to be once in a decade experiences. Indeed, if MS had been in one of our focus groups last month she would have been in the minority in terms of attitudes to blockbusters – even though many in the group would have recognised her concerns. ‘Yes’ blockbusters can be overcrowded, ‘yes’ it can be hard to contemplate the pieces for long periods of time and ‘yes’ labels can be difficult to read, but the thrill of seeing inspirational and rare pieces, evocatively curated, more than compensates for these bugbears. In fact for many gallery visitors, the ‘I was there’ element is part of the appeal and isn’t exclusive to the live arena that Miranda talks about.
The article was also revealing because within their arguments, both raise issues and trends that are most definitely evidenced by research.
Becoming a member of an arts institution is increasingly the way to go if you want time, space and added interpretation. The cultural consumers we have spoken to are increasingly savvy to the offer of advanced booking, private views and curator talks that are programmed around temporary exhibitions for members. Some exhibitions (admittedly not always the ones that are organised by time slots such as Leonardo) can be accessed using the ‘fast track’ benefit that membership provides. This allows members to avoid the queues that Miranda talks about.
The Lates programmes developed by museums and galleries also offers a great opportunity to consume blockbuster exhibitions away from the crowds. Families are less likely to be present, tourists are less likely to know about them and the visitors we’ve spoken to regard it as an opportunity to ‘claim back’ a little piece of their city’s cultural landscape. It also offers a different environment in which to contemplate the art due to the change in light and perhaps the glass of wine that’s been consumed .Something they increasingly offer on the continent is all night openings for huge blockbusters where demand outstrips supply. Is this something our museums and galleries should be offering?
Walking round the permanent collection rooms seems to be something that domestic tourists and Londoners in particular are less inclined to do. They have been conditioned to expect and visit temporary exhibitions that have fame and fanfare. In this instance many galleries and museums have been a victim of their own successes, in increasing admission to paid for exhibitions whilst the iconic pieces that are permanently on show often go ignored. Our work amongst overseas tourists demonstrates that, ironically, its international visitors who are more likely to be motivated by the permanent collection than those for whom it’s on their doorstep.
Art has been radically democratised in the last decade. Increased funding (now sadly being withdrawn) free entry to venues, DCMS targets and a shift towards a marketing led product offering has served to expand the body of people predisposed to exhibitions (although not to the extent that some consultants would have you believe. We’re yet to be convinced that 85% of the UK population are in the market for exhibitions and heritage). Consumers recognise this and consider themselves cultural citizens as a result – which means they act and behave differently than they did even 5 years ago.
Of course it is only fair to acknowledge that some organisations within the cultural sector have made significant progress to gain greater audience insight through consumer research over the last five years. A small number in particular have developed relatively sophisticated research programmes. And this in the face of decreasing budgets. All of which means that questions like “Are blockbuster art shows worth queuing for ?” may well already have been asked of the audiences paying to see them.
So whilst it isn't nearly as much fun to pitch one spokesperson versus the other, it can only be helpful to share whatever audience insight exists within the sector.
And in that spirit we would say that the answer to the original question is a resounding "yes".
We have.
Our recent research into blockbusters demonstrates that cultural consumers are indeed willing to pay and queue for those shows that are perceived to be once in a decade experiences. Indeed, if MS had been in one of our focus groups last month she would have been in the minority in terms of attitudes to blockbusters – even though many in the group would have recognised her concerns. ‘Yes’ blockbusters can be overcrowded, ‘yes’ it can be hard to contemplate the pieces for long periods of time and ‘yes’ labels can be difficult to read, but the thrill of seeing inspirational and rare pieces, evocatively curated, more than compensates for these bugbears. In fact for many gallery visitors, the ‘I was there’ element is part of the appeal and isn’t exclusive to the live arena that Miranda talks about.
The article was also revealing because within their arguments, both raise issues and trends that are most definitely evidenced by research.
Becoming a member of an arts institution is increasingly the way to go if you want time, space and added interpretation. The cultural consumers we have spoken to are increasingly savvy to the offer of advanced booking, private views and curator talks that are programmed around temporary exhibitions for members. Some exhibitions (admittedly not always the ones that are organised by time slots such as Leonardo) can be accessed using the ‘fast track’ benefit that membership provides. This allows members to avoid the queues that Miranda talks about.
The Lates programmes developed by museums and galleries also offers a great opportunity to consume blockbuster exhibitions away from the crowds. Families are less likely to be present, tourists are less likely to know about them and the visitors we’ve spoken to regard it as an opportunity to ‘claim back’ a little piece of their city’s cultural landscape. It also offers a different environment in which to contemplate the art due to the change in light and perhaps the glass of wine that’s been consumed .Something they increasingly offer on the continent is all night openings for huge blockbusters where demand outstrips supply. Is this something our museums and galleries should be offering?
Walking round the permanent collection rooms seems to be something that domestic tourists and Londoners in particular are less inclined to do. They have been conditioned to expect and visit temporary exhibitions that have fame and fanfare. In this instance many galleries and museums have been a victim of their own successes, in increasing admission to paid for exhibitions whilst the iconic pieces that are permanently on show often go ignored. Our work amongst overseas tourists demonstrates that, ironically, its international visitors who are more likely to be motivated by the permanent collection than those for whom it’s on their doorstep.
Art has been radically democratised in the last decade. Increased funding (now sadly being withdrawn) free entry to venues, DCMS targets and a shift towards a marketing led product offering has served to expand the body of people predisposed to exhibitions (although not to the extent that some consultants would have you believe. We’re yet to be convinced that 85% of the UK population are in the market for exhibitions and heritage). Consumers recognise this and consider themselves cultural citizens as a result – which means they act and behave differently than they did even 5 years ago.
Of course it is only fair to acknowledge that some organisations within the cultural sector have made significant progress to gain greater audience insight through consumer research over the last five years. A small number in particular have developed relatively sophisticated research programmes. And this in the face of decreasing budgets. All of which means that questions like “Are blockbuster art shows worth queuing for ?” may well already have been asked of the audiences paying to see them.
So whilst it isn't nearly as much fun to pitch one spokesperson versus the other, it can only be helpful to share whatever audience insight exists within the sector.
And in that spirit we would say that the answer to the original question is a resounding "yes".
No comments:
Post a Comment