Accessibility in the Performing Arts

Accessibility in the Performing Arts

This study attempts to address the recent decline in arts patronage with an eye towards its underlying factors. While recent research has focused on the mix of economic pressures which have resulted in decreased funding for the arts, this research has frequently failed to investigate the attitudes and perceptions which inform these economic decisions. In order to bridge this critical lacuna, this study examines the different barriers to participation in the arts and determines that the recent decline is the result of practical and perceptual barriers to participation that engage in a vicious cycle wherein misinformed attitudes towards art precipitate decreased public and private support, which then serves perpetuate these attitudes. Stepping outside this cycle in order to reverse the decline requires an honest assessment of art's benefits and which benefits should be included when making appeals for greater patronage and support.

Introduction

In times of economic uncertainty, funding for the arts is almost always the first to be cut from the budget. These cuts affect everything from music programs in schools to major symphony orchestras, but most importantly, they jeopardize the future of the performing arts in the United States. However, the downward trend in patronage that the performing arts have experienced cannot be tied exclusively to the economic downturn, because this downward trend in patronage existed prior to the economic collapse of 2008. Instead, these cuts contribute to a long-running trend of decreased support for the arts, such that now the performing arts face a dramatic and potentially uncertain future, wherein traditional forms of support have all but dried up and substantial, emergency assistance from governmental organizations, which arrived during the aftermath of the last economic catastrophe in the form of the Works Progress Administration, is nowhere to be seen. As a result, the performing arts is forced to rely increasingly on patronage, even as patronage rapidly becomes one of the least reliable sources of funding.

Recent research into the decline in patronage and financial support for the arts has often focused on strictly economic variables, such as economic downturns, increased competition between organizations, and decreased public funding, but these examinations can only highlight the extent of the decline, not the reasons for it. Furthemore, these strcitly quantitiatibe analysis often-times run the risk of misidentifying symptoms as a cause, attributing, for example, a decrease in public funding for art as the movements of an inscrutable government rather than as the result of an intelligible shift in the perception of art and its utility on the part of the public and government officials. Nevertheless, they provide a useful starting point for considering the recent decline in patronage.

The problem facing the world of performing arts today, then, is to determine the actual, underlying causes of the long-term decline in patronage in order to begin reversing this trend, with the hope than an increase in general patronage can help precipitate a larger cutlural shift, wherein the performing arts have access to some of the same resources as other endeavors. Though the phenomenon of declining patronage in the arts has been identified for some time, only within the last decade have researchers seriously begun an attempt to understand the underlying causes of this decline, and among other variables, they have tended to focus on management and prior experience. While these all play some part in the decline, it is neccesary to acknowledge that they are part of a larger problem regarding accessibility in the performing arts; that is, the degree to which individuals feel comfortable engaging in or supporting performing arts, and the ease with which they can do so. Thus, this investigation into the downward trend in patronage in the performing arts focuses on the major barriers to accessiblity and how changes in management and efforts to encourage early exposure can reverse this trend.

In attempting to determine the causes behind this downturn in patronage, the researcher determined that qualitative measurements are the most effective method to use, because when discussing the performing arts and individuals' engagement with them, experience and impact, both subjective notions, are paramount. This is not to suggest that certain quatitaitve research cannot supply useful information to this study, but rather to point out that these quantitative contributions simply serve to reveal the extent and economic impact of the qualitative factors influencing patronage in the performing arts. After analyzing the extant literature on the subject of patronage and funding in the performing arts, the researcher found that there are two key categories of barrier to arts participation, patronage, and funding: practical barriers and perceptual barriers. These interrelated issues require both managerial and attitudinal adjustments, and when consdiering which variables accurately predict arts patronage even in light of the recent decline, it becomes clear that early exposure and/or prior experience to the arts is the single most crucial factor determining arts patronage and participation, a fact that neccesarily must preciiptate a renewed considerating of the improtance of arts education.

Literature Review

The decline in patronage of the performing arts is dramatic, and has been well documented. For example, in 1982, 40% of U.S. adults "visited at least one art museum or gallery or […] attended a live arts performance in the last twelve months," but by 2008, this number had dropped to 35% (Katz, 2009, p. 4). This decline is even more precipitous in the performing arts, (which already represented a smaller portion of arts participation), such that in certain categories, such as opera and ballet, participation dropped by almost a third (Katz, 2009, p. 4). Except for slight fluctuations between 1982 and 2008, the decline has been consistent and increasingly rapid (Katz, 2009, p. 4). Furthermore, "performing arts audiences are aging rapidly," and although in the past education and income has been associated with greater participation in the arts, the decline transcends even these categories, such that "even the most educated Americans are participating less than before" (Katz, 2009, p. 8, 6).

This demonstrates that the decline has occurred across the board, and must be attributed to something other than the preexisting variables which might have accounted for differences in arts participation in the past, such as education or income. Furthermore, the rapid aging of the performing arts audience suggests that the underlying cause has something to do with experience or educational priorities, because there must be some identifiable generational change to explain this discrepancy. However, before addressing this tantalizing clue, it is necessary to discuss the various economic and political explanations which have already been provided in the literature as reasons for the decline, because as will be seen, these explanations, though helpful in demonstrating the extent of the decline, also reveal a critical gap in analysis that has hindered a productive discussion of this issue.

While patronage of the performing arts has been on the decline in the United Stats for some time, only in the last decade has the issue been examined in-depth by researchers. As one might expect, these examinations have frequently focused on the economics of art, and in particular the oft-contentious relationship between the arts and the various governmental programs which offer funding. The focus on this relationship has only increased as schools and universities have been forced to cut budgets in recent years, because arts funding is often one of the first things to be cut when budgets are trimmed. The reasons for this practice are varied, but an examination of the extant literature regarding arts funding as it relates to state sponsorship reveals that it is the result of two distinct yet related attitudes concerning the "utility" of the arts and the extent of the government's interest (and duty) in supporting them.

Firstly, because the benefits of the arts, and arts education, are often-times not as immediately apparent as the benefits of, say, math, science, or physical education, funding for the arts is frequently in danger of being viewed as superfluous or even wasteful, even if this attitude does not have a basis in reality; in fact, not only has arts education has been positively correlated with increased science and math scores, but studies into the economic impact of the nonprofit arts industry reveals that by 2003, the nonprofit arts industry in the United States generated roughly "$134 billion in economic activity every year -- $53.2 billion in spending by arts organizations and an additional $80.8 billion in event-related spending by arts audiences" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 30). This clearly massive industry "has a significant impact on the nation's economy, supporting 4.9 million jobs and generating $24 billion in total government revenue" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 30).

These numbers come from the 2003 Arts & Economic Prosperity study, "the most comprehensive economic impact study of the nonprofit arts industry ever conducted," which examined the economic impact of the arts in ninety-one communities across the United States (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 31, 19). Economic impact was defined according to three criteria: full-time equivalent jobs, meaning the total amount of labor employed (a measurement that addresses the total amount of labor, including part-time jobs, rather than the number of individuals employed), resident household income in each community, and revenue to local and state governments, which includes taxes as well as "license fees, utility fees, filling fees, and so forth" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 18). Assessing the economic impact of the arts on these communities allowed the researchers to then produce a national impact estimate, the results of which were stated above.

Ultimately, the researchers found that when communities "support the arts, [they] not only enhance the quality of community life but also invest in their economic well-being" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 30). The researchers concluded by noting that while "the very legitimate question remains as to whether economic impact should be the rationale for increasing funding and access opportunities for the arts […] at this time in history, economic development is perhaps the most persuasive message when making the case for arts support to local, state, and national leaders" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 31). To understand why the researchers presumed that the economic argument in support of the arts is the most persuasive, one must consider the second attitude regarding the public funding of the arts that encourages leaders to cut funding for the arts first when attempting to tamp down budgets.

As mentioned above, the arts are often the first things to be cut during budgetary planning because "they are often perceived to be luxuries, worth supporting in good times but hard to justify when the economy is struggling," regardless of the tangible (but under-reported) societal and economic benefits they provide (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 17). However, this attitude represents only one side of the issue, because even when considering these benefits, there remains unease "about having the government decide which works and kinds of works of art merit support, given the role that art can play in the formation and sustenance of moral conceptions" (Brighouse, 1995, p. 36). This means that anyone attempting to understand the budgetary issues faced by the arts must recognize that at any given point, there is a sizable constituency that believes the government should have no role in the creation and dissemination of artistic works, regardless of the potential benefits.

For reasons stemming from the increased political polarization of the last thirty years, "it is even harder than has usually been thought for liberals to legitimately advocate state funding of the arts" in the face of "conservative attacks on the functions of the democratic state in America" in regards to arts funding (Brighouse, 1995, p. 35). This is not suggest that support or opposition for public funding of the arts necessarily aligns to political or party affiliation, but rather is simply a recognition that public funding for the arts has been a traditionally liberal policy goal, such as the aforementioned case of the Works Progress Administration, and that the ascendancy of American conservatism over the course of the last thirty years has brought with it an attendant focus on constraining and controlling public support of the arts. In fact, one of the motivating factors contributing to Brighouse's analysis of attitudes regarding state funding of the arts was the 1989 passage of the so-called Helms amendment to the National Endowment for the Arts budget, which stated that:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this act may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce

(1) obscene or indecent materials, including but not limited to depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts; or (2) materials which denigrate the objects or beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion or non-religion; or (3) material which denigrates, debases, or reviles a person, group, or class of citizens on the base of race, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin. (1989 NEA Appropriations Bill, in Brighouse, 1995, p. 59)

As Brighouse rightly points out, the problem with the amendment is not that it constitutes censorship, because denying funds for expression is not nearly the same thing as actively limiting expression, but rather that the language of the amendment singles out one group for undue, implicit criticism (homosexuals) while effectively neutering any funded art by prohibiting based on the possibility that it might offend people of "a particular religion or non-religion," which is to say, anyone (Brighouse, 1995, p. 60). The latter issue reveals that the point of the Helm's amendment is not so much to censor publicly-funded art, but rather to end the practice of funding the arts altogether through incremental legislative action. This gradual de-funding of the arts on the national level has reverberated throughout the states as well, and research has shown that while State Arts Agencies accounted for "the largest single source of public arts funding in the United States" with a peak of "approximately $447 million in fiscal year 2001," in the last ten years State Arts Agencies have been faced with budget reductions ranging from 25-100% (Urice & Eyyuboglu, 2005, p. 206, 208).

The relatively recent reductions in public funding for the arts has starkly demonstrated the crisis faced by the arts in the United States, but these budget cuts must considered a symptom of a larger problem, rather than its cause, because while public funding for the arts has decreased dramatically since 1989, this only exacerbated the decline which was already evident following a period of substantial growth during the 1960s and 70s (Scheff & Kotler, 1996, p. 28). Various researchers have attempted to explain this decline as the result of "the economic recession, changing philanthropic priorities among foundations and corporations, […] and increased competition for contributions due to the significant growth of the sheer number of nonprofit organizations competing for funds," but these explanations merely shift the question; one must still ask why arts funding decreases disproportionately following a recession, or foundations and corporations shifted their values, and answering these lingering questions is the larger goal of this study (Scheff & Kotler, 1996, p. 29).

As discussed above, the decrease in funding as a result of economic depression and recession is due to the ultimately unfounded perception of the arts as a luxury, and changing philanthropic priorities necessarily insinuates a change in attitude regarding the value of the arts in contrast to other endeavors. The third explanation seems to propose the bursting of a kind of arts-organization bubble, and this might be believable if one could identify a period of stabilization following this possible bubble, but not such stabilization has occurred; instead, the decline has continued for thirty years (a period that is actually longer than the expansionary decades of the 1960s and 70s). Thus, when attempting to uncover the reasons behind the decline in patronage and support for the arts in general, and the performing arts in particular, one must go beyond these cursory justifications and attempt to define the explain the changes in attitude and perception that inform them.

Thankfully, the last ten years has also seen important research into the variables which influence the reception and perception of the arts, and this research serves as the central component of this study. In their analysis a New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts, McCarthy and Jinnett (2001) discuss a number of barrier facing those who might participate in the arts, both as performers and patrons, and they note that one of the most commonly cited barriers to participation is intimidation, which, as in many other fields, ultimately stems from a lack of experience (p. 33). This is an example of a perceptual barrier to participation, and it is much harder to overcome than practical barriers to participation, such as "high cost, inconvenient location, lack of information, scheduling conflicts, etc." (Zakaras & Lowell, 2008, p. 13). Taken together, these two categories represent the key factors responsible for the decline in arts patronage over the last three decades, but they do not function in precisely the same way, and as such, it is important to recognize that while closely related, they are responsible for different elements of the larger problem.

Practical barriers to participation can be overcome relatively easily, because their solutions are equally practical in nature, but perceptual barriers are especially pernicious precisely because they are rooted in the individual's perception of the arts, rather than any tangible aspect of a particular arts program. Thus, even when all practical barriers are overcome, there may still remain perceptual barriers that "inhibit interest and create resistance to participation" (Zakaras & Lowell, 2008, p. 13). However, recognizing these barriers to participation is the first step towards confronting the reasons for the decline in arts patronage and formulating methods of combating this decline. This is why research into these barriers represents a far more important contribution to the field than the previously addressed economic studies, which, while helpful in determining the extent of the problem, are definitionally incapable of discussing the underlying causes.

Methodology

While quantitative methods have proven extremely useful in determining the extent of the decline in patronage and financial backing for the performing arts in recent years, they can only carry the discussion so far, and as seen above, can actually lead some researchers to misidentify symptoms of the decline as the cause; for example, while a decrease in public funding for the arts has contributed to the decline, there are underlying social and attitudinal reasons for this decline that are not apparent when considering the issue in solely quantitative terms. Thus, qualitative variables must be identified in order to effectively parse the underlying causes of this decline, as the experience and perception of art is often highly subjective, and one of the primary goals of this study is to determine how an individual's subjective experience of art affects the degree of arts accessibility they enjoy.

As a result, the central question motivating this study concerns itself with uncovering the underlying factors that restrict or influence the experience and perception of the arts, and the variables which can overcome these restrictions in order to produce a more positive, engaged treatment of the arts. Therefore, instead of attempting to catalog the various quantitative, economic factors that constitute the decline in patronage, this study seeks to address the underlying barriers to patronage that produce these economic effects and the means by which those barriers can be overcome. This means assessing the various barriers to participation, both practical and perceptual, and the means by which they can be overcome in order to precipitate a shift in the way the arts are considered, both individually and on a societal scale. It is worth pointing out, however, that a complete account of the ideological factors influencing perceptual barriers to participation is well beyond the scope of this study, and should be considered an important goal of further research. By definition the assessment of these barriers demands a qualitative approach, because although there exists data on the relative number of people citing various barriers as reasons for inaccessibility in the arts, this data alone cannot reveal the complex interplay between these barriers, because understanding this interplay requires understanding how ideology and attitudes affect actions and applying this theoretical knowledge to the particular practical and perceptual barriers to arts participation.

Furthermore, because there is a relative dearth of qualitative, longitudinal studies concerning the perception and experience of art, this study's primary qualitative approach focused on examining the details of those studies that did at least attempt to measure experience, albeit indirectly or with the bare minimum of descriptive information, as is the case in quantitative research when questions must formulated so as to provide some information about the entire sample, rather than detailed information about any specific participant. Thus, when considering studies of declining participation and patronage rates, the researcher focused on investigating those variables that contributed to greater participation and patronage but which have not been previously considered in the literature as a predictor of arts participation.

After identifying these variables, it was possible to make qualitative judgments regarding their influence on arts participation as well as the likelihood of their being the cause behind the larger overall decline in patronage. By identifying the relatively small number of variables that have an outsized influence on arts participation, one can then use this knowledge in order to chart the complex relationships between these variables and the arts industry as a whole. Thus, the connections and correlations that arise out of quantitative data are used to make qualitative judgments about the socio-historical reasons for the recent decline in arts patronage.

Findings

As discussed above, the central barriers to participation in the arts can be grouped in one of two categories: practical and perceptual. Before addressing these two kinds of barriers and the means of overcoming them in detail, however, it is necessary to explicate the relationship between the two, because it is somewhat more complex than the dichotomy might suggest at first glance. Practical barriers to participation are things such as time constraints, cost, and physical accessibility (Zakaras & Lowell, 2008, p. 13; Williams, 2010, p. 4). Perceptual barriers, on the other hand, represent attitudes and anxieties concerning the arts that keep individuals from participating independently of practical concerns, and it is this independent aspect of perceptual barriers that complicates the relationship between the two. Put simply, perceptual barriers may exist even when there are no serious practical barriers to participation, but practical barriers to participation are ultimately caused by these perceptual barriers, because the perceptions of the arts are what ultimately inform the practical decisions that go on to create or break down practical barriers. However, these practical barriers can go on to exacerbate perceptual barriers, because the latter are ultimately caused by a lack of experience and education regarding the arts. Thus, practical and perceptual barriers work in a kind of vicious cycle in order to discourage participation in the arts.

Practical barriers to participation are the most easily identified, and therefore are often the barriers arts organizations spend the most time attempting to overcome. These attempts take a number of forms, but most often concern themselves with economics, as cost, time, and availability are the most frequently cited practical barriers, and all of these can be alleviated with more funding and better management of those funds (Brooks & Lowell, 2001; Alper, 2001, p. 294). This why Peacock's (1996) analysis of the arts focuses on the notion of the "cost disease" facing the arts after "thirty years of unbalanced growth;" because the problem faced by the arts can be so easily framed as an issue of economics, it is easy to suggest that better management and production strategies more in line with other purely capitalistic industries will result in "a higher consumption of arts goods and services" (Peacock, p. 217; Kesenne, 1996, p. 242). From this perspective, the onus is on artists and arts management "to increase productivity in the arts sector" while reducing production costs, as with any other industry that ultimately depends on a supply-demand relationship (Kesenne, 1996, p. 242).

This approach to the problem of the decline in arts participation and patronage is not entirely misguided, because indeed, research has shown that "budgeting as a fundamental requirement to good management is being overlooked in Arts organizations," and that better budgeting and communication in regards to economic issues could go a long way toward ensuring the success of arts organizations (Enamhe, 2010, 45, 48). However, this approach is limited because it only addresses the practical barriers to participation, and in doing so, ignores the fact that the arts, unlike other organizations or industries, must overcome perceptual barriers that can have a detrimental effect on the arts not seen in other cases. Put another way, while increased productivity and better budgetary management might be all that is needed to ensure the success of a traditional manufacturer of goods, that manufacturer likely does not have to contend with deep-seated reservations about its product; for example, a company that manufactures and sells tires likely does not have to contend with potential customers who view tires as a mere luxury, or who have no prior experience with tires and are thus anxious about engaging with something new.

Therefore, one must recognize that while some of the practical barriers to participation in the arts may be overcome through more effective management, production, and dissemination practices, perceptual barriers to arts participation are the most pernicious and deep-seated reasons for the decline in arts participation and patronage. However, while these perceptual barriers are the most stubborn cause of the decline in arts patronage, evidence suggests that the solution is stunningly simple, at least in theory if not in practice. This is because ample research has shown that "previous artistic experience" is a "key determinant of arts consumption" because it increases "the individual's capacity to derive pleasure and value from arts experiences" (Zakaras & Lowell, 2008, p. 17-18, Williams, 2010). Furthermore, according to the National Endowment for the Arts' 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, "adults who have participated in arts learning activities at some point in their lives are also more likely to attend benchmark arts activities" such as performances and exhibitions (NEA, 2009, p. 15).