Advertisement

Conclusions and Implications

  • Ben WalmsleyEmail author
Chapter
  • 200 Downloads
Part of the New Directions in Cultural Policy Research book series (NDCPR)

Abstract

This chapter draws out the key findings and conclusions from the book and explores their implications for the evolving field of audience studies, and, most significantly, for the future of audience research in the performing arts. It hones in on the phenomenon of engagement and outlines how this core concept might be fruitfully reconceptualised to move the field and the performing arts sector forwards. The chapter considers the implications of the book’s findings for external stakeholders, including arts and cultural organisations, artists and arts professionals, and policymakers. It makes the case for audience-centric organisations fuelled by mutually beneficial relationships of artistic exchange. Finally, the chapter offers some overall conclusions and speculates about the likely direction of future research in the field.

References

  1. Arvidsson, A. 2008. The ethical economy of customer coproduction. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4), pp. 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auslander, P. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a mediatized culture. 2nd ed. Oxon, Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, M. 2006. I have seen the future and it is not here yet …; or, on being ambitious for audience research. The Communication Review, 9(2), pp. 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben Chaim, D. 1984. Distance in the theatre: The aesthetics of audience response. London; Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bitgood, S. 2010. An attention-value model of museum visitors. Available from: https://airandspace.si.edu/rfp/exhibitions/files/j1-exhibition-guidelines/3/An%20Attention-Value%20Model%20of%20Museum%20Visitors.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2019].
  6. Boorsma, M. 2006. A strategic logic for arts marketing: Integrating customer value and artistic objectives. The International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12(1), pp. 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A. S., Novak-Leonard, J. L. and Gilbride, S. 2011. Getting in on the act: How arts groups are creating opportunities for active participation. San Francisco, CA, The James Irvine Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Burland, K. and Pitts, S. 2012. Rules and expectations of jazz gigs. Social Semiotics, 22(5), pp. 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conner, L. 2013. Audience engagement and the role of arts talk in the digital era. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Department for Culture Media and Sport. 2007. Culture on demand: Ways to engage a broader audience. London, Department for Culture Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  11. Heim, C. 2016. Audience as performer: The changing role of theatre audiences in the Twenty-First Century. London and New York, Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Machon, J. 2013. Immersive theatres: Intimacy and immediacy in contemporary performance. London, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. McMaster, B. 2008. Supporting excellence in the arts: From measurement to judgement. London, Department for Culture Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  14. O’Toole, J., Adams, R.-J., Anderson, M., Burton, B. and Ewing, R. (eds.). 2014. Young audiences, theatre and the cultural conversation. Dordrecht, Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Payne, A. F. and Frow, P. 2005. A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69, pp. 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), pp. 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rentschler, R. 2007. Museum marketing: Understanding different types of audiences. In: Sandell, R. and Janes, R. R. (eds.) Museum management and marketing. London; New York, Routledge, pp. 345–365.Google Scholar
  18. Sauter, W. 2000. The theatrical event: Dynamics of performance and perception. Iowa city, University of Iowa Press.Google Scholar
  19. Silvia, P. J. 2005. Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), pp. 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simon, N. 2010. The participatory museum. Santa Cruz, Museum 2.0.Google Scholar
  21. Walmsley, B. 2019. The death of arts marketing: A paradigm shift from consumption to enrichment. Arts and the Market, 9(1), pp. 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Whalley, J. and Miller, L. 2017. Between us: Audiences, affect and the in-between. London, Palgrave.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School Performance Cultural IndustriesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations