Check the conversation on Claudia La Rocco’s Art. Cult. Blog about marketing the arts.
a snippet of my response:
As for marketing the works and the terms used to help attract viewers…
I think dance marketers try to find ways to give concrete information about abstract performances in hopes that someone (hopefully a new audience member) will latch onto a particular idea and then take a chance on the work by buying a ticket. The glitch is that in most cases the clearest information is the artist’s source material, what they are working from versus what they are creating (this is in large part do to the differences between marketing and creative time lines). Because of this, the audience ends up expecting to see the source and not the artist’s opinion, interpretation, or translation of the source.
I found this particular marketing conundrum extremely frustrating during the marketing of No Where. Audiences came expecting to see how the math literally related to the work, but that was never my intention. I wanted the math to be the hidden spine of the work, and it was. But because the idea of math was used in the marketing people thought I lied. That I had fooled them into thinking I was working with math because they couldn’t see it. Little did they know that the entire piece was structured by numbers. Even more frustrating, was the math isn’t what the piece is about. It’s about women, particularly one woman at three different stages in her life and how she reckons with the decisions she has made and where her life has taken her.
I suppose until marketing timelines shift to work in conjunction with creative timelines we will always have this disconnect. In the meatime, I am going to re-look at the marketing language for …within us.!