Research shows: nothing so immutable as the art public

More people go to popular art than 'high' or 'canonical' art. Researcher Andries van den Broek has researched this. Therefore, there are now figures explaining the word 'popular' and 'elite'. So If you thought: popular automatically means more people are going there: that's true. The Social Cultural Planning Agency has figured it out.

Completely pointless study on the audience reach of the arts, presented recently by the Social Cultural Planning Bureau However, neither does it. Indeed, the huge mountain of data and tables that SCP has unearthed also show conclusively that this relationship between popular and elite is rock solid in society. We already knew that from, for instance the research done 10 years ago to the history of theatre attendance, now it is also common knowledge: those who are educated, those who have parents and friends interested in a particular art form will become interested in it themselves. The more education, the higher the art, the more years of life, the more classic the art form.

Biggest news, however, is that the surplus of higher-educated middle-aged women in art attendance does not exist at all. These so-called Joyce Roodnat factor is fiction: men and women on average do not differ in their interest in art, in any form.

Does the research yield anything further? That is doubtful. However, marketers and PR practitioners should look closely at the figures, because there are clear patterns in attendance. Film and pop music have a lot in common, and as a house of art (museum, concert hall, theatre) you have a great duty to build a connection with your audience, even more so than as a creator of art.

This is a fact also evidenced by the series of interviews with spectators that yours truly is producing for the performing arts trade magazine Theatermaker, a first instalment of which can be read here: visitors choose a building and a place, and only then what there is to see or experience there. Logical, but for many people active in the art world that is news.

The question remains whether more audiences can be attracted to art, high or low. To this, after 152 pages, the survey unfortunately does not answer. The questionnaire seems to have been too limited for that: people could not tell, for instance, as visitors, whether there were things that actually prevented them from visiting. As a result, the answers of non-visitors could not be compared with those of visitors.

Missed opportunity. But fortunately, this will allow another researcher to get back to work for a few years.