LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Walmsley, BA
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
This article presents the findings of an Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded project carried out from September 2013 to March 2014 by five researchers at the University of Leeds (UK), who paired off with five audience-participants and engaged in a process of “deep hanging out” (Geertz 1998) at events curated as part of Leeds’ annual LoveArts festival. As part of AHRC’s Cultural Value project, the overarching aim of the research was to produce a rich, polyvocal, evocative and complex account of cultural value by co-investigating arts engagement with audience-participants. Findings suggested that both the methods and purpose of knowing about cultural value impact significantly on any exploration of cultural experience. Fieldwork culminated in the apparent paradox that we know, and yet still don’t seem to know, the value and impact of the arts. Protracted discussions with the participants suggested that this paradox stemmed from a misplaced focus on knowledge; that instead of striving to understand and rationalize the value of the arts, we should instead aim to feel and experience it. During a process of deep hanging out, our participants revealed the limitations of language in capturing the value of the arts, yet confirmed perceptions of the arts as a vehicle for developing self-identity and -expression and for living a better life. These findings suggest that the Cultural Value debate needs to be reframed from what is currently an interminable epistemological obsession (that seeks to prove and evidence the value of culture) into a more complex phenomenological question, which asks how people experience the arts and culture and why people want to understand its value. This in turn implies a re-conceptualization of the relationships between artists or arts organisations and their publics, based on a more relational form of engagement and on a more anthropological approach to capturing and co-creating cultural value.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Arnold, M., 1869. Culture and anarchy: an essay in political and social criticism. Oxford: Project Gutenberg.
    • Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2013. Cultural value project. Arts and Humanities Research Council. Available from: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funded-Research/Fundedthemes-and-programmes/Cultural-Value-Project/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 25 June 2014].
    • Belfiore, E. and Bennett, O., 2008. The social impact of the arts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Bishop, C., 2004. Antagonism and relational aesthetics. October, 110, 51-79.
    • Boorsma, M., 2006. A strategic logic for arts marketing. International journal of cultural policy, 12 (1), 73-92.
    • Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard, IL: Harvard University Press.
    • Bourriaud, N., 2002. Relational aesthetics. Dijon: Les Presses du Réel.
    • Brown, A.S. and Novak, J.L., 2007. Assessing the intrinsic impacts of a live performance. San Francisco, CA: Wolfbrown.
    • Burns, D., 2007. Systemic action research. Bristol: Polity Press.
    • Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
    • Clift, S., et al., 2009. The state of arts and health in England. Arts & health, 1 (1), 6-35.
    • Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1988. Introduction. In: M. Csikszentmihalyi and I.S. Csikszentmihalyi, eds. Optimal experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-14.
    • Ehrenreich, B., 2007. Dancing in the streets: a history of collective joy. London: Granta.
    • Ellis, C., 1991. Sociological introspection and emotional experience. Symbolic interaction, 14 (1), 23-50.
    • EPPI Centre, 2010. Understanding the drivers, impact and value of engagement in culture and sport: an overarching summary of the research. London: DCMS, A.C.E., English Heritage, Museums Libraries Archives Council, Sport England.
    • Galloway, S., 2009. Theory-based evaluation and the social impact of the arts. Cultural trends, 18 (2), 125-148.
    • Geertz, C., 1998. Deep hanging out. The New York review of books, 45 (16), 69.
    • Giannachi, G. and Stewart, N., eds., 2005. Performing nature: explorations in ecology and the arts. Bern: Lang.
    • Granovetter, M., 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological theory, 1, 201-233.
    • Hartley, J. and Benington, J., 2000. Co-research: a new methodology for new times. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 9 (4), 463-476.
    • Hewison, R., 2014. Cultural capital: the rise and fall of creative Britain. London: Verso.
    • Holbrook, M.B., 1999. Consumer value. London: Routledge.
    • Holden, J., 2012. New year, new approach to wellbeing? London: Guardian Professional, 5 Jan 2012.
    • Hood, J.C., 2007. Orthodoxy vs. power: the defining traits of grounded theory. In: A. Bryant and K. Charmaz, eds. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage, 151-164.
    • Ingold, T., 2007. Anthropology is not ethnography. In: Proceedings of the British Academy, 154 (2008), 62-92.
    • Johanson, K. and Glow, H., 2015. A virtuous circle: the positive evaluation phenomenon in arts audience research. Participations, 12 (1), 254-270.
    • Ledwith, M., 2007. On being critical: uniting theory and practice through emancipatory action research. Educational action research, 15 (4), 597-611.
    • Matarasso, F., 1996. Defining values: evaluating arts programmes. Stroud: Comedia.
    • Morris Hargreaves McIntyre, 2007. Audience knowledge digest: why people visit museums and galleries, and what can be done to attract them. Manchester: Morris Hargreaves Mcintyre.
    • Moustakas, C., 1990. Heuristic research: design, methodology, and applications. London: Sage.
    • New Economics Foundation, 2008. Capturing the audience experience: a handbook for the theatre. London: New Economics Foundation.
    • O'Brien, D., 2010. Measuring the value of culture: a report to the department for culture media and sport. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
    • Orona, C.J., 2002. Temporality and identity loss due to Alzheimer's disease. In: A.M. Huberman and M.B. Miles, eds., The qualitative researcher's companion. London: Sage, 367-392.
    • Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H., 1999. The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
    • Radbourne, J., et al., 2009. The audience experience: measuring quality in the performing arts. International journal of arts management, 11 (3), 16-29.
    • Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K., 2010. Measuring the intrinsic benefits of arts attendance. Cultural trends, 19 (4), 307-324.
    • Reason, M., 2010. Asking the audience: audience research and the experience of theatre. About performance, 10, 15-34.
    • Reason, M. and Reynolds, D., 2010. Kinesthesia, empathy, and related pleasures: an inquiry into audience experiences of watching dance. Dance research journal, 42 (2), 49-75.
    • Sanderson, I., 2000. Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6, 433-454.
    • Schechner, R., 2003. Performance theory. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
    • Scott, C.A., 2010. Searching for the 'public' in public value: arts and cultural heritage in Australia. Cultural trends, 19 (4), 273-289.
    • Sharpe, B., 2010. Economies of life: patterns of health and wealth. Axminster: Triarchy Press.
    • Slater, A., 2007. 'Escaping to the gallery': understanding the motivations of visitors to galleries. International journal of nonprofit and voluntary sector marketing, 12, 149-162.
    • Smith, D.W., 2013. Husserl. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
    • Throsby, D., 2006. The value of cultural heritage: what can economics tell us? In: Capturing the public value of heritage: the proceedings of the London conference, 25-26 January 2006. London, 40-44.
    • Turner, V.W., 1969. The ritual process structure and anti-structure. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
    • Turner, V., 1982. From ritual to theatre: the human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ.
    • Vuyk, K., 2010. The arts as an instrument? Notes on the controversy surrounding the value of art. International journal of cultural policy, 16 (2), 173-183.
    • Wallendorf, M. and Brucks, M., 1993. Introspection in consumer research: implementation and implications. Journal of consumer research, 20 (3), 339-359.
    • Walmsley, B., 2012. Towards a balanced scorecard: a critical analysis of the culture and sport evidence (CASE) programme. Cultural trends, 21 (4), 325-334.
    • Walmsley, B., 2013. “A big part of my life”: a qualitative study of the impact of theatre. Arts marketing: an international journal, 3 (1), 73-87.
    • White, T.R. and Hede, A.-M., 2008. Using narrative inquiry to explore the impact of art on individuals. The journal of arts management, law, and society, 38 (1), 19-36.
    • Williams, R., 1958. Culture and society. London: Chatto and Windus.
    • Wogan, P., 2004. Deep hanging out: reflections on fieldwork and multisited andean ethnography. Identities, 11 (1), 129-139.
    • Yu, J.E., 2004. Reconsidering participatory action research for organizational transformation and social change. Journal of organisational transformation and social change, 1 (2), 111-141.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article