Looks like you are a new visitor to this site. Hello!

Welcome to Hope For Film! Come participate in the discussion, and I encourage you to enter your email address in the sidebar and subscribe. It's free! And easy! If you have any suggestions on how to improve this website or suggestions for topics please don't hesitate to write in to any of the blogs.

You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

(If you keep getting this message, you probably have cookies turned off.)

November 29 at 8:30am

Without An Audience, It Can’t be Art!

By Ted Hope

By Emily Best

I hold this apparently really unpopular view that without an audience, it can’t be art. “Art” is a social label, a negotiation between the artist, the object (or performance) and the viewer.

This is history’s fault. Art was reserved for the rich or those with access to the rich. We didn’t see how it was made, conceived, choreographed, or staged until it appeared in front of us. And mostly, everyone liked it that way. Artists got to create with very little interference. Audiences had very little interaction with the artists or processes that created what they saw in museums, theaters, and on stage, so they were happy to pay their hard earned money to witness that “magic.”

But now we live in the age of the digital download. What a viewer used to have to spend $10 on a museum ticket to see can be called forth with a few clicks of a button. What a viewer used to line up to buy in a store for $10 (a CD or DVD) can now be downloaded in a few seconds for a few dollars (or free). The value proposition has been turned on its head. And now there’s just so much stuff available everywhere all the time, film studios and filmmakers are trying desperately to compete for a slice of a rapidly dividing pie. The movie business had a system: It used to be “theatrical release, then video, then TV.” Now it’s “VOD, then theatrical and DVD,” or “all three together!”, or whatever combination of existing options the studios can come up with using their data models. Not a lot of out-of-the-box thinking being applied.

Did you know football used to be a running game only? There were a LOT of combinations of running plays. Then one day in 1905, St. Louis University’s Bradbury Robinson passed the ball forward to his teammate, leaving the other team scrambling through the rulebook to see if that was ok. It was. Everyone started renegotiating their offenses around the forward pass. BOOM. Whole new ball game.

In the digital age, transparency is the forward pass. It’s the business play that’s changing the game. Everything changes when you let everyone in. Kickstarter has done it to business and Facebook has done it to society. It makes consumers – audiences – demand to know more, to see more, to feel like a part of the process. It’s toppling regimes, swaying elections, and making it more possible than ever for people to get creative endeavors off the ground.

It’s faster and cheaper to make movies and your audience is out there and it’s easier to connect directly to them than ever before. Yet fewer specialty titles are getting the green light from studios than ever before. Transparency is creating so much connectivity, but the data hasn’t caught up, and data is what they use to green-light pictures.

At the moment, studios are throwing money at the problem, trying to find the Thing to replace those juicy DVD revenues that padded their pockets for a decade. They make and remake existing properties rather than risk the potentially lower return of specialty (indie) movies because they have to feed the Beast. The Beast is not agile and flexible, and the technology platforms profiting hugely from transparency certainly are.

And yet, filmmakers read “How to get film distribution,” or “How to get your film financed” and all these books tell you how to think like a studio, how to find data like a studio, how to write a script based on the “market.” There’s no talk of passion, or connection to your audience, or ART. These expert authors write not about finding audience but about about finding “markets.” Who is a market? What does it like? It’s as impenetrable as the studio walls or cable’s VOD numbers. No one really knows (despite their most fervent claims).

So why are so many independent filmmakers trying to use the Beast’s model? Filmmakers are startup entrepreneurs with creative products, and can design their business models really any way they like. The difference is, startup entrepreneurs are learning from books like Eric Reis’s “The Lean Startup.” Reis’s core argument is that rather than investing tons of time and money producing what you think the market wants, you need to get the product in front of real consumers as soon as humanly possible – even before the masterpiece is ‘ready.’ You ask questions by showing them a fledgling product and seeing how they react. Then you iterate, and build a core of supporters from the very beginning who will help you make it better.

So, who is your audience? Can you really know without testing?

Transparency – letting people in – is a brave, creative act. It asks more questions of the material than it answers because it acknowledges that the art of filmmaking is meant to have an affect on an audience. And only an audience can tell you if that’s successful. They might also help you make it successful.

And so here’s the fight I have: many talented artists I talk to feel that letting the audience in to the process, even as a thought, somehow corrupts the purity of expression. And I say, corrupts? You must not think much of the people on whose eyeballs and pocketbooks your livelihood relies. Why should they not demand their equal place in the artistic equation? I argue that rather than hinder the artistic process, an engaged audience emboldens the creator to take bigger risks.

It means trusting the audience with their taste. In turn the audience trusts you to produce high quality work without all the traditionally legitimizing (studio) eyes on it. It’s a big responsibility for everyone, but it means we might all get back to the art of filmmaking. And, you know, change the business while we’re at it.

EMILY BEST is the founder and CEO of Seed&Spark, a startup to build truly independent community in which she would like to make moving pictures. Before producing Like the Water, the project that inspired it all, Emily produced theater, worked as a vision and values strategy consultant for Best Partners, ran restaurants, studied jazz singing at the Taller de Musics, tour guided and cooked in Barcelona, and before that, was a student of Anthropology at Haverford College. 

  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print


leave a comment
  1. Mark sAVAGE / Nov 29 at 8:30am

    You raise excellent points, Emily, and touch on a big current bugbear of mine: lack of passion. For many, making films has become a purely utilitarian pursuit, driven only by the need to get every aspect of a project commercially “right”, which is impossible (the market is unpredictable). On top of that, the concept of a first movie as “calling card” makes me feel slightly sick. For me, a movie does come from a passion to tell a particular story in a particular fashion. The key to “success” is to fashion it on a budget that permits flexibility and independence.

    Testing ideas with art and trailers and discussion is definitely helpful. Potential viewers enjoy being invested in the process.

    Unfortunately, I do see the decline of filmmakers who’d make films even if they didn’t have big money to do so. The problem, primarily, is the trend of doing your own version of something that currently seems “hot” — Zombies, for example. Ultimately, it makes for mostly bland and familiar cinema.

    When filmmakers stop seeking validation and “legitimization” from studios (who exist to nurture profits, not cinema), there will be a renaissance.

  2. Birgit Rathsmann / Nov 29 at 8:30am

    I went to film school, and was constantly aware that something about the monolithic view of film as a discipline was bothersome. Of course, the monolith was primarily what was wrong, but the way the audience is viewed was a real problem for me. Film is necessarily a collaborative art form, it’s off not to see the audience as a collaborator on some level. So, thanks for writing this so succinctly.

  3. Tori / Nov 29 at 8:30am

    This is a bit too simplistic and dismissive of the history of art however. Many of the greatest works that have stood the test of time for centuries were created in isolation and out of the artist’s personal motivation.

    The trick of course, is that many great artists were not recognized until long after they had died because yes, creating art for art’s sake was sometimes not commercially viable. And yet… their art was good. It has become legend. This suggests that worship at the altar of commercial success – by making art only for an audience and not one’s self – is not the only road to making good art.

    By all means, if a creator wants to run a business and produce a product that will sell immediately, and enough to turn a profit, then collaborating directly with the taste of a target demographic is the way to go. But it may not really say much about what art should be or how it should be created.

  4. CARLA WILLARD / Nov 29 at 8:30am


    What a savvy approach – and inspiring vision! With indie-transparency, you’re developing, not only new exciting film by imaginative storytellers, but also a new kind of audience that hails from the possibility of a profound democratization of art. Futureward!

    With Appreciation,


Leave a Comment

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!