There is a tension running through the performing arts sector whenever the topic of digital comes up. On one side, the pressure to be present, visible, to grow. On the other, the legitimate fear that technological mediation will hollow out what makes theatre, dance, or live music irreplaceable experiences: presence, risk, the unrepeatable event.
The problem is that many cultural organisations resolve this tension hastily. Either they ignore digital on principle, as if resistance were itself an artistic position, or they adopt it without criteria, publishing content because “you need to be on social media”, livestreaming performances because “everyone does it”, building digital archives that nobody consults.
Neither position serves the work.
Digital, used well, does not compete with the live experience. It serves it. The question is not whether an organisation should have an online presence, but why and how.
There are three uses that seem genuinely worthwhile.
The first is contextualisation. A contemporary dance piece arriving on stage carries months of research, dramaturgical choices, conversations between artists. That process is rarely visible to audiences. Digital is the right space to make it accessible, not as a spoiler, but as an invitation. A note from the director on the starting point, a rehearsal excerpt, a list of references: these are not substitutes for the performance, they prepare the eye for it.
The second is memory. The performing arts have a structural problem: they disappear. A February premiere can be completely inaccessible by October. Digital makes it possible to build an archive that is not merely institutional. It is a way of extending the life of the work beyond its closing night. Done carefully, a digital archive can be as artistically meaningful as a well-conceived programme note.
The third is reach. There are audiences who will never walk into a theatre for geographic, economic, or simply habitual reasons. It is neither realistic nor desirable to try to replace the live experience for those who already seek it out. But for those who have not yet arrived, digital can be the first door. A strong interview with an artist, a documentary about the creative process, a conversation published after a premiere: these formats have the potential to build a relationship with people who would otherwise never encounter the work.
What digital cannot do, and here is the line that matters, is simulate what only happens in presence. A livestream of a performance is not a performance: it is a different object, with different rules, requiring different choices. Treating it as equivalent does a disservice to both.
The question any cultural organisation should ask before any digital decision is not “how do we reach more people?” but “what do we want these people to understand about our work?” The answer to that question determines everything else: formats, frequency, tone, channels.
Digital does not threaten the essence of the performing arts. The absence of thinking about how to use it, that is the real threat.
Photo: © Unsplash
Leave a Reply