Culture Vulture

Too much free arts content online?

Although immensely grateful for the many performances put up for an arts-starved audience, I worry about the impact on the industry in the long run

In the past few weeks, with many countries experiencing a lockdown and the closure of theatres and concert halls, there has been a deluge of free arts content online.

I've seen British actor Benedict Cumberbatch in Frankenstein, English singer Elaine Paige in Cats, heard the Berliner Philharmoniker perform to an empty audience and indulged in many more Singapore performances from theatre to dance.

Although immensely grateful that works are put up online for an arts-starved audience, I worry about the knock-on effects this might have for the sector in the long run.

In particular, what is the perceived value of the arts if so much of it is made available for free online, and will people get so accustomed to free content that they believe it should be free beyond these extenuating circumstances?

These days, a free play or orchestral recording is put online with a polite suggestion that a donation could be made to the arts group.

Are viewers clicking on the suggested links to make suitable donations?

I doubt it.

As I watch the National Theatre's production of Frankenstein, I start to justify my lack of an upfront contribution: this set is way too expensive for my $10 donation to make a difference; if it can afford Cumberbatch, it doesn't need my help.

I know that, as a matter of principle, I should reach for my wallet and make a donation, yet I do not. So I, too, am guilty.

But I would most willingly pay for a ticket to a National Theatre production the next time I get a chance to watch one. The company has chalked up goodwill in my books.

Also, I know that this online freebie is a limited-time offer and have no expectation that other content by this group or any other group should be free. Would others have different expectations?

As I watched actor Benedict Cumberbatch (left) online in Frankenstein, I was guilty of thinking, if the National Theatre can afford the British star, it doesn't need my help. But I would pay for a ticket to one of its productions the next time I get
As I watched actor Benedict Cumberbatch (left) online in Frankenstein, I was guilty of thinking, if the National Theatre can afford the British star, it doesn't need my help. But I would pay for a ticket to one of its productions the next time I get a chance to watch one. PHOTO: NATIONAL THEATRE/ INSTAGRAM

For years, as a journalist with this newspaper, I was asked: "Why isn't your article free?"

To which my jaded response would be: "Have I ever asked you to do your work for free?"

To the average reader, an article is an article. They have read free online articles and find it hard to understand why other articles should be behind a pay wall.

The problem with free content is that people get used to it. And soon, the expectation is that all similar content should be free.

Free online arts content could be setting the same precedent.

Last month, the head of the United Nation's World Intellectual Property Organisation, Mr Francis Gurry, expressed concern about the numerous requests received for IP exceptions which would allow access to creative content.

In an interview with news agency Agence France-Presse, he questioned whether it was justified to use the pandemic to make museum exhibits, concerts and publications available at no cost. He added that free content in the form of books, films and concerts is threatening already fragile culture industries. "We should be more measured," he said.

The launch of a new streaming platform, Sistic Live, in Singapore last week is an attempt to get audiences to pay for the shows they watch online.

The site makes users go through the motions of buying a ticket. There is the option to pay $5, $10, $20 or $50 or "watch for free" - three words which would make anyone clicking on them feel like a real cheapskate.

But that's the point. If the viewer is not paying, that is his choice, but he or she is reminded, at least, that art-making is not cost-free.

Of course, this is just one of the many things the arts sector has to fear in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Surveys of concert attendees and theatregoers have all pointed to a painfully slow recovery, with audiences likely to trickle back into seats rather than flood venues in great haste.

A survey by United States marketing research company Shugoll Research showed that only 36 per cent of theatregoers say they are very likely to return to theatres when they reopen.

When asked more specifically about how long it would take before they return to theatres, only 18 per cent said they would return right away if there is something they want to see, while 63 per cent said they will probably wait "at least a few months or more before attending" a show.

While health concerns are the prime reason for not stepping into the reopened theatres, one must not forget that this pandemic is ravaging the world economy and many will be stripped of the disposable income that previously might have been channelled into a ticket.

When putting food on the table is an issue, culture will have to take a back seat.

With so much to be worried about, perhaps the cultural sector should throw all caution to the wind and continue to offer free arts content. After all, the public needs the arts to soothe the soul in these harried times.

But just be mindful that many who partake of this free arts content will soon expect other content to be free - just like this article.

Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on May 26, 2020, with the headline Too much free arts content online?. Subscribe