The role of scientific evaluation in theater

The Guardian's theater blog had a post recently that got me seriously thinking about the role of how science and statistical evaluation should play in the theatrical process. I feel this is an area where I have particular expertise, as I am getting a B.A. in History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Science at the University of Chicago, as well as pursuing a career in theater criticism. In this case, an American consulting firm known as WolfBrown is offering quantitative metrics for evaluating the impact of theater, using terms such as "Intellectual Stimulation Index," "Captivation Index," and other "impact constructs."

While Jason Grote worries that this will cause increasingly tame theater, George Hunka at the Guardian mocks the whole proposition with a slightly condescending tone, noting that "It's naive, though, to think that ultimately programmers and curators, in a time of shrinking support for the arts, may not accept and reject work for their seasons based upon the narrow 'impact constructs' that WolfBrown defines," and noted that "Brecht's decidedly non-empathetic theatre isn't even in their sights. A form of drama like that of Howard Barker or Sarah Kane, which denies that theatre should be 'therapeutic' at all, is likely to be entirely off WolfBrown's radar."

I would argue that dramatic theory and statistical evaluation of a play's impact are not contradictory, but rather approach the same topic from different angles for different purposes. Film theory is as alive as ever in academia, and I've seem incredibly convoluted theoretical analysis of movies as commercial as The Matrix and Clueless. That doesn't mean Hollywood studio execs remotely cared about the theoretical implications when they green-lighted those movies. Despite what Mr. Adorno may have said, the commercial considerations of a work of art don't detract from scholars ability to evaluate them, or from an audience member to enjoy them for any reason he or she so chooses.

To that end, it's a wonder that theater hasn't started using commercial consultants in this capacity years ago—just about every other major culture industry already has, be it film, music, book publishing, or even the visual arts. Theater has been able to get away with it because it's work isn't technically reproducible, so it's mass consumption is always limited. Some may say this is theater's greatest strengh, but it's also why it has fallen out of vitality since the 20th century. So while the use of scientific evaluation may not be welcoming to artists, it's probably necessary to promote sustainable theater. Ultimately, it probably won't affect the artistic process all that much, just perhaps the bank accounts of certain artists. It could even end up resulting in more profitable theater for artists as well as producers.