I've often wondered about how the attention span and intelligence of society affects the products Walt Disney World and similar parks produce, but ultimately, I don't think it should be that big of a factor. I think comparing a theme park attraction to the arts is a bit of a stretch because theme parks are never going to be at as high of a "bar". Fewer people now may read James Joyce, but there is no theme park equivalent.
Whatever new novel Dan Brown produces will be one of the all time best selling, and while he's no Joyce, he's no Harlequin Romance author, either (and although I loathe Brown, I think it minimally requires more wherewithal to read his novel than it does to understand or appreciate even the finest theme park attraction). That popularity alone suggests to me that enough of society has the intelligence/attention (appreciation, whatever quality you want to call it) to appreciate a higher quality of theme park attraction. I guess I just find it hard to believe that there is much of an issue that would necessitate (or allow, as you're suggesting) demeaning attractions to appeal to the lowest common denominator of guests.
Concisely, I think demeaning the attractions is a symptom of a different problem than that.
In any case, we both should hope that you're wrong about guests. It's a self-defeating argument. If the majority of guests don't have the basic cognitive ability to appreciate more detailed or nuanced attractions, what is the point of making them? Do they have some intrinsic value that otherwise justifies their production? I think if society can't understand the attractions, you're going to have a tough argument in building these attractions. That's before you even get to the "bean counters/accountants/legal" that's just at a basic common sense level. Why make a product if there is an inadequate audience?
Well once again I've managed to steer a topic of conversation from something as simple as a rumor regarding TLM ride in Florida, to a philosophical discussion comparing James Joyce to theme park attractions:drevil:.
I don't know if I agree that there is no theme park equivalent to the classic artistic works, or modern for that matter. Before I go into what I mean let me qualify that statement with the acknowledgment that today's theme park attractions are not initiated for the same reasons as a classical piece. Theme parks are purely driven by commercialism and pop culture. That doesn't mean however that the artistic achievements cannot be appreciated and compared to other quality works of the past and present.
I don't know what market James Joyce's literature attracts but I would assume the higher socioeconomic and education demographics would be the most likely group to enjoy it. These are not the same people that drive theme park business. They do account for a percentage however. The creators of Epcot attempted to cater to this group more than the Magic Kingdoms could. When an individual from this group can get over their intellectual snobbery they are able to appreciate theme park artistry and ingenuity; whether it is derived from Epcot's original humanistic and moral message experience, or just the simple fantasy escape offered by the Magic Kingdom.
Getting back to the main point, I would argue that the masters of the past would easily have created similar works of art to what we see in today's theme parks if they had the same technology and resources available to them. Can you imagine what kind of theme park Da Vinci would create?
If they had the ability to take their visions and produce a three-dimensional version of it most of them would have glady given their left ears for the chance. I have worked with many "renaissance" artists in this industry. One in particular could actually mix the pigments and oils, create a canvas and paint exactly as the masters did. His paintings were every bit as good as Michelangelo, Raphael or Botticello. Believe me when you compare a painting prepared "from scratch" versus those done with store-bought mixtures there is a marked difference. My point is that artists like that are common in this industry. Their works can be seen in three-dimensions throughout the parks.
As you know there have been several books written regarding theme park architecture. While this subject is still shunned by some in the architectural elite community, many have embraced it. They hail it as taking architecture to the next level in artistic expression and complexity.
Of coure art is not limited to paintings architecture and sculpture. Sounds, film, writing, dance and music are also examples of artisitc disciplines that can be found in the theme parks. There are some music scores and orchestrations in the parks that could easily stand side by side with some of the best symphonies and styles of the masters. In terms of tonal quality, harmonics, theme, harmonization, modulation, texture and form, these theme park music pieces will pass the tests. Of course I'm not talking about Yo Ho but more Journey to the Center of the Earth theme, Stormrider, Soarin', American Adventure etc.
I'll take this a step further: where else can you go to experience every artistic discipline at the same time in the same place? Think about the art that is employed in an attraction such as Pirates. Each element's form, texture, color, composition, perspective, staging, ad infinitum must be worked out to harmonize with each scene and the overall attraction storyline. On top of that we have lighting, dialog, sound effects, music and sculpture to add to the mix. What artistic discipline is not employed in an attraction such as Pirates? With the blending of art and technology I think Da Vinci would be proud.
I do hope I'm wrong about guests. The problem is that the Disney Company believes it to be so. Just look at the trend: Horizons, World of Motion and Kitchen Caberet replaced with a spin and puke ride, a warehouse thrill ride and a rock and roll sintra cutout show to a film simulator (which at least has a very well done score). Let's face it, Horizons, as much as a work of art that it was, was not popular anymore. The main park demographic would rather experinece G-force than a highly creative work that you ride through.
This is one argument I would love to be proven wrong about. In my experience however, the fast food/Wal Mart/Knocked Up movie generation would much rather enjoy a thrill on a non-themed coaster than ride through a "boring" omnimover attraction or visit a museum. I love coasters, but I also love museums, dark rides and theater. I know I'm "preaching to the choir" on this point, but I'm sure you'd agree that there is a marked difference between the teens and young adults of the 50's and 60's and how much they appreciated a good dark ride, to the same demographic today.
Part of me would love to say if we could just be given the chance to build another Omnimover attraction on the scale of Horizons or Pirates, infused with today's technology, we might see a resurgence in this type of theme park entertainment. Perhaps we'll see it with TLM ride. I sure hope so. I'm just telling you that I've seen surveys where independent park owners were interviewed regarding putting dark rides in their parks. 90% of them said they would not be willing to spend more than $4 million for a dark ride and would rather spend $15 million for a coaster. It doesn't make sense to me but it's a reality of today.
cry
