In their first Let’s Talk episode, Angela Johnson (Podcast Producer) and B Crittenden (Technology and Interactive Content Manager) chat about Zoom fatigue with AMT Lab contributor Morgan Kasprowicz, then continue the conversation about the pandemic’s impact on the arts with a discussion about VR festivals and streaming.

[Musical introduction, fades out]

Angela: Welcome to the Let's Talk series of Tech In the Arts, the podcast for the Arts Management and Technology Lab. My name is Angela Johnson, the new Podcast Producer.

B: And I’m B Crittenden, the new Technology and Interactive Content Manager.

Angela: Each month, we review trending stories and discussions with topics such as streaming, artificial intelligence, marketing, social media, inclusion, fundraising, and much more. Our goal is to exchange ideas, bring awareness and stay on top of the trends. In this week's episode, we will discuss Zoom fatigue, virtual reality festivals, and streaming in the arts.

B: Let's do it. Joining us for our first topic today, Zoom fatigue, we have a special guest. 

Angela: Morgan, do you want to introduce yourself? 

Morgan: Hi everyone. I'm Morgan Kasprowicz. I’m a contributor to AMT Lab this fall.

Angela: So, Morgan, Zoom fatigue: what is it?

Morgan: Zoom fatigue is this phenomenon that I think we're now all pretty familiar with, where even if your school day or your work day is the same length in terms of the amount of meetings you're attending or time you're spending on your computer, but because we're all staring at each other in video chats, we are feeling significantly more exhausted at the end of the day. There are a lot of reasons behind this. A lot of it has to do with the fact that we're missing a lot of the social cues that we're used to in meetings. You know, people are talking over each other by accident because you can't make eye contact with one person directly. You can't necessarily judge their body language in the same way. And so we're constantly having to assess and reassess whether it's time to talk, whether it's time to not talk; we're constantly assessing our coworkers or our friends’ faces on the screen. Overall, it's just causing a whole lot of sensory overload that's tiring us out by the end of the day.

Angela: As well as the fact that I feel like it's so much easier to do other things. I mean, who hasn't texted a friend or gone online shopping while you're supposed to be in a meeting? And it’s just so much easier to do that while we're on all on Zoom. Andrew Franklin, an Assistant Professor of Cyber Psychology at Virginia's Norfolk State University, said, “we're engaged in numerous activities, but never fully devoting ourselves to focus on anything in particular.” And psychologists call this “continuous partial attention” and it's just like our brains are being overloaded. And as a result of that, we're just exhausted all the time.

B: In addition to that, Jeremy Bailenson, who is the founding director of Stanford's Human Computer Interaction Lab, found that “big face” image on Zoom actually can cause and trigger that fight or flight surge of adrenaline. So, it can actually contribute to some real anxiety that people could be experiencing, not even just once a day, but up to eight hours a day. In addition to this fact—Morgan, you were talking about missing social cues—it’s nearly impossible to actually make eye contact with someone over Zoom, which can be, if we're talking about that everyday connectedness you're feeling with the humans around you, you're staring at each other's faces all day, but you're never actually looking at each other in the eye, which can be incredibly disorienting and can contribute to further anxiety and just feeling alienated.

Morgan: I agree. And with that also, I was thinking about this in reference to several meetings I've had over the past couple of weeks, it's also not normal to feel like you're processing everyone's face at the same time. Like, the human spectrum of vision when you're sitting across the table, even from a large group of people, you're typically only able to get one person's face in your field of view. And so it becomes that much more emotionally taxing when you're actually processing information from nine different faces or from 12 different faces, all within the same frame of view. So I think that is also contributing to the fatigue aspect. 

Angela: I also feel like—because, like you said, so much of human communication is nonverbal, but we can only see each other's faces—we're all kind of over emoting to try to like, get what we're feeling across. You can't show with your body that you find this interesting, so you have to smile kind of weirdly so that people can tell that you are pleased with them, and stuff like that. And that itself is also really emotionally taxing. Then once you're done with your meeting, you want to just be completely blank-faced for, like, an hour just to recover from that. 

Morgan: Right. What you can't see is that I'm nodding vigorously at a lot more than I probably would in person as Angela was talking. And I'm realizing that I'm doing exactly what she's saying is happening, so yeah.

B: Oh yeah. We're all overacting to try and show each other that we understand and are responding. This article I was referencing earlier, published on Axios by Scott Rosenberg: he actually concluded his article reminding everyone that Zoom is tiring—phone calls are still fine. Perhaps something to take out of this conversation would be: Zoom has been incredibly helpful for us on many different levels during this time, from the academic environment, to the work environment, to social interaction. But before we communicate with someone on this platform, we are still allowed to think about, what is the video component actually serving us? And is this something we could talk about over the phone? Because I feel like we are now sort of resorting to it in the face of not being able to meet person to person, and in reality, it doesn't replace meeting face to face.

Angela: That's true. Although I do feel like I am the kind of person who finds phone calls really, really stressful. And I think part of it is because you can't see face to face. I mean, obviously video calls are also really stressful. Well, basically any form of human interaction is kind of stressful. But, yeah, I do feel like being able to see someone's face is valuable, especially in terms of just trying to communicate something with them. I think that we have not perfected video conferencing yet, and it's still not an ideal state and will never replace real human interaction. 

B: Agreed. Morgan, I wonder if you have any examples of how Zoom or Zoom-adjacent platforms have been used in our industry: if you have anything to offer regarding excellent applications of those, and maybe some that are not so excellent and sort of further contribute to this fatigue that we have?

Morgan: Yeah, I think that's a great question. Over the summer, I worked for the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust and we were able to take a bunch of performance-based camps for kids online. And I will say the actual staff side of that, the working on Zoom to prepare those camps all day and manage the camps all day, was fatiguing. But what was really surprising is that when set up to be specifically for a Zoom platform, for example, our theater camps ended up being extremely high quality. And I don't know if that's because the younger generations are more used to being on virtual platforms anyway, but I would say that they sort of naturally adapted very easily to creating a physical world in the space that they were filming themselves. They very naturally had a sense of how close they had to be to the microphone and whatnot to be heard. And I was really surprised at how well those camps turned out without any sort of in-person interaction. So, it definitely can be done. I definitely believe that can be done. I think it takes a different type of planning and a different type of thought when you're setting something like that up for Zoom, as opposed to setting something like that up for in-person instruction and performance.

Angela: There’s a reason they're called Zoomers, I mean, they're definitely more capable of this than we are.

Morgan: Oh for sure, yeah. It’s like they didn't blink. It's amazing that the kids didn't seem to question how this could be done or if this could be done. They're just, like, “cool, we'll do it.” And they all performed full out on camera. It was great.

Angela: That's awesome. There were a couple of different ways that I found that Zoom has been more effective, even in, like, normal interaction. For instance, I was doing some research about how for autistic people, video conferencing is actually kind of better, because there's fewer side conversations and because of the lag, it's easier to tell when people are supposed to talk. I also found an article from the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is under the National Institute of Health, about how Zoom and, like, just tele-/video-conferencing has been very helpful in mental healthcare, and is actually at least equally as effective as meeting in person. Which I think makes sense, because a lot of times people who have mental health issues, one of the hardest things is just going to the doctor's office or to your therapist and getting help. So, I think that's really cool, and that's just become more common. And it’ll probably stay more common after this ends…if it ever ends. So, that's a bright side, I guess.

Morgan: Yeah, I agree. I think in the arts and elsewhere, we talk about ability sometimes being a barrier, and physical space and distance can definitely be a barrier for all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. So, I do very much appreciate that Zoom and just the way we now regularly and easily use teleconferencing/video conferencing. I appreciate the way that we can now break down barriers of access with these tools, even if they have some downsides as well.

Angela: For instance, there will never be another snow day, and that's kind of a bummer.

B: I hadn't actually thought about. 

Morgan: I hadn't thought about that. 

B: Well, that'll do it for our first topic today. Morgan, thank you so much for joining us today. 

Angela: Yeah, thanks for joining us.

Morgan: Yeah, have a great rest of your day. See you all later.

[music interlude]

Angela: Alright. So, what comes next? Because we all agree that Zoom is pretty imperfect in terms of its ability to communicate, so what comes next? Are we going to have holograms? Or virtual reality (which is actually already a thing that's kind of happening)? There are lots of different ways that people are meeting in virtual spaces, from Animal Crossing—which is wildly popular—even to Fortnite, which already commonly has concerts. However, virtual reality concerts are a whole new thing that have started this year, with Travis Scott doing a weird, kind of amazing VR concert in Fortnite. He's flying through space, he's towering over all the other players, and it's kind of a work of art, actually. It's really great. Although that is a wild example, VR concerts and festivals, and gatherings in general, are definitely becoming more popular, I think, in this time.

B: Absolutely. And I've seen it more happening in the realm of electronic music, EDM. Over the summer in July, there was a virtual reality music festival that replaced the Shangri La Festival in Glastonbury. And they teamed up with VR Jam, Sansa, Orca Sound Project, and Beatport to create what they called “the world's largest independent music and arts festival in virtual reality” and this festival, they called, “Lost Horizon.”

Angela: There’s also film festivals in a VR space. And I think that's interesting because you wouldn't think that you would need VR to do a film festival, because that's really just watching movies. But what they're trying to replicate is the social interaction, which is not really part of film festivals that people talk about but I think is an important part of them. And it's also kind of what we all miss about going to the movies, because it's like an experience where you meet up with friends and you get popcorn and then you go to the movies and you watch it with a crowd full of people. And that's a really different experience than just sitting at home and watching a movie in your pajamas. I feel like this is trying to replicate that. Of course, some of them are more exclusive because some film festivals are more exclusive, but I think it's a cool thing that they're doing

B: Mhm. Because you are in this virtual reality world, it's immersive and participatory. For these festivals, you can dance, you can chat with other users—kind of like the film example you just provided—helping with that social aspect. You're interacting and you're partying with other festival goers. There's a company called Redpill, which has kind of emerged as one of the more preeminent VR companies, and they are shifting the modern music festival into this, like, live immersive shared experience. And something that they're trying to figure out is a way to simulate those physical touch points that are in festivals, whether it be purchasing merchandise or staying in a campground or being shoulder to shoulder with others. So they actually put into this virtual reality experience shapes in the form of iridescent globes and pulsating prisms, which actually beat with the music. And they are reactive to users, so the users can reach out and actually tap them and it seems like they're touching them. So, these companies are trying to figure out how to make them as multisensory as possible and sort of mimic that very visceral experience of going to a music festival or going to a film festival.

Angela: That's really cool. Kris Layng, who’s the Chief Creative Officer at Parallux, which is the company that is doing the VR for the Tribeca Film Festival, says that “most VR right now is frustratingly isolating and inaccessible to the public. We developed Cave to demonstrate how VR can scale up to the kinds of mass audiences we're familiar with seeing attending cinema and theater. The result is an experience that feels exhilarating, natural, and powerfully social,” which I think is really important. And, like, part of what you were talking about—about trying to make it a physical space almost—and trying to make it like a social experience.

B: I think important to note that, these virtual reality festivals, they are a little limiting when you consider the fact that they are best experienced with the proper VR equipment and a high quality VR headset typically runs from, like, $600 to $800. I think the HTC Vive is about $800. So, for that truly immersive experience, you really are required to have that. However, it seems like most of the festivals that have been producing VR opportunities since the pandemic have been trying to make web- or mobile-accessible options, as well. They just aren't as immersive or you can't really control it. You can just kind of watch it.

Angela: I think it's really interesting: I feel like this pandemic is really putting us all to the extremes, in any and either direction. I feel like concerts are either, you know, these massive VR experiences or they're just like artists in their living rooms on Instagram. There's no middle ground where it's like a high quality but affordable experience. I guess that makes sense, considering the times and what we have access to.

B: I was curious to see who is on this VR train in the live performing arts. And it definitely hasn't been as widely adopted as it has in, like, dance music and independent music. However, there have been some VR initiatives in the last several years, especially under the purview of conductor Gustavo Dudamel. A few years ago, he started a project called Symphony, which is actually opening up to the public soon, it looks like, but these offerings are not for people to participate in their homes. Rather, it's sort of like a museum-like planetarium experience. It's a touring experience and it takes place in two mobile cinema spaces. The first room is a film, so that doesn't incorporate virtual reality yet, but it's very cinematic and it's in that planetarium-type space. There's no dialogue in this particular film, just images and music. And then participants are guided into a second building where they put on their 3-D virtual reality headsets, and they are actually “placed” on center stage and sit among the orchestra as Gustavo Dudamel leads excerpts from well-known orchestra pieces. So, in that case, participants are really immersed in the orchestra. They can kind of look around. They don't have much control over the experience, but at least they're sort of embedded within the music-making. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens with that. Like I said, this isn't something that people can participate in at home and this project is touring in Spain. We'll have to see what happens with that in terms of how Covid is affecting that in-person experience, how they're limiting audiences, if audiences will actually be able to participate in-person, or if it'll just be highly controlled. So, we'll have to see. But one more experience: the LUMA projection arts festival and the Tri-Cities Opera have announced a new work called Miranda: A Steam Punk VR Experience.

Angela: Awesome. 

B: And it is actually an opera that incorporates motion captures. So the cast members did perform this using motion capture, it was then animated, and now audiences can put on a headset and actually experience this world and interact with the settings. I have not participated in it, but I did watch it on YouTube. It isn't participatory, of course you have no control, but you can just kind of see what the interface was and hear the music and stuff.

Angela: Yeah, that's awesome.

[music interlude]

Angela: Moving out of the VR space…other arts institutions are maybe a little less high tech but are still trying to get their work out there. I know The Met is doing streams of operas. I have friends that watch that, as well as my sister, who watches live stream to poetry readings, which I think is also really interesting. People are consuming art any way they can. I don't know that I would ever just sit down in my bedroom and watch a poetry reading, but I think it's awesome that that's available.

B: Yeah. So, right now, the arts world is having a lot of conversations around streaming, obviously, particularly when it comes to pricing structures and platforms. A lot of organizations have been figuring out ways to live stream their events and put them on social media, and some are taking archived footage and trying to figure out a way to make it on demand on certain streaming platforms. There are some ticketing platforms that have streaming capabilities, so a lot of them are able to manage ticket sales and the streaming at the same time. And then you have organizations that are trying to find solutions in the form of putting their content on streaming services that are specifically catering to performing arts events. So, a few of those that have popped up more recently are Marquee.tv, watchstation.com—the company is actually just called Stage—and then one that's called Cennarium. And so here we see them mimicking more of the Netflix, Hulu, et cetera, model that we're familiar with in which there is AI technology in place to try and customize your experience and sort of curate your experience for you. So we're seeing a lot of different options coming up in the form of streaming. And then, of course, we have Disney+, who over the summer made Hamilton available, as most people are probably aware of. And Netflix is actually going to have a musical called Diana about the life of the Princess of Wales, and that is supposed to come out in early 2021, actually, before it's scheduled to go on Broadway. We are also seeing these live performing arts events being offered through the streaming platforms that we're very familiar with in our everyday lives for entertainment.

Angela: I think that's interesting because I think that seems like a real difference in strategy for Disney+ versus Netflix, because Hamilton is, of course, one of the biggest musicals of all time. But it has been out for years and basically, at this point, anyone who's going to pay to see Hamilton is going to pay to see Hamilton, even if they could see it online for—well, not free—but for a subscription fee. So, basically, Disney+ is giving people access to Hamilton once no more money could be made from Hamilton, versus Netflix who's taking a musical that no one has ever seen and is just putting it on there. Which, I think is maybe more of a risk, but also a more interesting choice and also just indicative of Netflix putting out a lot of content. Also, people are watching a lot more Netflix now: in March, people were streaming like 100% more than they were the year before at that same time and like 29% of that is just Netflix. I think that is because Netflix is putting out new content that's interesting and Disney+ is not. It's like, you're not going to Disney+ for new content, really, even though they're trying to do that with their new shows, and personally, I don't think it's working well.

B: It will be interesting to see if these performing arts-specific platforms will get to a point where they're able to start producing things for the platforms themselves. Like, will there be a Marquee.tv Orchestra or Theater Company producing work for their platform? Is that sort of where we're going in terms of how we're consuming content and how producers are reacting to that? 

Angela: Yeah. I don't know. I feel like people are starting to not like having so many different streaming services, but I think that what would be more likely would be for these shows and performances to go on places like Canopy, which is the library streaming app that has a lot of, like, arthouse films and there's this really great documentary about the history of the New York Public Library and stuff that wouldn't normally get on places like Netflix. I think they would go to more places like that than having their own specific streaming service. But also, people like to make money, so I don't know.

B: Well, Vox recently put out a list of the best, sort of, alternative niche streaming services. And that includes Criterion Channel which does more arthouse films, we have Acorn TV which is mostly focused on British television.

Angela: There's Shutter, which just has horror movies.

B: Yeah. These are specialized options for people, and I'm not sure that they'll ever gain the same level of popularity as sort of the big Hulu/Netflix, but they have an audience.

Angela: These kinds of streaming services don't need to be super popular. I mean, let's be honest, no one really goes into the arts because they want to make money. People go into the arts because they're passionate about the things that they're passionate about. And I feel like the same people who go to the theater or go to the symphony are the same people who would use these streaming services.

B: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a big question, though. Are people willing to pay? Are people willing to subscribe for this continuous content? Are people more likely to pay for individual opportunities? The arts, over the last several years, have come to the realization that the subscription model, in terms of buying a subscription package to a season of theater/opera/music/whatever it is, it’s really becoming a less popular option, with audiences favoring those single ticket opportunities more. So does that translate to the digital environment, or are people more likely to pay a monthly fee as they would with anything else that we've accepted into our lives, such as Netflix, to get content whenever they want?

Angela: I think that it depends on which portion of the audience, but I also think that a way to encourage people to subscribe to these streaming services is to have things like student pricing, which can make a big difference, because students are the kind of people who actually would be interested in these things but a lot of times they just can't afford it. Like, there's this theater in D.C. called Arena Stage, and they have “pay your age” tickets, which is how I got to see a lot of musicals in high school and in college, just because it was like, “Hey, I'll pay $18 to see The Music Man, why not?” They wanted to get younger people interested in the theater, and I think that's also a good way to get younger people interested in streaming services for these kinds of things, too. 

B: And in terms of transitioning to this online environment during the pandemic and beyond, Baker-Richards, which is a consulting company in the UK, recently reported on a tracker survey conducted by Indigo—it’s called the “Indigo: After the Interval Sentiment Tracker Survey”—which reached over 130,000 regular cultural attendees in the U.K. And it really focused on tracking people's sentiments towards arts attendance, both in person and online, before and after the pandemic. According to this survey, audiences aged 15 to 24 were most likely to engage online and are also the most willing to pay for those experiences. In addition to that, respondents with higher levels of safety concern about returning to live theater experiences expressed a greater willingness to pay for digital than those with no safety concerns. They also found that audiences with a greater willingness to pay for their experiences were audiences of what they determined to be “high art.” That includes opera, ballet, and drama. And, actually, only 12% of their respondents had actually paid to take part in culture online. So, it seems like a lot of organizations and offerings are free, and I think the industry has observed that it's hard to undo that because you've set a precedent.

Angela: I really hope that they do kind of jump on this train, though, because I have loved the theater since I was very tiny. But I don't actually get to see that many shows just because it's expensive and I don't have the time. When I was in college and Hamilton got super huge, my friends and I learned every single word to all of the songs and we drove my parents insane. But, like, I didn't see Hamilton until this summer because who could get tickets? Actually, my whole family saw it before me, but that's beside the point. The point is that I think it's a really great opportunity to provide access to the arts. Everyone can enjoy the arts, and I think that streaming is a really cool way to provide access.

B: Definitely. I mean, the survey also found that audiences are generally unsure of the quality of digital culture, which holds back their willingness to pay. However, 82% of respondents would possibly or definitely consider engaging with digital culture in the future. So, everyone—not everyone, 82% of us—are interested and looking forward to future opportunities. It just comes down to how and at what cost. But yeah, the quality of a non-live experience also has a lot to offer.

Angela: Thanks for listening to the AMT Lab podcast. If you would like to know more, go to amt-lab.org. That is A M T dash L A B .org, or email us at amtlabcmu@gmail.com. You can also follow us on Twitter @TechInTheArts. Also follow us on Instagram and Facebook at Arts Management and Technology Lab. Don't forget to subscribe and leave a comment. You can find us on Apple Podcasts and on Spotify. Thank you so much for listening. See you next time.

[Outro music fades in and plays]