RAINBOW: purpose and structure

Jasper (2013) proposed a SWOB analysis framework to guide the reflective process, which included four elements, i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and barriers. This was based on his observation that it is critical to understand individual skills and abilities (and personal limitations) to be a professional practitioner (Jasper, 2013, p32). Jasper further suggested using a structured reflective framework to illuminate certain areas of inquiry and communicate ideas effectively.

Guided by this thinking, after I identified the most suitable cases for my project, I used a systematic framework to conduct my in-depth interviews. Essentially, I integrated some of the features of Jasper’s SWOB reflective framework into the ‘RAINBOW’ analysis framework, and applied additional social media categories, including audiences, networks, innovations, and business. This approach provided me with the lenses I needed to elicit seven perspectives from each interviewee, i.e. relationship, audience, innovation, network, business, opportunities, and weaknesses.

Before I offer more depth about how I applied the RAINBOW framework to this research project, I want to expand upon how I organised the analysis framework as well as the content of the RAINBOW analysis framework. Briefly here and in more detail below, the rainbow’s seven colours served as metaphors for the seven analytical perspectives in this research project. Therefore, when I carried out my analysis, I applied the creative visual research methods to this framework in the form of colourful circles that could be filled with written ideas during in-depth interviews and my own self-reflection.

R: Reflection

According to Jasper (2013), ‘reflective processes help us to see the world in

alternative ways by enabling us to focus on different aspects of our experience… By using reflective processes we come to understand our experiences differently and take action as a result’ (Jasper, 2013, p1-12). Building on this account, Schön (2017) described two types of reflection—‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’.

In this research project, I viewed the reflection process as ‘an active process of transforming experience into knowledge’ which involved ‘much more than simply thinking about and describing practice in order to understand…’ (Jasper, 2013, p7). Said another way, my research interests were more aligned with ‘reflection-on-action’ than ‘reflection- in-action’ throughout my project.

Answering my research question necessitated further dividing reflection into two categories, i.e. practitioner’s lives and the main action. With respect to artists’ lives, my questions focused on their life stories and the relationships they had with their family members, particularly during their formative years. This process involved an exploration of the reasons why each of my subjects chose to become an artist. In terms of how these questions contributed to my main action, the answers I was given enabled me to reflect on

how the artists’ past experiences influenced their present actions and successes. This further facilitated me in exposing the gap between my theoretical knowledge and their real

experiences to help me propose solutions that would help others who want to succeed through Kickstarter.

In sum, my reflection involved two stages. First, during the stage of fact-finding and auto-ethnography action research, I reflected on the research cases I had read about and how they compared with the experiences of my interview subjects. Second, I reflected on the main action during the last stage of my auto-ethnography action research, which also included my life story and how my previous experiences influenced this action research.

A: Audience

Given the ubiquity of the internet and the popularity of social media, an audience’s size, composition, and what audience members like are each important factors for artists to consider in establishing successful careers. In particular, for those who want to promote their creative works and develop their careers exclusively on social media sites, the size of the audience matters tremendously.

In an effort to define social media ‘audiences’, I discovered that there is a well- developed body of research concerned with the relationships between media and audience, including audience reception studies, the history of audience attitudes, and mass media impacts (Livingstone, 1998a; Ferreira, 2014; Hazelwood et al., 2009). More recently, audience studies have been complemented by research into how audiences interact with social media content. This demonstrates the changing role of the audience from passive recipients to active engagers made possible through technological developments. Jenkins (2006), for instance, notes that fans are able to not only ‘communicate amongst themselves about media but also to participate in the creation of digital content… Online fans

essentially represent the way all audiences will interact with media from now on…’ (cited in Bird, 2011, p503).

In this phase of my project, it was critical to explore the methods or processes successful artists used to develop relationships with their audience members, other artists, and social media and crowdfunding platforms.

Interestingly, when Cool first introduced the concept of ‘audience’ in 1902, he proposed an ‘imagined audience’, or ‘the mental conceptualization of the people with whom we are communicating…’ (Litt, 2012, p331). Relationships that artists have with their audiences have since undergone significant changes due to the introduction, popularity, and accessibility of social media.

Applying this thinking to my project, I explored how artists developed their relationships with their ‘imagined audiences’ as well as their actual audience members in front of their computer screens. Second, I investigated the changes that occurred in the relationships between artists and their ‘actual’ real-life audiences through successful

Kickstarter campaigns. Dovetailing this, I turned to changes in the art market, and how those changes influenced the artists’ relationships with their audiences.

For example, the UK Contemporary Gallery’s annual report (2015) discussed the online opportunities and challenges artists face. The report notes ‘artists are increasingly using their own websites and social media, such as Instagram, to sell their work directly to their customers. This is increasingly becoming a challenge for galleries and their

relationship with their artists’ (ArtTactic, 2016, p8).

To some extent, prior to the emergence of new technology, the role of a gallery was to develop an audience base to make artists’ work well known and help them to sell their art over time. Thus, galleries held the power – almost unilaterally – to decide which artist would grow their audience and attract buyers. The art environment has since undergone

significant changes, and this influenced the relationships between galleries, artists, and audiences.

I: Innovation

Next, I divided my exploration of innovation (i.e. creative approaches to artwork) into two parts—first, the relationship between artists’ creativity and their artwork, and, second, how artists use their art to communicate with their audiences. For example, I asked my interview subjects the questions detailed above, i.e. what motivates them to create their work; how they come up with their creative ideas; what their thinking is about their art; and how they overcome their frustrations tied to obtaining social approval.

N: Networking

As outlined above, the emergence of the internet and Web 2.0 have created new opportunities in the art world and the art market. According to Morris (2013), ‘it is hard to deny that social media has become the primary tools for artists (amateurs and professionals alike) to gain exposure and connect with users’ (Cohen et al., 2013, p5). Additionally, social media has enhanced each artists’ ability to grow their network independently of galleries.

Under these changed circumstances, it is worth comparing the role that networks traditionally played, and the role that they now play in career development and the power dynamic of the art market. That many artists have dedicated business spaces on social media platforms – from Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Instagram, and LinkedIn to Kickstarter – is a testament to this changed relationship and value structure.

In more detail, Marwick and boyd (2011) described how artists use social media, emphasising the types of interactions they have with their fans. Their research demonstrates that websites, in particular, have been used to post relevant information and keep resources

up-to-date for artistic audiences. With these changed relationships, different working styles and types of interaction have emerged. Besides being members of artists’ communities, followers can now use hashtags and ‘@ functions’ to better connect with the artists they admire. In turn, this practice encourages artists to continue showing their art to maintain existing, and attract new, followers – rather than waiting to exhibit their artwork in galleries. In the words of the visual artist, Teresa Kogut, social media is:

not only a great way to get your art in front of people, more importantly, you will connect with people… People will not only love your art but they will want to get to know the person behind the art. Social media has changed the way people do

business. It’s personal. People want to support the people they connect with. Having said that, it is important that you be authentic, be transparent, be natural, be you!

People want to know YOU, not who you think they want to know….22

B: Business

With respect to the business environment of the art market, social media has created new opportunities and incentives. Yet challenges remain. For example, the crowdfunding model can open doors, so to speak, but it is still difficult to capture interest, considering the fact that ‘everything is plentiful – except attention’ (Kortelainen and Katvala, 2012). This is the reason why some artists are hesitant to rely on crowdfunding or social media to develop their art careers.

Knowing this, my ‘RAINBOW’ analysis framework focused on the relationships between artists’ work, their careers, and the art market generally, and excluded artists who did not believe, or were not interested in, the power of social media. Situating this, my discussions about the business perspective, made possible by social media, explored

economic changes that resulted from artists’ career development and the promotion of their work. Moreover, in terms of practical applications, my RAINBOW analysis framework explored strategies used in successful Kickstarter campaigns to offer solutions for aspiring

artists in the social media era.

O: Opportunities

Drawing again on Jasper’s SWOB analysis framework (2013), I identified practitioners’ strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and barriers so that I could gain a complete picture of who they were, as artists, how they worked, and what they could do better to succeed and sustain their careers. Next, using my ‘RAINBOW’ analysis

framework, I helped each individual I interviewed to appreciate their lived experiences and the opportunities afforded to them by social media. In turn, the questions I posed helped me to learn where the individual artists excelled and the approaches they took to become successful on Kickstarter.

With respect to the opportunity analysis of social media’s impact on the art market, I asked the artists I interviewed why they used new media platforms to identify

opportunities instead of traditional forums, like galleries.

W: Weaknesses

According to the SWOB analysis framework, the purpose of analysing weaknesses is to gain an ‘actual’ assessment through the reflective process that can allow artists to confront the real-world in their careers. Consistent with this, I asked artists about the difficulties they had experienced in launching their campaigns, and to elaborate on what they felt they were not good at. I anticipated responses that attributed challenges to administrative burdens, marketing, projections, and sustainability, as these activities used to be absorbed by galleries, and many artists are not trained in marketing and coordination (Cohen et al., 2013).

worldwide, they must think about whether and how to deliver upon other people’s

expectations. Related to this, followers now expect artists to offer real responses, and even provide services (Ordanini et al., 2011). These activities can take away from the pleasures of creating and sharing art. Thus, I tailored my interview questions accordingly.