Yes, Aaron, there IS Arts Entrepreneurship

In a recent blog post, composer Aaron Gervais asserts that “there is no such thing as arts entrepreneurship.” He claims:

Art is infinitely scalable, communal, inherently subjective, and useless by design. Entrepreneurship is scarcity-based, individualistic, inherently objective, and pragmatic by design. Both are creative activities, but of opposite types.

I could cite counterexamples for each point on both sides that would make his argument crumble in its first paragraph, but instead I point to a section of his piece that is seemingly more accurate: that the arts fall into a “winner-take-all-model.”

The winner-take-all concept is also a theme in A.O. Scott’s thoughtful NY Times piece “The Paradox of Art and Work.” Scott notes that because of the winner-take–all model as well as technologically empowered amateurs,

The middle ranks — home to modestly selling writers, semi-popular bands, working actors, local museums and orchestras — are being squeezed out of existence.

The middle — that place where professionals do their work in conditions that are neither lavish nor improvised, for a reasonable living wage — is especially vulnerable to collapse because its existence has rarely been recognized in the first place.

Assembly,_George_Square_Box_Office,_2013And it is here, in the middle, where artists are “just doing their jobs” (Scott’s phrase) that arts entrepreneurship becomes an important tool for working artists. The mega-stars don’t need to be entrepreneurs, don’t need to proactively showcase and distribute their work to their audience – there’s someone already doing that on their behalf and making money doing so. The skilled amateur doesn’t need to find financing for their next installation and invite critics to see it because they are amateurs. It is the broad middle defined by Scott that needs to take entrepreneurial action; call it arts entrepreneurship or call it artist self-management, it is part of the work-life of the artist in the US.  It is these artists, the artists in the middle, who can serve the social good, create excellent work, and critique this system in a meaningful way.

[Image: Photo of Assembly Festival box office by Kim Traynor, Creative Commons license]

Posted in Arts entrepreneurship, Arts funding, arts infrastructure, Culture and democracy | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Warning: Art

earthquake warningI saw this sign outside a little brick building in Sausalito::

EARTHQUAKE WARNING: This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake.

I read this sign and have the information I need to make a choice about whether or not to enter the building, which houses a coffee shop. If I had a five-year-old child with me, I would not even mention the sign and make a choice on her behalf. With my teenage children, I would point out the sign and say, “What do you think – do you want to go in?” (A question that would be met, no doubt, with some eye rolling by said teens.) The chance of an earthquake during the brief time it takes for us to grab a coffee or a snack is slim, even here in the Bay Area. If I were chaperoning a class field trip of teens to the region, I would probably include in the permission slip materials that are standard parental reading in advance of a field trip, “Please note that on this trip, a brief time will be spent in unreinforced buildings.”

The earthquake warning sign brought to mind recent events at my home institution at which high school students attending a music festival saw a short scene from Rent as part of a larger showcase of School of Music offerings. Neither students, nor teachers, nor parents (or even, apparently many School of Music staff) were told in advance that the scene that was shown, “La Vie Boheme,” included simulated sex and partial nudity. However, the description of the full production mounted in Tempe, is as follows:

Winner of the Tony® Award for Best Musical and the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, RENT has become a pop culture phenomenon with songs that rock and a story that resonates with audiences of all ages. Based on Puccini’s La Boheme, RENT follows a group of impoverished, young Bohemian artists and musicians struggling to live in New York City’s Lower East Side. Filled with humor and poignancy, love and laughter, these voices sing out to us about the struggles we all face today. The music rocks you to your soul and will leave you singing hits such as La Vie Boheme, Seasons of Love, Tango: Maureen, Take Me or Leave Me and many more. RENT is a modern classic about falling in love, finding your voice and living for today. This show is verbally, sexually, politically and culturally charged. It is meant for mature audiences only.

Adequately informed by this description, audience members — including parents or teachers acting as agents for their children — can make choices about whether or not to attend. For myself, I would encourage my teens to see a good production of good work that is “verbally, sexually, politically and culturally charged” but would provide them with the agency to make their own choice. The point at which parents transfer such agency to their minor children is a personal choice, however, and not one that should be dictated by a third party, be it school, arts organization, or faith community.

I digress, a bit however. The point I really want to make is about an artists’ responsibility to know, understand, and engage their audience. In a response to an online petition related to the Rent incident, my colleague David Schildkret made this point eloquently, “The students in the audience did not come to see Rent…This is not about a few offended parents. It is about the responsibility of artists to know their audience…the question is not whether Rent itself is problematic. The question is whether this was the suitable occasion for this particular performance.”

The Sausolito coffee shop (and likely the city ordinance that requires the signage) understand its audience of Bay Area residents and visitors. The sign would be both unnecessary and misplaced in Phoenix.

There is, however, a key difference between the earthquake warning sign and the production’s disclaimer. The former is a warning of a physical situation that can cause bodily harm, the latter could be considered a “trigger warning,” and trigger warnings have reached, according to my cousin Laurie writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, tsunami levels, especially in academia. Art functions to change our perspective on the world or, as Anne Bogart writes, “to wake up the asleep.” If we are constantly “warning” our audiences rather than engaging them, we could end up with a bifurcated culture made up of those who view such disclaimers as information and those who view them as caution signs or, put another way, those who experience the beauty and breadth of art and those that choose not to experience art out of fear that it is too highly “charged.” If we can know our audiences and initiate two-way relationships with them, we can engage them with highly charged material in a way that benefits both artists and audiences. I close by repeating Laurie’s closing:

The world is a painful and anxiety-inducing place, and human representations of the world are often painful to consume. But rather than retreating into a world where our courses are reduced to viewings of My Little Pony, let’s all put on our big-girl panties (or big-boy tighty whities, as in the case of the Wellesley statue) and face that world together. Let’s talk about it, think about it, write about it, analyze it, and, in the end, learn to engage fully with all of it, even those parts that cause us to curl up in pain and sob. Because that’s what a real education requires, and limiting ourselves to pretty images of rainbow ponies is not enough to know the world.

Posted in Arts education, Culture and democracy, Higher education | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Baseball love

Spring Training

Spring Training

If you know me, you probably know that I’m a baseball fan. It’s a terrific game. People who seriously follow baseball call it their religion, or a mirror for life. People have said the same about theatre and other art forms. Baseball may not be a national obsession (that dubious title probably goes to pro and college football) but it is still a national pastime, and the arts can learn a lot from it.

First of all, baseball is available at the highest professional level almost every day and although it costs more to produce and pay for players in New York and LA (just like the arts) a fan can see the highest level of professionalism in cities as diverse as Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and Phoenix. If you can’t see it live, you can access a reasonable facsimile for free or close to free. Children are encouraged to participate from a very young age – not just spectate, but to put on a jersey with a number and hit a ball off a T and run around the bases. I admit that, unfortunately, much of that encouragement goes to boys, but it’s an imperfect world. Even as adults, amateur players can actually play ball, not just spectate (I myself even had a short stint in the Broadway Show League, a co-ed recreational softball league that plays in Central Park). It’s always family friendly and, oh yeah, there’s food. Even my kid’s recreational league had a snack bar staffed by parent volunteers. There are different levels of spectator opportunities – from the luxury box to the bleachers in the major leagues to A, AA, and AAA farm teams where local performers sometimes take to the field between innings. People can even watch the training and the practice.

So, what does my love letter to baseball have to do with the arts? Baseball helps me envision a different kind of place for the arts in America.  I’m imagining an arts ecosystem that involves lifetime participation as well as spectatorship, geographic variety, multiple levels of professionalism and expertise, and, most importantly, arts participation as an everyday pastime, not just something to do on a special occasion.

Posted in arts infrastructure, Culture and democracy | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

An Arts Entrepreneurship Research Query

question markA bright PhD student at another university emailed a question to me in the context of developing a paper he is writing on the emergence of arts entrepreneurship programs in higher ed. Admittedly, my answer addresses his question somewhat indirectly, but responds to it nonetheless.  I share his question and my response:

Some critics and scholars suggest that entrepreneurship cannot be taught, that entrepreneurial learning is not measurable, and that there is no consensus on educational goals. How might the emerging field of arts entrepreneurship education respond to or best address these criticisms?

For arts entrepreneurship to develop as a field or a discipline, it needs to articulate the unique knowledges, theories, and methodologies that define it as a field. Doing so requires research and knowledge-building of that field – not about its place in universities and teaching institutions – but knowledge building and research of arts entrepreneurship practice that then feeds back into the university classrooms and studios where arts entrepreneurship is taught. Academic disciplines are built on the research that unearths, explains and disseminates the unique knowledges, theories, and methodologies of a domain. This goes to explain why there is not consensus on educational goals. There cannot be consensus on learning goals until there is a consensus on what arts entrepreneurship “is.” The literature on arts entrepreneurship is disproportionately weighted with articles about pedagogy and the placement of arts entrepreneurship in higher ed. While these topics are important and I myself have contributed to them, they do not directly advance knowledge-building about arts entrepreneurship itself as a field of practice and inquiry. Research on arts entrepreneurship pedagogy contributes to the knowledge base in the field known as “the scholarship of teaching and learning” and on its placement in higher ed contributes to the discipline of “higher ed administration.”

That having been said, yes, arts entrepreneurship can be taught (in a variety of ways), and the outcomes of that teaching can be measured (in a variety of ways). For example, experiential learning in our arts venture incubator has, thus far, proven effective in increasing student self-efficacy relative to arts entrepreneurial action. (Self-efficacy having been shown to be a predictor of success in entrepreneurial activity writ large.) In the classroom setting we employ a traditional in-class self-assessment of learning objectives based on a five-point Likert scale in which students respond to the degree to which they agree with statements such as “I understand that there are a variety of business structures that can support the arts.” I refer you to a book chapter and an article that directly address the question of how arts entrepreneurship can be taught:

For a related post see: A Landscape of Arts Entrepreneurship Education (and Research Agenda)

Posted in Arts entrepreneurship, Higher education | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Audience Development Approaches

The first year graduate students in arts management are spending a couple of weeks discussing marketing, audience development, community engagement, and community arts practice.  I drew a couple of quick sketches on the chalkboard – yes, we still have a chalkboard – to explain the difference between a traditional marketing approach and a community engagement approach to developing audience.  Here on a sticky note is a sketch of the traditional approach, in which marketing is used to overcome the inherent inertia between art and audience to connect one with the other – marketing pushes past that inertia to get the two together. marketing approach

In the engagement approach, on the other hand, the art and audience are brought together into one community circle.

community engagement approach


Posted in Arts education, Arts management, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Saying “YES!”

Donuts for sharing (flickr user Johnny MrNinja, Creative Commons)

Donuts for sharing (flickr user Johnny MrNinja, Creative Commons)

I wrote a piece last week about saying “no” to unpaid/underpaid artist labor that took off in the inter-webs like a bat out of hell with over 4000 hits/hour at its weekend peak.  I would much rather be remembered as the person who says “YES!” than the person who says “NO!” so offer this follow-up.

Just – or even more – important than knowing when to say “no,” is knowing when and how to say “yes.”  Giving builds community; giving builds friendships; giving builds social capital (although one need not think of it in those terms); giving lifts the spirit of both the giver and receiver.  We may give of our time, we may give of our money, we may give of our things, we may give of our talent.  Related to giving is sharing – we may share knowledge, share food, share an experience (good or bad), without any exchange of material goods.

Sadly, there will be those who take advantage of the generosity of others for their own material gain or, as in the case of the donut company, place little or no value on the talents of others. Maturing as an artist, an artist who wishes to work in the public sphere, to interact with the social system in which we now live, must learn not only the art of making art, but also the art of differentiation.   I wish there were a magic bullet for differentiating between the worthy project and the unworthy, the excellent professional opportunity and the opportunity to be exploited, the worthwhile and the worthless.   No magic bullet, but a few thoughts:

  • Know yourself and what motivates you to make art
  • Have values and principles and let them guide you
  • Love something [with credit to Laura Zabel for the phrase]
  • Do “good” work: work that is excellent, impactful, and ethical [adapted from Howard Gardner]
  • Look around you and ask for help when you need it
  • Always be learning
  • Remember, after Kant, that people are never a means to an end, they are ends themselves – that includes you, the young artist, trying to decide whether or not the unpaid gig is truly a learning and professional development opportunity

Ultimately, as I’ve said before, “no” is an exercise of power, while “yes” is an exercise of empowerment.

Posted in Arts education, Arts entrepreneurship, arts infrastructure, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Just Say NO!

DoughnutA first year graduate student in my arts management class presented a paper this week on arts labor economics.  Her undergrad degree was in acting so she had never delved into the topic formally. She certainly understood through anecdotal observation that there is an imbalance between artist labor supply and artist opportunity and that artists are often paid less than their peers in other fields (to put it mildly).  Among the factors she considered was that artists are often willing to work for low or even no pay because the joy of doing the work is payment enough.   In concluding her presentation, she posed a rhetorical question that I paraphrase here: How can we make this vicious cycle of artist oversupply and underpayment stop?

Following this presentation, I returned to my office and this email:


I want to reach out and see if you have any film students that are interested in expanding their portfolio with an opportunity to be our videographer for a day and film one of our [donut company name] Grand Openings! This is a great chance for film students to work with a well-known brand on a one-time project and get some good experience. We feature their work on our official [donut company name] social media pages and possibly on our official website!

As a reward, we give the videographer(s) a dozen free glazed doughnuts every week for an entire year!!! Please let me know if you have any interested candidates.

Note: This particular Grand Opening will be taking place ….. Thank you!

The email was sent to a long list of faculty members at film programs in the region. I hit reply all with the question “What is your pay rate for these skilled services?” To which the “marketing coordinator” replied:

Hi Linda!

Unfortunately, this is a volunteer/intern opportunity.  We will give the student videographer a punch card for a dozen free glazed doughnuts every week for an entire year as a thank you for their time! Hope this helps answer your question!

In addition to the overuse of exclamation points, this response invoked what some uninformed folks think is the key to unlocking the treasure chest of unpaid artist labor: INTERN.  I am a huge supporter of internships as experiential learning opportunities if they are truly that, with clearly delineated learning objectives, supervision by experts, and time limits.  But this was obviously not an internship in that sense.  Seeing a teaching moment, as well as an opportunity to stop the vicious cycle of artist underpayment in some small way, I responded, quoting chapter and verse from  the  Department of Labor rules for determining if an “opportunity” is actually an internship [I highlighted the salient points for her]:

Will there be someone onsite providing education and training? Here are the US Department of Labor rules on unpaid internships:

“There are some circumstances under which individuals who participate in “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs may do so without compensation.  The Supreme Court has held that the term “suffer or permit to work” cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his or her own interest an employee of another who provides aid or instruction.  This may apply to interns who receive training for their own educational benefit if the training meets certain criteria.  The determination of whether an internship or training program meets this exclusion depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each such program.

The following six criteria must be applied when making this determination:

  1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
  2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
  3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
  5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
  6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If all of the factors listed above are met, an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the Act’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the intern.  This exclusion from the definition of employment is necessarily quite narrow because the FLSA’s definition of “employ” is very broad.”

The response:

No. There will not be. This is a volunteer opportunity. Thank you for sharing this information! Very good information to know!

I posted this exchange on facebook where a friend reminded me of a meme on a similar topic that made the rounds a year or two ago:

Craig’s List Ad: We are a small & casual restaurant in downtown Vancouver and we are looking for solo musicians to play in our restaurant to promote their work and sell their CD. This is not a daily job, but only for special events which will eventually turn into a nightly event if we get positive response. More Jazz, Rock, & smooth type music, around the world and mixed cultural music. Are you interested to promote your work? Please reply back ASAP.

Craig’s List Response: Happy new year! I am a musician with a big house looking for a restauranteur to come to my house to promote his/her restaurant by making dinner for me and my friends. This is not a daily job, but only for special events which will eventually turn into a nightly event if we get a positive response. More fine dining & exotic meals and mixed Ethnic Fusion cuisine. Are you interested to promote your restaurant? Please reply back ASAP.

So, one answer to my student’s rhetorical question is “Just say NO.” As in, no, I will not make your donut commercial for free; no, I will not play at your restaurant “for the exposure;” no, you cannot have my painting to hang in your home because your “important” friends will see it; no, I will not paint your set “for the experience.”  What I will do is accept a slightly below market wage because I’m still in school and you’ll get what you pay for; yes, I will play at your restaurant for one night if you provide dinner for my family of six beforehand; yes, I will loan my painting to you for a fixed period of time if I am invited to the cocktail party to meet your important friends; yes, I will paint your set with you so that you can train me on a specialized technique with which I am unfamiliar.  Or, yes! I will gift my talents to you with generosity and an open heart because I love you, your cause, or your work. But no, I will not make your donut commercial for free.  [In a follow-up post, I discuss saying "YES!"]

PS. Can you imagine what eating a dozen donuts every week for a year would do to your body? Yuck! [photo by Angeldm, Creative Commons License]

This post is no longer accepting comments.

Posted in Arts education, Arts entrepreneurship, Higher education, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 133 Comments