Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts
The mission of Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts is to disseminate new thinking and perspectives on arts entrepreneurship theory, practice, and pedagogy.
The editors are committed to publishing research-based articles and case studies of interest to scholars, artists, and students in the areas of entrepreneurship theory as applied to the arts; arts entrepreneurship education; arts management; arts and creative industries; public policy and the arts; the arts in community and economic development; nonprofit leadership; social entrepreneurship in or using the arts; evaluation and assessment; public practice in the arts.
Artivate is published twice yearly, summer and winter, in an online format. The editors are particularly interested in articles that actively link theory with practice in ways that will be of interest and impact to the broad cross-section of the Journal’s readership. Self-reflective studies from arts entrepreneurs and empirical research from scholars are equally welcome. We are interested in supporting the growth of our nascent discipline and also welcome debut articles from emerging scholars.
Our editorial board is drawn from diverse disciplines at the nexus of entrepreneurship and the arts. These distinguished colleagues review and recommend articles submitted for consideration and we thank them in advance for their hard work and dedication.
Artivate was originally published by The Pave Program in Arts Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, but is now published by the University of Arkansas Press.
Filtering by
- All Subjects: creative cities
- All Subjects: cultural entrepreneurship
In this essay, I investigate the relationship between local political context and entrepreneurship in the arts, specifically entrepreneurship by cultural institutions, which I refer to as “cultural entrepreneurship.” I look at cultural entrepreneurship as a discourse and discuss one locus in particular, the city of Utrecht in The Netherlands. The discourse on cultural entrepreneurship in the Dutch context is influenced by diminishing government responsibility for financial support of the arts. Entrepreneurship is seen in that context as finding new sources of income. Entrepreneurial values such as curiosity and experimentation are dominant in the routine relationship between cultural organizations and their subsidizing administrations but are not incorporated in the understanding of cultural entrepreneurship. After applying these considerations to the observation of the culture-political practice in the city of Utrecht, I suggest a framework that allows us to understand the discourse on the relationship between cultural entrepreneurship and political context along two axes. One axis moves between risk acceptance and aversion, and the other between the private and public interests.
Over the 2000s, Toronto initiated and instituted a process of cultivating itself as a creative city. Entrepreneurial city visionaries found that in order to enter the global market, their planning had to be strategic. This paper explores how Toronto’s policy entrepreneurs used planning, partnerships, and an expanded definition of economic development to create a “Cultural Camelot.” In addition to competing on the financial and revenue-generating fronts, a coalition of cross-sector leaders took on the challenge of fostering a livable city with a deep social ethos imbued within a variety of dimensions of urban life. This new focus gave Toronto the chance establish itself as a center for innovation, which strengthened urban cultural capital and helped promote the strategic agenda of becoming a competitor in the creative economy sector. Investment in research and creative city strategic planning, coupled with the allocation of financial and human capital resources across a variety of industries, served to encourage creativity, promote culture and competitiveness, and drive economic development.