The research opens the black box of incubator operations to find that arts incubators create value for client artists and arts organizations both through direct service provision and indirect echo effects but that the provision of value to communities or systems is attenuated and largely undocumented. Arts incubators, like many small arts organizations, tend to look retrospectively at outputs rather than at the processes that convert inputs to tangible impacts, or means into ends. This is an issue not relegated only to the arts and culture sector; business incubators share some of these tendencies. Despite these issues, arts incubators remain a potentially impactful tool of cultural policy if their processes and activities align with their strategic goals and those processes and activities are assessed formatively and summatively.
Recent policy initiatives evidence a vigorous interest in arts-based community development. Arts incubators are one means for such development, as well as a means for supporting artists and arts organizations. Literature suggests wide variance across arts incubator objectives: some aim “to produce successful firms that will leave the program financially viable and freestanding,” while others pursue such diverse goals as supporting individual professional development, providing gallery space, or advocating for social change. There is also a diversity of organizational forms, governance structures, and funding models. This article offers a typology of arts incubators based on organizational objectives through the lens of stakeholder theory.
The co-editors of Artivate, Gary Beckman and Linda Essig, have shared an interest in advancing arts entrepreneurship as a field of study since Beckman first interviewed Essig as part of his research toward what has become a foundational article (2007) in the field, “”Adventuring” arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An examination of present efforts, obstacles, and best practices.” The current article presents a dialogue between them in which they discuss the nature of the discipline and the challenges and opportunities presented by the launch of Artivate.
This article deploys the term “artist-producer” to respond to Gary D. Beckman’s (2007) call for an effective definition for artist entrepreneurship, one that illustrates the productive work that artists do and counters longstanding romantic notions of artists as creative geniuses who are unconcerned with commerce. Unpacking the term entrepreneur historically and focusing on its troubling relationship to class, race, and gender, even among entrepreneurship scholars, I illustrate how and why many artists still resist the de facto entrepreneur label even as they take what many identify as entrepreneurial approaches. Returning to Beckman’s domain of training, though outside of the university setting, I show how a number of contemporary community-based artist training and professional development programs across the U.S. reflect, even nurture, the longstanding artist ambivalence to entrepreneurship even as they fulfill some of its key dynamics; moreover, I note how these programs are creating a very specific approach to entrepreneurship, or entrepreneurs, by training what I call “artist-producers” – artists capable of balancing both their expressive ambitions with their material concerns in strategic ways. Ultimately, the artist-producer designation illustrates what many scholars, artists and arts organizers talk about when we talk about artist entrepreneurship; it defines a type of entrepreneurship that by its very structure acknowledges the nation’s weak cultural infrastructure and offers a collaborative, productive, even sustainable way of working for artists.
Frameworks for Educating the Artist of the Future: Teaching Habits of Mind for Arts Entrepreneurship
This essay looks at pedagogies that can be deployed to teach the habits of mind that support arts entrepreneurship through the lenses of frameworks developed by Gardner, Duening, and Costa & Kallick for conceptualizing ways of thinking. It draws a network of connections between these frameworks for ways of thinking on which are mapped various pedagogies for teaching arts entrepreneurs as employed in educational programs and as described in recent literature. After first briefly summarizing each of these frameworks, I graphically describe the ways these various frameworks may overlap and then offer examples of pedagogies that support the development of entrepreneurial habits of mind for artists and others.