Description
In this brief file related to arts entrepreneurship and higher education.
This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:
Bridgstock, Ruth S. (2013) Not a dirty word : arts entrepreneurship and
higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2-3), pp.
122-137.
This file was downloaded from:http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53226/
c Copyright 2012 The Author(s).
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as
copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a
definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474022212465725
http://ahh.sagepub.com/
Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and higher education
Ruth Bridgstock
Abstract
While the majority of creative, performing, and literary artists are self-employed, relatively few
tertiary arts schools attempt to develop capabilities for venture creation and management (and
entrepreneurship more broadly) and still fewer do so effectively. This article asks why this is the case.
It addresses underlying conceptual and philosophical issues encountered by arts educators, arguing
that in all three senses of the term: new venture creation; career self-management; and being
enterprising, entrepreneurship is essential to career success in the arts. However, the practice of
entrepreneurship in the arts is significantly different from the practice of entrepreneurship in business,
in terms of the artist’s drivers and aims, as well as the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, contexts
and processes. These differences mean that entrepreneurship curricula cannot simply be imported
from Business schools. This article also examines the arts-idiosyncratic challenge of negotiating
distinctive and potentially conflicting entrepreneurial aims, using career identity theory. It concludes
by suggesting strategies by which adaptive entrepreneurial artist identities can be developed through
higher education programs.
Keywords: arts higher education, careers, entrepreneurship, employability, lifelong learning, identity,
graduate attributes
In first world countries, visual, literary and performing artists are generally between three and five
times more likely to be self-employed or working on a freelance basis than workers in other
occupations (Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2011). In Australia, four in five professional artists maintain
their own businesses (Throsby & Zednik, 2010). In an era where the central task of higher education
has become to prepare nascent professionals as far as possible for initial employment and future
working lives beyond this (Boden & Nedeva, 2010), one might expect that tertiary arts education
institutions would have embraced entrepreneurship education – that is, education which is focused on
the application, sharing, or distribution of art, as well as its creation or making. However,
entrepreneurship continues to be a significant source of confusion and also controversy among arts
educators and arts practitioners (Beckman, 2007; Hong & Bridgstock, 2011). The inclusion of
entrepreneurship in undergraduate arts courses remains inconsistent and surprisingly minimal (Hong,
Essig & Bridgstock, 2012), particularly given the influence of the creative industries policy agenda in
the United Kingdom and Australia, which over the last decade has linked creative work with
economic growth in advanced economies.
THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES AND THE ARTS
The Creative Industries are defined as those activities which have their origin in individual creativity,
skill and talent, and have the potential to create wealth and jobs through the generation and
exploitation of intellectual property (Department for Culture Media and Sport 2008, p.3). As such,
they include literary, visual and performing arts disciplines (‘the arts’), with which this article is
concerned, and also a range of other creative fields where significant intellectual property creation is
undertaken, such as design, film, television, radio, advertising, games, publishing, and architecture.
The reason that these diverse fields have been clustered into the Creative Industries is that creativity
and innovation are now considered to be key determinants economic growth in advanced nations
(Department for Culture Media and Sport 2008; Cutler 2008). Wealth creation is dependent upon the
capacity to continually make discoveries, innovate and invent new content. The STEM disciplines
have long been recognised as key to innovation and therefore economic growth; creative industries
policy similarly elevates creative fields as key sources of new content creation (Cutler, 2008;
Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2008), and as synthesisers of innovation throughout the
economy, and key contributers to the culturisation of all economic activity (Potts & Cunningham,
2008).
The creative industries argument is borne out by national level economic data. Census analyses show
that collectively, the creative industries are growing significantly faster than other economic sectors
(Higgs, Cunningham & Pagan, 2007; Higgs, Cunningham & Bakhshi, 2008). However, recent
reanalysis of Australian Census data (Cunningham, 2012) indicates that the greatest growth in the
Creative Industries is actually occurring in creative services (business-to-business activities like
design, architecture, software development and advertising), rather than in cultural production fields
(the arts, film & television, and publishing). The most significant employment growth for cultural
production workers can be found outside the cultural production sectors, either ‘embedded’ in creative
services industries, or working in a cultural production capacity outside the creative industries entirely
(Cunningham, 2012).
In contrast with more traditionally configured industries such as finance, the creative industries are
dominated by networked clusters of sole-traders, micro-businesses, and small-to-medium enterprises
(Creigh-Tyte and Thomas 2001). These creative business networks constantly form and re-form
value-chains to create new products and services. Creative professionals, including artists, are
therefore often likely to be self-employed, and/or employed on a short-term contractual ‘by project’
basis, at least in part.
ARTISTS’ CAREERS
Artists’ career patterns have received some research attention over the last decade, and there are now
several published labour force survey-based descriptions of the distinctive nature of arts careers (e.g.,
Ball, Pollard, & Stanley, 2010; Throsby & Zednik, 2010). Most visual, performing and literary artists
engage, at least to some extent, in portfolio careers (Bridgstock, 2005; Mallon, 1999). The portfolio
career pattern comprises a continually evolving patchwork of grant-based (i.e., publicly subsidised)
and/or commercial projects, jobs, and educational experiences. A portfolio of arts work may be
supplemented by additional concurrent work activities – the ubiquitous ‘day job’ – in order to meet
the artist’s financial obligations (Throsby & Zednik, 2010).
In the main, artists’ careers are individually constructed in an ongoing and unfolding way, often with
minimal opportunity for either stable employment or progression as an employee within a firm. The
onus is on the artist or designer to recurringly obtain or create employment and to manage their own
career progression (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999). Throughout the arts, work is usually obtained
via ‘who you know’ – that is, via informal social and professional contacts, and offers are made on the
basis of the quality and success of previous work, rather than formal application and interview
processes (Throsby and Zednik 2010).
A further highly distinctive feature of artists’ careers is a blurring of the boundaries between work and
personal life (Holden, 2007; Lange, Kalandides, Stober, & Mieg, 2008). As discussed by Bennett
(2009) and Bridgstock (2005), many artists can be appropriately described as protean careerists (Hall,
2004; Hall & Chandler, 2005), because as well as individually constructing their own career paths,
they also tend to possess strong personal motivations for building a career in arts. Their personal
identities are often linked quite strongly with their arts practices (Brown, 2007), and they value
psychological success and aspire to achievement of personally determined professional goals. The
protean career pattern is characterised by: (1) personal construction of career and recurrent acquisition
or creation of work (which likely to occur on a freelance or self-employment basis); and (2) strong
intrinsic motivations for, and personal identification with, career (Hall, 2004).
It follows that the artist who is engaging in the protean career pattern should possess well developed
arts entrepreneurship skills, as well as highly developed skills associated with arts practice, that is,
creation or making of work. However, there remains significant confusion around exactly what
entrepreneurship means with respect to arts education (see, for instance, Beckman, 2007). Broadly
speaking, arts entrepreneurship skills are the skills associated with the application, sharing or
distribution, as opposed to the generation or making, of art and creative work. However, as will be
discussed in more depth later in this article, the usual sense of term entrepreneurship we have
inherited from business disciplines as involving pursuit of profit and commercial gain (Bhide,
Sahlman, Stancill, & Rock, 1999) does not necessarily apply, and there are other important
differences as well. For the artist, the practice of entrepreneurship is multi-layered, and qualitatively
different from the practice of entrepreneurship in the traditional business sense, as will be argued in
the next section of this article.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ARTS: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
The core strength of arts education has always been the development of high level disciplinary
creative and technical skills, often through an intensive and rigorous studio experience (e.g., Don,
Garvey, & Sadeghpour, 2008). Arts entrepreneurship - the development of skills associated with
application, sharing, and distribution of creative work - have tended to occupy a significantly less
important position in arts programs. Partly, this imbalance reflects strong traditions in arts education
curricula and pedagogic practice. However, it also reflects a state of confusion among educators about
what arts entrepreneurship education is, and what skill sets it should involve (see, for instance,
Beckman, 2007; Hong, Essig, & Bridgstock, 2011)
Beckman (2007) reviewed arts entrepreneurship higher education throughout the United States, and
delineated two streams of definitional and curricular thought among arts educators with respect to
entrepreneurship education: entrepreneurship as ‘new venture creation’ (involving enterprise start-up
and management), and what Beckman calls the ‘transitioning’ approach, which corresponds broadly
to Schumpeterian and Druckerian (Dees, 1998; Drucker, 1985; Schumpeter, 1934) notions of
entrepreneurship as ‘being enterprising’ (that is, opportunity recognition or creation, and adding value
of some kind). The present article will also discuss a third sense to arts entrepreneurship: career selfmanagement and being employable. There is of course significant overlap between the three senses –
for instance, in order to be employable and creatively fulfilled (career self-management), an artist may
find they need to set up a business (new venture creation), which meets a certain market need and
adds a certain type of cultural value (being enterprising). Each of these senses will be defined and
discussed briefly in the next section, commencing with new venture creation.
ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS NEW VENTURE CREATION
The ‘new venture creation’ sense of arts entrepreneurship is a more traditional view which
corresponds the most closely to Business School notions of entrepreneurship. It was also the most
common definition given by arts educators in Beckman’s (2007) review. Under the new venture
creation approach to arts entrepreneurship education, students learn skills and knowledge associated
with starting and growing an artistic enterprise, including sales and marketing, legal issues, business
strategy, and finance (Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, 2004). New venture creation skills
specific to the arts may include grantsmanship and operating within a subsidized, or partly subsidised
and partly commercial context, intellectual property issues for creative enterprises, and cultural
stakeholder management.
The majority of professional artists maintain their own enterprises, and thus it seems clear that
emerging artists will require a basic grounding in new venture creation and management skills for the
arts. However, when Bridgstock conducted case studies of outstandingly successful artists and
designers (Bridgstock, Dawson, & Hearn, 2011), she found that many of the study participants did not
have a natural propensity toward engaging in the ‘nuts and bolts’ of running an enterprise. Rather,
these participants possessed an awareness of, and an understanding of, core business concepts, and
had formed successful partnerships and professional relationships with individuals who were more
business-minded than they were. Thus, it seems likely that business fundamentals, arts sectoralspecific knowledge, and social networking capability (Bridgstock, Dawson & Hearn, 2011), are
probably examples of core arts entrepreneurship curriculum elements, but specialist business topics
like taxation law or accrual accounting may not be.
ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS ‘BEING ENTERPRISING’
Arts entrepreneurship programs that focus on less tangible capabilities such as opportunity
recognition, entrepreneurial behavior, or resilience, are emphasising the ‘being enterprising’ sense of
arts entrepreneurship. The ‘being enterprising’ sense of arts entrepreneurship education is concerned
with the identification or creation of artistic opportunities, and exploitation of those opportunities in
terms of applying or sharing artistic activity in order to add value of some kind.
Numerous lists of attributes for successful enterprise can be located in the general business literature,
and some of these may have applicability to arts entrepreneurship as well. These lists tend to
emphasise enterprising qualities (such as ‘vision’, or ‘proactiveness’) or broad meta-theoretical
constructs involving multiple cognitive, affective, and behavioural processes. For instance, Duening’s
(2010) ‘Five Minds for the Entrepreneurial Future’ presents a very broad theoretical framework of
generic capabilities for success in enterprise. Duening’s enterprising ‘minds’ are: (1) The Opportunity
Recognising Mind; (2) The Designing Mind; (3) The Risk Managing Mind; (4) The Resilient Mind;
and (5) The Effectuating Mind.
First, the Opportunity Recognising Mind identifies distinctive patterns in the artist’s context (such as
consumer behaviour, collaborator availability, or resources) as creating an opportunity. The Designing
Mind then moves to exploit that opportunity, by creating a new artistic product or service; or
redesigning a product or service to meet that opportunity. The Risk Managing Mind minimises risk in
the venture, through internal (adaptation) strategies, or external (management) strategies like
diversifying investors. The Resilient Mind is responsible for emotional, financial, and reputational
rebounding from failure. Finally, the Effectuating Mind undertakes focussed and goal-directed action,
to ensure that the venture becomes reality.
However, as with the skills required for new venture creation, the act of being enterprising in the arts
probably involves a somewhat different set of capabilities to being enterprising in business. Not only
are the contextual patterns the Opportunity Recognising Mind must identify likely to be quite
idiosyncratic to the arts, the strategies the Designing and Effectuating Minds must employ to bring
artistic enterprises to fruition are also likely to be unique. This is because the arts are distinctive in
terms of factors like its markets and the nature of demand for products and services, value chains,
labour processes, regulatory mechanisms, and product/service diversity (Caves, 2000). Also, the act of
being enterprising in the arts involves responses to both contextual drivers (such as potential market
demand for artistic work) and strong intrinsic ‘protean career’ motivations (an internal desire to create
something aesthetic, motivated by a sense of personal achievement (Henry, 2007).
ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS EMPLOYABILITY AND CAREER SELF-MANAGEMENT
The third sense of arts entrepreneurship relates to employability, that is, the artist’s ability to build a
sustainable career through recurrently obtaining or creating arts employment, and the skills relating to
career self-management. Career management is the ability to manage intentionally the interaction of
work, learning and other aspects of life throughout the lifespan (Haines, Scott, & Lincoln, 2003;
Watts, 2006). It occurs through an ongoing interaction of reflective, evaluative and decision making
processes, based on ongoing information gathering about one’s own needs, and the requirements of
industry and the world of work in the arts (Bridgstock, 2009). Effective career self-management in the
arts can involve a significant degree of adaptability and self-reinvention. It also relies upon procedural
skill sets that deFillippi and Arthur (1994) refer to as ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing who(m)’ –
knowing the sector-specific rules of the game when it comes to finding or making work, and
networking / building relationships for employability.
It makes sense that artists, who engage in portfolio careers and who must therefore continually obtain
or create employment, would benefit from having well developed career management skills. This is in
strong contrast with the majority of the workforce, who are more likely to engage in a traditional
career pattern involving an ongoing employment relationship with one employer, and whose career
paths are often largely predetermined. In empirical support of the importance of career selfmanagement to the career in arts, Bridgstock (2011) conducted a study of several hundred emerging
and established artists, and other creative workers who engage in portfolio careers (such as designers
and film makers), in which she demonstrated a link between the propensity and ability to career selfmanage and positive subjective and objective dimensions of career success.
It can be seen that professional artists need to be entrepreneurial in all three senses of the term. The
onus is on the individual artist to create their own career, which will often involve a portfolio of work
at least partly conducted through self-employment and freelance work. Further, this work will always
involve adding value of some kind, through identifying or creating, and then taking advantage of,
creative opportunities. However, it can also be seen that entrepreneurship in the arts has
characteristics which distinguish it from entrepreneurship in other sectors, including contextual and
sectoral features, the nature and processes of artistic work, the kinds of value that artistic work can
add, and the motivations of the artist. Entrepreneurs in other fields are often ‘pulled’ to becoming
entrepreneurial, driven by the challenge of starting a new venture or developing a new product. By
contrast, artists are often ‘pushed’ to entrepreneurship through necessity, and often have minimal
natural inclination towards business ownership or commercial endeavours (Richards, 2005). Put
simply, artists tend to want to make art and make a living from it – business entrepreneurs tend want
to run a successful enterprise. The next section of this paper discusses some of these distinctions
between arts entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship in more detail.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ARTS: PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES
Entrepreneurship education in the arts is a controversial topic. The term ‘entrepreneurship’ is often
associated with a strong and overriding commercial and profiteering imperative, an association which
comes from the traditional business entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Timmons & Spinelli, 2003). This
emphasis on commercial entrepreneurship has also been taken up by some creative industries and
creative economy theorists. For instance, in the seminal work ‘The Creative Economy’, Howkins
(2002) states that successful creative entrepreneneurs must, “realize their success will be measured in
financial terms; the rest is in shadows” (p.130). Many arts educators, arts students and practicing
artists, find this prevailing commercial emphasis incongruent with their career values and therefore
objectionable (Beckman, 2007).
When discussing entrepreneurship with artists, the notion l’art pour l’art (art for art’s sake) often
arises. L’art pour l’art is a slogan of Bohemian culture (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2006) and the Romantic
era. It means that artistic pursuits require no justification or instrumental purpose (Becker 1982, Caves
2000). L’art pour l’art is a statement about art having intrinsic value without any additional moral,
didactic, or utilitarian function. The phrase was initially used by Victor Cousin in a lecture “Truth,
Beauty, Goodness” delivered at the Sorbonne in 1854. Cousin stated: “We must have religion for
religion’s sake, morality for morality’s sake, as with art for art’s sake...the beautiful cannot be the way
to what is useful, or to what is good, or to what is holy; it leads only to itself” (Davies, Higgins, &
Hopkins, 2009, p.129).
However, when artists are asked about their motivations for making art, they give a variety of
answers, some of which do indeed imply instrumental reasons for practice at least some of the time.
The artistic protean career, with its emphasis on personal motivations for career and psychological
success, does seem to involve intrinsic motivations such as artistic fulfillment and growth, creation of
beauty, engaging in challenge and creating something entirely new. However, just as often (and often
at the same time), artists report extrinsic motivations such as connection and communication with
others; building community; recognition from colleagues and career furtherment; contribution to the
growth and development of their artforms; and making living (Bridgstock, 2007). Of course there are
also some artists who are strongly motivated by profit. For instance, Warhol (1975) famously stated,
“making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art”.
The point is that arts practice is highly individual and can be associated with many different, and even
multiple concurrent, motivations and aims. However, all professional artists desire to share their work
with others in some way, and to add value of some kind or kinds. While money will inevitably be part
of the equation in arts entrepreneurship, it needn’t be the fundamental driver. As Beckman (2007)
argues: “even when art is commercial in nature, it does not need to involve compromising artistic
objectives… arts entrepreneurship education programs should ideally be built upon a foundational
shift in thinking from “money ruins art” to “money enables art.”” (p.103).
A parallel argument can be found in the business literature with respect to the burgeoning discipline
of social entrepreneurship, with which arts entrepreneurship would seem to have something in
common. Dees (1998) differentiates social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs by saying that
business entrepreneurs use wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation, but that making
money is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs. The next section of this article draws upon
the social entrepreneurship and triple/quadruple bottom line business literature (Mair & Marti, 2006)
to discuss multiple bottom line entrepreneurship among artists.
NEGOTIATING MULTIPLE BOTTOM LINES
The idea that all entrepreneurs, whatever their discipline or sector, must balance multiple aims and
purposes, is one whose time may finally have come. Chell (2007) points out that traditional
definitions of entrepreneurship from the Business School (e.g., Bhide, et al., 1999) tend to neglect to
mention the social and personal outcomes and benefits of entrepreneurship – such as belongingness,
community, friendship, and development of one’s capability. She concludes that even within forprofit businesses there must be a balancing of social and economic behaviour that creates social and
economic value. Indeed, numerous entrepreneurship theorists in the business literature are now
pointing out the fact that many ventures demonstrate a range of goals and outcomes, and that there
may well be tensions between these goals and outcomes which the entrepreneur must negotiate (Neck,
Brush, & Allen, 2009).
Triple bottom line theory (TBL) captures an expanded spectrum of values and criteria for measuring
venture success. Developed by Elkington (1998), the theory emerged out of the corporate social
responsibility literature, and recognises that the value enterprises can add is much more than
commercial. Triple bottom line theory moves from the position that environmental sustainability and
social well-being are just as important as commercial goals, and must be factored in to any business’
bottom line. With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI TBL standard for urban and
community accounting in early 2007, TBL became the prevailing approach to public sector full cost
accounting.
Hawkes (2001) augments triple bottom line theory with a fourth bottom line: that of culture. Culture
can be defined as the ‘way of life’ of different groups of people through the expression of their
identities, belief systems, aspirations, values, dress, language, food and all aspects of their existence
(Hawkes 2001). Hawkes (2001) argues that cultural vitality is just as important to society as social
equity, environmental responsibility and economic viability.
While designed to enhance the accountability of commercial enterprises and public programs – and
also to highlight tensions between, and facilitate integration (blending - Emerson, 2003) of social and
economic values, multiple bottom line theory also has applicability in making visible the bottom line
aims of artistic enterprises and arts entrepreneurs. Eikhof and Haunschild (2006; see also Menger,
1999) argue that artists have to juggle and/or blend two identities: their identity as an artist, which
provides them with work motivation and creative momentum, and their identity as a small business,
which enables them to make a living. While this statement acknowledges the well-documented
tension between artistic motivations and commercial ones, it reflects insufficiently the range of aims
possible in artistic enterprise (as discussed under ‘Philosophical Issues’ above); the potential conflicts
and complementarities between these aims; and the juggling act in which many artists engage in order
to achieve their protean (that is, personally determined) professional goals.
Juggling and blending multiple entrepreneurial bottom lines is central to arts entrepreneurship, and to
building sustainable arts careers (Caves, 2000; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007; Menger, 1999). Knowing
how to practice in a personally value-congruent way, in order to add value of some type/s through art,
is a fundamental aspect of successful arts practice, and yet the process of learning how to do this is
often tacit and the outcomes implicit and not easily explained, even by successful professional artists.
The ability to tap into and pursue personal career goals, whilst also being able to chase other shorter
term venture creation, project, and enterprise goals successfully, involves both career identity depth,
and career identity adaptability, on the part of the artist.
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITIES OF ARTISTS
Successful arts entrepreneurship commences with entrepreneurship in the career self-management
sense of the term. Initially, the process is concerned with the development of a strong and adaptable
career identity, which in turn influences the subsequent career-related actions of the artist. Career
identity is the individual’s definition of themselves as it relates to work and career, reflecting
motivations, personal meanings, and individual values (Meijers, 1998). It answers questions such as
‘who I am’, ‘who I want to be’ and ‘what’s important to me’ in career. It has an enormously strong
effect on career-related behaviour, acting as a ‘cognitive compass’ (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth,
2004, p.17) that directs and sustains the artist’s learning and career-related actions.
Career identity develops through experiences, and also through changing needs and desires through
the lifespan (Watson, 2008). Individuals often maintain multiple and shifting identities which can be
complementary or conflict (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). However, adaptive career identities
are those which are based in good information about the self and the world of work. They are
relatively immutable in terms of the artist’s core values and career needs, and at the same time are
flexible in other ways, to ensure that the artist is open to identifying or creating rewarding career
opportunities which may otherwise be hidden to them. Adaptive career identities must address
entrepreneurship as well as creation/making – namely, how the artist intends to apply or share their
work.
The artist’s career identity determines the enterprise opportunities the artist will seek and recognize,
and the types of new ventures that they will create. The constitution of enterprises, their environments
and behavior, and therefore the skill sets required, can be quite different depending on the bottom line
drivers of a venture, and it is advantageous for the artist to know early on which types of aims they
would prefer to pursue.
Some degree of identity incongruence is inevitable, as the artist needs to engage in the contrasting
activities of creative/making and enterprising/venturing, and multiple venturous aims. Gotsi et al
(2010) identify two key strategies for juggling multiple conflicting identities: differentiation, and
integration. Differentiation is concerned with adopting different roles in different phases of work –
that is, alternating sequentially between the identities (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The second identity
strategy observed by Gotsi et al (2010) is identity integration, or formation of a ‘meta-identity’. This
method involves developing a higher level identity which subsumes the sub-identities (Pratt &
Foreman, 2000). Contradictions can be reconciled by emphasizing the synergies between the subidentities. In Gotsi et al’s (2010) study, artists in a product design firm came to view themselves as
‘practical artists’, which incorporated aspects of both artistic identity and business identity. The artists
were able to resolve their potential identity conflicts by thinking of their roles as inclusive of a
number of complementary creative and business-related activities. As practical artists, they could
pursue both business and artistic aims concurrently, and find complementarities between those aims.
DEVELOPING ENTREPRENEURIAL ARTIST IDENTITIES THROUGH HIGHER EDUCATION
So far, this article has argued that entrepreneurship, in several senses of the term, is an integral part of
artists’ professional lives, and the development of an adaptive entrepreneurial identity is, in turn, a
fundamental element of entrepreneurship. However, as previously discussed, qualitatively different
fundamental drivers pertain to arts entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship (along with other
differences already documented in this article), and therefore long-established business school
approaches to teaching entrepreneurship and the development of an entrepreneurial identity may have
limited applicability to the arts without significant modification. So what can schools of art do to help
develop capable artist entrepreneurs?
The iterative and reflective process of adaptive career identity building can begin in the first year of
tertiary study, alongside the development of foundational disciplinary and technical skills and
knowledge (Bridgstock & Hearn, 2011). In this first year, students should be supported through a
highly scaffolded process of research into, and reflection upon, their core career interests, abilities and
values, coupled with learning about/experiencing various aspects of their intended professions and the
labour market, ideally in authentic industry settings and facilitated by industry professionals
(Bridgstock, 2011). During this career identity building phase, students consider questions such as:
what drew me to this course? What are my core work values and how can the range of career options
open to me fit with those values? What value am I going to add through my work? How will I know it
is worthwhile? Not only are students given the chance to develop an adaptive career identity through
this process, including exploring career opportunities they had not yet considered and refining their
ideas about work and careers, but they are also encouraged to learn the high level skills associated
with whole-of-career development and to continue the process for themselves in an ongoing way
(Bridgstock, 2011).
The second phase of development of the entrepreneurial artist identity involves learning to identify
value-congruent opportunities for enterprise (whether commercial, cultural, social, or a mixture of
these), and how to create ventures or projects to pursue these opportunities. A case study approach
may be useful here. Students should be exposed to multiple types of arts ventures representing a range
of venture aims, in order to understand the different ways they can be set up, the opportunities that
they exploit and the value that they add, the contexts in which they operate, and the resources they
draw upon. During this phase, it is highly worthwhile to have students explore the career and venture
motivations of professional artist cases, and the ways those professional artists have negotiated
multiple bottom lines and identity tensions in their careers.
The third phase of entrepreneurial artist identity development involves experiential, project-based
work, in which the student learns by ‘doing’ entrepreneurship (Raffo, Lovatt, Banks, & O’Connor,
2000) in a community of practice with other students, mentors and academic staff (Brown, 2007).
Students co-create and pursue their own projects in alignment with identified opportunities and their
own values, and various facilitators (teaching staff, senior students/ recent graduates and industry
professionals) provide support and feedback. The processes involved in identifying opportunities to
add value through art, and the identity negotiations are made explicit. This experiential work serves to
further develop the adaptive career identity (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001), as well as embedding core
entrepreneurial skills and knowledge in an authentic way. Thus, students can make ‘mistakes’ in the
safe environment of the university where there are relatively few repercussions of venture failure, and
then analyse and learn from their entrepreneurial experiences in class, thus acquiring entrepreneurial
self-confidence and opportunity identification skills, both argued to be important to creative enterprise
success (Fillis, 2006). This is a powerful student-centred approach to the development of the
entrepreneurial identity, and arts entrepreneurship skills.
CONCLUSION
This article has argued for the importance of arts entrepreneurship in three specific senses as part of
the suite of capabilities needed by professional artists. Further, it has argued for the development of
arts entrepreneurship capabilities through higher education, and suggested concrete ways in which this
might be achieved through the curriculum.
The previous discussion of the importance of application and sharing of artistic work in this article is
meant in no way to imply that entrepreneurship capability development should supplant the
development of the disciplinary capabilities which make artists effective practitioners, or indeed other
important ‘generic’ capabilities (Barrie & Prosser, 2004) they should develop, such as interpersonal
skills, creative thinking, and problem-solving. Rather, entrepreneurship (as with other generic skills)
must be woven into the fabric of the disciplinary curriculum, thus providing needed context, career
relevance and links with the learner’s extant knowledge – all essential for the active process of
knowledge construction. As Carey and Naudin (2006) observed, entrepreneurship education must be
embedded ‘from day one’ of a course, and must focus on developing and stimulating an enterprising
culture and way of thinking. Entrepreneurship is not a sub-topic within a business-related curriculum,
but is a complex set of qualities, beliefs, attitudes and skills that underpin all areas of working life.
In choosing to embrace entrepreneurship capability development in students of art, school
leaders must not neglect the professional development and support of teaching staff.
Professional development for arts entrepreneurship education should affirm existing effective
teaching practices, reinforce the importance of disciplinary content, and address philosophical,
conceptual, and logistical concerns. It may be beneficial for teaching staff themselves to engage
in a scaffolded process of career and entrepreneurial identity development and refinement.
During this process, staff can be supported to reflect upon and celebrate the ways that they add
value, envision new directions for their work, and invigorate their arts and education practices.
Word count: 6872 words
REFERENCES
Arthur, M., Inkson, D., & Pringle, J. (1999) The new careers: Individual action and economic change.
London: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001) 'Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple
identities in organizational contexts', in M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (eds) Social identity
processes in organizational contexts, pp. 31–48. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989) 'Social identity theory and the organization'. Academy of
Management Review 14(1): 20-39.
Ball, L., Pollard, E., & Stanley, N. (2010) 'Creative Graduates, Creative Futures'. London: Report for
Council for Higher Education in Art and Design.
Barrie, S., & Prosser, M. (2004) 'Generic graduate attributes: Citizens for an uncertain future.'. Higher
Education Research & Development 23(3): 243-246.
Beckman, G. (2007) '"Adventuring" arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An
examination of present efforts, obstacles, and best practices'. The Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society 37(2): 87-112.
Bennett, D. (2009) 'Academy and the Real World'. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 8(3):
309-327.
Bhide, A., Sahlman, W., Stancill, J., & Rock, A. (1999) Harvard Business Review on Entrepreneurship.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Boden, R., & Nedeva, M. (2010) 'Employing Discourse: Universities and Graduate "Employability"'.
Journal of Education Policy 25(1): 18.
Bridgstock, R. (2005) 'Australian artists, starving and well-nourished: What can we learn from the
prototypical protean career?'. Australian Journal of Career Development 14(3): 40-48.
Bridgstock, R. (2007) 'Success in the protean career: A predictive study of professional artists and
tertiary arts graduates'. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Bridgstock, R. (2009) 'The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability
through career management skills'. Higher Education Research and Development 28(1): 2739.
Bridgstock, R. (2011) 'Skills for Creative Industries graduate success'. Education & Training Vol. 53(1):
9-26.
Bridgstock, R., Dawson, S., & Hearn, G. (2011) 'Cultivating innovation through social relationships: A
qualitative study of outstanding Australian innovators in science, technology, and the
creative industries', in A. Mesquita (ed.), Technology for creativity and innovation: Tools,
techniques and applications: IGI-Global.
Bridgstock, R., & Hearn, G. (2011) 'A conceptual model of capability learning for the 21st century
Knowledge Economy', in D. Rooney, G. Hearn & A. Ninan (eds) Handbook on the Knowledge
Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brown, R. (2007) 'Promoting entrepreneurship in arts education', in C. Henry (ed) Entrepreneurship
in the Creative Industries: An International Perspective .Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bureau of Labour Statistics (2011) 'Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition: Artists and
Related Workers', Available athttp://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm (accessed October 5,
2011).
Carey, C., & Naudin, A. (2006). Enterprise curriculum for creative industries students: An exploration
of current attitudes and issues. Education+Training 48(7): 518-531.
Caves, R. E. (2000) Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Chell, E. (2007) 'Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the
entrepreneurial process'. International Small Business Journal 25(1): 5-26.
Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (2004) 'National Content Standards for
Entrepreneurship Education', Available athttp://www.entreed.org/Standards_Toolkit/index.htm (accessed May 2, 2011).
Creigh-Tyte, A., & Thomas, B. (2001). 'Employment'. In S. Selwood (Ed.), The UK cultural sector:
Profile and policy issues. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Cunningham, S. (2012). Hidden innovation: Policy, industry and the creative sector. St Lucia:
University of Queensland Press.
Cutler, T. (2008) 'Venturous Australia - Building Strength in Innovation. Report on the Review of the
National Innovation System.' Canberra: Australian Government.
Davies, S., Higgins, K. M., & Hopkins, R. (2009) A companion to aesthetics (2nd ed.). Chicester: WileyBlackwell.
Dees, J. G. (1998) 'The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Comments and suggestions contributed
from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group.', Available athttp://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/files/dees-SE.pdf (accessed July 21, 2011).
deFillippi, R., & Arthur, M. (1994) 'The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective.'.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 307-324.
Department for Culture Media and Sport. (2008) 'Creative Britain: New talents for the new economy.'
London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Don, G., Garvey, C., & Sadeghpour, M. (2008) 'Signature Pedagogies in Music Theory and
Performance', in R. Gurung, N. Chick & A. Haynie (eds) Exploring Signature Pedagogies:
Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind, pp. 81-98. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Drucker, P. F. (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Duening, T. (2010) 'Five minds for the entrepreneurial future: Cognitive skills as the intellectual
foundation for next generation entrepreneurship curricula'. Journal of Entrepreneurship
19(1): 1-22.
Eikhof, D., & Haunschild, A. (2006) 'Lifestyle meets market: Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative
industries'. Creativity and Innovation Management 15(3): 234-241.
Eikhof, D., & Haunschild, A. (2007) 'For art's sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative
production'. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 523-538.
Elkington, J. (1998) 'Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business'. Environmental Quality Management 8(1): 37-51.
Emerson, J. (2003) 'The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Results'.
California Management Review 45(4): 35-51.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004) 'Employability: A psycho-social construct, its
dimensions, and applications'. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(1): 14-38.
Fillis, I. (2006). Art for art's sake or art for business sake: an exploration of artistic product
orientation. The Marketing Review, 6(1): 29-40.
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2010) 'Managing creatives: Paradoxical
approaches to identity regulation'. Human Relations 63(6): 781.
Haines, K., Scott, K., & Lincoln, R. (2003) 'Australian Blueprint for Career Development', Available athttp://www.dest.gov.au/directory/publications/australian_blueprint.pdf (accessed October
20, 2010).
Hall, D. (2004) 'The protean career: A quarter-century journey'. Journal of Vocational Behaviour
65(1): 1-13.
Hall, D., & Chandler, D. (2005) 'Psychological success: When the career is a calling'. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26(2): 155-176.
Hawkes, J. (2001) The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture's essential role in public planning.
Melbourne: Common Ground.
Henry, C. (2007) Entrepreneurship in the creative industries: An international perspective.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Higgs, P. L.,Cunningham, S & Bakhshi, H. (2008) 'Beyond the Creative Industries: Mapping the
Creative Economy in the United Kingdom.' London: NESTA.
Higgs, P. L., Cunningham, S & Pagan, J. (2007) 'Australia's Creative Economy: Basic Evidence on Size,
Growth, Income and Employment.' Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence in Creative Industries
and Innovation.
Holden, J. (2007) 'Publicly-funded culture and the creative industries'. London: Demos & Arts Council
England.
Hong, C., & Bridgstock, R. (2011) 'Educating the enterprising artist and the arts entrepreneur: Staff,
student and graduate perceptions and experiences of enterprise and entrepreneurship
education in the Creative Industries'. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Hong, C., Essig, L., & Bridgstock, R. (2011) 'The enterprising artist and the arts entrepreneur:
Emergent pedagogies for new disciplinary habits of mind.', N. Chick, A. Haynie & R. Gurung,
(eds) Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Howkins, J. (2002) The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006) 'Where is the" me" among the" we"? Identity
work and the search for optimal balance'. The Academy of Management Journal 49(5): 10311057.
Lange, B., Kalandides, A., Stober, B., & Mieg, H. (2008) 'Berlin's Creative Industries: Governing
Creativity?'. Industry & Innovation 15(5): 531-548.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006) 'Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight'. Journal of world business 41(1): 36-44.
Mallon, M. (1999) 'Going "portfolio": Making sense of changing careers'. Career Development
International 4(7): 358-369.
Meijers, F. (1998) 'The development of a career identity'. International Journal for the Advancement
of Counselling 20(3): 191-207.
Menger, P. M. (1999) 'Artistic labour markets and careers'. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 541-574.
Neck, H., Brush, C., & Allen, E. (2009) 'The landscape of social entrepreneurship'. Business Horizons
52(1): 13-19.
Potts, J, & Cunningham, S. (2008) 'Four models of the Creative Industries'. International Journal of
Cultural Policy 14(3): 233-47.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000) 'Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
identities'. Academy of Management Review: 18-42.
Raffo, C., Lovatt, A., Banks, M., & O’Connor, J. (2000) 'Teaching and learning entrepreneurship for
micro and small businesses in the cultural industries sector'. Education+ Training 42(6): 356365.
Richards, G. (2005) 'Developing entrepreneurship in the creative industries: The role of higher and
further education'. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Schumpeter, J. (1934) The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Throsby, D., & Zednik, A. (2010) 'Do you really expect to get paid? An economic study of professional
artists in Australia'. Melbourne: Australia Council for the Arts.
Timmons, J., & Spinelli, S. (2003) New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Warhol, A. (1975) The philosophy of Andy Warhol: From A to B and back again. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace.
Watson, T. J. (2008) 'Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural
circumstances'. Organization 15(1): 121-143.
Watts, A. G. (2006) 'Career development learning and employability' Learning and Employability
Series Two, Available athttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/learningandemployability.htm
(accessed June 25, 2012).
doc_269047695.pdf
In this brief file related to arts entrepreneurship and higher education.
This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:
Bridgstock, Ruth S. (2013) Not a dirty word : arts entrepreneurship and
higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2-3), pp.
122-137.
This file was downloaded from:http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53226/
c Copyright 2012 The Author(s).
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as
copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a
definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474022212465725
http://ahh.sagepub.com/
Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and higher education
Ruth Bridgstock
Abstract
While the majority of creative, performing, and literary artists are self-employed, relatively few
tertiary arts schools attempt to develop capabilities for venture creation and management (and
entrepreneurship more broadly) and still fewer do so effectively. This article asks why this is the case.
It addresses underlying conceptual and philosophical issues encountered by arts educators, arguing
that in all three senses of the term: new venture creation; career self-management; and being
enterprising, entrepreneurship is essential to career success in the arts. However, the practice of
entrepreneurship in the arts is significantly different from the practice of entrepreneurship in business,
in terms of the artist’s drivers and aims, as well as the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, contexts
and processes. These differences mean that entrepreneurship curricula cannot simply be imported
from Business schools. This article also examines the arts-idiosyncratic challenge of negotiating
distinctive and potentially conflicting entrepreneurial aims, using career identity theory. It concludes
by suggesting strategies by which adaptive entrepreneurial artist identities can be developed through
higher education programs.
Keywords: arts higher education, careers, entrepreneurship, employability, lifelong learning, identity,
graduate attributes
In first world countries, visual, literary and performing artists are generally between three and five
times more likely to be self-employed or working on a freelance basis than workers in other
occupations (Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2011). In Australia, four in five professional artists maintain
their own businesses (Throsby & Zednik, 2010). In an era where the central task of higher education
has become to prepare nascent professionals as far as possible for initial employment and future
working lives beyond this (Boden & Nedeva, 2010), one might expect that tertiary arts education
institutions would have embraced entrepreneurship education – that is, education which is focused on
the application, sharing, or distribution of art, as well as its creation or making. However,
entrepreneurship continues to be a significant source of confusion and also controversy among arts
educators and arts practitioners (Beckman, 2007; Hong & Bridgstock, 2011). The inclusion of
entrepreneurship in undergraduate arts courses remains inconsistent and surprisingly minimal (Hong,
Essig & Bridgstock, 2012), particularly given the influence of the creative industries policy agenda in
the United Kingdom and Australia, which over the last decade has linked creative work with
economic growth in advanced economies.
THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES AND THE ARTS
The Creative Industries are defined as those activities which have their origin in individual creativity,
skill and talent, and have the potential to create wealth and jobs through the generation and
exploitation of intellectual property (Department for Culture Media and Sport 2008, p.3). As such,
they include literary, visual and performing arts disciplines (‘the arts’), with which this article is
concerned, and also a range of other creative fields where significant intellectual property creation is
undertaken, such as design, film, television, radio, advertising, games, publishing, and architecture.
The reason that these diverse fields have been clustered into the Creative Industries is that creativity
and innovation are now considered to be key determinants economic growth in advanced nations
(Department for Culture Media and Sport 2008; Cutler 2008). Wealth creation is dependent upon the
capacity to continually make discoveries, innovate and invent new content. The STEM disciplines
have long been recognised as key to innovation and therefore economic growth; creative industries
policy similarly elevates creative fields as key sources of new content creation (Cutler, 2008;
Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2008), and as synthesisers of innovation throughout the
economy, and key contributers to the culturisation of all economic activity (Potts & Cunningham,
2008).
The creative industries argument is borne out by national level economic data. Census analyses show
that collectively, the creative industries are growing significantly faster than other economic sectors
(Higgs, Cunningham & Pagan, 2007; Higgs, Cunningham & Bakhshi, 2008). However, recent
reanalysis of Australian Census data (Cunningham, 2012) indicates that the greatest growth in the
Creative Industries is actually occurring in creative services (business-to-business activities like
design, architecture, software development and advertising), rather than in cultural production fields
(the arts, film & television, and publishing). The most significant employment growth for cultural
production workers can be found outside the cultural production sectors, either ‘embedded’ in creative
services industries, or working in a cultural production capacity outside the creative industries entirely
(Cunningham, 2012).
In contrast with more traditionally configured industries such as finance, the creative industries are
dominated by networked clusters of sole-traders, micro-businesses, and small-to-medium enterprises
(Creigh-Tyte and Thomas 2001). These creative business networks constantly form and re-form
value-chains to create new products and services. Creative professionals, including artists, are
therefore often likely to be self-employed, and/or employed on a short-term contractual ‘by project’
basis, at least in part.
ARTISTS’ CAREERS
Artists’ career patterns have received some research attention over the last decade, and there are now
several published labour force survey-based descriptions of the distinctive nature of arts careers (e.g.,
Ball, Pollard, & Stanley, 2010; Throsby & Zednik, 2010). Most visual, performing and literary artists
engage, at least to some extent, in portfolio careers (Bridgstock, 2005; Mallon, 1999). The portfolio
career pattern comprises a continually evolving patchwork of grant-based (i.e., publicly subsidised)
and/or commercial projects, jobs, and educational experiences. A portfolio of arts work may be
supplemented by additional concurrent work activities – the ubiquitous ‘day job’ – in order to meet
the artist’s financial obligations (Throsby & Zednik, 2010).
In the main, artists’ careers are individually constructed in an ongoing and unfolding way, often with
minimal opportunity for either stable employment or progression as an employee within a firm. The
onus is on the artist or designer to recurringly obtain or create employment and to manage their own
career progression (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999). Throughout the arts, work is usually obtained
via ‘who you know’ – that is, via informal social and professional contacts, and offers are made on the
basis of the quality and success of previous work, rather than formal application and interview
processes (Throsby and Zednik 2010).
A further highly distinctive feature of artists’ careers is a blurring of the boundaries between work and
personal life (Holden, 2007; Lange, Kalandides, Stober, & Mieg, 2008). As discussed by Bennett
(2009) and Bridgstock (2005), many artists can be appropriately described as protean careerists (Hall,
2004; Hall & Chandler, 2005), because as well as individually constructing their own career paths,
they also tend to possess strong personal motivations for building a career in arts. Their personal
identities are often linked quite strongly with their arts practices (Brown, 2007), and they value
psychological success and aspire to achievement of personally determined professional goals. The
protean career pattern is characterised by: (1) personal construction of career and recurrent acquisition
or creation of work (which likely to occur on a freelance or self-employment basis); and (2) strong
intrinsic motivations for, and personal identification with, career (Hall, 2004).
It follows that the artist who is engaging in the protean career pattern should possess well developed
arts entrepreneurship skills, as well as highly developed skills associated with arts practice, that is,
creation or making of work. However, there remains significant confusion around exactly what
entrepreneurship means with respect to arts education (see, for instance, Beckman, 2007). Broadly
speaking, arts entrepreneurship skills are the skills associated with the application, sharing or
distribution, as opposed to the generation or making, of art and creative work. However, as will be
discussed in more depth later in this article, the usual sense of term entrepreneurship we have
inherited from business disciplines as involving pursuit of profit and commercial gain (Bhide,
Sahlman, Stancill, & Rock, 1999) does not necessarily apply, and there are other important
differences as well. For the artist, the practice of entrepreneurship is multi-layered, and qualitatively
different from the practice of entrepreneurship in the traditional business sense, as will be argued in
the next section of this article.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ARTS: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
The core strength of arts education has always been the development of high level disciplinary
creative and technical skills, often through an intensive and rigorous studio experience (e.g., Don,
Garvey, & Sadeghpour, 2008). Arts entrepreneurship - the development of skills associated with
application, sharing, and distribution of creative work - have tended to occupy a significantly less
important position in arts programs. Partly, this imbalance reflects strong traditions in arts education
curricula and pedagogic practice. However, it also reflects a state of confusion among educators about
what arts entrepreneurship education is, and what skill sets it should involve (see, for instance,
Beckman, 2007; Hong, Essig, & Bridgstock, 2011)
Beckman (2007) reviewed arts entrepreneurship higher education throughout the United States, and
delineated two streams of definitional and curricular thought among arts educators with respect to
entrepreneurship education: entrepreneurship as ‘new venture creation’ (involving enterprise start-up
and management), and what Beckman calls the ‘transitioning’ approach, which corresponds broadly
to Schumpeterian and Druckerian (Dees, 1998; Drucker, 1985; Schumpeter, 1934) notions of
entrepreneurship as ‘being enterprising’ (that is, opportunity recognition or creation, and adding value
of some kind). The present article will also discuss a third sense to arts entrepreneurship: career selfmanagement and being employable. There is of course significant overlap between the three senses –
for instance, in order to be employable and creatively fulfilled (career self-management), an artist may
find they need to set up a business (new venture creation), which meets a certain market need and
adds a certain type of cultural value (being enterprising). Each of these senses will be defined and
discussed briefly in the next section, commencing with new venture creation.
ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS NEW VENTURE CREATION
The ‘new venture creation’ sense of arts entrepreneurship is a more traditional view which
corresponds the most closely to Business School notions of entrepreneurship. It was also the most
common definition given by arts educators in Beckman’s (2007) review. Under the new venture
creation approach to arts entrepreneurship education, students learn skills and knowledge associated
with starting and growing an artistic enterprise, including sales and marketing, legal issues, business
strategy, and finance (Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, 2004). New venture creation skills
specific to the arts may include grantsmanship and operating within a subsidized, or partly subsidised
and partly commercial context, intellectual property issues for creative enterprises, and cultural
stakeholder management.
The majority of professional artists maintain their own enterprises, and thus it seems clear that
emerging artists will require a basic grounding in new venture creation and management skills for the
arts. However, when Bridgstock conducted case studies of outstandingly successful artists and
designers (Bridgstock, Dawson, & Hearn, 2011), she found that many of the study participants did not
have a natural propensity toward engaging in the ‘nuts and bolts’ of running an enterprise. Rather,
these participants possessed an awareness of, and an understanding of, core business concepts, and
had formed successful partnerships and professional relationships with individuals who were more
business-minded than they were. Thus, it seems likely that business fundamentals, arts sectoralspecific knowledge, and social networking capability (Bridgstock, Dawson & Hearn, 2011), are
probably examples of core arts entrepreneurship curriculum elements, but specialist business topics
like taxation law or accrual accounting may not be.
ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS ‘BEING ENTERPRISING’
Arts entrepreneurship programs that focus on less tangible capabilities such as opportunity
recognition, entrepreneurial behavior, or resilience, are emphasising the ‘being enterprising’ sense of
arts entrepreneurship. The ‘being enterprising’ sense of arts entrepreneurship education is concerned
with the identification or creation of artistic opportunities, and exploitation of those opportunities in
terms of applying or sharing artistic activity in order to add value of some kind.
Numerous lists of attributes for successful enterprise can be located in the general business literature,
and some of these may have applicability to arts entrepreneurship as well. These lists tend to
emphasise enterprising qualities (such as ‘vision’, or ‘proactiveness’) or broad meta-theoretical
constructs involving multiple cognitive, affective, and behavioural processes. For instance, Duening’s
(2010) ‘Five Minds for the Entrepreneurial Future’ presents a very broad theoretical framework of
generic capabilities for success in enterprise. Duening’s enterprising ‘minds’ are: (1) The Opportunity
Recognising Mind; (2) The Designing Mind; (3) The Risk Managing Mind; (4) The Resilient Mind;
and (5) The Effectuating Mind.
First, the Opportunity Recognising Mind identifies distinctive patterns in the artist’s context (such as
consumer behaviour, collaborator availability, or resources) as creating an opportunity. The Designing
Mind then moves to exploit that opportunity, by creating a new artistic product or service; or
redesigning a product or service to meet that opportunity. The Risk Managing Mind minimises risk in
the venture, through internal (adaptation) strategies, or external (management) strategies like
diversifying investors. The Resilient Mind is responsible for emotional, financial, and reputational
rebounding from failure. Finally, the Effectuating Mind undertakes focussed and goal-directed action,
to ensure that the venture becomes reality.
However, as with the skills required for new venture creation, the act of being enterprising in the arts
probably involves a somewhat different set of capabilities to being enterprising in business. Not only
are the contextual patterns the Opportunity Recognising Mind must identify likely to be quite
idiosyncratic to the arts, the strategies the Designing and Effectuating Minds must employ to bring
artistic enterprises to fruition are also likely to be unique. This is because the arts are distinctive in
terms of factors like its markets and the nature of demand for products and services, value chains,
labour processes, regulatory mechanisms, and product/service diversity (Caves, 2000). Also, the act of
being enterprising in the arts involves responses to both contextual drivers (such as potential market
demand for artistic work) and strong intrinsic ‘protean career’ motivations (an internal desire to create
something aesthetic, motivated by a sense of personal achievement (Henry, 2007).
ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS EMPLOYABILITY AND CAREER SELF-MANAGEMENT
The third sense of arts entrepreneurship relates to employability, that is, the artist’s ability to build a
sustainable career through recurrently obtaining or creating arts employment, and the skills relating to
career self-management. Career management is the ability to manage intentionally the interaction of
work, learning and other aspects of life throughout the lifespan (Haines, Scott, & Lincoln, 2003;
Watts, 2006). It occurs through an ongoing interaction of reflective, evaluative and decision making
processes, based on ongoing information gathering about one’s own needs, and the requirements of
industry and the world of work in the arts (Bridgstock, 2009). Effective career self-management in the
arts can involve a significant degree of adaptability and self-reinvention. It also relies upon procedural
skill sets that deFillippi and Arthur (1994) refer to as ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing who(m)’ –
knowing the sector-specific rules of the game when it comes to finding or making work, and
networking / building relationships for employability.
It makes sense that artists, who engage in portfolio careers and who must therefore continually obtain
or create employment, would benefit from having well developed career management skills. This is in
strong contrast with the majority of the workforce, who are more likely to engage in a traditional
career pattern involving an ongoing employment relationship with one employer, and whose career
paths are often largely predetermined. In empirical support of the importance of career selfmanagement to the career in arts, Bridgstock (2011) conducted a study of several hundred emerging
and established artists, and other creative workers who engage in portfolio careers (such as designers
and film makers), in which she demonstrated a link between the propensity and ability to career selfmanage and positive subjective and objective dimensions of career success.
It can be seen that professional artists need to be entrepreneurial in all three senses of the term. The
onus is on the individual artist to create their own career, which will often involve a portfolio of work
at least partly conducted through self-employment and freelance work. Further, this work will always
involve adding value of some kind, through identifying or creating, and then taking advantage of,
creative opportunities. However, it can also be seen that entrepreneurship in the arts has
characteristics which distinguish it from entrepreneurship in other sectors, including contextual and
sectoral features, the nature and processes of artistic work, the kinds of value that artistic work can
add, and the motivations of the artist. Entrepreneurs in other fields are often ‘pulled’ to becoming
entrepreneurial, driven by the challenge of starting a new venture or developing a new product. By
contrast, artists are often ‘pushed’ to entrepreneurship through necessity, and often have minimal
natural inclination towards business ownership or commercial endeavours (Richards, 2005). Put
simply, artists tend to want to make art and make a living from it – business entrepreneurs tend want
to run a successful enterprise. The next section of this paper discusses some of these distinctions
between arts entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship in more detail.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ARTS: PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES
Entrepreneurship education in the arts is a controversial topic. The term ‘entrepreneurship’ is often
associated with a strong and overriding commercial and profiteering imperative, an association which
comes from the traditional business entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Timmons & Spinelli, 2003). This
emphasis on commercial entrepreneurship has also been taken up by some creative industries and
creative economy theorists. For instance, in the seminal work ‘The Creative Economy’, Howkins
(2002) states that successful creative entrepreneneurs must, “realize their success will be measured in
financial terms; the rest is in shadows” (p.130). Many arts educators, arts students and practicing
artists, find this prevailing commercial emphasis incongruent with their career values and therefore
objectionable (Beckman, 2007).
When discussing entrepreneurship with artists, the notion l’art pour l’art (art for art’s sake) often
arises. L’art pour l’art is a slogan of Bohemian culture (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2006) and the Romantic
era. It means that artistic pursuits require no justification or instrumental purpose (Becker 1982, Caves
2000). L’art pour l’art is a statement about art having intrinsic value without any additional moral,
didactic, or utilitarian function. The phrase was initially used by Victor Cousin in a lecture “Truth,
Beauty, Goodness” delivered at the Sorbonne in 1854. Cousin stated: “We must have religion for
religion’s sake, morality for morality’s sake, as with art for art’s sake...the beautiful cannot be the way
to what is useful, or to what is good, or to what is holy; it leads only to itself” (Davies, Higgins, &
Hopkins, 2009, p.129).
However, when artists are asked about their motivations for making art, they give a variety of
answers, some of which do indeed imply instrumental reasons for practice at least some of the time.
The artistic protean career, with its emphasis on personal motivations for career and psychological
success, does seem to involve intrinsic motivations such as artistic fulfillment and growth, creation of
beauty, engaging in challenge and creating something entirely new. However, just as often (and often
at the same time), artists report extrinsic motivations such as connection and communication with
others; building community; recognition from colleagues and career furtherment; contribution to the
growth and development of their artforms; and making living (Bridgstock, 2007). Of course there are
also some artists who are strongly motivated by profit. For instance, Warhol (1975) famously stated,
“making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art”.
The point is that arts practice is highly individual and can be associated with many different, and even
multiple concurrent, motivations and aims. However, all professional artists desire to share their work
with others in some way, and to add value of some kind or kinds. While money will inevitably be part
of the equation in arts entrepreneurship, it needn’t be the fundamental driver. As Beckman (2007)
argues: “even when art is commercial in nature, it does not need to involve compromising artistic
objectives… arts entrepreneurship education programs should ideally be built upon a foundational
shift in thinking from “money ruins art” to “money enables art.”” (p.103).
A parallel argument can be found in the business literature with respect to the burgeoning discipline
of social entrepreneurship, with which arts entrepreneurship would seem to have something in
common. Dees (1998) differentiates social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs by saying that
business entrepreneurs use wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation, but that making
money is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs. The next section of this article draws upon
the social entrepreneurship and triple/quadruple bottom line business literature (Mair & Marti, 2006)
to discuss multiple bottom line entrepreneurship among artists.
NEGOTIATING MULTIPLE BOTTOM LINES
The idea that all entrepreneurs, whatever their discipline or sector, must balance multiple aims and
purposes, is one whose time may finally have come. Chell (2007) points out that traditional
definitions of entrepreneurship from the Business School (e.g., Bhide, et al., 1999) tend to neglect to
mention the social and personal outcomes and benefits of entrepreneurship – such as belongingness,
community, friendship, and development of one’s capability. She concludes that even within forprofit businesses there must be a balancing of social and economic behaviour that creates social and
economic value. Indeed, numerous entrepreneurship theorists in the business literature are now
pointing out the fact that many ventures demonstrate a range of goals and outcomes, and that there
may well be tensions between these goals and outcomes which the entrepreneur must negotiate (Neck,
Brush, & Allen, 2009).
Triple bottom line theory (TBL) captures an expanded spectrum of values and criteria for measuring
venture success. Developed by Elkington (1998), the theory emerged out of the corporate social
responsibility literature, and recognises that the value enterprises can add is much more than
commercial. Triple bottom line theory moves from the position that environmental sustainability and
social well-being are just as important as commercial goals, and must be factored in to any business’
bottom line. With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI TBL standard for urban and
community accounting in early 2007, TBL became the prevailing approach to public sector full cost
accounting.
Hawkes (2001) augments triple bottom line theory with a fourth bottom line: that of culture. Culture
can be defined as the ‘way of life’ of different groups of people through the expression of their
identities, belief systems, aspirations, values, dress, language, food and all aspects of their existence
(Hawkes 2001). Hawkes (2001) argues that cultural vitality is just as important to society as social
equity, environmental responsibility and economic viability.
While designed to enhance the accountability of commercial enterprises and public programs – and
also to highlight tensions between, and facilitate integration (blending - Emerson, 2003) of social and
economic values, multiple bottom line theory also has applicability in making visible the bottom line
aims of artistic enterprises and arts entrepreneurs. Eikhof and Haunschild (2006; see also Menger,
1999) argue that artists have to juggle and/or blend two identities: their identity as an artist, which
provides them with work motivation and creative momentum, and their identity as a small business,
which enables them to make a living. While this statement acknowledges the well-documented
tension between artistic motivations and commercial ones, it reflects insufficiently the range of aims
possible in artistic enterprise (as discussed under ‘Philosophical Issues’ above); the potential conflicts
and complementarities between these aims; and the juggling act in which many artists engage in order
to achieve their protean (that is, personally determined) professional goals.
Juggling and blending multiple entrepreneurial bottom lines is central to arts entrepreneurship, and to
building sustainable arts careers (Caves, 2000; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007; Menger, 1999). Knowing
how to practice in a personally value-congruent way, in order to add value of some type/s through art,
is a fundamental aspect of successful arts practice, and yet the process of learning how to do this is
often tacit and the outcomes implicit and not easily explained, even by successful professional artists.
The ability to tap into and pursue personal career goals, whilst also being able to chase other shorter
term venture creation, project, and enterprise goals successfully, involves both career identity depth,
and career identity adaptability, on the part of the artist.
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITIES OF ARTISTS
Successful arts entrepreneurship commences with entrepreneurship in the career self-management
sense of the term. Initially, the process is concerned with the development of a strong and adaptable
career identity, which in turn influences the subsequent career-related actions of the artist. Career
identity is the individual’s definition of themselves as it relates to work and career, reflecting
motivations, personal meanings, and individual values (Meijers, 1998). It answers questions such as
‘who I am’, ‘who I want to be’ and ‘what’s important to me’ in career. It has an enormously strong
effect on career-related behaviour, acting as a ‘cognitive compass’ (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth,
2004, p.17) that directs and sustains the artist’s learning and career-related actions.
Career identity develops through experiences, and also through changing needs and desires through
the lifespan (Watson, 2008). Individuals often maintain multiple and shifting identities which can be
complementary or conflict (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). However, adaptive career identities
are those which are based in good information about the self and the world of work. They are
relatively immutable in terms of the artist’s core values and career needs, and at the same time are
flexible in other ways, to ensure that the artist is open to identifying or creating rewarding career
opportunities which may otherwise be hidden to them. Adaptive career identities must address
entrepreneurship as well as creation/making – namely, how the artist intends to apply or share their
work.
The artist’s career identity determines the enterprise opportunities the artist will seek and recognize,
and the types of new ventures that they will create. The constitution of enterprises, their environments
and behavior, and therefore the skill sets required, can be quite different depending on the bottom line
drivers of a venture, and it is advantageous for the artist to know early on which types of aims they
would prefer to pursue.
Some degree of identity incongruence is inevitable, as the artist needs to engage in the contrasting
activities of creative/making and enterprising/venturing, and multiple venturous aims. Gotsi et al
(2010) identify two key strategies for juggling multiple conflicting identities: differentiation, and
integration. Differentiation is concerned with adopting different roles in different phases of work –
that is, alternating sequentially between the identities (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The second identity
strategy observed by Gotsi et al (2010) is identity integration, or formation of a ‘meta-identity’. This
method involves developing a higher level identity which subsumes the sub-identities (Pratt &
Foreman, 2000). Contradictions can be reconciled by emphasizing the synergies between the subidentities. In Gotsi et al’s (2010) study, artists in a product design firm came to view themselves as
‘practical artists’, which incorporated aspects of both artistic identity and business identity. The artists
were able to resolve their potential identity conflicts by thinking of their roles as inclusive of a
number of complementary creative and business-related activities. As practical artists, they could
pursue both business and artistic aims concurrently, and find complementarities between those aims.
DEVELOPING ENTREPRENEURIAL ARTIST IDENTITIES THROUGH HIGHER EDUCATION
So far, this article has argued that entrepreneurship, in several senses of the term, is an integral part of
artists’ professional lives, and the development of an adaptive entrepreneurial identity is, in turn, a
fundamental element of entrepreneurship. However, as previously discussed, qualitatively different
fundamental drivers pertain to arts entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship (along with other
differences already documented in this article), and therefore long-established business school
approaches to teaching entrepreneurship and the development of an entrepreneurial identity may have
limited applicability to the arts without significant modification. So what can schools of art do to help
develop capable artist entrepreneurs?
The iterative and reflective process of adaptive career identity building can begin in the first year of
tertiary study, alongside the development of foundational disciplinary and technical skills and
knowledge (Bridgstock & Hearn, 2011). In this first year, students should be supported through a
highly scaffolded process of research into, and reflection upon, their core career interests, abilities and
values, coupled with learning about/experiencing various aspects of their intended professions and the
labour market, ideally in authentic industry settings and facilitated by industry professionals
(Bridgstock, 2011). During this career identity building phase, students consider questions such as:
what drew me to this course? What are my core work values and how can the range of career options
open to me fit with those values? What value am I going to add through my work? How will I know it
is worthwhile? Not only are students given the chance to develop an adaptive career identity through
this process, including exploring career opportunities they had not yet considered and refining their
ideas about work and careers, but they are also encouraged to learn the high level skills associated
with whole-of-career development and to continue the process for themselves in an ongoing way
(Bridgstock, 2011).
The second phase of development of the entrepreneurial artist identity involves learning to identify
value-congruent opportunities for enterprise (whether commercial, cultural, social, or a mixture of
these), and how to create ventures or projects to pursue these opportunities. A case study approach
may be useful here. Students should be exposed to multiple types of arts ventures representing a range
of venture aims, in order to understand the different ways they can be set up, the opportunities that
they exploit and the value that they add, the contexts in which they operate, and the resources they
draw upon. During this phase, it is highly worthwhile to have students explore the career and venture
motivations of professional artist cases, and the ways those professional artists have negotiated
multiple bottom lines and identity tensions in their careers.
The third phase of entrepreneurial artist identity development involves experiential, project-based
work, in which the student learns by ‘doing’ entrepreneurship (Raffo, Lovatt, Banks, & O’Connor,
2000) in a community of practice with other students, mentors and academic staff (Brown, 2007).
Students co-create and pursue their own projects in alignment with identified opportunities and their
own values, and various facilitators (teaching staff, senior students/ recent graduates and industry
professionals) provide support and feedback. The processes involved in identifying opportunities to
add value through art, and the identity negotiations are made explicit. This experiential work serves to
further develop the adaptive career identity (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001), as well as embedding core
entrepreneurial skills and knowledge in an authentic way. Thus, students can make ‘mistakes’ in the
safe environment of the university where there are relatively few repercussions of venture failure, and
then analyse and learn from their entrepreneurial experiences in class, thus acquiring entrepreneurial
self-confidence and opportunity identification skills, both argued to be important to creative enterprise
success (Fillis, 2006). This is a powerful student-centred approach to the development of the
entrepreneurial identity, and arts entrepreneurship skills.
CONCLUSION
This article has argued for the importance of arts entrepreneurship in three specific senses as part of
the suite of capabilities needed by professional artists. Further, it has argued for the development of
arts entrepreneurship capabilities through higher education, and suggested concrete ways in which this
might be achieved through the curriculum.
The previous discussion of the importance of application and sharing of artistic work in this article is
meant in no way to imply that entrepreneurship capability development should supplant the
development of the disciplinary capabilities which make artists effective practitioners, or indeed other
important ‘generic’ capabilities (Barrie & Prosser, 2004) they should develop, such as interpersonal
skills, creative thinking, and problem-solving. Rather, entrepreneurship (as with other generic skills)
must be woven into the fabric of the disciplinary curriculum, thus providing needed context, career
relevance and links with the learner’s extant knowledge – all essential for the active process of
knowledge construction. As Carey and Naudin (2006) observed, entrepreneurship education must be
embedded ‘from day one’ of a course, and must focus on developing and stimulating an enterprising
culture and way of thinking. Entrepreneurship is not a sub-topic within a business-related curriculum,
but is a complex set of qualities, beliefs, attitudes and skills that underpin all areas of working life.
In choosing to embrace entrepreneurship capability development in students of art, school
leaders must not neglect the professional development and support of teaching staff.
Professional development for arts entrepreneurship education should affirm existing effective
teaching practices, reinforce the importance of disciplinary content, and address philosophical,
conceptual, and logistical concerns. It may be beneficial for teaching staff themselves to engage
in a scaffolded process of career and entrepreneurial identity development and refinement.
During this process, staff can be supported to reflect upon and celebrate the ways that they add
value, envision new directions for their work, and invigorate their arts and education practices.
Word count: 6872 words
REFERENCES
Arthur, M., Inkson, D., & Pringle, J. (1999) The new careers: Individual action and economic change.
London: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001) 'Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple
identities in organizational contexts', in M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (eds) Social identity
processes in organizational contexts, pp. 31–48. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989) 'Social identity theory and the organization'. Academy of
Management Review 14(1): 20-39.
Ball, L., Pollard, E., & Stanley, N. (2010) 'Creative Graduates, Creative Futures'. London: Report for
Council for Higher Education in Art and Design.
Barrie, S., & Prosser, M. (2004) 'Generic graduate attributes: Citizens for an uncertain future.'. Higher
Education Research & Development 23(3): 243-246.
Beckman, G. (2007) '"Adventuring" arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An
examination of present efforts, obstacles, and best practices'. The Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society 37(2): 87-112.
Bennett, D. (2009) 'Academy and the Real World'. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 8(3):
309-327.
Bhide, A., Sahlman, W., Stancill, J., & Rock, A. (1999) Harvard Business Review on Entrepreneurship.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Boden, R., & Nedeva, M. (2010) 'Employing Discourse: Universities and Graduate "Employability"'.
Journal of Education Policy 25(1): 18.
Bridgstock, R. (2005) 'Australian artists, starving and well-nourished: What can we learn from the
prototypical protean career?'. Australian Journal of Career Development 14(3): 40-48.
Bridgstock, R. (2007) 'Success in the protean career: A predictive study of professional artists and
tertiary arts graduates'. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Bridgstock, R. (2009) 'The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability
through career management skills'. Higher Education Research and Development 28(1): 2739.
Bridgstock, R. (2011) 'Skills for Creative Industries graduate success'. Education & Training Vol. 53(1):
9-26.
Bridgstock, R., Dawson, S., & Hearn, G. (2011) 'Cultivating innovation through social relationships: A
qualitative study of outstanding Australian innovators in science, technology, and the
creative industries', in A. Mesquita (ed.), Technology for creativity and innovation: Tools,
techniques and applications: IGI-Global.
Bridgstock, R., & Hearn, G. (2011) 'A conceptual model of capability learning for the 21st century
Knowledge Economy', in D. Rooney, G. Hearn & A. Ninan (eds) Handbook on the Knowledge
Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brown, R. (2007) 'Promoting entrepreneurship in arts education', in C. Henry (ed) Entrepreneurship
in the Creative Industries: An International Perspective .Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bureau of Labour Statistics (2011) 'Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition: Artists and
Related Workers', Available athttp://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm (accessed October 5,
2011).
Carey, C., & Naudin, A. (2006). Enterprise curriculum for creative industries students: An exploration
of current attitudes and issues. Education+Training 48(7): 518-531.
Caves, R. E. (2000) Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Chell, E. (2007) 'Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the
entrepreneurial process'. International Small Business Journal 25(1): 5-26.
Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (2004) 'National Content Standards for
Entrepreneurship Education', Available athttp://www.entreed.org/Standards_Toolkit/index.htm (accessed May 2, 2011).
Creigh-Tyte, A., & Thomas, B. (2001). 'Employment'. In S. Selwood (Ed.), The UK cultural sector:
Profile and policy issues. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Cunningham, S. (2012). Hidden innovation: Policy, industry and the creative sector. St Lucia:
University of Queensland Press.
Cutler, T. (2008) 'Venturous Australia - Building Strength in Innovation. Report on the Review of the
National Innovation System.' Canberra: Australian Government.
Davies, S., Higgins, K. M., & Hopkins, R. (2009) A companion to aesthetics (2nd ed.). Chicester: WileyBlackwell.
Dees, J. G. (1998) 'The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Comments and suggestions contributed
from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group.', Available athttp://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/files/dees-SE.pdf (accessed July 21, 2011).
deFillippi, R., & Arthur, M. (1994) 'The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective.'.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 307-324.
Department for Culture Media and Sport. (2008) 'Creative Britain: New talents for the new economy.'
London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Don, G., Garvey, C., & Sadeghpour, M. (2008) 'Signature Pedagogies in Music Theory and
Performance', in R. Gurung, N. Chick & A. Haynie (eds) Exploring Signature Pedagogies:
Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind, pp. 81-98. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Drucker, P. F. (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Duening, T. (2010) 'Five minds for the entrepreneurial future: Cognitive skills as the intellectual
foundation for next generation entrepreneurship curricula'. Journal of Entrepreneurship
19(1): 1-22.
Eikhof, D., & Haunschild, A. (2006) 'Lifestyle meets market: Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative
industries'. Creativity and Innovation Management 15(3): 234-241.
Eikhof, D., & Haunschild, A. (2007) 'For art's sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative
production'. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 523-538.
Elkington, J. (1998) 'Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business'. Environmental Quality Management 8(1): 37-51.
Emerson, J. (2003) 'The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Results'.
California Management Review 45(4): 35-51.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004) 'Employability: A psycho-social construct, its
dimensions, and applications'. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(1): 14-38.
Fillis, I. (2006). Art for art's sake or art for business sake: an exploration of artistic product
orientation. The Marketing Review, 6(1): 29-40.
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2010) 'Managing creatives: Paradoxical
approaches to identity regulation'. Human Relations 63(6): 781.
Haines, K., Scott, K., & Lincoln, R. (2003) 'Australian Blueprint for Career Development', Available athttp://www.dest.gov.au/directory/publications/australian_blueprint.pdf (accessed October
20, 2010).
Hall, D. (2004) 'The protean career: A quarter-century journey'. Journal of Vocational Behaviour
65(1): 1-13.
Hall, D., & Chandler, D. (2005) 'Psychological success: When the career is a calling'. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26(2): 155-176.
Hawkes, J. (2001) The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture's essential role in public planning.
Melbourne: Common Ground.
Henry, C. (2007) Entrepreneurship in the creative industries: An international perspective.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Higgs, P. L.,Cunningham, S & Bakhshi, H. (2008) 'Beyond the Creative Industries: Mapping the
Creative Economy in the United Kingdom.' London: NESTA.
Higgs, P. L., Cunningham, S & Pagan, J. (2007) 'Australia's Creative Economy: Basic Evidence on Size,
Growth, Income and Employment.' Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence in Creative Industries
and Innovation.
Holden, J. (2007) 'Publicly-funded culture and the creative industries'. London: Demos & Arts Council
England.
Hong, C., & Bridgstock, R. (2011) 'Educating the enterprising artist and the arts entrepreneur: Staff,
student and graduate perceptions and experiences of enterprise and entrepreneurship
education in the Creative Industries'. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Hong, C., Essig, L., & Bridgstock, R. (2011) 'The enterprising artist and the arts entrepreneur:
Emergent pedagogies for new disciplinary habits of mind.', N. Chick, A. Haynie & R. Gurung,
(eds) Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Howkins, J. (2002) The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006) 'Where is the" me" among the" we"? Identity
work and the search for optimal balance'. The Academy of Management Journal 49(5): 10311057.
Lange, B., Kalandides, A., Stober, B., & Mieg, H. (2008) 'Berlin's Creative Industries: Governing
Creativity?'. Industry & Innovation 15(5): 531-548.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006) 'Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight'. Journal of world business 41(1): 36-44.
Mallon, M. (1999) 'Going "portfolio": Making sense of changing careers'. Career Development
International 4(7): 358-369.
Meijers, F. (1998) 'The development of a career identity'. International Journal for the Advancement
of Counselling 20(3): 191-207.
Menger, P. M. (1999) 'Artistic labour markets and careers'. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 541-574.
Neck, H., Brush, C., & Allen, E. (2009) 'The landscape of social entrepreneurship'. Business Horizons
52(1): 13-19.
Potts, J, & Cunningham, S. (2008) 'Four models of the Creative Industries'. International Journal of
Cultural Policy 14(3): 233-47.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000) 'Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
identities'. Academy of Management Review: 18-42.
Raffo, C., Lovatt, A., Banks, M., & O’Connor, J. (2000) 'Teaching and learning entrepreneurship for
micro and small businesses in the cultural industries sector'. Education+ Training 42(6): 356365.
Richards, G. (2005) 'Developing entrepreneurship in the creative industries: The role of higher and
further education'. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Schumpeter, J. (1934) The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Throsby, D., & Zednik, A. (2010) 'Do you really expect to get paid? An economic study of professional
artists in Australia'. Melbourne: Australia Council for the Arts.
Timmons, J., & Spinelli, S. (2003) New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Warhol, A. (1975) The philosophy of Andy Warhol: From A to B and back again. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace.
Watson, T. J. (2008) 'Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural
circumstances'. Organization 15(1): 121-143.
Watts, A. G. (2006) 'Career development learning and employability' Learning and Employability
Series Two, Available athttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/learningandemployability.htm
(accessed June 25, 2012).
doc_269047695.pdf