CHAPTER 9

Strategic Entrepreneurship in Self-Employment in the Arts

Robert Moussetis

The artistic masterpieces created by Michelangelo were supported by vision, planning capabilities, coordinating skills, maintained flow of necessary resources, networking, and engagement in public relations (Wallace 1994). All these activities are descriptive of a couple of characteristics: Strategy and Entrepreneurship. Michelangelo was self-employed!

Considering that the majority of the work in Self-Employment in the Arts is project oriented, the majority of the research focuses on two areas: educating the artist in entrepreneurship (Bauer, Viola and Strauss 2011; Murugesan and Jayavelu 2015; Gangi 2015; Thom 2017; Welsh, Onishi, DeHoog, and Syed 2014; Essig 2013; Shockley and Frank 2013; White 2013; Bridgstock 2013; Bonin-Rodriguez 2012; Preece 2011) or specific topics in a variety of artistic areas (Lord 2012; Nytch 2012; Mathew and Carl 2013; Kolsteeg 2013; Pollard and Wilson 2014; Preece 2014; Webb 2014; Enhuber 2014; Sacco, Blessi, and Nuccio 2009; Besana and Clavenna 2012; Kuhn and Galloway 2015; Abfalter 2013), including arts entrepreneurship definition (Swedberg 2006).

In addressing these two main areas, it is suggested to create a conceptual model that provides a guiding tool for artists that develops both their artistic craft while being strategic and entrepreneurial. In addition, there are three major characteristics in the strategic and entrepreneurial success of an artist: the ability to identify societal (cultural) shifts, artists’ entrepreneurial behavior, and capability.

Figure 9.1 The entrepreneurial self-employed artist

Brief context of the conceptual model: The conceptual model presented here (Figure 9.1) serves as a conceptual map to facilitate the development of the contextual setting of the Entrepreneurial Self-Employed Artist. It also provides a launching pad for future empirical research addressing assessment of societal shifts, entrepreneurial orientation, ability to respond in conjunction to learning, personality traits, and performance.

Brief model description: The top part refers to the artistic creation; this model is introducing the entrepreneurial part as an integral part of the success (performance). The degree of success shapes future changes, both artistic and entrepreneurial. The personality characteristics will shape the learning process which results in the creation of the aesthetic product in conjunction with the business of art (selling and making a living or even getting rich). Simultaneously, the external perceptions maintained by an artist, entrepreneurial behavior, and capability will shape the creative and entrepreneurial efforts leading to an aesthetic “product.” Certainly, such characteristics play a role in the success of their aesthetic expression. Success, though, needs to be defined in multiple ways (rewards, satisfaction, recognition, etc.). Success will shape future (trial and error, failures) artistic/entrepreneurial activities leading to a self-feeding cycle of growth.

Contextual Background

Artist as self-employed entrepreneur: The question arises whether artists have similar characteristics as traditionally perceived entrepreneurs. Most entrepreneurs expect lower initial earnings (Astebro and Chen 2014; Hyytinen, Ilmakunnas, and Toivanen 2013; Hamilton 2000); their relevant experience and training indicates a higher degree of success (Jones-Evans 1996; Vesper 1992), and age favors younger entrepreneurs than older (Croft and Dickinson 1988). Increasingly, the art education literature investigates multiculturalism, gender and race (DelaCruz 2003; Wagner-Ott 2002), expanding definition of art education and paradigmic shifts (Kamhi 2003), and importance of art education (Kindler 2003; Barbosa 1991; Duncum 1990, 2001; Garoian 1997; McFee and Degge 1977; Neperud 1995; Tavin 2001; Wilson 2001). It is apparent that professional artists are required to develop in-depth business experience to couple the artistic flair (Bolan 2002) and perhaps to build bridges both intellectual and pragmatic to erase the perception that artists are from Mars and business persons are from Venus (Boyle and Weight 2002).

Personality: Humans perform well when there is a fit between personality type and the characteristics of the environment. Lack of similarity between personality and environment leads to un-fulfillment. (Loveland et al. 2016; Holland 1996; Schneider 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith 1995; Kelloway et al. 2010). Previous research on entrepreneurship has focused on personality characteristics as a predictor of entrepreneurial orientation (Obschonka, Silbereisen, and Schmitt-Rodermund 2012; Schmitt-Rodermund 2007; Carland et al. 1984) and behavioral elements (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). As entrepreneurs search for unfilled needs, innovative approaches to serve existing markets, similarly, artists are searching for a niche that will give them an aesthetic distinction.

Behavior: The nature of artistic work implies that the core behavior of an artist is associated with their craft; nevertheless, since artists must make a living, they often display behavior ranges from entrepreneurial to bohemian (Lindstrom 2016). Moreover, does entrepreneurial education relates to entrepreneurial behavioral (Rauch and Hulsink 2015)? If accepting the postulation that entrepreneurship is closely associated with greater risks, it is logical to explore the entrepreneurial behavior theory to investigate behavioral parallels between entrepreneurs and artists. It is suggested that artistic entrepreneurial behavior will define the dynamics affecting an artist and their work.

Learning and knowledge: Entrepreneurial learning is a product of experience and/or knowledge (Castellaneta and Conti 2017; Reuber and Fischer 1994; Reuber, Dyke, and Fischer 1990) or even impulse (Minnit and Bygrave 2001) based on experimentation and past successes. Hence, there is a self-reinforcing learning component that continues to drive entrepreneurial activities (Minnit and Bygrave 2000; Kolb 1984). Similarly, artists engage in projects based on knowledge or impulse and the artists’ previous success/failures feeds (learning process) future projects. Therefore, it can be assumed that artists also learn from experience and/or knowledge. Traditional entrepreneurship and learning is associated with the capability to recognize opportunities (Ronstadt 1988; Shane and Venkataraman 2000) and learning how to overcome difficulties (Aldrich 1999; Shepherd, Douglas, and Shanley 2000). For an artist, the opportunity is within an existing market (incremental art) or engaging in a new form of aesthetic expression as traditional entrepreneurs innovate and introduce novel products with high degree of uncertainty. Most artists will engage in established aesthetics domains (rock music, wedding photography, commercial acting) and a few are engaging into new aesthetic domains (i.e., rock music in late 50s early 60s, digital animation in the 90s, etc.).

Typologies of entrepreneurial behavior of artists: In borrowing from the vast managerial and entrepreneurial behavioral theory, intuitively, there are typologies to suggest behavioral characteristics of artists. Two types of behavioral approaches are suggested: Incremental and Novel

Understandably, some artists will fall into both categories but most earn a living by identifying with either incremental or novel art. For example, music teachers may consider themselves as artists, however, unless they are writing and playing novel music one may argue that, at best, they are incremental artists (minor changes or repetitive work over time) while a novel musician is constantly writing new music and exploring different dimensions of her/his artistic skill. The management literature suggests that behaviors and capabilities must match the intensity of the external environment. For example, if the environment is highly unpredictable, complex, and/or fast changing, then the appropriate behavior is entrepreneurial and creative (miles and Snow 1978; Ansoff and Sullivan 1993); artists tend to have such behaviors and capabilities almost by default (their work is project oriented—Eickoff, 2013). However, there are some artists that like repetitive work (teaching music to young adults or wedding photography) where changes are slow with the ability to change based on past work and/or experience.

Therefore, Tables 9.1 and 9.2 represent a practical guide for self-employed artists to examine whether their entrepreneurial orientation and ability to respond matches the societal shifts. Table 9.1 represents the ideal scenario where the self-employed artist is matching entrepreneurial orientation and ability to change to external societal and cultural changes where Table 9.2 represents a suboptimal scenario. In Table 9.2 the gap level between the external environment and entrepreneurial orientation and ability to change is 2 (Gap = 2). The bigger the gap the more suboptimal performance will be displayed by the self-employed artist (Ansoff and Sullivan 1993).

So What? The model provides a launch pad for artists and academicians to investigate the degree of entrepreneurship (if any) applied by artists. It provides a start for a discussion to systematically analyze and institutionalize this emerging field; most importantly, it will provide artists with mechanisms to actively think of the entrepreneurial part of their craft. The tables are a practical guide to operationalize their entrepreneurial work based on the societal shifts. Naturally, this research effort rendered an axiomatic reference that artists are interested in financial betterment of their individual lives. The operating assumption is that the great majority of artists hope for enough artistic and financial success to earn an adequate and secure financial living.

Table 9.1 Optimal scenario

External environment	Repetitive	Repetitive scale based	Changing self-promotions	Entrepreneurial	Creativity
Levels of societal shifts and cultural changes	1	2	3	4	5
Speed, predictability and complexity of changes	Repetitive	Expanding Slow incremental	Changing Fast incremental	Discontinuous Predictable	Surprising Unpredictable
Entrepreneurial orientation	Seeks stability	Reacts to changes	Anticipates changes	Entrepreneurial	Creative
Entrepreneurial approach	Based on previous work	Incremental Based on experience	Incremental Based on extrapolation	Discontinuous Based on expected futures	Discontinuous Based on creativity
Ability to respond to changes	Suppresses changes	Adapts to Change	Pursues familiar change	Seeks new changes	Seeks novel changes

Table 9.2 Suboptimal scenario

External environment	Repetitive	Repetitive scale based	Changing self-promotions	Entrepreneurial	Creativity
Levels of societal shifts and cultural changes	1	2	3	4	5
Speed, predictability and complexity of changes	Repetitive	Expanding Slow Incremental	Changing Fast incremental	Discontinuous Predictable	Surprising Unpredictable
Entrepreneurial orientation	Seeks stability	Reacts to changes	Anticipates changes	Entrepreneurial	Creative
Entrepreneurial Approach	Based on previous work	Incremental Based on experience	Incremental Based on extrapolation	Discontinuous Based on expected futures	Discontinuous Based on creativity
Ability to respond to changes	Suppresses changes	Adapts to change	Pursues familiar change	Seeks new change	Seeks novel change

Conclusion: Aspiring artists generally have a broad understanding of the risks associated with the arts but do not have a clear professional or business plan. Their passion of art is the driving force behind their choices. However, without the tools to recognize the external shifts as they relate to a corresponding entrepreneurial orientation and ability to change, creates additional challenges. Moreover, this model provides a holistic conceptual view that allows artists to view all the critical factors simultaneously (proper skills and knowledge to create marketable product). It is my belief that artists are unsystematic entrepreneurs. This research effort is an attempt to provide a more systematic approach to the artistic craft. The Arts and Entrepreneurship field is “brewing” with research and programs across the country. This emerging field will create a new body of artists along with the growing number of educators who recognize the important association between business and art.

Bibliography

Abfalter, D. 2013. “Authenticity and Respect: Leading Creative Teams in the Performing Arts.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22, no. 3, pp. 295–306

Aldrich, H. 1999. Organizations Evolving. London: Sage.

Ansoff, I.H., and P.A. Sullivan. 1993. “Optimizing Profitability in Turbulent Environments: A Formula for Strategic Success.” Long Range Planning 26, pp.11–23.

Astebro, T., and J. Chen. 2014. “The Entrepreneurial Earnings Puzzle: Mismeasurement or Real?” Journal of Business Venturing 29, no. 1, pp. 88–105.

Barbosa, A.M. 1991. “Art Education and Environment.” Journal of Multicultural and Cross Cultural Research in Art Education 9, no. 1, pp. 59–64.

Bauer, C., K. Viola, and C. Strauss. 2011. “Management Skills for Artists: ‘Learning by Doing’?” International Journal of Cultural Policy 17, no. 5, pp. 626–44.

Besana, A., and V. Clavenna. 2012. “Advertising and Branding of Italian Visual Arts at ‘Hard Times.’” The International Conference on Applied Economics (ICOAE) 1, 41–50. Uppsala, Sweden, 2012, Procedia Economics and Finance.

Bonin-Rodriguez, P. 2012. “What’s in a Name? Typifying Artist Entrepreneurship in Community Based Training.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 1, no. 1, pp. 9–24.

Bridgstock, R. 2013. “Not a Dirty Word: Arts Entrepreneurship and Higher Education.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 12, nos. 2–3, pp. 122–37.

Boyle, L., and M. Weight. 2002. “The Age Old Argument.” Target Marketing 25, no. 3 pp. 38–42.

Bolan, S. 2002. “Artists Need Business Know-How.” Computing Canada 28, no. 7, p. 19.

Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton, and J.A.C. Carland. 1984. “Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners.” Academy of Management Review 9, no. 2, pp. 354–59.

Castellaneta, F., and R. Conti. 2017. “How Does Acquisition Experience Create Value? Evidence from a Regulatory Change Affecting the Information Environment.” European Management Journal 31, no. 1, pp. 60–68.

Croft, N.L., and D. Dickinson. 1988. “To be Young and in Business.” Nation’s Business 76, no. 3, pp. 63–65.

Delacruz, E.M. 2003. “Racism American Style and Resistance to Change: Art Education’s Role in the Indian Mascot Issue.” Art Education 56, no. 5, pp. 13–20.

Duncum, P. 1990. “Clearing the Decks for Dominant Culture: A Contemporary Art Education.” Studies in Art Education 31, no. 4, pp. 207–15.

Dyke, L.S., E.M. Fischer, and A.R. Reuber. 1992. “An Inter-Industry Examination of the Impact of the Owner Experience on Firm Performance.” Journal of Small Business Management 30, no. 4, pp. 72–87

Eikhof, D.R., and A. Haunschild. 2007. “For Art’s Sake! Artistic and Economic Logics in Creative Production.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, pp. 523–38.

Enhuber, M. 2014. “How is Damien Hirst a Cultural Entrepreneur?” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3, no. 2, pp. 3–20.

Essig, L. 2013. “Frameworks for Educating the Artist of the Future: Teaching Habits of Mind for Arts Entrepreneurship.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 1, no. 2, pp. 65–78.

Garoian, C.R. 1997. “Art education and the Aesthetics of Health in the Age of AIDS.” Studies in Art Education 39, no. 1, pp. 6–23.

Gangi, J. 2015. “The Synergies of Artistic and Entrepreneurial Action.” Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society 45, no. 4, pp. 247–54.

Hamilton, B.H. 2000. “Does Entrepreneurship Pay? An Empirical Analysis of the Returns to Self-Employment.” Journal of Political Economy 108, no. 3, pp. 604–31.

Holland, J.L. 1996. “Exploring Careers with a Typology: What We have Learned and Some New Directions.” American Psychologist 51, no. 4, pp. 397–406.

Hyytinen, A., P. Ilmakunnas, and O. Toivanen. 2013. “The Returns to Entrepreneurship Puzzle.” Labour Economics 20, pp. 57–67.

Jones-Evans, D. 1996. “Technical Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Experience.” International Small Business Journal 14, no. 3, pp. 15–39.

Kelloway, K.E., L. Francis, M. Prosser, and J.E. Cameron. 2010. “Counter productive Work Behavior as Protest.” Human Resource Management Review 20, no. 1, pp. 18–25.

Kindler, A.M. 2003. “Visual Culture, Visual Brain, and (Art) Education.” Studies in Art Education 44, no. 3, pp. 290–96.

Kolsteeg, J. 2013. “Situated Cultural Entrepreneurship.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 2, no. 3, pp. 3–13.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kuhn, K.M., and T.L. Galloway. 2015. “With a Little Help from My Competitors: Peer Networking Among Artisan Entrepreneurs.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39, no. 3, pp. 571–600.

Lindström, S. 2016. “Artists and Multiple Job Holding—Breadwinning Work as Mediating Between Bohemian and Entrepreneurial Identities and Behavior.” Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 6, no. 3, pp. 43–58.

Loveland, K.E., J.M. Loveland, J.W. Lounsbury, and D.C. Dantas. 2016. “A Portrait of the Artist as an Employee: The Impact of Personality on Career Satisfaction.” International Journal of Arts Management 19, no. 1, pp. 4–15.

Lord, C. 2012. “Shattering the Myth of the Passive Spectator: Entrepreneurial Efforts to Define and Enhance Participation in ‘Non-Participatory’ Art.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 1, no. 1, pp. 35–49.

Lumpkin, G.T., and G.G. Dess. 1996. “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance.” Academy of Management Review 21, no. 1, pp. 135–72.

Mathew, V., and P. Carl. 2013. “Culture Coin: A Commons-Based, Complementary Currency for the Arts and Its Impact on Scarcity, Virtue, Ethics, and the Imagination.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 2, no. 3, pp. 14–27.

McFee, J.K., and R. Degge. 1977. Art, Culture, and Environment. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Miles, R.A., and C.C. Snow. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Minniti, M., and W. Bygrave. 2001. “A Dynamic Model of ET&P Entrepreneurial Learning.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25, no. 3, pp. 5–16.

Murugesan, R., and R. Jayavelu. 2015. “Testing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Business, Engineering and Arts and Science Students Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Comparative Study.” Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 7, no. 3, pp. 256–75.

Neperud, R.W. (Ed.). 1995. Content and Community in Art and Visual Culture Education: Beyond Postmodernism. New York & London: Teachers College Press.

Nytch, J. 2012. “The Case of the Pitsburg New Music Ensemble: An Illustration of Entrepreneurial Theory in an Artistic Setting.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 16, no. 2, pp. 42–52.

Obschonka, M., R.K. Silbereisen, and E. Schmitt-Rodermund. 2012. “Explaining Entrepreneurial Behavior: Dispositional Personality Traits, Growth of Personal Entrepreneurial Resources, and Business Idea Generation.” The Career Development Quarterly 60, pp. 178–90.

Olson, P. 1985. “Entrepreneurship: Opportunistic Decision Makers.” Journal of Small Business Management 11, no. 2, pp. 25–31.

Preece, S.B. 2014. “Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship: Building a Jazz Society from Scratch.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3, no. 1, pp. 23–34.

Preece, S.B. 2011. “Performing Arts Entrepreneurship: Toward a Research Agenda.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 41, no. 2, pp. 103–20.

Pollard, V., and E. Wilson. 2014. “The ‘Entrepreneurial Mindset’ in Creative and Performing Arts Higher Education in Australia.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3, no. 1, pp. 3–22.

Rauch, A., and W. Hulsink. 2015. “Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to Act Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Behavior.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 14, no. 2, pp. 187–204.

Reuber, A.R., L.S. Dyke, and E.M. Fischer. 1990. “Experiential Acquired Knowledge and Entrepreneurial Success.” Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp. 69–70.

Reuber, A.R., and E.M. Fischer. 1994. “Entrepreneur’s Experience, Expertise and the Performance of Technology Based Firms.” IEEE Transaction of Engineering Management 441, no. 4, pp. 365–74.

Ronstadt, R. 1988. “The Corridor Principle.” Journal of Business Venturing 3, no. 1, pp. 31–40.

Sacco, P.L., G.T. Blessi, and M. Nuccio. 2009. “Cultural Policies and Local Planning Strategies: What Is the Role of Culture in Local Sustainable Development?” Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society 39, no. 1, pp. 45–64.

Schmitt-Rodermund, E. 2007. “The Long Way to Entrepreneurship: Personality, Parenting, Early Interests, and Competencies as Precursors for Entrepreneurial Activity Among the ‘Termites.’” In Approaches to Positive Youth Development, eds. R.K. Silbereisen and R.M. Lerner, 205–24.

Shockley, G.E., and P.M. Frank. 2013. “Dostoevsky’s ‘The Grand Inquistor’: Adding an Ethical Component to the Teaching of Non-Market Entrepreneurship.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 1, no. 2, pp. 79–91.

Schneider, B. 1987. “The People Make the Place.” Personnel Psychology 40, no. 3, pp. 437–53.

Schneider, B., H.W. Goldstein, and D.B. Smith. 1995. “The ASA Framework: An Update.” Personnel Psychology 48, no. 4, pp. 747–73.

Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” The Academy of Management Review 25, no. 1, pp. 217–26.

Shepherd, D.A., E.J. Douglas, and M. Shanley. 2000. “New Venture Survival: Ignorance, External Shocks, and Risk Reduction Strategies.” Journal of Business Venturing 15, nos. 5/6, pp. 393–410.

Stern, G.M. 1998. “Young Entrepreneurs make their Mark.” Nation’s Business 84, no. 8, pp. 49–51.

Swedberg, R. 2006. “The Cultural Entrepreneur and the Creative Industries: Beginning in Vienna.” Journal of Cultural Economics 30, no. 4, pp. 243–61.

Tavin, K. March, 2001. “The Impact of Visual Culture on Art Education.” Panel Presentation at the National Art Education Association Convention. New York, NY.

Thom, M. 2017. “Arts Entrepreneurship Education in the UK and Germany.” Education + Training 59, no. 4, pp. 406–26.

Vesper, K. 1992. “New-Venture Ideas: Do Not Overlook the Experience Factor.” In The Entrepreneurial Venture, eds. W. Sahlman and H. Stevenson, 73–80. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publications.

Wagner-Ott, A. 2002. “Analysis of Gender Identity Through Doll and Action Figure Politics in Art Education.” Studies in Art Education 43, no. 3, pp. 246–63.

Wallace, W. 1994. Michelangelo at San Lorenzo—Genius as an Entrepreneur. Cambridge University Press.

Webb, D. 2014. “Placemaking and Social Equity: Expanding the Framework of Creative Placemaking.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3, no. 1. pp. 35–48.

Welsh, D.H.B., T. Onishi, R.H. DeHoog, S. Syed. 2014. “Responding to the Needs and Challenges of Arts Entrepreneurs: An Exploratory Study of Arts Entrepreneurship in North Caroling Higher Education.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3, no. 2, pp. 21–37.

White, J. 2013. “Barriers to Recognizing Arts Entrepreneurship Education As Essential to Professional Arts Training.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 2, no. 3, pp. 28–39.

Wilson, B. March, 2001. Panel Presentation on Visual Culture at the National Art Education Association. Convention, New York, NY.