





































 

VOL. 11, NO. 3 
SPRING 2023 

 

The Rise of Hybrid Practice 
Creative Institutional Design as Arts Entrepreneurship 

Amy Whitaker 

New York University 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT: This paper redefines hybrid practice as a form of creative institutional design rooted 
in the problems of dealing with multiple forms of value, an area in which the arts offer 
pioneering cases for general theory-building around external amalgamation of existing legal 
forms, internal design within hybrid legal forms, and field-building across communities and 
economic systems. Informed by, but distinct from, implicitly neoliberal and social-impact 
literatures on institutional entrepreneurship, hybridity, and agency, this framework extends 
theories of effectuation to argue for a view of arts entrepreneurship as a laboratory for complex 
problem-solving both within and well beyond the arts. KEYWORDS: hybrid practice, 
institutional entrepreneurship, arts entrepreneurship, non-profit, B corporation, public benefit 
corporation. DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.11.3.192 

This paper redefines hybrid practice as a form of creative institutional design rooted in 

the problems of dealing with multiple forms of value, an area in which the arts offer 

pioneering cases for general theory-building. The cases in this paper support a theoretical 

distinction between creative organizational design that is an external amalgamation of 

existing legal forms, an internal design of metrics and strategy within hybrid legal forms, 

and a field-building design of community impact or reimagination of an economic system 

itself. While the terms “hybrid practice” and “institutional entrepreneurship” are well 

discussed in various literatures, the articulation of hybrid practice in this paper is 

specifically grounded in effectuation (Sarasvathy 2001) and the related framework of “art 

thinking” as a creative process in any field (Whitaker 2016a).  

The research and theory-building impetus was pedagogical, growing out of a 

graduate course in “Hybrid Practices” to mean the blurring across and boundary-breaking 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

2 

between for-profit and non-profit strategies in the arts—across philanthropy, 

institutional structure, creative partnerships, and ways of measuring success. In a first 

wave of hybrid organizational strategy in the arts, tools of business were employed to 

create novel institutional strategies and structures. For example, in 2014, the New 

Museum of Contemporary Art, a 501(c)3 U.S. non-profit organization, started an incubator 

that includes artists, designers, and technologists working across creative and 

entrepreneurial fields (New Inc 2023). In 2015, the commercially successful but still 

mission-driven crowdfunding platform Kickstarter announced that it had reorganized as 

a public benefit corporation, a hybrid legal entity that allowed the company to state and 

follow goals other than fiduciary duty to shareholders while still being legally structured 

as a for-profit entity. In 2015, Titus Kaphar, Jason Price, and Jonathan Brand founded 

NXTHVN, an artists’ residency and career accelerator whose goals include championing 

the art-market success of resident studio art fellows and the revitalization of the Dixwell 

neighborhood of New Haven, Connecticut (Brown 2019). In 2019, Esther Robinson and 

Guy Buckles founded Art Built, a non-profit artists’ studio space that used tools of 

commercial real-estate development creatively and in concert with below-market rental 

and lease terms of the Economic-Development-Corporation-owned Brooklyn Army 

Terminal in New York City (Hamilton 2019). 

The past two years have seen a wave of more abstractly novel institutional 

arrangements. The three cases at the core of this paper—the Museum of Cycladic Art, 

Kickstarter, and Solidarity Not Charity—all date from 2021-2022, a time period in which 

larger cross-institutional hybrid approaches were coming to the fore, both as strategy and 

as subject of critique.1 The broad phenomenon of these hybrid ventures called out for 

theory-making both for pedagogical purposes and for our understanding of 

entrepreneurship not only within the arts but as a contribution from the arts to other 

fields. 

Arts entrepreneurship is both a growing and and an already well-modeled field. 

Studies of entrepreneurship within arts administration (Callander & Cummings 2021; 

Paulsen, et al. 2020; Taylor 2015; White 2013, 2015; Essig & Guevara 2016; Essig 2013, 

2015; Bridgestock 2012) highlight the necessity of entrepreneurial thinking in the arts to 

 
1 For the course, I have chosen bleeding edge examples of some of the most creative cross-institutional 

collaborations or best-practice approaches to hybrid organizations in the arts. A limiting filter has been stories 

that rise to the level of press coverage or trust ties with individual practitioners and organizations. I have 

worked directly with some of these organizations, serving as an Entrepreneur in Residence at New Inc and 

participating in Kickstarter’s PWL (People We Love) Camp. I have collaborated with Caroline Woolard, a co-

author of Solidarity Not Charity, since 2009 when I taught the second class at Trade School, the barter-economy 

social-practice school Woolard co-founded (Woolard 2019). For the past two years I have served as an Ally to 

the Center for Cultural Innovation’s AmbitioUS initiative to support artists redesigning economic models. The 

approach to studying decentralized systems has also come about from study of blockchain as a property 

management system as early as 2014, and working since then as an advisor to Bitmark, the parent company of 

Feral File which partnered with the Museum of Modern Art, New York, to create non-fungible tokens in 2022 

(Nolin & Whitaker 2023).  



ARTIVATE 11.3 

3 

secure funding and economic support for organizations and practicing artists. Noonan and 

Woronkowicz (2019) find that artists are more likely to be freelancers, and Toscher (2019: 

12) observes entrepreneurial competencies in artists managing their career pathways. 

Callander (2019) has modeled art-making as an entrepreneurial practice. Given the needs 

for artists to think entrepreneurially, the education of artists has begun to include 

business training (Bhandari & Melber 2017; Essig 2013; Frenette & Tepper 2016; Bille & 

Jensen 2018). While artists have been modeled as entrepreneurs (Gangi 2015), enduring 

uneasiness between art and business as identity categories (Bonin-Rodriguez 2012)—

including a performance of economic disinterestedness (Wohl 2021) and market eschewal 

(Gerber and Childress 2017) as part of artistic identity—has made access to 

entrepreneurial training and self-concept in the arts more complicated.  

Teaching hybrid practice has entailed a concern not only with economic design but 

political problems of what Davies (2014) has called the disenchantment of politics by 

economics. In 2018, Giridharadas critiqued philanthropy as inherently borne of a conflict 

of interest in which patrons would not support programs outside their own self-interest, 

leaving many societal problems best served by democracy instead. Especially in this 

context, it was notable in 2022 to see Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, forge 

succession planning that amalgamated a 501c4 lobbying organization to work on climate 

causes and a private trust to govern the company and its ongoing donations to climate 

causes (Gelles 2022). Even with the Chouinard family’s payment of an estimated $17.5 

million in estate taxes, the project was not democratic per se—reserving control for the 

family and other closely held advisors—but a model of how economic interests were being 

used to reenchant civic and societal purposes, albeit from a philosopher-king approach of 

benevolent will to lobby political processes rather than Giridharadas’ (2018) suggestion 

of direct participatory democracy.2 Since 1985, Patagonia has donated one percent of 

sales—not profits but revenues—to environmental causes (Patagonia 2023b). In 2022, 

Patagonia’s sales were estimated at $1 billion annually, and the company overall was 

valued at $3 billion (Gelles 2022). These economics of the firm led to the Chouinard 

 
2 In a novel transaction, the privately held for-profit corporation would be placed into two related 

entities. All of the voting shares—comprising 2% of the stock—would be placed in the newly formed 

Patagonia Purpose Trust, a foundation governed by members of the Chouinard family and close advisors. 

The remaining 98% of shares were irrevocably transferred to a purpose-built non-profit, the Holdfast 

Collective. Rather than a 501c3 non-profit, Holdfast was set up as a 501c4 with the express purpose of 

supporting climate action. The 501c4 allowed political lobbying that is forbidden for the more traditional 

501c3. Patagonia’s history of supporting environmental causes substantially predates this arrangement. 

In January 2012 Patagonia became the first certified B Corporation in California. As of Patagonia’s first 

report as a B corporation, the Annual Benefit Corporation Report: Fiscal Year 2013, Patagonia held the 

following legal entities: Patagonia, Inc., Patagonia Works, Great Pacific Iron Works, Fletcher Chouinard 

Designs, Inc., and Patagonia Provisions, Inc. (Patagonia 2013: 7). For access to all of Patagonia’s benefit 

corporation reports, see Patagonia (2023). For an overview of B Corporations and benefit corporations 

from the vantage point of entrepreneurs, see Barnes (2023). 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

4 

family’s aforementioned payment of $17.5 million in tax on the transaction.3 While 

corporate governance might not be considered an area of creative practice, these forms of 

design very clearly move legal and governance formats in service to mission—whether 

continued concentration of founder power in the case of Meta or irrevocable transfer of 

the company into trust in service of the environment in the case of Patagonia.  

The Patagonia case embodies a new form of hybrid practice: not unbridled 

commercial interest tempered with social impact, nor charitable purposes driven by 

normatively held ideals of societal contribution (and non-profit tax code), but bold, 

untemplated creative vision taking form in relation to constellations of legal entities, 

design of adherence to new hybrid legal forms, or reimagination of the larger ecosystems 

in which we live and work. The cases in this paper are discussed in more detail 

subsequently but in brief: In 2022, a novel inter-organizational partnership was 

announced in the arts—an arrangement among the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the 

Museum of Cycladic Art Athens, the Greek government, and a newly formed Delaware 

non-profit organization called the Hellenic Ancient Culture Institute to accept a gift of 161 

works of Cycladic art that would be exhibited at the two museums and then donated back 

to the Greek state. That project created a tax benefit to the donor, the philanthropist 

Leonard Stern, while also threading complex international jurisdictional issues of Greece’s 

cultural patrimony law that precluded Stern’s direct donation to the Met. At the same time, 

 
3 It is interesting to consider the different tax consequences of Chouinard’s choices. A donation to a 501c3 

would have been tax-deductible but limited the core mission of supporting climate action. An outright 

sale, for instance, to a private equity firm, would have left Chouinard with a tax burden on the increase in 

the value of the shares. The donation of the shares to a trust essentially passed ownership of Patagonia to 

the next generation of the family, the Chouinards’ children, Fletcher and Claire. The $17.5 million likely 

represents gift tax. As of 2023, the lifetime exemption from taxation for gifts was $12.92 million. The tax 

paid would have been on the value of the gift above that amount—an amount of tax less than in a 

corporate sale and far above the charitable donation available had they formed a 501c3. The transaction 

models core aspects of the ideas of hybrid practice: The mission—in this instance supporting climate 

action—is the artistic rudder from which legal structures follow. The regulatory environment becomes 

the set of constraints within which that creativity occurs. The corporate design of governance has, for 

better or worse, taken a design turn, notably with expansion of dual-class stock structures (cf. Baran et al. 

2023). This structure, which is credited to the initial public offerings of U.S. automotive companies Dodge 

and Ford, allocates voting rights differently across share classes. In the Patagonia case, two percent of 

shares hold 100 percent of voting rights. While this separation of shareholder claims to profit and to 

governance can be relatively common across family businesses or closely managed companies (e.g., 

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway), the structure is increasingly common in technology-sector 

companies. As of February 2023, fifty percent of initial public offerings in the tech sector were dual-class 

share offerings, as compared to 2.9% of tech firms in 1989 (Ritter 2023, table 23; Baran et al. 2023). For 

example, the founder of Facebook (Meta) Mark Zuckerberg holds the majority of voting rights (Lauricella 

& Norton 2021). Class A shares (2.4 billion shares) have one vote per share. Class B shares (440 million 

shares) have ten votes per share. As of 2021, Zuckerberg owned 360 million Class B shares and 

controlled, by private agreement, a further 32 million Class B shares. There are 2.4 billion votes from 

Class A shares and 4.4 billion votes from Class B shares, or 6.8 billion total votes. Of those, Zuckerberg 

controlled 3.92 billion votes—57.7%. 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

5 

Kickstarter, the crowdfunding platform, passed its sixth annual report as a public benefit 

corporation, creating a track record of novel forms of measurement—for instance, not just 

creative projects funded but self-study of protecting users’ privacy in the face of police 

warrants (Kickstarter 2021: 13). In 2021, Linares and Woolard (2021) published a 

Grantmakers in the Arts report synthesizing an approach to designing a “solidarity 

economy” within and beyond the arts. While existing theories of hybrid practice and 

institutional entrepreneurship do describe these projects, they also lack specificity to 

describe the ethos, creativity, and complexity of these new models.  

To be sure, even as the imaginativeness and complexity of these hybrid practices has 

flourished, these cases are still vanishingly rare. As a sense of scale, the State of Delaware, 

the leading corporate domicile in the US, is itself home to more than one million C-corps 

and S-corps (Delaware Division of Corporations 2023). By contrast, there are fewer than 

7,000 registered B-Corps in the world—including the certification or corporate social 

responsibility insignia, not even legal form (B-Corp 2023). Yet in spite of this bleeding-

edge positionality, it seems time to articulate a theory of these projects, because the theory 

is grounded in a structuralist reading of creative institutional design, not an implicitly 

capitalistic notion of entrepreneurial motivation toward profit and in relation to the firm. 

Instead, hybrid practice is a parallel artistic medium in the same way that Callander (2019) 

has argued for arts entrepreneurship as a parallel creative medium, not as a side pursuit 

instrumentalized to commercial purposes or a purely do-gooder or tax-incentivized giving 

back to the greater good. Hybrid practice is a form of institutional artistry of form—of 

combination, of internal design, and of imagination of the field itself.  

This approach to entrepreneurship and business disciplines broadly—as parallel 

creative processes embedded in artistic practice itself—relates importantly to the 

articulation of arts entrepreneurship as a pedagogical and experiential field. In 2016 in the 

general art publication Hyperallergic, Whitaker (2016b) theorized various ways in which 

disciplines of business modeling and entrepreneurship were being taught to artists. In the 

1.0 level, business is a form of received knowledge, a way of internalizing the logic of 

microeconomics and performing business, comparable to Callander’s (2019) reading of 

the limitations of a view of arts entrepreneurship as only in service to commercial 

purposes. In the 2.0 level, business is a creative design medium, a form of structural 

engagement with the algebra of markets. Artists could work with markets as they could 

with any medium, which is to say, on their own terms. In the 3.0 version, working with 

business structures became a form of civic engagement, with the artist working as a 

creative person, a businessperson, and a citizen. We see in the current wave of hybrid 

practice in the arts an important pattern for entrepreneurial thinking that similarly 

engages at a structural rather than normative level with the possibilities of business as a 

medium, while also reaching into civic design of shared, democratic purposes.  

These cases together, and the process of teaching them, inform this new conceptual 

framework for reframing hybrid practice and institutional entrepreneurship specifically 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

6 

within arts entrepreneurship and grounded in Sarsavathy’s (2001) theory of effectuation. 

By grounding hybrid practice in effectuation, it is possible to accomplish two purposes 

simultaneously: to frame this growing field and to reframe existing theories of hybrid 

practice and institutional entrepreneurship apart from attendant neoliberal and 

microeconomic assumptions of efficiency, agency, and optimization. Instead, hybrid 

practice, as conceptualized here, is part of artistic practice, but artistic practice broadly 

defined as creative institutional design, whether accomplished by artists, managers, or 

whole organizations.  

Because of the newness of this field, the methodology of this paper generalizes case 

studies (Yin 2013) to build a conceptual framework (Siggelkow 2007) within Herglund’s 

(2007) idea of entrepreneurship as a research-based artistic practice itself. That research-

based artistic practice includes authorial experience in what could be termed informal 

ethnography of graduate study in business and studio art. The former took place at a time 

circa 2000 when “triple bottom line” theories of multiplicity of business measurement 

were first being taught. Circa 2010, I also taught in one of the earliest hybrid MBA 

programs, the design strategy MBA at California College of the Arts, which modeled 

business education as a trifecta with design and the environment.4 These approaches are 

important to informing the ethos of hybrid practice as rooted in systems thinking 

(Meadows 2009; Brown 2017) as opposed to isolatable vectors of market efficiency and 

profit (Whitaker 2021a). I include my own positionality as an artist-MBA and participant 

in early social practice projects because it was important to my own effectuated process 

of amalgamating this theory, beginning with hearing the attorneys practicing those forms 

early on—a few years before hybrid practice papers in the arts (cf. Rushton 2014). That 

process informs this paper’s ethos of legal design and practice as also effectuated.  

The significance of this approach is in furthering the ideas within arts 

entrepreneurship of art-making as itself an entrepreneurial process (Callander 2019), but 

at the same time broadening the definition of artist (Whitaker 2016a) so that theories of 

arts entrepreneurship apply to creative process well outside the arts. This extension of 

arts entrepreneurship is critical to the larger need to frame social impact not as an 

offshoot of implicitly neoliberal and microeconomic approaches to profit-seeking, 

optimization, efficiency, and, generally speaking, causation, but as a problem-solving 

framework to disentangle the encroachment of economics into politics (Davies 2014) and 

to approach complex problems such as climate change as great collective art projects of 

our time. It is necessary to analyze some of the literature in institutional 

entrepreneurship, hybridity, and agency closely in order to distinguish this approach. This 

paper’s framework extends theories of effectuation to argue for a view of arts 

entrepreneurship as a laboratory for problem-solving in organizations, communities, and 

 
4 Teaching in a hybrid design-and-business program in 2011-2012 in California—in one of the states with early 

adoption of hybrid legal forms—afforded the opportunity to hear the architects of those models as those models 

were first emerging.  



ARTIVATE 11.3 

7 

economies. The arts as a field has struggled to convey its value, whether as art for art’s 

sake or as an engine of economic impact. I argue here that the arts is a laboratory for 

interdisciplinary problem-solving and that understanding hybrid practice across these 

cases helps us understand how we move forward both imaginatively and analytically with 

some of the most complex problems of our time. 

I structure this paper with necessary background sections on the core approach to 

arts entrepreneurship, which is via Sarasvathy’s (2001) theory of effectuation and the 

framework of art thinking or inventing point B (Whitaker 2016a). I then situate hybrid 

practice and institutional entrepreneurship in the existing literatures and argue that those 

literatures do not feature effectuation so much as neoliberal and microeconomic tropes of 

causation. I then lay the groundwork of arts entrepreneurship and present the theoretical 

framework of external, internal, and field-building hybrid practice before sharing the 

cases in depth and offering conclusions on the underlying themes of how we navigate 

creatively the social and community-driven logics of democracy and the individual-agency 

and optimization logics of economics. Arts entrepreneurship provides this bridge. 

Grounding in Effectuation and Art Thinking 

Not only are there many forms of value in the arts—for instance, social, cultural, aesthetic, 

and civic—but also those forms of value are emergent over time (Whitaker 2021b). I use 

the term “emergent” to generalize from Sarasvathy’s effectuation and Whitaker’s (2016a) 

“art thinking.” The latter defines art as a process of “inventing point B,” which aligns art-

making and arts entrepreneurship with Sarasvathy’s (2001) framework of effectuation, 

meaning the process of moving forward to make decisions of economic and mission-

related import without reference points that typically characterize microeconomics and 

theories of the firm, namely institutions and markets that orient economic concepts such 

as marginality and profit. The framework of inventing point B (Whitaker 2016a) is 

adapted from Heidegger’s (1947) theory of art as something new in the world that changes 

the world to allow itself to exist. In the “inventing point B” framework, if one is making a 

work of art in any field, one is not going from a known point A to a known point B but 

inventing point B, that is, not optimizing but effectuating.  

Sarasvathy’s theory of effectuation (2001) is the root structure of this paper’s 

approach to redefining hybrid practice and institutional entrepreneurship in the arts. 

Sarasvathy distinguishes effectuation from causation, defining the latter as the application 

of market logics that require existing reference points. As Sarasvathy (2001: 261) writes, 

causation relies “on primitives such as ‘product’ and ‘market,’ and on institutions such as 

‘firm,’ ‘industry,’ and ‘economy’.” It becomes difficult to imagine moving forward—

through effectuation or, in the artistic framework, inventing point B—without a template 

of existing business model, primitives, and institutions. 

To distinguish effectuation from causation, Sarasvathy (2001: 245) employs the 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

8 

analogy of a chef cooking a meal. In the case of causation, the chef is asked to cook to a 

menu. In the case of effectuation, the chef is invited to survey the cabinets to decide what 

to make. As Sarasvathy writes of the latter chef, “an effect is the operationalization of an 

abstract human aspiration.” Effectuation can be argued as important under a market logic; 

in 2001, Sarasvathy (245) notes that half of the Fortune 500 companies had been founded 

within the prior fifteen years. Yet this idea of effectuation is critically important to the 

construction of not only arts entrepreneurship but art-making itself. Key tenets of 

effectuation include “affordable loss rather than expected return (252),” “strategic 

alliances rather than competitive analyses (252),” “controlling an unpredictable future 

rather than predicting an uncertain one (252),” and finding control in creation, not 

prediction (252). Effectuation threads through the idea of inventing point B: One invests 

resources in the point A world and does not know value until the point B world that one’s 

work effectuates into existence (Whitaker 2016a). One deals with unpredictability by 

working toward creating a future. Prediction is not able to conjure world-building; only 

creativity is. 

Sarasvathy already points to this role of imagination and creativity in the original 

theory of effectuation: An effectuator is “an imaginative actor who seizes contingent 

opportunities and exploits any and all means at hand to fulfill a plurality of current and 

future aspirations . . . .” She continues: “Human imagination and human aspirations 

influence each other and reshape one another continually . . . (262).” The effectuator is 

close to the artist, particularly in the case in which the artist is world-building or inventing 

point B. As I develop in this paper, the artist can be the organization navigating legal 

form—whether a related LLC and 501c3 or a more complex network—that constitutes a 

form of collage or bricolage (Di Domenico et al. 2010) as creative endeavor.  

Resituating Hybrid Practice and Institutional Entrepreneurship 

In order to build toward hybrid practice as effectual process of creative organization-

building, it is necessary to distinguish the literatures on hybrid practice and institutional 

entrepreneurship, which are substantially rooted in causation and not effectuation. And 

in order to contextualize hybrid practice and institutional entrepreneurship in 

effectuation within the arts, we must first distinguish general and causation-driven 

approaches to entrepreneurship as well. 

In their foundational theory of entrepreneurship as a field of research, Shane and 

Venkatamaran (2000: 217) define entrepreneurship as “concerned with the discovery and 

exploitation of profitable opportunities.” While Shane and Venkatamaran move 

substantially beyond prior modeling of entrepreneurship as the hero’s journey of the 

entrepreneur, their theory is strongly threaded with microeconomic assumptions of 

causation, namely an implicit logic of efficiency and opportunity cost. They (218) draw on 

Venkatamaran’s (1997) definition of entrepreneurship as a process of “how, by whom, and 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

9 

with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, 

evaluated, and exploited.” They acknowledge the limitations of defining entrepreneurship 

in terms of the agency of the individual, but still define it in terms of primitives such as 

“future goods and services.” While “future” connotes the possibility of effectuation, the 

logic is causal. The idea is that entrepreneurial success is market success that occurs 

through sales. Even when referencing Schumpeterian creative destruction, Shane and 

Venkatamaran (2000: 221) approach that need for constant reinvention through the 

assumed goal of enhancing wealth. Arts entrepreneurship extends beyond the “creation 

of goods and services” to the larger creation of value, which arts entrepreneurs define 

themselves from multiple points of view. 

While some frameworks on social entrepreneurship have defined entrepreneurial 

activities more broadly to concern environmental and societal issues, those broader 

frameworks (cf. Mitra et al. 2019) have focused on pedagogy. Thus, in order to reframe 

hybrid practice, we first need to move in the argument from entrepreneurship as a process 

of exploiting a market to entrepreneurship as a process analogous to artmaking itself in, 

again, the processes of effectuation and art thinking discussed above. In fact, Callander 

(2019) has argued that entrepreneurship needs to be seen as part of art-making, not only 

as a marketing activity that travels alongside the artistic process. Callander writes (2019: 

62) that arts entrepreneurship does not need to lead toward commercial ends but toward 

“establishment of [arts entrepreneurship’s] credibility as a medium” of artistic practice 

itself. Whereas Callander models this entrepreneurial process as part of social practice 

art, here “art” is expanded to include market design as well (Whitaker 2016a). Markets are 

often modeled as models of allocative efficiency, but they are also models of creative 

process (Buchanan and Vanberg 1991:183; Sarasvathy 2001: 237). Thus, hybrid practice 

is the application of arts entrepreneurship to political and economic structures—markets, 

legal forms, contracts, and other facets of institutional design. 

Outside of arts entrepreneurship, both the terms “hybrid practice” and “institutional 

entrepreneurship” have commonly appeared in general management literature for more 

than a decade. Battilana et al. (2012: 51) have defined the term “hybrid model” as one that 

“produces both social value and commercial revenue through a single, unified strategy.” 

They describe the “hybrid ideal” as a combination of access to capitalistic engines such as 

scale and the concurrent realization of mission. The larger study of hybrid practice 

arguably took root in the development of hybrid legal forms, including the early Flexible 

Purpose Corporation and L3C (Low-Profit Limited Liability Company) (Battilana and 

Dorado 2010). In spite of this growing managerial area of the “hybrid organization” and 

the possibilities of mission-fulfilment with capitalistic efficiency, foundational tensions 

have existed between the logic of money and of purpose, the latter often associated with 

the economic category of the use (Ostrom 1990) and overuse (Hardin 1968) of common 

resources and thus market failure (Whitaker 2021a: 111). 

In writing about digital innovation, an area central to some of the cases in this paper, 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

10 

Trittin-Ulbrich and Bo ckel (2022: 449) employ Maguire et al.’s (2004: 657) definition of 

institutional entrepreneurship as “activities of actors who have an interest in particular 

institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to create new institutions or to 

transform existing ones.” Because of the transformational nature of institution 

entrepreneurship, Hardy and Maguire (2017) argue that it is often associated with the 

transformation not only of organizations but also of fields. While institutional 

entrepreneurship can have many meanings, here I use the term specifically to describe 

creativity applied to organizational form in service to mission. I consider the institution 

as a unified actor, recognizing that institutions are, in actual fact, comprised of the agency 

of their individual workers (DiMaggio 1988: 14) and that the entrepreneurial individual 

can be at odds with the larger institution (Garud et al. 2007). The capacity to participate 

in institutional entrepreneurship may rely substantially on a person’s social position 

within an organization (Battilana 2006), and this agency of the individual may be even 

more important in the application of institutional entrepreneurship to well-developed 

industries (Greenwood & Suddaby 2006). While theories of change need to account for the 

individual, institutional, and societal level of motivation and impact (Friedland & Alford 

1991), the focus of this paper is on institutional entrepreneurship as defined as the 

creative design of the organizational form, network, or set of contracts itself. Guo (2022) 

has, for instance, modeled an institution as a creative actor in her study of the National 

Endowment of the Arts (NEA) as an institutional entrepreneur in convening creative 

placemaking organizations and networks. As Guo writes, the NEA as institutional 

entrepreneur “develops resources, power, and influence for a federal agency constantly 

challenged by funding cuts and public controversies.” Guo models the NEA as institutional 

entrepreneur with the entrepreneurial purpose of advocating for the arts and legitimating 

the NEA itself, aligning theory-building with strengthening the precarious position of the 

arts more than with expanding the arts to generalize creative problem-solving for other 

fields. 

This entrepreneurial thinking—not just about products or within venture capital or 

realization of social purpose but as a form of holistic organizational design, both within 

single organizations and across interconnected organizations—has been part of a broader 

approach both within and outside of the arts. The B-corporation movement allowed 

organizations to be certified as socially responsible based on a set of criteria. In 2007, the 

non-profit organization B-Labs started the benefit corporation certification framework. 

Operating like Fair Trade (Zhu et al. 2021) as a certification as distinguished from the legal 

form of the public benefit corporation, the certification has moved in lockstep with the 

legal categories (Lucas et al. 2022; Rawhouser et al. 2015) in the aim of normalizing values-

driven corporate culture or the intersection of profit and purpose. As of 2022, the public 

benefit corporation is a legal form in 35 US jurisdictions (34 states and the District of 

Columbia). As of 2023, over 6,400 companies from eighty-nine countries have registered 

as B-corps (B-corporation 2023), allowing corporations such as Kickstarter and Patagonia 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

11 

to write their own charters to marry their fiduciary duty to shareholders with larger 

responsibilities to society.  

Existing theories of hybrid practice and institutional entrepreneurship come from a 

more neoliberal and microeconomic grounding. I use Harvey’s (2005: 2) definition of 

“neoliberalism” as a “theory of political economic practices that proposes that human 

well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and 

skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, 

free markets, and free trade.” The role of government is to “create and preserve an 

institutional framework appropriate to such practices (2).”  

Rushton’s (2014: 147) consideration of hybrid practice in the arts exemplifies this 

microeconomic and neoliberal approach to hybrid practice. Rushton invokes neoliberal 

principles as described by Harvey (2005) when Rushton writes, “The essence of hybrid 

organizations is that they are commercial firms that exist to further some aspect of the 

public good.” The economic rationale of the firm is primary, and the social good is 

secondary. Thus, Rushton, who focuses on the low profit limited liability company (“L3C”), 

concludes that the structure is not helpful within these microeconomic problems of 

marginal trade-off decisions and moral hazards, for instance, of the managers of hybrid 

organizations in distributing profits to board ties or themselves. Rushton does not 

conceive of an organization like Kickstarter that has a viable business model—5% of 

monies raised—and a social purpose. Rushton (151) instead argues that “the 

entrepreneur can still pursue social goals through using the profits of the enterprise,” as 

if there is a binary choice between a commercial logic and a donative one. Contemporary 

hybrid practice characterizes a gray area, the same one of effectuation and art thinking, of 

navigating purposes and sets of tools and contingent circumstances, but not the artifacts 

of causal reasoning which are present in Rushton’s analysis. The neoliberal role of the 

state is also there in Rushton’s (146) description of the charitable donation tax benefit as 

reflective of a trust in non-profit organizations that is “made formal by public policy.” 

Mometti and Van Bommel’s (2021) analysis of hybrid practice supports this 

unresolved tension between commercial logics and nonprofit missions. The authors’ 

study of performing arts organizations in the Netherlands in fact speaks to this 

internalization of commercial logic. They find that the arts organizations tended to 

acquiesce to public-policy pressure to embrace a market logic and that instead of 

synthesizing commercial and social strategies they compartmentalize and institutionally 

dissociate. One could argue that theory-building drawn from commercial logic affects 

public policy formation, which in turn, in a mirror of Battilana et al.’s (2012) paradox of 

embeddedness, places the arts entrepreneur at odds with the political and economic 

infrastructure of a state that supports non-profit tax deduction and a commercial logic 

that does not fully apply to those organizations. 

This reasoning tracks back to a longer lineage of shifts in business school curricula to 

champion double- and triple-bottom-line accounting, which added a “second” and “third” 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

12 

definition of profit to include human rights and the environment, and the broad category 

of social concern alongside net income of the implicitly commercial firm. Paradoxically, 

these studies often theorize from organizations that were likely effectuated into being but 

with an ex-post logic that feels causal. Emblematic is the consideration of Hot Bread 

Kitchen, a profitable gourmet bakery that also champions and provides workplace 

training for immigrant women and women of color, specifically those who identify as 

Black, AAPI, and Latinx (Hot Bread Kitchen 2023; Battilana et al 2012). The two purposes 

exist in the same organization but are analytically separated into meeting these twin goals 

rather than the sustainability across them.  

Toward a Theory of Creative Structural Design 

A theory of structural organizational design goes beyond the history of two-sided “hybrid” 

models where non-profit organizations have affiliated for-profit businesses that spin off 

earned income, for instance, an urban museum with a parking garage. The for-profit 

concern may be mission-related, as in the case of providing parking to museumgoers. 

Much of this income would be taxable “unrelated business income tax” but allows the 

institution more breathing room on the pressures of fundraising to support mission. 

Instead, the model takes these questions of taxation, legal structure, and other parts of 

institutional design and considers them artistic processes under this larger framework of 

effectuated design, art thinking, and a re-reading of institutional entrepreneurship as a 

form of effectuation. 

Fruchterman (2011) maps the questions of institutional design from the point of view 

of the individual entrepreneur who must confront the translation of motivations and 

concerns into institutional and specifically legal forms. This approach is an important 

antecedent to what we see in the arts now but different in its following of entrepreneurial 

literature as the position of the person—entrepreneur or intrapreneur—in taking on risk 

to determine value by bringing knowledge, resources, and social skills to bear on a 

problem (Battilana 2004: 9). As Battilana writes, the individual within an organization has 

a paradoxical embeddedness in which the institution influences the individual and the 

individual tries to change the institution, a means-ends dynamic also modeled by Essig 

(2015) and others in arts entrepreneurship. This reality of the agency of the individual is 

acknowledged here, but the institution itself is modeled as the entrepreneur or artist. 

External Design: Creative Amalgamation Across Legal Forms 

The first type of institutional design is embodied by the Museum of Cycladic Art case. A 

group of entities finds overlaps in their commonly held values and imagines an 

institutional solution to an impasse. The solution creates an equilibrium of best possible 

outcome for all parties. Yet even beyond that analytic scope, the agreement is a new model, 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

13 

one created by a process of effectuation, specifically in building strategic alliances and 

sense-making against resources in the environment, in this case cultural patrimony law, 

estate planning, and the purposes and collections strengthening of an encyclopedic 

museum.  

In 2022, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York announced a novel 

arrangement in which the businessperson and philanthropist Leonard Stern donated 161 

works of Cycladic art—the circa 3000 BCE area of minimalist sculpture for which there is 

little written record but which was influential to modern artists including Pablo Picasso—

to a newly formed Delaware non-profit, the Hellenic Ancient Culture Institute (HACI) 

(Moynihan 2022). A contribution agreement between Stern and the non-profit governed 

this donation. In addition, the Metropolitan Museum of Art entered into a “four-party 

agreement” with HACI, the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens, Greece, and the Greek state 

(via the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sport) to commit to time-delimited exhibitions of 

the artworks in the Stern collection at the Museum of Cycladic Art (a subset of the 

collection for approximately one year) and the Metropolitan (the full collection for a 

twenty-five-year renewable term) before the works would be returned to the Greek state.5  

The arrangement solved for a number of interrelated purposes. The Greek cultural 

patrimony law—and whether it governs collectors and institutions outside of Greece 

would be subject of debate—allows ownership of artworks by individuals but not 

generally by institutions. Thus, Stern would have been unable to donate the works directly 

to the Metropolitan, or the Metropolitan might have perceived a risk of that arrangement; 

even if litigation could go in its favor, the bureaucratic and reputational risk could be too 

high. Stern might have wanted to donate the works and would have been eligible for a tax 

benefit for doing so. This US tax benefit would not be accessed by donating the works 

directly back to the Greek state. In addition, as Stern told the New York Times, it was 

important to him that his grandchildren be able to see the collection intact, which they 

would be able to do at the Metropolitan. Curiously, the articles of incorporation of the 

Delaware non-profit cite directly the Greek cultural patrimony law, thus indirectly 

applying Greek law to the arrangement, but via a U.S. non-profit organization’s 

incorporation documents. At the same time, the arrangement was sanctioned by the Greek 

parliament and in fact published in the parliamentary record—including the contribution 

agreement, four-party agreement, and also an exhibition agreement between HACI and 

the Metropolitan (Hellenic Republic 2002).  

This arrangement is notably complex, in the detailed legal arrangements and in the 

requirements within each contract to acknowledge the other contracts and, in certain 

places, set up cascading conditions so that one contract would be invalidated if another 

failed to be signed. In addition, the arrangement was criticized (e.g., Hamilakis 2022) by 

 
5 The legal complexity of this case merits standalone treatment, including analysis of the legal documents 

which were published in the Greek parliamentary registry (Hellenic Republic 2022). 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

14 

those observers who felt the works should go to Greece directly and simply called messy 

or controversial by others (e.g., Benzine 2022). Messiness can sometimes characterize art 

in its early stages of realization and metabolization by its publics. The criticisms seemed 

contingent on belief in a “BATNA” (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) that 

included a deus-ex-machina return of objects in private hands to the Greek state. One notes 

other, even higher stakes and entrenched issues of repatriation, including the long-

standing controversy of the Parthenon Marbles displayed in the British Museum. In this 

case, whether some disagree with the outcome and structure, one can argue that the 

arrangement itself is novel and highly creative, and in that way an institutional artwork 

made out of contracts connecting legal parties in order to solve for the mission-driven 

purposes of sharing art with the public, with future generations, and over time, via 

repatriation to a source country. The ability to think creatively across organizational 

form—in the design of contractual arrangements—allowed the organizations to chart 

new pathways into the future.  

Internal Design: Metrics and Strategy within a Hybrid Legal Form 

In the second case, an organization with one of the longest track records of hybrid form in 

the arts has designed a succession of public benefit corporation reports that embody an 

array of values that do not stem from commercial logic or nonprofit outreach but 

institutional values.  

With the possibility of transformational change and the complexity of operating 

across organizations, how does one measure the outcomes of hybrid practice in the arts? 

Here, the work of B corporations and public benefit corporations is instructive, as these 

organizations have developed their own approaches to measurement and accountability 

(Rawhouser et al. 2019), including some who have also adapted tools such as Grant’s 

(2015) “rubric”-building for social-profit organizations. This section focuses on the case 

study of Kickstarter, which has been a leading benefit corporation in the arts. Since 2015, 

Kickstarter, the crowdfunding platform, has operated as a registered public benefit 

corporation, and since 2016 (Kickstarter 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021), Kickstarter 

has issued a report offering self-analysis of its quantifiable and other outputs. 

The development of the report over time is noteworthy. In 2016, the report cited 

substantially a research report conducted in collaboration with a team at the University 

of Pennsylvania (Kickstarter 2016) focused on job creation and other markers of economic 

impact. Article 1 of the Kickstarter charter lays out its PBC mission: “to help bring creative 

projects to life (Kickstarter n.d.).” They solved for this purpose with a combination of 

behind-the-scenes work, programmatic support including 5% of profits donated to art-

related causes, and transparency around data privacy and lobbying. As example of the 

tools to support creators, in 2021 Kickstarter updated the chat features and improved 

reporting to project teams with a better “fulfillment status” feature for awards 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

15 

(Kickstarter 2021: 9). They also included new supports for bank wire-transfer routing, 

adding an International 4 (IBAN) number to allow creators in Europe to move funds more 

easily among countries. Programmatically, Kickstarter continued to publish The Creative 

Independent (TCI), to lead workshops, and to support charitable causes in the arts.  

Regarding data privacy, Kickstarter’s approach to transparency is particularly 

illustrative. In 2016, Kickstarter had already operationalized its values by declining to 

have a forced-arbitration clause in their terms of service, even though compelling users to 

arbitration—prior to ever being able to sue the company—is relatively standard. By 2021, 

Kickstarter was reporting on their approach to inquiries from law enforcement. In 2021, 

Kickstarter received roughly 200 inquiries from law enforcement in the US and 

internationally. Six were civil subpoenas, and none were search warrants. Kickstarter 

released “minimum basic subscriber information required by law” for the subpoenas and 

for other inquiries disclosed only publicly available information (Kickstarter 2021: 13). In 

a culture in which companies regularly sell user data, this discipline and adherence to 

values is not only notable but important to describe narratively where it would be difficult 

to reduce to widely circulated metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs). Kickstarter 

also reports on its environmental footprint and its lobbying activities. Granted, the leaders 

of the company are gifted storytellers—telling stories about projects is what the company 

supports creators to do—even with some degree of virtue-signaling, the facts go beyond 

the bounds of shaping the story.  

Kickstarter could just be reporting their financials and their quantifiable results—the 

percentage projects that are funded, the number of backers, the amount raised per 

category. In 2021, Kickstarter (2021: 19) gave $525,000 to charity; if that amount in fact 

constitutes 5% of profits, then one can infer $10.5 million in profits in 2021. In general, 

Kickstarter has a structurally strong business model: They are able to access economies 

of scope (Chandler 1994: 17; Whitaker 2021a: 68) by applying their software across many 

different kinds of projects, and they allow creative teams to access economies of scale by 

bringing in many backers at the same level of reward or product. The company takes 5% 

of all monies raised, putting them in the structural position of taking a percentage of a 

large number rather than having to find each individual dollar. 

The design of metrics—how we define success—gets at the very philosophy of 

economics and of entrepreneurship. One could consider, for instance, the work of Brown 

(2017) to frame “emergent strategy” as an organic and community-driven and “fractal”-

like process of holistic nurturance. Or, in a very different way, one could conceive of 

growth as a process of seeking scale—what Thiel and Masters (2014: 8) describe as 

“technology” and invention—what they term the process of going from “zero to one” in 

order to then scale from one to many. The latter is measurable, and rewardable, but a 

traditional for-profit model; the availability of both kinds of approaches simultaneously—

as in the case of Kickstarter, the ability to have social impact and make a profit—calls on 

fundamental questions of whether one strives for growth, per se, or betterment, and the 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

16 

definitions of success that sometimes involve doing less, and the discipline of saying no.  

Systems Design: Solidarity and other Emergent Economies 

In the third case, processes of effectuation and institutional design extend to the 

imagination of new economic models. In fact, Sarasvathy (2000: 261) cites within the 

foundational paper on effectuation the idea of entrepreneurs creating whole economies. 

Some social-practice artists and researchers have proposed new lenses onto market 

structures, proposing holistic tools of a “solidarity economy.” Linares and Woolard (2019) 

have, in a report commissioned by Grantmakers in the Arts, gathered resources and built 

frameworks around the solidarity economy as a collaborative economic and governance 

system to support equity and sustainability. In considering the design of whole systems, 

White (2019: 55) has posited arts funding systems themselves as fodder for design, and 

Wilkerson (2012) has proposed creative institutional structures to reimagine the arts as 

a system that funds itself. Here, the design of the economic structure goes beyond the arts 

to consider market design as art.  

While many of the organizations in hybrid practice serve field-building purposes 

larger than themselves,6 this field-building work extends to the design not only of the arts 

ecosystem but the larger economy, notably through the solidarity economy. Linares and 

Woolard (2021: 41) define the solidarity economy in five principles: pluralism, solidarity, 

equity, sustainability, and participatory democracy. Pluralism is an acknowledgment of 

“multiple paths” to new, holistic economic forms, not a fixed structure. Solidarity “includes 

a range of social interactions grounded in collective practices such as mutualism, sharing, 

reciprocity, altruism, love, caring, and gifting.” Equity, in its typical meaning within 

diversity, equity, and inclusion, refers to inclusion and to resistance of forms of 

oppression, while sustainability not only includes economic sustainability but 

respectfulness toward and affinity with “Indigenous principles of living in harmony with 

nature.” Participatory democracy centers local rather than diffuse decision-making and 

community participation wherever possible.  

These principles characterize Woolard’s own work as a social practice artist, 

including in the founding of the barter-economy Trade School (2009) and work with 

Jahoda (Jahoda & Woolard 2019) on institutional design and administration as a part of 

artistic work. Their book Making and Being includes, illustratively, radically transparent 

information on the sources of income received during the construction of the book.  

 
6 For example, NXTHVN in New Haven, CT, is not only a residency program supporting artists, curators, 

and high-school apprentices but a catalyst aiming to benefit its neighborhood of Dixwell and to transform 

representation in the art market. Kehinde Wiley’s residency program Black Rock platforms artists’ 

careers and serves as a crucible and platform for artists’ careers and for catalyzing the creative 

ecosystem of African and African diasporic art (Black Rock, n.d.; Lucas 2023). Other artists, including 

other Black artists such as Mark Bradford, have succeeded in the art market and then built systems to 

platform local communities, as Bradford did in co-founding Art + Practice in Los Angeles (Cooper 2019). 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

17 

In Woolard’s work as the director of research and partnerships for the distributed 

governance platform Open Collective, she puts these principles of participatory 

governance into play. Open Collective is itself a hybrid organization that operates three 

legal entities, including the Open Collective Foundation, a 501c3 US non-profit 

organization that serves as a fiscal sponsor of cooperative organizations. Open Collective 

handles back-office functions such as accounting and lends its non-profit status to 

ventures, allowing them access to grant monies and to tools for transparent participatory 

governance—including decision-making about the distribution of any surplus funds 

(Open Collective 2023). Field-building includes more people equitably in the arts and also 

creatively redesigns the economic systems that are causally and historically linked to 

exclusion, extraction, limitation, and harm.  

Discussion and Conclusions 

Although institutional entrepreneurship and hybrid organizations have been studied, 

particularly since the advent of hybrid legal forms, these ideas take on new meaning as 

part of the development and future of arts entrepreneurship. These new hybrid models 

effectuate complex, systems-level approaches to synthesizing for-profit and non-profit 

structures. Rather than be governed by vectors of microeconomic thinking, these new-

wave institutional entrepreneurs navigate legal and organizational structures as artistic 

mediums and risk engaging in effectuation (Sarasvathy 2001) as a process of inventing 

point B worlds (Whitaker 2016a). These forms of institutional design are creative 

attempts to grapple with the multiple forms of value that are defined by capitalistic, 

artistic, and political logics. This re-articulation of hybrid practice in the arts contributes 

to the field of arts entrepreneurship by expanding artistic practice to the design of 

democracy and of political and economic systems for communities and more broadly. 

What these developments point to is an expansion of how we conceive of 

entrepreneurship in the arts to include a broader creative and entrepreneurial approach 

to designing novel organizational structures that support the intersections of mission and 

markets—and the partnerships across charitable, commercial, and governmental 

interests—that uniquely characterize the arts. While this need for hybrid practice is acute 

in the arts, these models generalize to entrepreneurial thinking across business and law 

outside the arts as well in relation to environmental causes, democracy, and other areas 

in which markets tend to fail in the provision of public goods and causes are moved 

forward through creative institutional design. These efforts include activist movements to 

redesign the economy such as Occupy Wall Street (Allison et al. 2021), AmbitioUS (CCI 

2023), the solidarity economy movement (Linares and Woolard 2021; Open Collective 

2023), and the tackling of climate and other large-scale societal frontiers as collective art 

projects.  

These acts of institutional creativity extend to building the field itself—encompassing 



ARTIVATE 11.3 

18 

the design of the economic system in which arts entrepreneurship occurs. The movement 

toward a solidarity economy—as championed by social practice artists and scholars—

offers an important context for hybrid practice as a form of concentrically larger goals: 

building the organization, building the field, and building the larger economy, each as a 

creative form of applied ethics and institutional design. This consideration of hybrid 

practice is particularly timely in the field of arts entrepreneurship because of the blurring 

of for-profit and non-profit forms both within and outside of the arts ecosystem. That 

blurring includes cases of proactive blurring such as new arts incubators and also cases of 

unacknowledged blurring such as, in the US, the treatment of the corporation as a political 

person exercising free-speech rights when making economic campaign contributions 

(Whitaker and Abrams 2023; Citizens United 2010). 

This study of hybrid practice and the cases presented contribute a view of 

institutional entrepreneurship through the lens of effectuation as a form of creative 

practice that centers collaboration and governance models. As new hybrid legal forms 

proliferate, areas of future research include building taxonomies of hybrid forms in the 

arts. Still, these stories of institutional design—of negotiated arrangement and of strategic 

partnership between for-profit and non-profit institutions—point to imaginative 

institutional work with transformational potential within the entrepreneurial processes 

of the arts. The thread of governance and of design within institutional form create novel 

engagements of arts entrepreneurship with the principles of democracy and the 

disentanglement and intentional redesign across economic and political systems. The 

ultimate significance of the arts, beyond art for art’s sake, may be this imaginary of arts 

entrepreneurship as a hub for creative interdisciplinary problem solving. Models in the 

arts may not need to go hat in hand to plead for significance but to make an offering of 

models to other fields from the laboratory of the arts. 

References

Allison, T.H., Grimes, M., McKenny, A.F., and Short, 
J.C. 2021. Occupy Wall Street ten years on: 
How its disruptive institutional 
entrepreneurship spread and why it fizzled, 
Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 16 
(200285), 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00285. 
Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI). (2023). 
AmbitioUS. https://ambitio-us.org 

Anadol, R., Reas, C., Kuo, M., and Antonelli, P. 
(2021, November 15). Modern dream: How 
Refik Anadol is using machine learning and 
NFTs to interpret MoMA’s collection. MoMA 
Magazine. 
https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/6
58 

Anadol, R. (2021, November 18). Unsupervised - 

Machine Hallucinations - MoMA, Feral 
File.com. 
https://feralfile.com/exhibitions/unsupervise
d-sla 

B-Corp. (2023, March 6). BCorporation.net 
[homepage], 
https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us 

Baran, L., Forst, A. & Via, M. T. (2023). Dual-class 
share structure and innovation. Journal of 
Financial Research, 46(1): 169-202.  

Barnes, A. (2023). An Entrepreneur’s Guide to 
Certified B Corporations and Benefit 
Corporations. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for 
Business and the Environment and Patagonia. 
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/dema
ndware.static/-/Library-Sites-
PatagoniaShared/default/dw73962ce0/PDF-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00285
https://ambitio-us.org/
https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/658
https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/658
https://feralfile.com/exhibitions/unsupervised-sla
https://feralfile.com/exhibitions/unsupervised-sla
https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw73962ce0/PDF-US/CBEY_BCORP_Print.pdf
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw73962ce0/PDF-US/CBEY_BCORP_Print.pdf
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw73962ce0/PDF-US/CBEY_BCORP_Print.pdf


ARTIVATE 11.3 

19 

US/CBEY_BCORP_Print.pdf 
Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The 

enabling role of individuals’ social positions. 
Organization 13(5): 653-676. 

Battilana, J. (2004). Foundations for a theory of 
institutional entrepreneurship: Solving the 
paradox of embedded agency. Insead Working 
Paper Series, 2004/61/OB. 
https://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/rese
arch/doc.cfm?did=1412 

Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building 
sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of 
commercial microfinance organizations. 
Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419-
1440. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391 

Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J. & Dorsey, C. (2012). 
In Search of the Hybrid Ideal. Stanford Social 
Innovation Review, 10(3), 51–55. 
https://doi.org/10.48558/WF5M-8Q69 

Benzine, V. (2022, November 4). The Museum of 
Cycladic Art in Athens kicks off a controversial 
deal to show 15 ancient artifacts from 
billionaire Leonard Stern’s collection, Artnet 
News, https://www.artnews.com/art-
news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-
greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/ 

Berglund, H. (2007). Researching 
entrepreneurship as lived experience. In H. 
Neergaard and J.P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of 
qualitative research methods in 
entrepreneurship (pp. 75-93). Cheltenham, UK: 
Edward Elgar. 

Bhandari, H. D. & Melber, J. (2017). Art/work: 
Everything you need to know (and do) as you 
pursue your art career. New York, NY: Free 
Press. 

Bille, T. & Jensen, S. (2018). Artistic education 
matters: Survival in the arts occupations. 
Journal of Cultural Economics, 42: 23-43. 

Black Rock. (n.d.). Our Story. 
https://blackrocksenegal.org/our-story/ 

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(1): 9-24. 

Bridgestock, R. (2012). Not a dirty word: Arts 
entrepreneurship and higher education. Arts & 
Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2-3): 122-
137. 

Brown, A. M. (2017). Emergent Strategy: Shaping 
Change, Changing Worlds. Chico, CA: AK Press. 

Brown, P.L. (2019, April 12). An artist rises and 
brings a generation with him, New York Times. 

Callander, A. (forthcoming [2024]). Engaged 
Dissent: Entrepreneurship and Critique in the 
Institutional Practice of Three Contemporary 
Artists, in Y. Jung, N. Vakharia, and M. Vecco 
eds. Oxford Handbook of Arts and Cultural 
Management. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801976
21615.001.0001. 

Callander, A. (2019). Artmaking as 
Entrepreneurship: Effectuation and 
emancipation in artwork formation. Artivate: 
A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 8(2): 
61-77. 

Callander, A. & Cummings, M. E. (2021). Liminal 
spaces: A review of the art in 
entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurship in 
art. Small Business Economics, 57(2): 739-754. 

Caves, R. E. (2000), Creative industries: Contracts 
Between Art and Commerce. Cambridge: 
Harvard University Press. 

Cawsey, T. (1995). The portfolio career as a 
response to a changing job market. Journal of 
Career Planning & Employment, 56(1): 41-46. 

Chandler A. D. (1994). Scale and scope: The 
dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge: 
Harvard University Press. 

Chouinard, Y. (2006). Let My People Go Surfing: 
The Education of a Reluctant Businessman. 
New York: Penguin.  

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010. 
Cooper, A. (2019, May 12). Mark Bradford: The 60 

Minutes Interview. 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artist-
mark-bradford-the-60-minutes-interview-
2019-05-12/ 

Cornerstone Capital Group. (2018, October). 
Creativity and the Arts: An Emerging Impact 
Investing Theme. New York and Denver: 
Cornerstone Capital Group. 
https://missioninvestors.org/sites/default/fil
es/resources/Read%20the%20Full%20Repor
t_0.pdf 

Creative Independent. (2018). A study of the 
financial state of visual artists today. 
Retrieved from 
https://thecreativeindependent.com/artist-
survey/ 

Davies, W. (2014). The Limits of Neoliberalism: 
Authority, Sovereignty, and the Logic of 
Competition. London: Sage. 

Davis, B. (2023, January 23). An extremely 
intelligent lava lamp: Refik Anadol’s A.I. art 
extravaganza at MoMA is fun, just don’t think 
about it too hard. Artnet News. 
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/refik-
anadol-unsupervised-moma-2242329 

Delaware Division of Corporations. (2023). About 
the Division of Corporations, 
https://corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency/#:~:
text=The%20State%20of%20Delaware%20is,
made%20Delaware%20their%20legal%20ho
me. 

Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., and Tracey, P. (2010). 
Social bricolage: Theorizing social value 
creation in social enterprises. 
entrepreneurship theory and practice, 34(4): 
681-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw73962ce0/PDF-US/CBEY_BCORP_Print.pdf
https://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=1412
https://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=1412
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
https://doi.org/10.48558/WF5M-8Q69
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/
https://blackrocksenegal.org/our-story/
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197621615.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197621615.001.0001
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artist-mark-bradford-the-60-minutes-interview-2019-05-12/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artist-mark-bradford-the-60-minutes-interview-2019-05-12/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artist-mark-bradford-the-60-minutes-interview-2019-05-12/
https://missioninvestors.org/sites/default/files/resources/Read%20the%20Full%20Report_0.pdf
https://missioninvestors.org/sites/default/files/resources/Read%20the%20Full%20Report_0.pdf
https://missioninvestors.org/sites/default/files/resources/Read%20the%20Full%20Report_0.pdf
https://thecreativeindependent.com/artist-survey/
https://thecreativeindependent.com/artist-survey/
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/refik-anadol-unsupervised-moma-2242329
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/refik-anadol-unsupervised-moma-2242329
https://corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency/#:~:text=The%20State%20of%20Delaware%20is,made%20Delaware%20their%20legal%20home
https://corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency/#:~:text=The%20State%20of%20Delaware%20is,made%20Delaware%20their%20legal%20home
https://corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency/#:~:text=The%20State%20of%20Delaware%20is,made%20Delaware%20their%20legal%20home
https://corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency/#:~:text=The%20State%20of%20Delaware%20is,made%20Delaware%20their%20legal%20home
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x


ARTIVATE 11.3 

20 

6520.2010.00370.x 
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in 

institutional theory. In Lynne G. Zucker, Ed.,  
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: 
Culture and Environment, Cambridge, MA: 
Ballinger, 3-21. 

Eliasson, O. (2003). The Weather Project. Tate 
Modern. 
https://olafureliasson.net/artwork/the-
weather-project-2003/ 

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(2):65-77. 

Essig, L. (2015). Means and ends: A theory 
framework for understanding 
entrepreneurship in the US arts and culture 
sector. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and 
Society, 45(4): 227-246. 

Essig, L. & Guevara, J. (2016). A landscape of arts 
entrepreneurship in US higher education. 
Alliance for the arts in research universities: 
1-67. 
https://herbergerinstitute.asu.edu/sites/defa
ult/files/a_landscape_of_arts_entrepreneurshi
p_in_us_higher_education_0.pdf 

Fraser, A. (2011, September). Le 1% C’est Moi, 
Texte zur Kunst 83: 114-127. Available via 
Whitney Museum of American Art: 
https://whitneymedia.org/assets/generic_file
/805/_22L_1__C_est_Moi_22.pdf. 

Frenette, A., Tepper, S. J. (2016). What difference 
does it make? Assessing the effects of arts-
based training on career pathways. In 
Comunian, R., Gilmore, A. (Eds.), Higher 
education and the creative economy: Beyond 
the campus (pp. 83-102). New York, NY: 
Routledge.  

Friedland, R. and Alford, R. R.. (1991). Bridging 
society back in: Symbols, practices, and 
institutional contradictions. In The New 
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 
Walter P. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, Eds. 
University of Chicago Press, 232-263.  

Fruchtman, J. (2011). For love or lucre. Stanford 
Social Innovation Review, 9(2): 42–47. 
https://doi.org/10.48558/0F4K-ZA71 

Gangi, J. (2015). The synergies of artistic and 
entrepreneurial action. Journal of Arts 
Management, Law & Society, 45(4): 247-254. 

Garud, R., Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2007). 
Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded 
agency: An introduction to the special issue. 
Organization Studies, 28(7): 957-969.  

Gerber, A. (2017). The Work of Art: Value in 
Creative Careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford 
University Press. 

Gerber, A. and Childress, C. (2017). The economic 
world obverse: Freedom through markets 
after arts education. American Behavioral 
Scientist, 61: 1532-1554. 

Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners Take All: The 
Elite Charade of Changing the World. New 
York: Knopf. 

Grant, D. (2015). The Social Profit Handbook: The 
Essential Guide to Setting Goals, Assessing 
Outcomes, and Achieving Success for Mission-
Driven Organizations. White River Junction, 
VT: Chelsea Green. 

Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional 
entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big 
five accounting firms. Academy of 
Management Journal 49(1): 27-48. 

Guo, W., 2022. Institutional entrepreneurship 
through network governance: a social 
network analysis of NEA's creative 
placemaking national initiative. Cultural 
Trends, pp.1-23.  

Hamilton, W.T. (2019, April 22). Displaced artists 
open a new front at the Brooklyn Army 
Terminal, New York Times. 

Hamilakis, Y. (2022, November 3). Sorry, but this 
is not ‘repatriation.’ Hyperallergic. 

Hardin, G. (1968, December 13). The Tragedy of 
the Commons. Science, 162 (3859), 1243-
1248.  

Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2017). Institutional 
entrepreneurship and change in fields. In The 
Sage Handbook of Organizational 
Institutionalism, 2nd Ed., Royston Greenwood, 
Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence, and 
Renate E. Meyer, Eds., London: Sage 
Publications, 261-280. 

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. 
Oxford University Press.  

Heidegger, M. (1947). On the origin of the work of 
art, in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. San 
Francisco: Harper.1993. 

Hellenic Republic. (2022, September 9). 
Government Gazette of the Greek Republic 
[ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΕΩΣ: ΤΗΣ 
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑΣ]. No. 172, pp. 
5523-5942. 

Ho, K.K. (2022, November 4). The Greek deal with 
businessman Leonard Stern and the Met for 
large Cycladic art collection looks like a mess. 
ArtNews, https://www.artnews.com/art-
news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-
greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/ 

Hot Bread Kitchen. (2023). About. 
https://hotbreadkitchen.org/about/ 

Howkins, J. (2013). The Creative Economy: How 
People Make Money from Ideas, (2nd Ed.) 
London: Penguin. 

Isaac, M. and Gelles, D. (2015, September 20). 
Kickstarter focuses its mission on altruism 
over profit, New York Times, “Kickstarter 
Focuses Its Mission on Altruism over Profit,” 
New York Times, September 20, 2015. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/tech
nology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-
as-the-means-not-the-mission.html 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x
https://olafureliasson.net/artwork/the-weather-project-2003/
https://olafureliasson.net/artwork/the-weather-project-2003/
https://herbergerinstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/a_landscape_of_arts_entrepreneurship_in_us_higher_education_0.pdf
https://herbergerinstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/a_landscape_of_arts_entrepreneurship_in_us_higher_education_0.pdf
https://herbergerinstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/a_landscape_of_arts_entrepreneurship_in_us_higher_education_0.pdf
https://whitneymedia.org/assets/generic_file/805/_22L_1__C_est_Moi_22.pdf
https://whitneymedia.org/assets/generic_file/805/_22L_1__C_est_Moi_22.pdf
https://doi.org/10.48558/0F4K-ZA71
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/metropolitan-museum-of-art-greece-stern-cycladic-art-1234645574/
https://hotbreadkitchen.org/about/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/technology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-as-the-means-not-the-mission.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/technology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-as-the-means-not-the-mission.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/technology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-as-the-means-not-the-mission.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/technology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-as-the-means-not-the-mission.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/technology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-as-the-means-not-the-mission.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/technology/kickstarters-altruistic-vision-profits-as-the-means-not-the-mission.html


ARTIVATE 11.3 

21 

Israel, M. (2017). The Big Picture: Contemporary 
Art in Ten Works by Ten Artists. Munich and 
London: Prestel. 

Jahoda, S. and Woolard, C. (2019). Making and 
Being. Brooklyn, NY: Pioneer Works. 

Kickstarter. (n.d.). Charter. 
https://www.kickstarter.com/charter 

Kickstarter. (2021). Kickstarter Public Benefit 
Corporation Report. 
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/Kicksta
rter-BenefitStatement-2021-2460730.pdf 

Kickstarter. (2020). Kickstarter Public Benefit 
Corporation Report. 
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/PBCRe
port_2020-10-19-21-af2e81e.pdf 

Kickstarter. (2019). Kickstarter Public Benefit 
Corporation Report. 
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/2019-
PBC_Report_UPDATED-02-09-2021-
36bd85e.pdf 

Kickstarter. (2018). Kickstarter Public Benefit 
Corporation Report. 
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/ugm6t
gt9-FINAL_PBC_Report_20190902.pdf 

Kickstarter. (2017). Kickstarter Public Benefit 
Corporation Report. 
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/18111
9_PBC_Report_PDF_Master.pdf 

Kickstarter. (2016). Kickstarter Public Benefit 
Corporation Report. 
https://www.kickstarter.com/year/2016/ben
efit-statement 

Lauricella, T. & Norton, L. (2021, October 7). How 
Facebook silences its investors. Morningstar. 
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061
237/how-facebook-silences-its-investors 

Linares, N. and Woolard, C. (2021). Solidarity Not 
Charity. Bronx, NY: Grantmakers in the Arts. 
https://www.giarts.org/solidarity-not-charity 

Lucas, D.S., Grimes, M.G., Gehman, J. 2022. 
Remaking Capitalism: The strength of weak 
legislation in mobilizing B Corporation 
certification. Academy of Management 
Journal, 65(3): 958-987. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1688 

Lucas, J. (2022, December 26). How the artist 
Kehinde Wiley went from picturing power to 
building it. New Yorker, 
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/202
3/01/02/how-the-artist-kehinde-wiley-went-
from-picturing-power-to-building-it 

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). 
Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging 
fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in 
Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 
47(5): 657-679. 

McAndrew, C. (2021). The New York City Art 
Market Report. The Independent Art Fair. 
https://nyartmarket.independenthq.com. 

Meadows, Donella H. ( 2009). Thinking in systems : 
a primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea 

Green. 
Metropolitan Museum of Art. (2022, October 11). 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art announces 
historic agreement with Greece and the 
upcoming display of exceptional works of 
Cycladic art. Press release. 
https://www.metmuseum.org/press/news/2
022/leonard-n,-d-,-stern-gift 

Mitra, P., Kickul, J., Gundry, L. and Orr, J. (2019). 
The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social 
Entrepreneurship Educators. International 
Review of Entrepreneurship, 17(2).  

Mometti, S. and Van Bommel, K. (2021). 
Performing Arts Organizations as Hybrid 
Organizations: Tensions and Responses to 
Competing Logics. Journal of Cultural 
Management and Cultural Policy/Zeitschrift für 
Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik, 7(2), 
pp.135-168.  

Moynihan, C. (2022, October 11). Leonard Stern’s 
Cycladic art will be shown at the Met but 
owned by Greece. New York Times, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/arts
/design/stern-cycladic-antiquities-met-
museum-greece.html 

Museum of Modern Art. (2022, November 1). 
Refik Anadol: Unsupervised, November 19, 
2022 – April 15, 2023. 
http://press.moma.org/exhibition/refik-
anadol-unsupervised/ 

New Inc. (2023). Our Story. 
https://www.newinc.org/our-story 

Nezam, M.K., Lovelee, A., Taylor, J.K. (2023). CAIR 
Lab Manifesto, 
https://www.cairlab.net/manifesto 

Nolin, H.R. and Whitaker, A. (2022). Non-fungible 
tokens and non-profit strategy: Participation, 
revenue generation, and strategic planning, in 
Jung, Y., N. Vakharia, and M. Vecco (eds), 
Oxford Handbook of Arts and Cultural 
Management (online edn), 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801976
21615.001.0001. SSRN preprint: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4308458 

Ogilvy, J. & Schwartz, P. (2004). Plotting Your 
Scenarios. Global Business Network, Monitor 
Group.  

Open Collective (2023, March 6). 
https://opencollective.com/ 

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The 
Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Patagonia. (2023). B Lab. 
https://www.patagonia.com/b-lab.html 

Patagonia. (2013). Annual Benefit Corporation 
Report: Fiscal Year 2013. 
https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandwar
e.static/-/Library-Sites-
PatagoniaShared/default/dwcc265067/PDF-
US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf 

Paulsen R.J., Alper, N., and Wassall, G. (2020). Art 

https://www.kickstarter.com/charter
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/Kickstarter-BenefitStatement-2021-2460730.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/Kickstarter-BenefitStatement-2021-2460730.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/PBCReport_2020-10-19-21-af2e81e.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/PBCReport_2020-10-19-21-af2e81e.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/2019-PBC_Report_UPDATED-02-09-2021-36bd85e.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/2019-PBC_Report_UPDATED-02-09-2021-36bd85e.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/2019-PBC_Report_UPDATED-02-09-2021-36bd85e.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/ugm6tgt9-FINAL_PBC_Report_20190902.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/ugm6tgt9-FINAL_PBC_Report_20190902.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/181119_PBC_Report_PDF_Master.pdf
https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/181119_PBC_Report_PDF_Master.pdf
https://www.kickstarter.com/year/2016/benefit-statement
https://www.kickstarter.com/year/2016/benefit-statement
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061237/how-facebook-silences-its-investors
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061237/how-facebook-silences-its-investors
https://www.giarts.org/solidarity-not-charity
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1688
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/how-the-artist-kehinde-wiley-went-from-picturing-power-to-building-it
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/how-the-artist-kehinde-wiley-went-from-picturing-power-to-building-it
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/how-the-artist-kehinde-wiley-went-from-picturing-power-to-building-it
https://nyartmarket.independenthq.com/
https://www.metmuseum.org/press/news/2022/leonard-n,-d-,-stern-gift
https://www.metmuseum.org/press/news/2022/leonard-n,-d-,-stern-gift
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/arts/design/stern-cycladic-antiquities-met-museum-greece.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/arts/design/stern-cycladic-antiquities-met-museum-greece.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/arts/design/stern-cycladic-antiquities-met-museum-greece.html
http://press.moma.org/exhibition/refik-anadol-unsupervised/
http://press.moma.org/exhibition/refik-anadol-unsupervised/
https://www.newinc.org/our-story
https://www.cairlab.net/manifesto
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197621615.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197621615.001.0001
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4308458
https://opencollective.com/
https://www.patagonia.com/b-lab.html
https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dwcc265067/PDF-US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf
https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dwcc265067/PDF-US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf
https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dwcc265067/PDF-US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf
https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dwcc265067/PDF-US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf


ARTIVATE 11.3 

22 

majors as entrepreneurs and innovators. 
Small Business Economics. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s1
1187-020-00416-x 

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughtnut Economics: Seven 
Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. 
White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.  

Ritter, J.R. (2023, March 8). Initial public offerings: 
Dual class structure of IPOs through 2022. 
University of Florida Working Paper, 
https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IP
Os-Dual-Class.pdf. 

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M. and Crane, A. 
(2015). Benefit corporation legislation and the 
emergence of a social hybrid 
category. California Management 
Review, 57(3), pp.13-35.  

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M. and Newbert, S.L. 
(2019). Social impact measurement: Current 
approaches and future directions for social 
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship 
theory and practice, 43(1), pp.82-115.  

Rushton, M., (2014.) Hybrid organizations in the 
arts: A cautionary view. The Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, 44(3), pp.145-
152.  

Saltz, J. (2023, Februrary 22). MoMA’s glorified 
lava lamp: Refik Anadol’s Unsupervised is a 
crowd-pleasing, like-generating mediocrity. 
New York. 
https://www.vulture.com/article/jerry-saltz-
moma-refik-anadol-unsupervised.html 

Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and 
effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from 
economic inevitability to entrepreneurial 
contingency. Academy of Management Review, 
26(2): 243-263. 

Sarr, F. &  Savoy, B. (2018). The Restitution of 
African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New 
Relational Ethics (trans. Drue S. Burk). 
Retrieved from https://www.about-
africa.de/images/sonstiges/2018/sarr_savoy_
en.pdf 

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The 
promise of entrepreneurship as a field of 
research. The Academy of Management Review, 
25(1): 217-226. 

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case 
studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 
50(1): 20-24. 

Strickler, Y. (2019). This Could Be Our Future: A 
Manifesto for a More Generous World. New 
York: Penguin/Viking. 

Strickler, Y., Chen, P. & Adler, C. (2015, September 
21). Kickstarter Is Now a Benefit Corporation. 
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarte
r-is-now-a-benefit-corporation 

Stuckey, J. & White, D. (1993). When and when not 
to vertically integrate. Sloan Management 
Review, 34(3): 71-83. 

Tate (n.d.). The Unilever Series: Olafur Eliasson: 

The Weather Project, Turbine Hall, Tate 
Modern, October 16, 2003 – March 21, 2004. 
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-
modern/unilever-series/unilever-series-
olafur-eliasson-weather-project 

Taylor, E. A. (2015). Arts entrepreneurship vs. the 
sum of its parts. Artivate, 4(1). pp. 3–7. 

Thiel, P. and Masters, B. (2014). Zero to One: Notes 
on Startups, or How to Build the Future. New 
York: Crown Business. 

Toscher, B. (2019). Entrepreneurial learning in 
arts entrepreneurship education: A 
conceptual framework. Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 8(1): 3-22. 

Trittin-Ulbrich, H., & Bo ckel, A. (2022). 
Institutional entrepreneurship for responsible 
digital innovation: The case of corporate 
digital responsibility. Creativity and 
Innovation Management, 31(3), 447–459. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12513 

Whitaker, A. (2016a). Art Thinking. Harper 
Business. 

Whitaker, A. (2016b). Why teach business to 
artists?. Hyperallergic. 
https://hyperallergic.com/312390/why-
teach-business-to-artists/ 

Whitaker, A. (2021a). Economics of Visual Art: 
Market Practice and Market Resistance. 
Cambridge University Press.  

Whitaker, A. (2021b). Equity for Artists: Reflections 
on the Political Economy and Sociology of 
Ownership. PhD Dissertation. Goldsmiths, 
University of London. 
https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/30380/
1/POL_thesis_WhitakerA_2021.pdf 

Whitaker, A. & Abrams, N. B. (2023). The Story of 
NFTs. Rizzoli & MCA Denver. 

White, J. C. (2019). A theory of arts 
entrepreneurship as organizational attack. 
Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the 
Arts, 8(2): 47-59. 

White, J. C. (2015). Toward a theory of arts 
entrepreneurship. Journal of Arts 
Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 4-23. 

White, J. C. (2013). Barriers to recognizing arts 
entrepreneurship education as essential to 
professional arts training. Artivate: A Journal 
of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 2(3): 28-39.  

Wilkerson, M. (2012). Using the arts to pay for the 
arts: A proposed new public funding model. 
Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 
42 (3), 103-115. 

Wohl, H. 2021. Bound by Creativity: How 
Contemporary Art is Created and Judged. 
University of Chicago.  

Woolard, C. (2019). Trade School: 2009-2019. 
https://tradeschool.coop/assets/tradeschool_
2009_2019.pdf 

Woronkowicz, J. and Noonan, D. S. (2019). Who 
goes freelance? The determinants of self-
employment for artists. Entrepreneurship 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-020-00416-x
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-020-00416-x
https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPOs-Dual-Class.pdf
https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPOs-Dual-Class.pdf
https://www.vulture.com/article/jerry-saltz-moma-refik-anadol-unsupervised.html
https://www.vulture.com/article/jerry-saltz-moma-refik-anadol-unsupervised.html
https://www.about-africa.de/images/sonstiges/2018/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
https://www.about-africa.de/images/sonstiges/2018/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
https://www.about-africa.de/images/sonstiges/2018/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefit-corporation
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefit-corporation
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/unilever-series/unilever-series-olafur-eliasson-weather-project
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/unilever-series/unilever-series-olafur-eliasson-weather-project
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/unilever-series/unilever-series-olafur-eliasson-weather-project
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12513
https://hyperallergic.com/312390/why-teach-business-to-artists/
https://hyperallergic.com/312390/why-teach-business-to-artists/
https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/30380/1/POL_thesis_WhitakerA_2021.pdf
https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/30380/1/POL_thesis_WhitakerA_2021.pdf
https://tradeschool.coop/assets/tradeschool_2009_2019.pdf
https://tradeschool.coop/assets/tradeschool_2009_2019.pdf


ARTIVATE 11.3 

23 

Theory and Practice, 43(4), 651–672. 
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and 

Methods (5th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Zhu, R., Sun, S. L., & Huang, Y. (2021). Fair trade 

coffee and inclusive globalization: A 
metamorphosis of institutional 
entrepreneurship. Multinational Business 
Review, 29(2), 189-209. doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-11-2019-0157 

Evelyn Proimos. Driving to El Chalten, Argentinian 
Patagonia. 2011. Used under Creative 
Commons license (CC BY 2.0).  

 
Cover image: Driving to El Chalten, Argentinian 
Patagonia by Evelyn Proimos, 
www.flickr.com/photos/43533334@N07/54693
81595

 

https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-11-2019-0157

	Grounding in Effectuation and Art Thinking
	Resituating Hybrid Practice and Institutional Entrepreneurship
	Toward a Theory of Creative Structural Design
	External Design: Creative Amalgamation Across Legal Forms
	Internal Design: Metrics and Strategy within a Hybrid Legal Form
	Systems Design: Solidarity and other Emergent Economies

	Discussion and Conclusions

