







































 

VOL. 12 
2023-2024 

EDITORIAL 

Editorial Perspectives 
What’s Past is Prologue 

To launch Volume 12 of Artivate and mark the editorial team transition, we offer the fol-

lowing set of editorial essays to help catalyze conversations and contributions on the past 

and future of the field. The first is by outgoing coeditors Paul Bonin-Rodriguez and Neville 

Vakharia, who reflect on the field-building focus of their tenure and some of their key ac-

complishments. Their excellent retrospective is followed by essays from each of the new 

coeditors, exploring the origins and nature of their relationship to the field of arts entre-

preneurship as well as the evolving topics those origins inspire.  

We hope that these essays encourage a similar reflection among our community and 

foster a more expansive conversation and examination of entrepreneurship in the arts. 

Artivate: A Field-Building Project  
 Paul Bonin-Rodriguez 

 University of Texas at Austin 

Neville Vakharia 

Drexel University 

We write at this moment of transition as outgoing editors not just to capture some of the 

institutional history of Artivate but also to articulate the goal we pursued during our 

terms. From the beginning of our service, we agreed that Artivate is a field-building project 

that supports not only the study and practice of arts entrepreneurship but also the in-

creased number of faculty at universities pursuing this topic and a mix of practitioners 

and scholars.  

We became coeditors of Artivate in the fall of 2018, taking the reins from Linda Essig, 

who had invited us to serve together. We both agreed that serving as coeditors was an 

essential condition of our acceptance. We would soon recognize that Linda had chosen us 



ARTIVATE 12 

2 

well. Our scholarship and backgrounds are complementary. Paul is the head of Perfor-

mance as Public Practice, a performance studies MA, MFA, and PhD program at the Uni-

versity of Texas at Austin. His scholarship draws from performance studies methodologies 

and considers the social sciences. Neville is the Associate Dean of Research and Planning 

at Drexel University and brings an analytical and quantitative approach to understanding 

entrepreneurship, innovation, and organizational change.  

Linda Essig co-founded the journal with Gary D. Beckman, and the two served as co-

editors for the first four issues. Joseph Roberts stepped in as coeditor and editor, respec-

tively, for the following two issues. Then Linda served as the sole editor for the following 

eight issues, with one of those issues (6.2 Summer 2017) being guest edited by Maria Ro-

sario Jackson (now Chair of the NEA) and Greg Esser (now working at the intersection of 

community development and arts and culture). Under Linda’s visionary and enduring 

leadership, Artivate emerged as the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated solely to arts 

entrepreneurship. Most of the journal’s editorial board appeared as journal authors for 

scholarly articles and/or editorials as well as book reviews in Artivate’s first seven years.  

During that time, Artivate produced thirteen issues and published forty articles, nine 

book reviews, and a four-part series of editorials on the definition of arts entrepreneur-

ship. Between the winter of 2019 and the spring of 2023, we produced nine issues and 

published thirty-three articles, ten book reviews, and one editorial series. We have hosted 

three guest edited volumes with Mark Clague and Susan Badger Booth; Monika Herzig; 

and Adrienne Callander and Johanna K. Taylor.  

Our first issue as coeditors was published at Arizona State University, where Linda 

had been a professor. After Linda’s departure from Arizona State, we found a new home 

at the University of Arkansas with Linda’s guidance. Reaching a deal for us to become the 

university’s first free, open-access journal, under the prestigious University of Arkansas 

Press Artivate moved past its initial ad hoc approach—no more writing on shared drives, 

sending endless emails between authors and peer reviewers, while carefully checking to 

ensure anonymity was maintained. Our second issue was published on the Open Journal 

Systems (OJS) journal management and publishing platform, automating our workflows 

and improving the quality of communications among editors, authors, and reviewers. This 

significant step also enhanced the legitimacy and reach of Artivate. 

Assessing what we published, and categorizing the articles on discrete terms, we note 

that Artivate focused heavily on the education of arts entrepreneurs (ten articles). Some 

of these included “The Great Generalization: Organizational Adaptation Strategies as En-

trepreneurship in Higher Music Education” (Spring 2022), by Jacob Hertzog; “Universities 

as Cultural Anchors: Moving Beyond Bricks and Mortar to Entrepreneurship, Workforce, 

and Community Development Approaches” (Fall 2021), by Amanda Ashley and Leslie 

Durham; and “Entrepreneurial Pathways in Art” (Spring 2021), by Kaisu Tuominiemi and 

Scott Benzenberg.  

Drawing on two domains from “Investing in Creativity” (Jackson, et. al. 2003), we note 



ARTIVATE 12 

3 

that we also devoted considerable space to the influence of arts entrepreneurs in particu-

lar “communities and networks” (nine articles). Some of these examples include “The Net-

work Effect of Arts Incubators” (Fall 2021), by Stan Renard and Gianluca Zanella; “Advanc-

ing Equity in Arts Entrepreneurship” (Spring 2022), by Charlie Wall-Andrews and Mary 

Elizabeth Luka; and “Effectual Entrepreneurship in the Arts: The Story of Austin Classical 

Guitar” (Fall 2021), by Jonathan Gangi.  

Broadly, we devoted slightly less space to the same study’s category of “markets and 

demands” (eight articles). Half focus on particular markets, such as “Meta-Analysis on the 

Importance of Entrepreneurship in Canada’s Music Industry” (Fall 2022), by Charlie Wall-

Andrew; “Measuring Arts Markets: The Colorado Art Market in 2017” (Summer 2019), by 

Jeffrey Taylor, Mayela Cardenas, and Stephanie Edwards; and “Building a Heavy Metal 

World: Entrepreneurship in the Polish People’s Republic” (Spring 2021), by Dominic Ath-

anassiou and George Musgrave. About half of the articles in this category focus on issues 

of individual and organized labor as opposed to the greater systemic forces or concerns. 

These articles include “Making Detroit Sound Great: the Detroit Symphony Orchestra and 

its Post-Strike Transformations” (Spring 2020), by Nathinee Chucerdwatanasak; and “Mo-

tivations and Intentionality in the Arts Portfolio Career” (Spring 2022), by Karen Mun-

nelly.  

To a lesser extent, we focused on arts policy and entrepreneurship (three articles), 

theory (two articles), and technology (one), with articles such as “Learning from Negative 

Space: Categorizing Success in Arts Policy Entrepreneurship” (Winter 2019), by Brea Hei-

delberg; “A Theory of Arts Entrepreneurship as Organizational Attack” (Summer 2019), 

by Jason C. White; and “Art and the Blockchain: a Primer, History, and Taxonomy of Block-

chain Use Cases in the Arts” (Winter 2019), by Amy Whitaker, respectively. Finally, seven 

of these articles raised arts entrepreneurship in international contexts in Africa, Europe, 

Poland, and Canada.  

When we compare our article publishing details with usage data, we note that our 

editorial choices, determined by the submissions we received, demonstrate a marginal, 

even ambivalent, relationship to the information our readers sought. During our tenure, 

the most viewed and downloaded article was Amy Whitaker’s “Art and the Blockchain,” 

with five hundred eighty-nine document accesses of the whole article (i.e., five hundred 

eighty-nine PDF downloads). However, running a close second is “The Great Generaliza-

tion: Organizational Adaptation Strategies as Entrepreneurship in Higher Music Educa-

tion” by Jacob Herzog (five hundred seventy-one PDF downloads), followed closely by 

“Universities as Cultural Anchors: Moving Beyond Bricks and Mortar to Entrepreneurship, 

Workforce, and Community Development Approaches,” by Amanda Ashley and Leslie 

Durham (499 PDF downloads).  

The truth is that Artivate’s articles regularly defied strict categorization. Entrepre-

neurial effectuation is a market and labor concern as much as an opportunity to recognize 

and engage the community. Arts entrepreneurship education tethers theory to practice in 



ARTIVATE 12 

4 

local contexts. Social and digital technologies are an omnipresent part of our lives. What 

we gain from the assessment is an understanding of how our field continues to build itself 

through the engagement of its scholars, artists, and activists. We offer this information to 

our successors to guide and support their efforts going forward as they continue cultivat-

ing and growing Artivate’s field-building successes. 

Metallica, Molson, and (Too) Much Music: A Call for Trauma-

Informed Arts Entrepreneurship 
Olaf Kuhlke 

Minneapolis College of Art and Design 

Labor Day Weekend in Canada. The year was 1995. The place was Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest 

Territories, Canada. An invited crowd of five hundred visitors from across North America, 

plus the local inhabitants of this small Inuvialuit hamlet, entered a sizable igloo-shaped 

tent to enjoy the sounds of four iconic 90s bands, including the headlining act—Metallica. 

Promoted by the Canadian beer company Molson, this Ice Polar Beach Party, as it was 

called, was created as a new way to advertise a brand-new beverage—Molson Ice beer—

and the company’s promoters worked for months to secure this remote location. In Tuk, 

the event was both welcomed as an opportunity to boost the local economy and feared 

because it promoted the consumption of alcohol in an otherwise dry community that suf-

fered for years from extremely high rates of substance abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome. 

A CBC video report and a subsequent documentary film, “The Invasion of the Beer People” 

(Neerenberg, 2006), portrayed the complex cultural, social, and environmental aspects of 

this event, showcasing how even the most well-intended corporate support and strategy 

can produce culturally problematic and insensitive experiences and events.  

As a young exchange student at the University of Alberta, I heard and read about the 

above event. Reflecting on this event twenty-eight years later, I have realized how much 

it shaped my research interests and, ultimately, my thinking about arts entrepreneurship, 

its trajectory as a discipline, and its many potential futures.  

As one of the three new coeditors of Artivate, I would like to take this opportunity to 

illustrate how contested cultural events such as the one I just described can help us shape 

our thinking as arts entrepreneurs and scholars and what possible directions I see for fu-

ture work in our developing discipline. I came to arts and creative entrepreneurship in a 

roundabout way. I was originally trained as a cultural geographer and studied how space 

and place are often infused with historically contested meanings. What fascinated me 

about the Polar Ice Beach Party was both the corporate-community collaboration initiated 

by Molson and the multifaceted meanings of this event.  

On the one hand, it was a celebration of and for the community of Tuktoyaktuk, with 

eager youth flocking to the event to see their rock and heavy metal heroes, from Courtney 



ARTIVATE 12 

5 

Love of the band Hole to James Hetfield of Metallica. On the other hand, there was a fear 

of the elders that only the positive aspects of beer and partying were highlighted, not the 

devastating effects of this drug on Indigenous and First Nation Canadians. Historically, 

Tuktoyaktuk as a community had experienced its fair share of trauma, much of which was 

brought to it by outsiders, from whalers establishing camps at the turn of the 20th Century 

to the military installations of the Cold War.  

As this event illustrated, cultural festivals never occur in “innocent space,” to para-

phrase Henri Lefebvre (1991). Space and place are always somehow, somewhere, and 

somewhat produced by someone and thus not free of value judgments, historical context, 

cultural traditions, ideological frameworks, or economic inequities. Many spaces repre-

sent landscapes of visible and invisible trauma.  

This focus on culturally embedded value creation and trauma-informed care eventu-

ally brought me to study entrepreneurship in the creative industries. I had studied the 

spatial significance of music and dance for community development (Kuhlke, 2004; 

Kuhlke & Pine, 2014) and was fascinated with how complex, singular cultural events or 

celebrations can create multifaceted cultural, economic, and social landscapes. Still, about 

ten years ago, my attention turned away from the communities experiencing these events 

to the actual producers of artistic experiences. For example, together with forty scholars 

from across the globe, I examined in 2015 how arts, cultural entrepreneurship, and crea-

tive entrepreneurship are taught, practiced, and influenced by policy (Kuhlke et al., 2015). 

Again, my critical insight from this collaborative work was that no entrepreneurial activity 

happens in a moral vacuum. What we make and produce can impact people positively and 

cause trauma—often simultaneously. As entrepreneurs in the creative fields, we need to 

pay close attention to our consumers’ collective and individual identities, from their na-

tionality to their gender to the detailed cultural context of their communities. If arts en-

trepreneurship is to be beneficial for individuals, companies, and communities, the idea-

tion and planning process of such business must be conducted through a cultural lens. If 

the products we make, the services we offer, and the events we put on are to benefit con-

sumers and communities, then the context, consumption, and profit-creation must be 

aligned, and what we make and experience must be meaningful and beneficial in the long 

run. Suppose we were to avoid another Molson Polar Ice Beach Party, with its rowdy, 

drunken musicians and guests “invading” an indigenous community, entertaining the 

youth, disrupting its way of life, and worrying elders. How do we need to train and prepare 

future generations of arts entrepreneurs?  

The arts entrepreneurship I envision for the future is both cultural entrepreneurship 

and trauma-informed entrepreneurship. Here are some of the critical questions that I 

would like to put out there as conversation items for future scholarly work in arts entre-

preneurship:  

 



ARTIVATE 12 

6 

1. When working in and with any community in creating for-profit and nonprofit 

cultural products, services, or experiences, what do arts entrepreneurs need to 

consider when developing their value propositions and business models?  

2. What constitutes cultural appropriation or commodification? Where do the 

moral and ethical boundaries of art production lie?  

3. How have these moral and ethical boundaries shifted or been blurred in our 

globalizing society? 

4. What should arts entrepreneurs know about trauma and trauma-informed 

care, and how can it help us create better relationships with customers and 

communities?  

5. How can we minimize the harm of what we produce?  

6. What constitutes culturally “safe” production?  

7. Who gets to be at the table talking about what is safe, appropriate, and benefi-

cial?  

8. What exactly does trauma-informed arts entrepreneurship look like?  

Do We Need More Art in Arts Entrepreneurship? 
Diane Ragsdale 

Minneapolis College of Art and Design 

I began thinking about entrepreneurship in the context of the arts when I worked as a 

philanthropoid for the Mellon Foundation in the first decade of this Century. In the wake 

of the 2008 financial crisis a grand narrative emerged in the US Arts and Culture sector: 

the business model for the arts was broken—new models were needed along with the 

development of new sources of earned revenues, new industry-nonprofit collaborations, 

and partnerships. This discourse was fueled by the need to mitigate the loss of both en-

dowment income and contributed income in the arts sector more generally. Put another 

way, it was fueled by the need for funders and donors to feel less on the hook. 

Importantly, nudging organizations to cultivate earned revenue streams or to partner 

with industry or to explore real estate ventures, e.g., was separate from nudging them to 

become commercial enterprises. The implicit and rather impossible entrepreneurial di-

rective to arts nonprofits seemed to be, “Earn your way; but do not lose your way.” 

When I returned to graduate school a couple of years later, my thinking was influ-

enced by select literature in cultural economics (e.g., Richard Caves, Tyler Cowen, Alan 

Freeman, Bruno Frey, Arjo Klamer, David Throsby, Ruth Towse, Olav Velthuis, Burton 

Weisbrod, Amy Whitaker) and cultural sociology (e.g., Howard S. Becker, Pierre Bourdieu, 

Paul DiMaggio, Stuart Hall, Walter W. Powell, Patricia Thornton, Max Weber, and Viviana 

Zelizer). I also began teaching courses on the Creative Economy. I became deeply curious 

about “earn your way, but do not lose your way” and questions about markets, missions, 

and morals in organizational contexts. These dynamics inspired much of my research into 



ARTIVATE 12 

7 

the relationship between nonprofit and commercial theater in the US and, in particular, 

on the influence of partnerships between the two on the aesthetics of the American Stage 

(see, e.g., Ragsdale, 2012; Ragsdale, 2017; Ragsdale, 2021; and Ragsdale, 2023). 

Had it not been for the opportunity to be a visiting guest lecturer at the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison in 2015, commercialism and values erosion in the nonprofit arts 

might have continued to be my primary focus, as well as tensions between the publicness 

required of the nonprofit form and the ownership and autonomy that can be quite im-

portant to artists and entrepreneurs (see, e.g., Ragsdale, 2017). However, when invited to 

propose a course I might like to teach within the aegis of the Wisconsin School of Business, 

I ultimately proposed to teach a course on beauty and aesthetics. I was inspired at the time 

by having recently read Howard Gardner’s book Truth, Beauty and Goodness Revisited. As 

someone consumed with the effects of business thinking on nonprofit leaders, I became 

interested in the opposite question: How do artistic practices and experiences affect busi-

ness leaders? In particular, I was interested in how approaching beauty—i.e., looking at 

the world through an aesthetic rather than economic lens—might be a pathway for teach-

ing something akin to business ethics. In preparing my course I began reading texts by an 

entirely new group of scholars, philosophers, and essayists (e.g., Russell Ackoff, Nancy Ad-

ler, John Dewey, Ellen Dissanayake, John Dobson, Maxine Greene, Mark Johnson, Iris Mur-

doch, Elaine Scarry, Bill Sharpe, Steven S. Taylor, Sandra Waddock, Joe Winston, and Jean-

ette Winterson). I eventually came to understand that there was a burgeoning field 

interested in my driving question: neuroaesthetics, which has been introduced to many 

by the recently released, excellent book by Susan Magsamen, Your Brain on Art: How The 

Arts Transform Us. 

I remain interested in (1) the influence of entrepreneurial methods and thinking on 

the outputs and values of artists/art firms and (2) the influence of an aesthetic orientation 

or mindset on human development and organizational ethics. Moreover, in the past hand-

ful of years, the latter has evolved and expanded to include a whole other set of questions: 

the value of the often undervalued methods and practices of artists and designers on the 

cultivation of a range of relational capacities (empathy, emergence, meaning making, cul-

tural competence and humility, cultural identity and expression, ecosystems thinking, 

comfort with discomfort, transcending boundaries, collaboration across difference) nec-

essary to imagine and collectively realize politically pluralistic, environmentally sustaina-

ble, and socially just worlds. I entered this arena largely due to the influence of ongoing 

conversations with my research partner Shannon Litzenberger (dancer, choreographer, 

and embodiment practitioner), as well as with Robert Ransick, the Vice President of Aca-

demic Affairs at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, where I now run an MA in 

Creative Leadership. This inquiry has been fertilized by an entirely other group of scholars 

(e.g., Vanessa Andreotti, Kenneth Bailey, Arturo Escobar, Jason Frasca, Tony Fry, Nelson 

Goodman, Mark Johnson, Iain Kerr, Susan Magsamen, Iain McGilchrest, and John 

Vervaeke). 

https://howlround.com/intersection


ARTIVATE 12 

8 

In a nutshell: my current interest in arts entrepreneurship is largely the methods, 

practices, processes, and capacities of artists and art firms and how these, as well as the 

transformative power of art, might have a greater influence on the means and ends of en-

trepreneurship. 

Furthermore, here are some enduring questions with which I continue to be engaged:  

1. Following Natalie Loveless (2019, How to Make Art at the End of the World), are 

we overdue to embrace “research-creation” (i.e., the ways that artistic practices 

are or might be understood as both method and output in higher education) for 

the sake of both arts entrepreneurship scholarship and pedagogy? 

2. Building on my contribution to the Futurecasting Glossary edited for Vol. 11 

Issue 3 of Artivate, how might the creation/worldmaking methods, practices, 

and processes inherent to artmaking and artfirm-making contribute to an un-

derstanding of how to collectively imagine/make new worlds—i.e., ways of re-

lating to ourselves, each other, our built and natural worlds, history, the pre-

sent, and the future?  

3. Building on my contribution to Vol. 6 Issue 1 of Artivate, is there an inherent, 

underexamined, and perhaps necessarily unresolvable conflict between the au-

tonomy or authority often required (or desired) by the artist/entrepreneur and 

the publicness required of the 501c3 charitable nonprofit? Does each poten-

tially prevent the other from effectively fulfilling their respective roles vis-à-vis 

society? 

Art Works and Art Worlds 
E. Andrew Taylor 

American University 

My first job out of undergraduate studies was in journalism, at the intersection of music 

and technology. I had a BA in English Literature with a passion for music, musicians, and 

all things digital. So, a Managing Editor role at a small consumer digital audio magazine in 

Peterborough, New Hampshire, seemed an interesting fit.  

When I started at Digital Audio & Compact Disc Review in 1986, Compact Discs were 

on the rise as a consumer media format. By 1988, CD sales surpassed vinyl LPs. By 1991, 

they overtook pre-recorded cassette tapes (Lee, 2023). The CD format was reshaping the 

way music was recorded, encoded, and distributed, offering new revenue streams to mu-

sicians and record labels, new opportunities for a mainstream market to experience audi-

ophile-quality audio, and a new life for back catalogs as classic albums in all genres were 

remastered and re-released.  

Writing and editing for the magazine offered my first front-row seat to an “art world” 

in transition, although I did not know Howard Becker’s framing then. An art world, as I 

https://artivate.org/index.php/artivate/article/view/197/167
https://www.artivate.org/index.php/artivate/article/view/58/50
https://www.artivate.org/index.php/artivate/article/view/58/50


ARTIVATE 12 

9 

would later learn, includes not only the artist and the artwork but also “all the activities 

that must be carried out for any work of art to appear as it finally does”—all the “patterns 

of collective activity” between inspiration and living practice (Becker, 1982). 

As the CD format altered the terrain of recorded music, I started to notice how the 

expressive work of artists is shaped, channeled, amplified, and dampened by a full ecology 

of factors including available technology, channels of distribution, consumer and commu-

nity aesthetic preferences, financial interests, social trends, conventions of creative prac-

tice, and even the shape and nature of the built environment. Artistic vision and voice were 

central to these worlds and their evolution, of course. However, so were social, technolog-

ical, environmental, ecological, and political actions and actors. Just as a musical ensemble 

continually interrogates and adapts to the acoustics of their performance space, artists 

and others in an art world are in dialogue with the resonances, dissonances, and dead 

zones of their changing contexts. 

I left Peterborough for Boston in 1989 to lead the development and publication of a 

new alumni music magazine for Berklee College of Music. And again, I witnessed the in-

terplay of artists, artworks, and art worlds. I continued to write feature interviews with 

amazing musicians or producers who had just completed beautiful and compelling things. 

Furthermore, I started to wonder what happened upstream from that public, polished ex-

pression. What ecology (or acoustic) of people, stuff, and money made such profound cre-

ative projects possible and helped them thrive? 

That led me to graduate study in Arts Administration at the University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, and almost 30 years of teaching, researching, consulting, and supporting Arts 

Management practice.  

My dominant focus over most of those three decades has been on formal, incorpo-

rated, not-for-profit enterprises—how they are made, how they are managed, how they 

wither, dither, or thrive. Nevertheless, arts entrepreneurship has always been entangled 

with that exploration, if not by name then by nature. Established arts nonprofits were once 

entrepreneurial ventures, after all. The whole concept of a nonprofit arts organization was 

an adaptation to a changing world. Further, tomorrow’s conventions of Arts Management 

practice are always under construction today. 

Even Becker touched on arts entrepreneurship back in 1982, although he did not call 

it that: 

The history of art deals with innovators and innovations that won organizational victories, 

succeeding in creating around themselves the apparatus of an art world, mobilizing 

enough people to cooperate in regular ways that sustained and furthered their idea. Only 

changes that succeed in capturing existing cooperative networks or developing new ones 

survive (Becker, 1982). 

I have defined Arts Management as “the practice of aggregating and animating people, 

stuff, and money toward expressive ends” (Taylor, 2023). Managers tend to realize and 



ARTIVATE 12 

10 

optimize this practice through established and conventional forms of collective action. En-

trepreneurs tend to find, forge, or connect new patterns of people, stuff, and money. All of 

them are adaptive agents in a constellation of adaptive systems. That framing is pulling 

my focus now and moving forward. 

Emerging biophysics and cognitive science theories suggest that any adaptive system 

has two ways to advance its fitness within its environment: It can shape its internal state 

or its external reality. In other words, it can change its thinking or its world (Friston, 2010; 

Sterling et al., 1988). Arts entrepreneurship can be viewed as the process and practice of 

doing both—making sense and taking action in new ways to advance creative expression 

and experience.  

This framing opens an array of explorations around arts entrepreneurship, including 

the following ones: 

1. How do the language and conventions of business shape or limit how we make 

sense of and take action in art worlds?  

2. What other lexicons or cultural traditions—beyond a dominant North Ameri-

can economic lens—might inform and illuminate entrepreneurial practice in 

the arts? 

3. How can we capture, interrogate, and analyze arts entrepreneurship initiatives 

from the collective or plural perspective rather than as individualistic pursuits?  

4. What research or narrative methods can reveal the “patterns of collective ac-

tivity” that Becker described as art worlds? 

5. How might we observe and understand the evolving landscapes now shaping 

art worlds—inclusive and just practice, generative AI, finance and funding 

pathways, and others—as collective and adaptive systems? 

It is an honor to work among this amazing team of coeditors to encourage these con-

versations and others around arts entrepreneurship. 



References 

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. University of California Press. 
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain the-

ory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), Article 2. 
https://www.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 

Kuhlke, O. (2004). Representing German Identity in the New Berlin 
Republic: Body, Nation, and Place. Mellen Press. 

Kuhlke, O., Schramme, A., & Kooyman, R. (2015). Creating cultural 
capital: Cultural entrepreneurship in theory, pedagogy, and 
practice. Eburon Uitgeverij BV. 

Lee, Y. H. (2023). The Audio Compact Disc: A Business History Case. 
Essays in Economic & Business History, 41(1), Article 1. 

Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The production of space 
(Vol. 142). Blackwell: Oxford. 

Neerenberg, A. et al. (2006). Invasion of the beer people. Nutaaq Me-
dia.  

Pine A. & Kuhlke O. (2014). Geographies of Dance: body movement 
and corporeal negotiations. Lexington Books.  

Ragsdale, D. (2023). Margo Jones: Bridging Divides to Craft a Hy-
brid Logic for Theater in the US. In M. Tonelli & A. Heise (Eds.), 
Cases on Arts Entrepreneurship (pp. 56–79). Edward Elgar Pub-
lishing. 

Ragsdale, D. (2021). Report on Research Examining the Ford Foun-
dation’s Influence on the Producing Model of US Regional Thea-
ters. Rockefeller Archive Center. https://rockarch.is-
suelab.org/resource/report-on-research-examining-the-ford-
foundation-s-influence-on-the-producing-model-of-us-re-
gional-theaters.html 

Ragsdale, D. (2017). On Entrepreneurialism and Publicness (Or, 
Whose Theatre is it Really)? Artivate, 6(1), Winter 2017, 3-7. 
https://www.doi.org/10.1353/artv.2017.0008 

Ragsdale, D. (2012). In the Intersection: Partnerships in the New 
Play Sector. Howlround, Inc. https://howlround.com/intersec-
tion 

Sterling, P., Eyer, J., Fisher, S., & Reason, J. (1988). Allostasis; A new 
paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In Handbook of life 
stress, cognition and health (pp. 629–649). Wiley. 

Taylor, E. A. (2023). What is Arts Management? ArtsManaged Field 
Guide. https://www.guide.artsmanaged.org/1_fundamen-
tals/What+is+Arts+Management%3F  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Photo by Wim Arys, https://unsplash.com/es/fotos/un-grupo-

muy-grande-de-estructuras-de-piedra-en-un-parque-
gDlpMyInsak 

https://www.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
https://rockarch.issuelab.org/resource/report-on-research-examining-the-ford-foundation-s-influence-on-the-producing-model-of-us-regional-theaters.html
https://rockarch.issuelab.org/resource/report-on-research-examining-the-ford-foundation-s-influence-on-the-producing-model-of-us-regional-theaters.html
https://rockarch.issuelab.org/resource/report-on-research-examining-the-ford-foundation-s-influence-on-the-producing-model-of-us-regional-theaters.html
https://rockarch.issuelab.org/resource/report-on-research-examining-the-ford-foundation-s-influence-on-the-producing-model-of-us-regional-theaters.html
https://www.doi.org/10.1353/artv.2017.0008
https://howlround.com/intersection
https://howlround.com/intersection
https://www.guide.artsmanaged.org/1_fundamentals/What+is+Arts+Management%3F
https://www.guide.artsmanaged.org/1_fundamentals/What+is+Arts+Management%3F
https://unsplash.com/es/fotos/un-grupo-muy-grande-de-estructuras-de-piedra-en-un-parque-gDlpMyInsak
https://unsplash.com/es/fotos/un-grupo-muy-grande-de-estructuras-de-piedra-en-un-parque-gDlpMyInsak
https://unsplash.com/es/fotos/un-grupo-muy-grande-de-estructuras-de-piedra-en-un-parque-gDlpMyInsak

