


































Microsoft Word - perspectives_part 2.docx


Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts  Volume 4, Issue 2 
http://artivate.org  pp. 3-9 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Copyright © 2015, the authors      
 
 

PERSPECTIVES ON ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP, PART 2 
William B. Gartner, Copenhagen Business School and California Lutheran University 
Joseph Roberts, Webster University 
Mark Rabideau, DePauw University 
 

This is the second in our opinion series, “Perspectives,” in which we invite Artivate’s 
editorial board members and contributors to respond to open-ended prompts about their position 
in relation to arts entrepreneurship; how arts entrepreneurship is situated in relation to other 
disciplines or fields; what problems we are grappling with as scholars, practitioners, teachers, 
and artists; and what are the research questions we are attempting to answer individually or as a 
field. Following, you will find responses from: William B. Gartner, Professor of 
Entrepreneurship at Copenhagen Business School and California Lutheran University; Joseph 
Roberts, Director of the Coleman Fellows Program, Associate Professor of management at 
Webster University, and co-editor of Artivate; and Mark Rabideau, Director of the 21st Century 
Musician program at DePauw University.  
 

Arts Entrepreneurship: Scope, Practice and Community 
William B. Gartner 

Copenhagen Business School and California Lutheran University 
 
 I have struggled with writing this short article on arts entrepreneurship. What I thought 
would take merely a day or so to write has now consumed significantly more time. The 
challenge: a few thoughts about what “arts entrepreneurship” is, how might “arts 
entrepreneurship” be situated vis-à-vis other disciplines and subjects, and, what might be the 
relevant problems and questions to address in “arts entrepreneurship.” The scope of this 
challenge is overwhelmingly daunting. To offer a précis on “arts entrepreneurship” is the 
problem of Pascal’s muse: “I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had 
time to make it shorter.” I realize this effort to write about “arts entrepreneurship” requires a 
much longer piece that, I hope, might be developed and published in the future.  Be-that-as-it-
may… 
 I have written about how entrepreneurship, as a subject of scholarly inquiry, intersects a 
variety of disciplinary topics, such as: philosophy, history, economics, sociology, psychology, 
political science, religion, literature, linguistics, and, the arts (Gartner, 2014). The idea that I 
promulgate is that the nexus of entrepreneurship with other disciplines will produce two results: 
(1) How and why a particular discipline takes on an entrepreneurial sensibility (for example, how 
artists act in entrepreneurial ways); and (2) How entrepreneurship as a phenomenon, could be 
better understood through another disciplinary lens (that is, the theories and methods in the arts 
may be used to explore and understand entrepreneurship, itself).I am interested in both 
perspectives: how entrepreneurship contributes to the arts, and how the arts contribute to 
entrepreneurship.  Bringing these two broad perspectives together is more than challenging as 
these literatures and modes of scholarship require a substantial investment in time and effort to 
reach some level of expertise. What follows is my sense of what is necessary to gain some 
modicum of insight into entrepreneurship scholarship. I hope that art scholars will also offer 
some suggestions for how entrepreneurship scholars might enter their world.   
 Narrowing in on what “entrepreneurship” exactly, “is,” can be a bit of a conundrum.  
Definitions abound (Gartner, 1990) that address, in degrees of difference, issues about such 



Gartner, Roberts, & Rabdieau            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 2 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (2)   

 4 

words as: entrepreneur, owner-manager, innovation, organization creation, uniqueness, value, 
and growth. There is no convergence on a specific definition, but the discussion of 
entrepreneurship is likely to include the above words rather than others. I gravitate towards 
viewing entrepreneurship as an organizing activity (Gartner, 1985; 1988; 2008) or, more recently 
as “organizing emergence” (Gartner, 2014). My empirical research and most of my writing (c.f., 
Gartner, in press) focuses on how individuals “organize” organizations: typically a focus on new 
independent for-profit businesses. Yet, organizing, as a phenomenon, can occur in various 
formats and situations that are not necessarily businesses, or for-profit, or, for that matter, 
anything other than a phenomenon that is assembled in a way that is: intentional, requires 
resources, bounded in scope, and entails exchanges between others (Katz & Gartner, 1988).  The 
idea of “organizing” then, has connections to both Schumpeter’s (1934) ideas about 
entrepreneurship as the creation of new combinations (e.g., markets, products, materials, 
organizations themselves, etc.), and Weick’s (1979) ideas about organizing.    
 So, I am hesitant to champion my viewpoint on what entrepreneurship “is” as the primary 
lens to view the phenomenon. It would behoove those scholars from outside the entrepreneurship 
area to explore the field more comprehensively by starting with Brush, et. al.’s (2003) effort to 
identify the scope of the entrepreneurship field. A bonus of this article is that it offers an 
introductory reading list for those beginning their scholarly careers in the entrepreneurship field.  
I would also suggest current comprehensive overviews of the entrepreneurship field, such as 
Baker and Welter (2015) and Fayolle (2014) And, please undertake a Google search using the 
words “doctoral program reading lists in entrepreneurship.” Such a search will surface a number 
of reading lists that will provide overviews of the entrepreneurship field (particularly the 
excellent list prepared by Jerry Katz at Saint Louis University). It would be of great value for 
those writing in the arts entrepreneurship area to have some awareness of this knowledge base.  
 I cannot say I have any great awareness of the arts as it is related to entrepreneurship 
outside of Beckman (2015), Caves (2000), Essig (2013), Henry (2007) and Scherdin & Zander 
(2011). I would value having arts scholars offer insights into what arts scholarship entails, 
particularly in terms of providing reading lists on the theories and methods by which the arts are 
studied.   
 My belief (Gartner, 2013; Gartner, Davidsson & Zahra, 2006) about how scholarship 
develops in a field assumes “progress” based on the cumulative development of knowledge 
generated from scholars who are familiar with each other’s work. My hope is that the articulation 
of reading lists in both entrepreneurship and the arts will help the arts entrepreneurship field 
coalesce in a way that we can develop a community of “writers and readers.” The arts 
entrepreneurship area will only grow as a scholarly community when there is a concerted effort 
to read each other’s work and engage in dialogue through writing. Currently, scholarship tends to 
solidify around writing that appears in journals (such as Artivate).  I am sure, in the not to distant 
future, other forms of communication may supplant journal articles, but, until then…. it is 
journal articles, books and monographs that will comprise the core of what scholarship “is” in 
arts entrepreneurship.  We need to write more (and read what our colleagues write).   
 Assuming then, that scholars might have some shared knowledge about the arts and 
entrepreneurship, and, based on my ignorance of the arts, here is the one broad question I would 
like the arts entrepreneurship field to address. (Obviously, this issue reflects my interests rather 
than what might be more valuable or interesting to the arts entrepreneurship scholarly 
community, as a whole.)  My apologies if the question I ask has already been answered; if so, 
please alert me to this information.   



Gartner, Roberts, & Rabdieau            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 2 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (2)   

 5 

 
How do artists organize themselves, both in terms of how they generate art, and, in how 
what is produced, as art, is valued and exchanged?   

 
 I assume that there are various forms of artistic practice (e.g., performance arts, visual 
arts, etc.) that are organized in different ways. Also, that there are various ways that value is 
produced and perceived for these artistic practices and valued through some kind of exchange 
function. This is a more nuanced way of asking: “How do artists make money?” The question I 
pose recognizes that “art” is both a product of organizing as well as a sensibility in how 
organizing, itself, occurs. So, there would likely be an “organizing aesthetic” that artists are 
sensitive too that informs and guides organizing artistic practices. This question should also 
imply that there are various contexts in which artistic practices occur and that these contexts 
influence how and why entrepreneurial activities occur. So, for example, “dance” occurs in 
various contexts, and is therefore both influenced by established institutional structures in where, 
how and why “dance” as an artistic practice is valued by others.  There are likely to be ways that 
“dance” is valued in certain established forms (e.g., a state subsidized ballet company, a not-for-
profit modern dance company, an independent choreographer, etc.) that might be termed as the 
normal “rules of the game.” Then, there are ways that artists push the boundaries of the “rules of 
the game” to institute both new artistic forms, but, also new ways in which these forms are 
valued by others. This is where “entrepreneurship” as some form of practice intersects the arts 
and where it connects to phenomenon of entrepreneurship as both Schumpeter’s (1934) new 
combinations, and, how those new combinations are, themselves, organized (e.g., Weick, 1979).   
So, whether this view of arts entrepreneurship is interesting (Davis, 1971) to other scholars 
besides myself will depend on you, the reader.  I look forward to your thoughts and efforts as 
they appear in Artivate as we form this community of writers and readers creating this new field 
of “arts entrepreneurship.”   
 

References 
Baker, T. & Welter. F. (2015). Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship.  New York: 

Routledge.   
Beckman, G. D. (2015).  Entrepreneuring the aesthetic.  In Baker, T. & Welter. F. (2015).  

Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge, pp. 296-308.  
Brush, C. B., Duhaime, I. M., Gartner, W. B., Stewart, A., Katz, J., Hitt, M. A., Alvarez, 

S., Meyer, G. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Doctoral education in the field of 
entrepreneurship. Journal of Management.  29 (3): 309-331. 

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

Davis, M. S. (1971). That's interesting. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1 (2), 309-344. 
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.   
Fayolle, A. (2014). Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: 

Edward Elgar. 
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A framework for describing and classifying the phenomenon of 

new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4): 696-706. 
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal 

of Small Business, 12 (4): 11-32.   



Gartner, Roberts, & Rabdieau            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 2 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (2)   

 6 

Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? 
Journal of Business Venturing, 5 (1): 15-28. 

Gartner, W. B. (2008). Variations in entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics. 31: 
351-361. 

Gartner, W. B. (2013). Creating a community of difference in entrepreneurship 
scholarship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25 (1-2): 5-15.   

Gartner, W. B. (2014). Organizing entrepreneurship (research). In A. Fayolle (Ed.) 
Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 13-22. 

Gartner, W. B. (in press). Entrepreneurship as Organizing: Selected Work of William B. 
Gartner. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.   

Gartner, W. B., Davidsson, P. & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Are you talking to me? The nature 
of community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (3): 
321-331. 

Henry, C. (Ed.). (2007). Entrepreneurship in the Creative Industries: An International 
Perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 

Katz, J. & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of 
Management Review, 13 (3): 429-441. 

Scherdin, M. & Zander, I. (Eds.) (2011). Art Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward 
Elgar.  

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, 
capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New York: Transaction Publishers. 

Weick, K. E. (1979).  The Social Psychology of Organizing.  New York: McGraw-Hill.   

 

Entrepreneurship in the Arts 
Joseph Roberts 

Webster University 
 

“When bankers get together for dinner, they discuss Art. When artists get together for dinner, 
they discuss Money” – Oscar Wilde 

 
 Arts Entrepreneurship educators and researchers over the years have found it somewhat 
difficult to define what arts entrepreneurship is or is not and outline a generally acceptable 
process to enable the work of the artist whereby one can make a living by practicing his or her 
passion for the arts. The starving artist myth that was romanticized more than a century ago has 
endured and perhaps helped create a divide between the arts and business. This division seems to 
be perpetuated by purists and practitioners alike, thus further separating the world of arts and the 
world of business.  
 In addition, it is somewhat disheartening to see survey results such as the one shown 
following: 
 



Gartner, Roberts, & Rabdieau            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 2 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (2)   

 7 

 
 
 Artists are typically creative individuals and can present stimulating illustrations of life, 
culture, current events and nature as they observe them for their own edification and that of 
others. In doing so artists perhaps forget that they are themselves “producers” and “consumers” 
of such representations. Consider the case of Estonia, which went from a Soviet controlled 
central socio-economic system to a capitalistic socio-economic system almost overnight. Kristin 
Orav (2015) presents an interesting viewpoint of the arts in this period in Estonia that perhaps 
can be extrapolated to develop a post-structuralist outlook for this discussion. 
 “Self-Employment” in the arts is implied as “Unemployment” in the arts in some circles 
today.  In “The Divide between Subsistence and Transformational Entrepreneurship” Antoinette 
Schoar (2010) argues that there are barriers that subsistence entrepreneurs, like arts 
entrepreneurs, cannot overcome to become successful transformational entrepreneurs who 
develop large-scale firms and sometimes entire new industries. One such barrier is the lack of 
clear pathways subsistence entrepreneurs can pursue to develop larger firms and the other is 
possibly a lack of desire to pursue such goals. Either way the intent as suggested here is not to 
add to this division but create a platform that acknowledges subsistence entrepreneurship that 
describes a majority of arts entrepreneurs and help them achieve success in their own terms. The 
expectation that such subsistence entrepreneurs should become transformational entrepreneurs is 
flawed and hopefully can be modified as we explore how we can develop a generally acceptable 
definition and process for arts entrepreneurs. 

 
References 

 

Orav, K. (2015). The role of visualizing failure in Estonian art, 1987–1999: The “Winners’ 
Generation.” Signs and Society 3(1), pp. 103-131. 

Schoar, A. (2010). The divide between subsistence and transformational entrepreneurship. , 
10(1), pp. 57-81. 

5%# 6%#

70%# 72%#

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

Entrepreneurial#skills# Financial#&#business#management#skills#

Two#Skills#NOT#Acquired#at#Arts#School..#

Acquired#"Very#Much"# Acquired#"Very#LiHle"#or#"Not#at#All"#

Source:#Strategic#NaMonal#Arts#Alumni#Project,#2011Q2012#



Gartner, Roberts, & Rabdieau            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 2 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (2)   

 8 

 
AE 2.0: Moving beyond the single arts entrepreneurship course model 

Mark Rabideau 
DePauw University 

 
 Artivate’s newly-launched “Perspectives” series challenges contributors to reflect upon 
the questions we are grappling with in our own research and teaching with the hope that these 
same issues resonate with the challenges and opportunities facing our readership. As I reflect 
upon the Sisyphean-efforts of colleagues from across the country honing pedagogical models and 
guiding students toward meaningful, project-based outcomes - often as one-man-bands 
functioning within a one-course model - I want to take a few moments and muse about what 
might lie beyond the single arts entrepreneurship course model. 
 The increasing role arts entrepreneurship now plays within our arts programs speaks to 
what I believe must be the core definition of a 21st Century education – preparing the next 
generation of change agents to make the world a better place. Considering whence we have 
come, arts entrepreneurship's newly legitimized standing is praiseworthy. Yet we must not lose 
sight of the bigger picture amidst these narrow victories. Among the early adopters who have 
embraced arts entrepreneurship within the curriculum, 13 now offer a certificate, 14 have 
adopted minors, and 66 offer a single course (Korzen, 2015). Simply put, there is more work to 
be done and much of what lies ahead will not find a home within the scope of a single class 
entitled “Arts Entrepreneurship 101.” The field of arts entrepreneurship must remain forward-
looking as we envision what is truly required to prepare artists from across disciplines to 
navigate within the shifting cultural landscape of the contemporary moment. 
 Situating much of my own scholarship at the intersection of the innate characteristics of 
the artist and entrepreneur - curiosity, creativity, collaboration, and tenacity - I find the 
“Perspectives” format freeing, as I imagine ways of connecting the shared worldview of the artist 
and the entrepreneur toward developing pedagogical practices that weave the entrepreneurial 
mindset throughout traditional curricular offerings of arts programs, and timely, as I transition 
into a new role as Director of the 21st-Century Musician Initiative, the new focus of the School 
of Music at DePauw University. What captivated me when first reading about 21CM efforts was 
this compelling phrase: “The 21st-Century Musician Initiative is a complete re-imagining of the 
skills, tools and experiences necessary to create musicians [think: all artists] of the future…” It 
begs the question: Is someone actually completely re-imagining how we prepare students for the 
uncertainty that lies ahead? And if so, how can we apply these efforts more broadly when 
developing an entrepreneurial mindset across the performing, visual and functional arts?   
 My role is to help facilitate broad-ranging initiatives well underway, including redefining 
the relationship between performer and audience through innovative concert series, creating 
intimate experiences for students to engage with living composers, fostering deeper relationships 
within the community by opening a storefront venue on the town square, and developing new 
courses with rich, descriptive titles such as “Chasing the Perfect Performance,” “Funding 
Priceless Ideas,” and “Psychographic Research,” to complement core arts entrepreneurship 
classes on the “State of the Art,” “Arts Entrepreneurship,” and internship opportunities. Each of 
these dramatic steps moves the profession closer toward preparing emerging musicians to play in 
the messy, fertile space of the artist-entrepreneur. What stands out most notably? Faculty 
throughout the school, not only the singular arts entrepreneurship “expert” or an administrative 



Gartner, Roberts, & Rabdieau            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 2 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (2)   

 9 

mandate is launching these efforts. The results? A more integrated approach and a more relatable 
model for students who self-define as musicians first.  
 It is my deep belief that all opportunities reside at the local level. The challenges and 
excitement unfolding at DePauw are likely vastly different than the internal obstacles and 
dynamic opportunities that can unfold within your community. So our shared challenge is to 
build synergy across a unique set of local conditions. What I am certain of, if Arts 
Entrepreneurship 2.0 is to come about, is that it must thrive in non-curricular spaces, as much as 
be infused across curricular initiatives; cross pollinate among faculty, regardless of generational 
boundaries, traditional silos, and tenured lines; and unite campus and community, with particular 
attention to those at the margins of society. It is time to re-imagine what lies beyond the one-
course model of arts entrepreneurship and begin weaving innovative experiences throughout the 
broader student experience. Our charge is to prepare students for a professional life of means, 
meaning, and the opportunity to give back, equipped to thrive within the world they will soon 
inherit, a world rife with challenges, yet ripe with opportunities. This can only come to fruition 
when we as a profession re-imagine our work as one that leverages the shared habits and 
characteristics of the artist and entrepreneur, toward creating a generation of artist-entrepreneurs, 
ushering beauty into our communities and around the world. 
 

References 
Korzen, Kimberly (2015. Arts entrepreneurship in higher education: Preliminary inventories and 

examinations. Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (1). 


