




































Microsoft Word - Novak Leonard Skaggs redone FINAL 092517.docx


Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts    Volume 6, Issue 2 
http://artivate.org  pp. 5-22         pp. 8-32 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Copyright © 2017, Novak-Leonard, Skaggs 	 	
	
	

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF ARTISTS IN COMMUNITIES:  
A SIGN OF CHANGING TIMES  
Jennifer Novak-Leonard, Northwestern University  
Rachel Skaggs, Vanderbilt University  
 

Abstract 
There is a growing recognition within the arts and cultural field that the public roles and work of 

artists are changing. Within the field, artists are increasingly lauded for their work as entrepreneurs, 
civically-minded problem-solvers, and agents for social change. Amid a shift away from the arts policy 
paradigm that has largely focused on nonprofit organizations over the last half-century within the United 
States, there is a hypothesis stemming from within the arts and cultural field that a policy paradigm focused 
on artists’ roles in community change, development, and placemaking will take hold. Public opinion and 
perceptions have an important influence on the formation of public policies, yet whether and how artists’ 
roles in public life are perceived beyond the arts and cultural field is unknown. This lack of understanding 
impedes the arts and cultural field’s ability to monitor if such a policy paradigm shift is occurring and to 
develop policies to support artists’ work within and with communities. Therefore, we developed and pilot 
tested survey indicators to gauge public perceptions of artists within communities. In this article, we 
describe the indicators, report on the national pilot test topline results, and discuss the indicators’ merits to be 
used over time drawing from the pilot test results. Understanding public perceptions of artists within 
communities can inform and influence policies supporting artists’ work and offer a means to monitor shifts 
to the larger arts and cultural policy paradigm in the U.S. 

Keywords: artists; entrepreneurs; public perception of artists 
 
There is a growing recognition—at least from within the cultural sector—that the role of the “artist” 

in contemporary society is shifting. The once commonplace understanding of an artist as a genius, often 
creating in isolation (Kidd, 2012), is seemingly being replaced by one focused on artists’ roles in public and 
civic life. Artists are predominantly being recognized as entrepreneurs and agents for social change, thus 
making these individuals integral to community change and development (Bell & Oakley, 2014; Cornfield, 
2015; Jackson et al., 2003; Lingo & Tepper, 2013; Markusen, 2014). Highly visible creative placemaking 
initiatives, such as the National Endowment for the Arts’ (NEA) Our Town program and ArtPlace, are 
being recognized as aiding a paradigm change from artists being seen as seeking community support to one 
of artists contributing and leveraging their skills to support communities (Bonin-Rodriguez, 2015; 
Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Redaelli, 2016). Art as a vehicle for social messages and societal critique is not 
a new idea, but increasingly the work of community development, civically-minded problem-solving, and 
entrepreneurship that is mindful to issues of equity, accessibility and empowerment is included in the 
repertoire of artistic process and practice (Bedoya, 2013; Center for Cultural Innovation, 2016; Jackson et 
al., 2003; Center for Performance as Civic Practice, 2015). Through a growing body of cases and qualitative 
research, we know that in some communities enterprising artists are creating and facilitating creative work 
in ways that contribute to the development of inclusive, expressive communities (Cornfield, 2015; Scott, 
2012). In addition, expert cultural commentators have described current means by which artists are working 
in new contexts and with new approaches (Center for Cultural Innovation, 2016; Goethe Institute, 2014; 
McGlone, 2017), suggesting a new epoch for how artists are perceived and how they are working in 
enterprise, in civic life, and within local communities.  

Since the middle of the 20th-century, arts policies within the United States have largely focused on 
the non-profit infrastructure (Kreidler, 2013; Mulcahy, 2006; Peters & Cherbo, 1998; Toepler, 2013; 

http://artivate.org


Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

6 

Woronkowicz, Nichols, & Iyengar, 2012), but the policy paradigm for arts and culture within the United 
States is currently amidst dramatic change. Shifts in demographics, advances in technology, and 
expectations for social interactions are contributing to the disruption of the extant paradigm (Novak-Leonard 
et al., 2014), and the policy paradigm for arts and culture that will emerge after this punctuated change 
remains to be seen (Toepler, 2013). An important feature of this time of change, however, is the increased 
focus on arts and cultural policy decisions being made on the local level (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; 
Morley & Winkler, 2014). Given the current momentum and pervasiveness of creative placemaking, which 
values artists as vital community assets and provides them with catalyzing jurisdiction (Bonin-Rodriguez, 
2015), there is a hypothesis stemming from within the arts and cultural field that a policy paradigm focused 
on artists’ roles in community change, development, and placemaking is taking hold. 

There has never been a singular norm or definition of “artist” (Markusen, 2013b), but the term has 
been operationalized in particular ways to inform different facets of public policy discourse connecting with 
arts and culture over time. Over the past 20 years, a dominant approach to researching artists has been 
discipline-based employment (Jackson et al., 2003; Menger, 1999), which has been used to monitor 
employment trends and to “counter misperceptions about artists not contributing to economic welfare” 
(Iyengar, 2013, p. 498). For example, the NEA has used eleven occupational categories employed by the 
U.S. Census Bureau, which has established a convention used in other research; Alper and Wassall (2006) is 
one key example. Studies of artists from an occupational lens have a vast body of literature to build on, and 
operational indicators like income, employment status, educational credentials, and years of employment 
that make comparison between studies more direct. When it comes to data availability, an occupational 
operationalization of who counts as an artist intersects with economics and employment research more 
broadly, which facilitates partnerships with agencies that are concerned with the financial impacts of the arts 
and arts industries, such as the Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account from the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis and NEA (National Endowment for the Arts, 2017).  

However, the role of “artist” is not exclusively tied to any required credential, job, process, or place 
(Lena & Lindemann, 2014; Markusen, 2013a; Markusen, Gilmore, Johnson, Levi, & Martinez, 2006; 
Menger, 1999), so the occupational framing of “artist” does not fully meet the needs of policymakers and 
researchers in the cultural field. While it is vital to have a discipline-based accounting of employment to 
inform trends in arts employment and the related economics, it represents a limited conception of artists and 
their possible impact. Studies that select for artists occupationally may not generalize to artists more broadly 
and may miss important variations in artistic practice and needed refinements in the understanding of who 
artists are and the measures we need to inform policy. Even among individuals who many would consider 
artists on the basis of earning a credential, it can be difficult to get a clear picture of who is or is not an artist 
depending on personal conceptions and definitions of what counts (Lena & Lindemann, 2014). In recent 
years, as policy matters related to concerns about equity and changing demographics within the U.S. have 
come to the fore, there has been a collective broadening in the understanding of what it means to be engaged 
with artistic participation and forms of expression, and advances in how to measure these activities beyond 
occupations (Ivey, 2008; Novak-Leonard, Reynolds, English, & Bradburn, 2015b; Tepper & Gao, 2008). 

Existing research about group formation and cohesion in social networks can be informative when 
considering the relationships and personal connections that constitute the social dynamics of creative 
placemaking in local communities. The propensity of people to know and interact with people who are like 
themselves is a strong social force that can make it less likely that people who are of a different race, class, 
occupation, or religion will meet or build personal relationships (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). 
Artists work in locales across the U.S in rural communities, small towns, suburbs, and cities (Markusen, 
2013a), but communities can contain many different cliques, groups, and factions (Wimmer & Lewis, 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

7 

2010), which means that while some individuals may know or interact with artists in their communities, 
others do not. We also know that closeness of ties to others influence what resources individuals are able to 
access (Lin, 2001; Van Der Gaag & Snijders, 2005), which raises questions about who interacts with artists, 
and how; who may be the beneficiaries of creative placemaking initiatives leveraging artists’ skills; and how 
policymakers might take into account issues of accessibility and equity in the distribution of their efforts and 
allocation of resources within communities.  
 Based on the collective actions and language being used by many within the arts and culture field, a 
vital notion of artist within policy discourse has shifted from one defined by a discipline-based occupation or 
product to one of processes and ways of working, thinking, and connecting with others within their 
communities.  If this notion also resonates with the broader U.S. public, then this would be a pivotal change 
in public understanding of and attitudes towards artists from just over a decade ago (Jackson et al., 2003). 
Public opinion is an important factor in the formation of public policies (Burstein, 2003), yet whether and 
how artists’ roles in public life are perceived beyond the arts and cultural field are unknown.  

Therefore, we developed and pilot tested survey indicators to gauge public perceptions of artists 
within local communities and to assess the closeness of relationships between local community members 
and artists within the community. The findings of our pilot test provide foundational insights for monitoring 
the roles of artists in public life, which can inform art policies to evolve from the current period of 
punctuated change in the United States.  

 
Methodology 

The aim of our study was to develop and test survey measures of public perceptions of artists in 
order to gauge how well they may serve as indicators to monitor potential changes in public perceptions. In 
this article, we develop the theoretical underpinnings for our survey measures, draw upon cognitive 
interviews conducted to test and refine the measures, and share the results of the pilot survey fielded with a 
national sample.  

In February 2017, we conducted cognitive interviews with ten adults identified through an intercept 
methodology in variety of public spaces, including a public library, cafes, and a college campus within the 
Greater Nashville area. Each interviewee was paid a $10 incentive to participate, and each interview lasted 
approximately twenty minutes and was conducted in English. The interviews were semi-structured, 
including a general question about what the word ‘artist’ meant to each interviewee and how, or whether, 
that differed when asked to think about artists that the interviewee might see or interact with in their own 
local community; descriptions of artists’ activities; and the closeness of relationships the interviewee might 
have with any artists in their local community. Concurrent probing techniques were primarily used. We 
aimed to cognitively test the questionnaire with demographically diverse adults. Of the nine individuals who 
agreed to self-report their demographic information at the end of the interview, five were female and four 
were male. Three respondents were between the ages of 18-24, three between the ages of 35-44, two 
between the ages of 45-54, and one between the ages of 65-74. Regarding educational attainment, one had a 
high school diploma, two had associate’s degrees, one had completed some college, three had completed 
bachelor’s degrees, and two had graduate degrees. Our interviewees were racially and ethnically more 
homogenous. Seven interviewees identified as white, one identified as black or African American, one 
identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, and one identified as Pacific Islander; interviewees had the 
option to identify as more than one race or ethnicity. We iteratively refined the pilot test questionnaire based 
on feedback and observations from the cognitive interviews.   

Between March 23-27, 2017, the pilot test survey questions were fielded on the AmeriSpeak® 
Panel, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population, which is 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

8 

operated by NORC at the University of Chicago. The sample is comprised of 1,110 adults (age 18 and 
older) from across the U.S.; 954 respondents answered the questions online, and 156 completed the 
questions by phone. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. For our analyses, we apply 
sampling weights provided by AmeriSpeak®, which account for age, gender, the nine Census divisions, 
education, and race/ethnicity. The total survey margin of error is +/- 4.04.i 
 

Indicator Design And Key Insights From Cognitive Interviews 
Indicators that capture public perceptions of artists and assess relationships between local 

community members and artists are the focus of our research. In order to understand public perceptions of 
artists within their own communities, a primary aim for the design of the indicators was to encourage 
respondents to think carefully and widely, but quickly, about identifying practices and activities that 
respondents may think of as artists doing, while simultaneously directing the survey respondent to focus 
exclusively on artists within their local geographic community.  Given the various ways artists and their 
work have been and can be viewed, our goals in developing indicators for this study were to focus on three 
key constructs: (a) what people identify artists doing within their community, (b) the closeness of social ties 
with artists within their community, and (c) opinions of how artists should be employed or funded within 
their community. The purpose of each indicator and insights garnered from the cognitive interviews are 
further explained and resulted in the pilot test indicators in Figure 1. 
 
Identifying Artists in Local Communities 

Given the various concepts of what an artist could be and the focus of our indicators, a critical aim 
in designing our indicators was to encourage survey respondents to think inclusively about the forms of 
artistic practices that respondents may identify artists as doing, while also directing the survey respondent to 
focus exclusively on artists within their local geographic community. One key hurdle to overcome in the 
design of our indicators is the common association with the general term ‘artist’ being taken to mean a 
painter or musician (Urban Institute, 2002). The results of our cognitive interviews underscored this 
challenge as eight out of ten interviewees referenced visual artists, primarily painters, when initially asked, 
“What comes to mind when you think of the word ‘artist’?” Interviewees also referenced famous musicians 
and performing artists, such as Van Gogh, Taylor Swift, and Kurt Cobain. Hence, a primary goal for the 
indicator design was to develop framing language to help respondents think more inclusively than these 
commonplace responses, but to also not exclude them.  

Toward this goal, we included key elements into the framing language for the pilot test. First, in 
order to encourage respondents to think broadly about what they may consider artists to do and to encourage 
respondents to feel comfortable making their own choice about what they might include as an artist, we 
used a triangulation of terms to describe the types of activities artists might be involved - “artistic, creative, 
and cultural activities” (Novak-Leonard, Reynolds, English, and Bradburn, 2015a, p. 15). We adapted this 
triangulation of terms from the California Survey of Arts and Cultural Participation, as this inclusive 
priming language encouraged respondents to think broadly and inclusively about the forms of their own 
participation.  

 
 

 

 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 
Pilot Survey Questions 
 
 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

10 

Second, in order to help define the survey respondents’ frames of reference to focus exclusively on 
artists within their local geographic community, we next asked respondents to think about artists they “have 
seen or interacted with in their local community.” We used the cognitive interviews to probe interpretations 
of “community” to garner insight on the degree to which interviewees would develop a frame of reference 
for community defined by geography as opposed to personal interactions and relationships without regard to 
geography. Seven out of nine interviewees understood community in terms of geography; two interpreted 
community as defined primarily by relationships. However, even among these latter two, the relationships 
they referenced were still seemingly anchored by geography, as opposed to online interactions or personal 
identity, such as identifying with the scientific community or LGBTQ community. For example, one 
middle-aged woman referenced her CrossFit exercise group, a Bible study group, and her husband’s 
professional network at a local university as her community. While these are relationship-focused groups, 
they all still exist within the geographic limits of the town in which she lives. One interviewee described 
community as, “people and the space, ideally a space where people can come together.” While the chosen 
framing language is not exclusive to communities defined by geography, based on the cognitive interviews, 
the phrase “local community” adequately guides respondents to focus on their geographically local 
community. Examining variations of the phrase “have seen or interacted with” revealed negligible 
differences in responses or provided examples. We included an open-ended priming question in the pilot 
test – “Please describe examples of any artists you see or interact with in your community” – in part to 
assess the adequacy of the framing language. In addition, the open-ended question aims to elicit examples of 
respondents’ interactions and perceptions of artists in their local communities in their own words to examine 
against descriptions of artists’ roles in local communities used in the following close-ended indicators.  
 
Describing Artists’ Roles in Local Communities 
 Within local communities, our key indicators seek to capture the various notions of how the general 
adult public may perceive artists and the dimensions of their work.  In contrast to prior studies, we did not 
ask about artists’ discipline of practice; rather, the indicators collect opinions on five descriptions of artists’ 
behaviors in their local communities in effort to shed light on how the public interprets the motivations, 
goals, and purpose of their work. The five measures used in the pilot test draw from existing literature and 
significant refinement based on results of the cognitive interviews. We define the prior twelve months as the 
recall period, which has been a convention used in multiple general population surveys regarding arts and 
culture, including the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (National Endowment for the Arts, 2015), 
American Perception of Artists Survey (Urban Institute, 2015), California Survey of Arts and Cultural 
Participation (Novak-Leonard et al., 2015a), and the General Social Survey – Arts Supplement (Smith, 
Marsden, & Hout, 2016). Respondents are asked to choose from the following descriptions all that apply to 
their experiences, as well as which one best describes their perspectives. The descriptions are not mutually 
exclusive from one another, but rather emphasize different possible dimensions and perceptions of artists’ 
activities within communities. If none of these apply to the respondent’s experiences, the pilot test includes 
options for the respondent to report no interaction with artists as well as write in one’s own description of 
artists in their local community. The five substantive responses for this question are: 

 “Represent or serve as a spokesperson for the people who are part of your community.” As part of 
the paradigm shift in cultural policy, artists are increasingly being presented as individuals who serve as 
representatives for the communities they live in to “uniquely testify from and about a particular public” 
(Bonin-Rodriguez, 2015, p. 2). In the cognitive interviews, the examples that respondents generated in 
response to this prompt referenced artisan markets and shop owners who serve to represent the communities 
in which they are located and promote other local artists, artists who fill “ethnic and economic niche[s]”, an 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

11 

artist whose local exhibit focused on drawing attention to understanding mental illness, and an artist friend 
who the respondent talks with about community issues. Understanding a baseline measure and changes 
over time in whether artists are perceived as representatives or spokespersons in their communities would 
provide insight into artists’ levels of connection to and alignment with the communities in which they live. 

During cognitive interviews, respondents also cited examples such as a political dance group, the 
recent women’s march, and other political statements by artists, suggesting a varied response that describes 
artists’ roles as bringing attention to community concerns or causes. Additionally, the Creativity Connects 
report indicates that artists, “[give] voice to community concerns and aspirations” (Center for Cultural 
Innovation, 2016, p. 3). Hence, in effort to capture this sentiment, we include, “Bring attention to 
community concerns or causes,” to elicit whether individuals perceive artists who they see or interact with in 
their community to be involved in issues of concern in local communities.  

“Collaborate with local individuals and organizations.” Artists have always been involved in the 
fabric of their communities in addition to being members of their profession. The idea of the patterned 
cooperation (Becker, 1984) that connects artists to one another is well-established, and artists are highly 
aware that their work exists in interconnected occupational communities in which connections to others and 
a good reputation are essential for their career (Cornfield, 2015; Dowd & Pinheiro, 2013; Gallelli, 2016; 
Menger, 1999). When asked in cognitive interviews, individuals who perceive artists in their local 
community to collaborate with local individuals and organizations referenced a tea shop owner who 
collaborates with local chefs for special events; the community of makers and hackers who collaborate to 
bridge the gap between artistry and innovation; artists working with the Red Cross and other relief 
organizations when there are disasters and tragedies like the East Tennessee wildfires in 2016 or a local 
shooting that targeted an Army recruitment storefront in Chattanooga, TN; opportunities for children to 
work with local artists through the school system; and numerous arts and music festivals or events. As 
networking, partnerships, opportunity recognition, and the ability to “recombine resources” are prominent 
characteristics of arts entrepreneurship in scholarly literature (Chang and Wyszomirski, 2015, p. 25), this 
measure offers a high-level indicator of the degree to which individuals perceive artists to be operating 
entrepreneurially in their communities.  

“Think about new ways to solve problems.” Artists have been described as, “thinkers, creators, and 
problem-solvers” (Center for Cultural Innovation, 2016, p. 11), and this indicator is intended to capture 
entrepreneurialism in terms of innovative approaches and problem-solving. Initially, we cognitively tested a 
phrase used in the 2015 Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) survey, which addresses 
“inventing new methods to arrive at unconventional solutions” (Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, 
2015, p. 1); however we chose alternative language based on cognitive interviewees’ preference for easier 
interpretation. In the cognitive interviews, respondents said that “think[ing] about new ways to solve 
problems” is a sign of a good artist and that artists “should” do things differently than what we know works 
currently. One interviewee replied, “I hope so! That is what I want artists to do.” Understanding whether 
individuals perceive artists in their communities as innovative problem solvers offers an additional indicator 
of understanding artists as entrepreneurs. 

“Create or perform art as a way to earn money.” Our study seeks to understand public perceptions 
of artists beyond the occupation-based definition of artist, as well as to understand perceptions of artists as 
primarily seeking to earn a livelihood and make money. One interviewee explained, “you’ve got to make a 
living or you can’t do it.” A few of the interviewees referenced artists who do not create or perform as a way 
to earn money; some artists, one respondent said, “give people voice,” and another said that he has seen 
some artists transition from pursuing art as a hobby, but gradually turning their practice into a money-
making venture. Lastly, one interviewee said that he thinks artists have to create or perform art as a way to 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

12 

earn money more than ever at this point in time since he thinks people are less willing to have the 
government fund the arts and that artists have to raise their own money using Kickstarter or other self-
initiated ways of earning money.   
 
Social Ties and Financing Artists in Local Communities 

Lastly, we include indicators of social ties and of attitudes toward employment and funding for 
artists. To examine social ties between artists and community members at a high level, we include an 
indicator of one’s social proximity to artists. The response categories for this question stem from the 
resource generator tool  (Van Der Gaag & Snijders, 2005), which is used to measure social capital in terms 
of the types of resources that individuals are able to access from within their personal social networks. Our 
final indicator by and large replicates a measure used in the American Perceptions of Artists Survey  (Urban 
Institute, 2002) to measure opinions about funding and employment opportunities for artists. The 2002 
survey revealed that people tended to be more supportive of individual and community-sponsorship than 
support from any level of government (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2003, p. 16).  To further 
inform hypotheses regarding a paradigm shift of artists’ work moving toward entrepreneurialism and away 
from subsidy and test to what degree the public perceives that artists should be self-reliant, we added the 
response category, “artists should be self-employed or self-funded.”  

 
Reflection on Cognitive Interviews 

The aim of the cognitive interviews was to examine and refine language to develop survey 
indicators that would allow us to establish a baseline, and subsequently monitor changes, of how individuals 
perceive and relate to artists in their communities. We recognize that Nashville’s concentration and visibility 
of artists, musicians in particular, creates a unique context for interviewees (Peoples, 2013) and 
acknowledge that our cognitive interviewees likely provided examples from the city’s vibrant community of 
commercial music artists more so than would likely occur from many other communities. For example, one 
interviewee noted that his interactions with artists in his local community regularly included national and 
international music artists like Elton John and Jack White. This was the most striking example, but, on the 
whole, many respondents talked about seeing live music and interacting with professional musicians. In the 
cognitive interview process, we noted that at some points respondents might abstract the idea of ‘artist’ 
further out to the idea of ‘art’ and respond about art more generally rather than about artists. For example, 
interviewees referenced buying art from vendors in local markets, listening to punk music, and attending 
music festivals, but not interacting with musicians at the festival. Overall, the cognitive interview process 
was iterative and led to many improvements toward reflecting language meaningful to the general public 
about their perceptions of artists. 
 

Pilot Test Results 
The pilot test results provide initial insights on public perceptions of artists, establishing a baseline 

for monitoring the potentially changing roles of artists in public life and monitoring paradigm change within 
the United States. We also critically reflect on the results in effort to further improve the indicator measures 
for future use.  
 
Identifying Artists in Local Communities 
Overall, 38.4% of the weighted sample reported having seen or interacted with artists in their local 
community within the prior year. Men and adults without a four-year college degree reported significantly 
higher rates of not having seen or interacted with artists in their community than women and those with 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

13 

degrees respectively. Logistic regression analyses examining race/ethnicity and college education showed 
that having a college degree significantly predicts higher odds (exp(ß)=1.70, p=.003) of having seen or 
interacted with an artist, as does identifying as Black (exp(ß)=1.62, p=.055) or as ‘Other, Non-Hispanic’ 
(exp(ß)=2.14, p=.026); there were no significant interaction effects between having a college degree and 
race.ii While having a college education is a well-recognized determinant of participation in the arts, in 
general (McCarthy, Ondaatje, & Zakaras, 2001; Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011), typically rates of participation 
are highest for those identifying as White, Non-Hispanic according to findings from the Survey of Public 
Participation in the Arts (Silber & Triplett, 2015).  While arts participation is not necessarily equivalent to  
having seen or interacted with artists in one’s community, the differing patterns of engagement by race/ 
ethnicity are relevant to artists’ practices and to supporting policies addressing matters of inclusion.  

Of the 439 survey respondents (unweighted) who reported having seen or interacted with artists in 
their local community, almost half (202 survey respondents) provided substantive responses regarding who 
those artists were. We use these qualitative responses to gauge how well the priming language prompted 
and helped frame the type of artist the survey measures aim to understand. In total, 87 respondents - 43% of 
those who described artists in open-ended responses - identified a personal relationship with an artist; 22 
identified themselves as an artist, 29 identified an artist by name, and 36 referenced friends and family 
members as artists. Examples of relationship-based responses are: “friendship with a pianist”, “I work in the 
arts, so it is my daily job to interact with artists and artworks”, “My brother has had his paintings in the 
newspaper and on display. A friend, [first and last name of friend, blinded for privacy], is an artist and just 
published a book. My sister is an artist also.” Other responses about artists were more generic, but still 
focused on the roles that artists have rather than on the art that they create. For example, respondents 
answered: “local theatre artists, actors, directors, designers, playwrights, etc.”, “Artist from New Zealand 
painting downtown”, “Blues musicians.”  

While 202 respondents focused on artists, an additional 118 responses addressed art more generally. 
We observed a similar challenge in the cognitive interviews, wherein some respondents expanded the idea 
of ‘artist’ into one of seeing ‘art’ more generally. For some survey responses, it was difficult to make a 
distinction between a respondent’s characterization of art vs. artists, so we chose to code discussion of 
people, roles, or relationships as a response focusing on artists (e.g., “A double bass player in the Tucson 
Symphony Orchestra is a good friend”; “A few friends who are artists”; “musicians”). If the respondent’s 
answer focused on objects, places, or events, we coded their response as focusing on art (e.g., “Art is 
regularly displayed in the building where I work on a rotating basis by local artists.”; “I like to visit 
independent local craft shops.”; “Painting, music, graffiti”). Of the respondents who talked about art, but not 
about artists in their responses to this question, most listed types of art and locations or events where they 
view art in their community. For example: “Richmond, VA has lots of public murals in our city”, “Walker 
Sculpture Garden, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Guthrie Theater, Ordway Theater, Summer music 
festivals”, “Live music.” 

 
Describing Artists’ Roles in Local Communities 
Most respondents (50.3%) who saw or interacted with artists in their local communities described the artists 
as creating or performing art to earn money. A large proportion of respondents would describe the artists 
who they see or interact with as bringing attention to community concerns or causes (43.3%) and 
collaborating with local individuals and organizations (46.5%). About a quarter of respondents describe 
artists in their community as thinking of new ways to solve problems (24.7%) or representing or serving as a  



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

14 

		 N	
Weighted	%	of	
Total	Sample	

[95%	CI]	

DID	see	or	interact	
with	artists	in	local	

community	
[95%	CI]	

DID	NOT	see	or	
interact	with	artists	
in	local	community	

[95%	CI]	
Adults	 1,110	 		 38.4%	 61.6%	
		 		 		 [.3462,	.4231]	 [.5769,	.6538]	
Gender	 		 		 		 		

Male	 514	 48.4%	 36.2%	 63.8%	
		 		 [.4447,	.5234]	 [.3092,	.4185]	 [.5815,	.6908]	

Female	 596	 51.6%	 40.4%	 59.6%	
		 		 [.4766,	.5553]	 [.3517,	.4594]	 [.5406,	.6483]	

Education	 		 		 		 		
Earned	BA	or	above	 379	 25.1%	 47.8%	 52.2%	

		 		 [.2218,	.2836]	 [.412,	.5448]	 [.4552,	.588]	
Earned	high	school	degree	or	

lower	
731	 74.9%	 35.2%	

64.8%	
		 		 [.7164,	.7782]	 [.3075,	.3999]	 [.6001,	.6925]	

Age	 		 		 		 		
18-29	 208	 21.3%	 42.3%	 57.7%	

		 		 [.1809,	.2499]	 [.3338,	.5167]	 [.4833,	.6662]	
30-44	 332	 26.5%	 34.7%	 65.3%	

		 		 [.2329,	.3004]	 [.2837,	.4172]	 [.5828,	.7163]	
45-59	 284	 24.8%	 40.8%	 59.2%	

		 		 [.2166,	.283]	 [.334,	.4863]	 [.5137,	.666]	
60+	 286	 27.3%	 36.7%	 63.3%	

		 		 [.2393,	.3096]	 [.2974,	.4432]	 [.5568,	.7026]	
Race/Ethnicity	 		 		 		 		

White,	Non-Hispanic	 729	 64.4%	 37.2%	 62.8%	
		 		 [.6054,	.6803]	 [.3257,	.4215]	 [.5785,	6.743]	

Hispanic	 174	 15.8%	 28.2%	 71.8%	
		 		 [.1321,	.1866]	 [.2095,	.3676]	 [.6324,	.7905]	

Black,	Non-Hispanic	 135	 11.8%	 46.7%	 53.3%	
		 		 [.0962,	.1449]	 [.3614,	.5762]	 [.4238,	.6386]	

Other,	Non-Hispanic	 72	 8.0%	 55.3%	 44.7%	
		 		 [.0595,	.1078]	 [.3983,	.6987]	 [.3013,	.6017]	

Area	 		 		 		 		
Metro	 981	 87.8%	 37.6%	 62.4%	

		 		 [.8467,	.9029]	 [.3373,	.4167]	 [.5833,	.6627]	
Non-Metro	 129	 12.2%	 43.9%	 56.1%	

		 		 [.0971,	.1533]	 [.3178,	.5683]	 [.4317,	.6822]	

Table 1 
Sample Demographics (Total) & Demographics of Adults Who Did & Did Not See or Interact with Artists 
in their Community 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

15 

 
spokesperson for the people (25.8%). After respondents checked all descriptions that they felt applied, we 
asked them to choose which description best fit the artists who they see or interact with in their 
communities. Of the 400 individuals who answered this question, the highest percentage (34.8%) describe 
artists as creating or performing art to earn money, yet nearly two thirds of respondents felt there were better 
ways to describe artists in their communities. The next most frequent responses describe artists as bringing 
attention to community concerns or injustices (20.7%) and as collaborating with local individuals and 
organizations (16.5%). The remaining respondents said that the best description of artists in their local 
communities were thinking about new ways to solve problems (9.4%), representing or serving as a 
spokesperson for the people (8.8%), or another response (9.8%), which they detailed in an open-ended text 
box.  

	

Descriptions	of	Artists'	
Roles	in	Local	
Communities	

[95%	CI]	
n=439	

Best	Description	
[95%	CI]	
n=400	

Create	or	perform	art	as	a	way	to	earn	money	 50.3%	 34.8%	
		 [.4384,	.5672]	 [.2868,	.4136]	
Bring	attention	to	community	concerns	or	causes	 43.3%	 20.7%	
		 [.3704,	.4972]	 [.1591,	.2658]	
Collaborate	with	local	individuals	and	organizations	 46.5%	 16.5%	
		 [.4009,	.5292]	 [.1206,	.2209]	
Other	 11.7%	 9.8%	
		 [.0804,	.1666]	 [.0626,	.151]	
Think	about	new	ways	to	solve	problems	 24.7%	 9.4%	
		 [.1992,	.3027]	 [.0623,	.1404]	
Represent	or	serve	as	a	spokesperson	for	the		 25.8%	 8.8%	
people	who	are	part	of	your	community	 [.2059,	.3178]	 [.0594,	.1277]	

Table 2 
Descriptions of Artists, Among Adults Who Saw or Interacted with Artists in their Communities 
 
Applying simple logistic regression to the ‘best description’, we find that adults who identify as Black, Non-
Hispanic have significantly higher odds than White, Non-Hispanic adults (exp(ß)=2.88, p=.016) to choose 
“Bring attention to community concerns or causes” as the best description for artists they see or with whom 
they interact in their local community.  
 Of the 439 respondents who had seen or interacted with artists in the past year, 47 chose to provide 
their own answer to this question after selecting the box “Other, please explain.” We inductively coded and 
analyzed these open-ended responses to gain insight into where the descriptions of artists that we generated 
may be unclear or less inclusive than intended or if there were common perceptions of artists not included in 
the pilot test descriptions.  While we would argue that about a quarter of these responses match the given 
closed-ended descriptions of artists, two emergent patterns of responses suggest the possible inclusion of 
additional descriptions for the future use of these indicators. Seven responses talked about art as a hobby, a 
vocation, or unpaid activity. One respondent said, “create art for my own enjoyment,” and another said, 
“Pursue art as a life long interest.” Another said, “True artists don't care about the money. They care about 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

16 

the art. They are in touch with their feelings.” This suggests that a description of artists that explicitly 
identifies individuals’ interests in creating or performing art as a personal interest, hobby, or unpaid activity, 
might also be useful. An additional seven respondents described artists as educators. Five of the seven 
respondents specifically referenced artists’ role in youth development or teaching art to children (“Provide 
educational resources and outlets for others in the community. Especially young people”; “…to help young 
people develop and engage in the arts and get them off the streets.”). As many people come into contact 
with artists through education, it may be important for future indicators to include a response that allows 
respondents to indicate whether they see artists to be educators either in formal or informal capacities.  
 In addition, seven responses divulged specific examples of artists or arts-related activities. Of these, 
four talked about artists and two gave examples about art or spaces where art is made, displayed, or 
performed. For example, one respondent said, “A friend will be having readings on her book coming up 
next month,” and others referenced specific musicians in their town or particular art galleries, events, or 
organizations. Only two respondents noted that they interact with or see artists and art online. On the whole, 
these results suggest additional descriptions of artists in communities that are meaningful to residents. 
 
Social Ties with Artists in Local Communities 

In general, most respondents who interacted with artists know them as friends (33.5%), 
acquaintances (35.1%), or know of them but do not have a personal relationship with an artist (51.4%). Just 
over one quarter of respondents have closer personal relationships with artists, as 14.2% of respondents have 
a family member who is an artist in their community, and 12.2% of respondents identify themselves artists. 
When asked to identify their primary relationship to artists in their community, respondents answered 
similarly with 45.0% reporting their primary relationship with artists they know of, but with whom they do 
not have a personal relationship. Approximately a fifth reported a friend (22.1%), or an acquaintance 
(19.1%), and a lower overall percentage of respondents reported having familial ties (6.8%) to artists, or 
being an artist (7.1%).  

 
Financing Artists in Local Communities  

 In line with the American Perceptions of Artists Survey in 2002, we found that in general, 
respondents are more supportive of private, local organizations and entities employing or funding artists in 
comparison to government funding or employment. More than half of respondents felt that individual 
contributors or sponsors (54.8%) should fund or employ artists. Likewise, slightly more than half of all 
respondents felt that artists should self-fund their endeavors or be self-employed (51.6%). Fewer 
respondents felt that private organizations and entities, that is, community organizations or clubs (47.7%), 
charitable corporations (40.2%), and businesses or corporations (35.1%), should fund or employ artists. On 
the whole, government funding or employment of artists was the least popular set of responses. 
Respondents were more supportive of more local forms of government funding or employing artists (local 
government 32.4%; State government 26.0%) than they were of federal government funding or 
employment of artists (21.5%).  

There are significant differences between who respondents felt should fund or employ artists based 
upon whether they had seen or interacted with artists in their local community in the past year. Adults who 
did not interact with artists in the past year were generally more supportive of non-government entities, 
organizations, and individuals funding or employing artists. They were most in favor of artists self-funding 
their own work or being self-employed (57.4%) and least supportive of the federal government as a funder 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

17 

		

Relationships	between	adults	and	artists	
in	their	local	community	 Primary	Relationship	

[95%	CI]	 [95%	CI]	
n=408	 n=402	

Myself	 12.2%	 7.1%	
		 [.0851,	.1708]	 [.044,	.114]	
Family	member	 14.2%	 6.8%	
		 [.1014,	.1948]	 [.0417,	.1081]	
Friend	 33.5%	 22.1%	
		 [.2741,	.4009]	 [.1698,	.2818]	
Acquaintance	 35.1%	 19.1%	
		 [.2871,	.4196]	 [.1401,	.2536]	
No	personal	relationship,	
but	I	know	of	them	 51.4%	 45.0%	

	
[.4477,	.5795]	 [.3855,	.5156]	

Table 3  
Social Ties to Artists, Among Adults Who Saw or Interacted with Artists in their Community 
 
or employer of artists (15.4%). Adults who have interacted with artists in the past year are generally more 
supportive of both public and private funding and employment for artists. They are most in favor of 
individual contributors or sponsors (61.2%) and are also least supportive of federal government support for 
artists (31.4%), though they are far more supportive of the federal government as a source of funding and 
employment for artists than are those who have not interacted with artists. Of note, adults who did not 
interact with artists are more in favor of artists self-funding their work or being self-employed (57.4%) than 
are those who did interact with artists (42.4%). 
 

Reflections on Effectiveness & Limitations 
Our goal in this study was to set baseline measures of perceptions of artists in hopes of establishing 

initial understandings of perceptions of artists that can, over time, be used to understand whether the public 
perceives the shifts identified and initiated at the policy level. This pilot test survey constitutes the first 
national study of perceptions of artists since the American Perceptions of Artists Survey in 2002, and 
expands the understanding of artists beyond disciplinary-based occupations. We sought to establish baseline 
measures of individuals’ perceptions of artists in their local communities and to measure the closeness of 
relationships between individuals and the artists who they see or interact with in their communities. While 
the cognitive interview process helped us to make the survey indicators more parsimonious, the results of 
the pilot test provided insights on possible approaches to further increase the effectiveness of the survey 
items. 

An issue we anticipated was distinguishing between art and artists. This was a prevalent abstraction in 
the cognitive interviews and was also observed in the open-ended responses of the national survey, which 
captured this common mismatch between the intent and purpose of the survey and the respondents’ 
understanding of the questions. If respondents are expressing opinions about their perceptions of art, places  
where they view art, and art-focused events in their local community in the open-ended questions, it is        



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

18 

n=1,110	

Support	for	employment	
and	funding	sources	for	

local	artists		
(%	of	adults)	
[95%	CI]	

DID	see	or	interact	with	
artists	in	local	
community	
[95%	CI]	

DID	NOT	see	or	interact	
with	artists	in	local	

community	
[95%	CI]	

Individual	contributors	or	
sponsors	 54.8%	 61.2%	 50.8%	
		 [.5083,	.5874]	 [.5462,	.674]	 [.4585,	.5579]	
Self-employed	or	self-funded	 51.6%	 42.2%	 57.4%	
		 [.4764,	.5551]	 [.3601,	.4868]	 [.5243,	.6226]	
Community	organizations	or	
clubs	 47.7%	 53.3%	 44.2%	
		 [.4376,	.516]	 [.4678,	.596]	 [.3935,	.4914]	
Charitable	corporations	 40.2%	 48.1%	 35.3%	
		 [.3643,	.4409]	 [.4171,	.5455]	 [.3078,	.4005]	
Businesses	or	corporations	 35.1%	 43.3%	 30.0%	
		 [.3146,	.3888]	 [.3701,	.4972]	 [.2575,	.3459]	
Local	government	 32.4%	 45.6%	 24.2%	
		 [.2887,	.3617]	 [.3922,	.5206]	 [.204,	.2848]	
State	government	 26.0%	 35.9%	 19.8%	
		 [.2259,	.2963]	 [.2984,	.4235]	 [.1607,	.2412]	
Federal	government	 21.5%	 31.4%	 15.4%	
		 [.1837,	.2509]	 [.2555,	.3791]	 [.1209,	.1941]	

Table 4 
Financing Artists 
 
possible that they may also be thinking of these examples instead of thinking of artists who they see or 
interact with in their local community when answering multiple choice questions. This insight reminds us to 
be especially careful with question and response item wording and to consider adding additional framing 
language that makes it clearer that the survey is about artists but not about art. We expect that this may be an 
ongoing challenge in this line of research. 

While possible additions for artist descriptions as educators or hobbyists were previously addressed, 
we also note the possibility to reduce or narrow the description of artists. Of those who answered “Bring 
attention to community concerns or causes” as a description of artists within their community, 44% also 
selected it as the best description; of those who answered “Represent or serve as a spokesperson for the 
people” as a description of artists within their community, 30% selected “bring attention” as the best 
description. We suggest collapsing these two descriptions in the future. In the cognitive interviews, 
respondents tended to give different examples for these two items, with “bring attention” being more 
focused on philanthropic and charitable issues and “represent” more frequently eliciting examples of 
political or social issues, but the results of the national pilot test suggest that the potential differences 
between the two are not as empirically meaningful.  

Discussion 
In light of the seeming paradigm shift underway that is hailing artists as entrepreneurs, agents for social 

change, and problem-solvrs in public life, the goal of our study was to gauge if this concept of artist is 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

19 

meaningful to the general public and to understand public perceptions of artists. In this pilot study, we tested 
indicators of public perceptions of artists and community members’ closeness of relationships with artists as 
a means of monitoring potential paradigm change and informing public policies supporting artists’ work in 
civic and public life. Our results highlight modest modifications for improving the exactness of the 
indicators and establish a baseline understanding of how communities see artists, the closeness of 
relationships between individuals and artists, levels of self-identification as an artist, and opinions of who 
should fund artists, including a measure of the expectation that artists act entrepreneurially in the form of 
self-financing or self-employment.  

The pilot test’s topline results suggest that public opinion data is an important complement to 
employment statics, case studies, and qualitative work in informing community development and arts 
policies. While approximately one-third (34.8%) of the pilot test respondents who had seen or interacted 
with artists in their local community described artists primarily as an occupation and seeking to earn a 
livelihood, nearly two-thirds of respondents felt there were better ways to describe artists in their 
communities. This suggests that segments of communities are aware of artists leveraging their skills to 
support their local community, and this in particular would be important to monitor over time, offering 
insights on the national level and, with appropriate samples and data collection means, to monitor potential 
change in public perceptions within specific communities.  

The indicators of public perceptions can also be used to inform arts policies at the local level. Our results 
signal that the general public wants artists in their local community to be self-employed or self-funded, 
which dovetails with the artists working as entrepreneurs and civic problem-solvers.  Such information can 
inform conversation about decisions and policies regarding opportunities and efforts that can involve and 
benefit the community. Deployed at the local level, these indicators offer insights into a community’s sense 
of understanding artists as community assets and can shed light on a community’s public readiness to 
engage or reaction to engaging with creative placemaking efforts.  

Public opinion matters for taking stock of and informing public policies, at the national and local levels. 
Beyond intermittent measures of opinions toward public funding for arts (DiMaggio & Pettit, 1998), the arts 
and cultural field has little systematic understanding of public perceptions, let alone how they may change 
over time. More than ever, as artists and the broader arts field seek to work within and with public life, 
understanding how the public may or may not connect with artists will be important for fostering supportive 
polices and to take stock of this unprecedented time of change for arts and cultural policies within the U.S. 
 

Acknowledgement 
This work was supported by The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise & Public Policy, Vanderbilt University. 
 

References 
Alper, N.O., & Wassall, G.H. (2006). Artists’ careers and their labor markets. In V.A. Ginsburgh 

& D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Arts and Culture, Vol. 1 (pp. 814-
864). North Holland: Elsevier. 

Becker, H. S. (1984). Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 
Bedoya, R. (2013). Placemaking and the politics of belonging and dis-belonging. GIA Reader, 

24(1).  
Bell, D., & Oakley, K. (2014). Cultural policy. Oxon: Routledge. 
Bonin-Rodriguez, P. (2015). Performing policy: How contemporary politics and cultural 

programs redefined U.S. Artists for the twenty-first century. London: Palgrave Macmillan 
UK. 



Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

20 

Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. 
Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29-40. doi:10.2307/3219881 

Center for Cultural Innovation. (2016). Creativity connects: Trends and conditions affecting U.S. 
Artists. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Creativity-Connects-Final-
Report.pdf 

Center for Performance and Civic Practice (2015). California Catalyst Initiative. Retrieved from 
http://www.thecpcp.org/resources/ 

Chang, W.J., & Wyszomirski, M. (2015). What is arts entrepreneurship? Tracking the 
development of its definition in scholarly journals. Artivate: a journal of 
entrepreneurship in the arts, 4(2), 11-31. Retrieved from: 
http://artivate.hida.asu.edu/index.php/artivate/article/viewFile/94/44 

Cornfield, D. B. (2015). Beyond the beat: Musicians building community in Nashville. Princeton, 
NJ: Princeton University Press. 

DiMaggio, P., & Pettit, B. (1998). Surveys of public attitudes toward the arts: What surveys tell 
us about the arts' political trials. GIA Newsletter, 9(2).  

Dowd, T. J., & Pinheiro, D. L. (2013). The ties among the notes: The social capital of jazz 
musicians in three metro areas. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 431-464. 
doi:10.1177/0730888413504099 

Gallelli, A. (2016). Social structure and cultural production: An empirical analysis of festivals’ 
networks. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 46(1), 34-46. 
doi:0.1080/10632921.2015.1131217 

Goethe Institute. (2014). The role of artists and the arts in creative placemaking. Retrieved from 
http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/was/pro/creative_placemaking/2014_Symposium_Report.pd
f 

Ivey, B. (2008). Arts, inc.: How greed and neglect have destroyed our cultural rights. Berkeley, 
CA: University of California Press. 

Iyengar, S. (2013). Artists by the numbers: Moving from descriptive statistics to impact analyses. 
Work and Occupations, 40(4), 496-505. doi:10.1177/0730888413505097 

Jackson, M. R., Kabwasa-Green, F., Sewenson, D., Herranz Jr., D., Ferryman, K., Atlas, C., . . . 
Rosenstein, C. (2003). Investing in creativity: A study of the support structure for U.S. 
Artists. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: 
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50806/411311-Investing-in-
Creativity.PDF 

Kidd, D. (2012). Public culture in america: A review of cultural policy debates. The Journal of 
Arts Management, Law, and Society, 42(1), 11-21. doi:10.1080/10632921.2012.651094 

Kreidler, J. (2013). Modeling the future of US arts policy: Beyond supply-side pump-priming. 
Cultural Trends, 22(3-4), 145-155. doi:10.1080/09548963.2013.817643 

Lena, J. C., & Lindemann, D. J. (2014). Who is an artist? New data for an old question. Poetics, 
43, 70-85. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2014.01.001 

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Lingo, E. L., & Tepper, S. J. (2013). Looking back, looking forward: Arts-based careers and 
creative work. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 337-363. doi:10.1177/0730888413505229 

Markusen, A. (2013a). Artists work everywhere. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 481-495.  

https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Creativity-Connects-Final-Report.pdf
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Creativity-Connects-Final-Report.pdf
http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/was/pro/creative_placemaking/2014_Symposium_Report.pdf
http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/was/pro/creative_placemaking/2014_Symposium_Report.pdf
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50806/411311-Investing-in-Creativity.PDF
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50806/411311-Investing-in-Creativity.PDF


Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

21 

Markusen, A. (2013b). Fuzzy concepts, proxy data: Why indicators won’t track creative 
placemaking success. GIA Reader, 24(1).  

Markusen, A. (2014). Creative cities: A 10-year research agenda. Journal of Urban Affairs, 
36(s2), 567-589. doi:10.1111/juaf.12146 

Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative placemaking. Retrieved from Washington, DC: 
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/CreativePlacemaking-Paper.pdf 

Markusen, A., Gilmore, S., Johnson, A., Levi, T., & Martinez, A. (2006). Crossover: How artists 
build careers across commercial, nonprofit, and community work. Retrieved from 
http://www.haassr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/caCrossover.pdf 

McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E., & Zakaras, L. (2001). Guide to the literature on participation in the 
art. Retrieved from 
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2006/DRU2308.pdf 

McGlone, P. (2017, February 10, 2017). Honoring the president who honored the arts. The 
Washington Post. Retrieved from 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/honoring-the-president-who-honored-
the-arts/2017/02/09/1422a54a-eca0-11e6-b4ff-
ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.dcf0d623881d 

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social 
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.  

Menger, P. (1999). Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 541-574.  
Morley, E., & Winkler, M. K. (2014). Assessing a set of indicators for creative placemaking: 

Reflections from the field. Community Development Investment Review, 10(2), 49-55.  
Mulcahy, K. V. (2006). Cultural policy: Definitions and theoretical approaches. Journal of Arts 

Management, Law & Society, 35(4), 319-330.  
National Endowment for the Arts. (2015). Survey of public participation in the arts, 1982-2008 

[United States]. Retrieved from: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35527.v1 
National Endowment for the Arts. (2017). Latest economic data tracks arts and cultural jobs per 

state: Bureau of Economic Analysis & National Endowment for the Arts release research 
[Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/news/2017/latest-economic-data-
tracks-arts-and-cultural-jobs-state 

Novak-Leonard, J. L., Baach, P., Schultz, A., Farrell, B., Anderson, W., & Rabkin, N. (2014). 
The changing landscape of arts participation: A synthesis of literature and expert  
interviews. Retrieved from Chicago: 
https://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/sites/culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/files/irvine-
literature-review.pdf 

Novak-Leonard, J. L., Reynolds, M., English, N., & Bradburn, N. (2015a). California survey of 
arts and cultural participation: Techincal report. NORC. 

Novak-Leonard, J. L., Reynolds, M., English, N., & Bradburn, N. (2015b). The cultural lives of 
Californians: Insights from the California survey of arts & cultural participation. 
Retrieved from Chicago, IL: https://irvine-dot-
org.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/183/attachments/Cultural_Lives_of_Californians_Rep
ort.pdf?1432155060 

Peoples, G. (Producer). (2013, August 13, 2013). Want a job in the music business? These are 
the cities you should live in. Billboard. Retrieved from 

https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/CreativePlacemaking-Paper.pdf
http://www.haassr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/caCrossover.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/honoring-the-president-who-honored-the-arts/2017/02/09/1422a54a-eca0-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.dcf0d623881d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/honoring-the-president-who-honored-the-arts/2017/02/09/1422a54a-eca0-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.dcf0d623881d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/honoring-the-president-who-honored-the-arts/2017/02/09/1422a54a-eca0-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.dcf0d623881d
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35527.v1
https://www.arts.gov/news/2017/latest-economic-data-tracks-arts-and-cultural-jobs-state
https://www.arts.gov/news/2017/latest-economic-data-tracks-arts-and-cultural-jobs-state


Novak-Leonard and Skaggs  Public Perceptions of Artists in Communities  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (2)   

	
	
	

22 

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/5650624/want-a-job-in-the-music-business-these-
are-the-cities-you-should-live-in-from 

Peters, M., & Cherbo, J. (1998). The missing sector: The unincorporated arts. Journal of Arts 
Management, Law & Society, 28(2), 115-129.  

Princeton Survey Research Associates. (2003). Public perceptions about artists: A report of 
survey findings for the nation and nine metropolitan areas. Retrieved from 
http://k.web.umkc.edu/keltons/ECON336Public_Perceptions.pdf 

Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for 
arts participation. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/publications/arts-education-
america-what-declines-mean-arts-participation 

Redaelli, E. (2016). Creative placemaking and the NEA: Unpacking a multi-level governance. 
Policy Studies, 37(4), 387-402.  

Scott, M. (2012). Cultural entrepreneurs, cultural entrepreneurship: Music producers mobilising 
and converting bourdieu’s alternative capitals. Poetics, 40, 237-255.  

Silber, B., & Triplett, T. (2015). A decade of arts engagement: Findings from the survey of 
public participation in the arts, 2002-2012 (58). Retrieved from 
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/2012-sppa-feb2015.pdf 

Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., & Hout, M. (2016). General social survey, 2012 merged data, 
including a cultural module [United States]. Retrieved from: 
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35478.v4 

Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. (2015). Snaap topical module: Career skills and 
entrepreneurship. Retrieved from 
http://snaap.iub.edu/pdf/SNAAP_Admin/SNAAP_Career_Skills_Module.pdf 

Tepper, S., & Gao, Y. (2008). Engaging art: What counts? In S. J. Tepper & B. Ivey (Eds.), 
Engaging art: The next great transformation of America's cultural life (pp. 17-48). New 
York: Routledge. 

Toepler, S. (2013). Shifting cultural policy landscapes in the USA: What role for philanthropic 
foundations? Cultural Trends, 22(3-4), 167-179. doi:10.1080/09548963.2013.817646 

Urban Institute. (2002). American perceptions of artists survey. Retrieved from 
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NADAC/studies/35571 

Urban Institute. (2015). American perceptions of artists survey 2002. Retrieved from: 
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35571.v1 

Van Der Gaag, M., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). The resource generator: Social capital 
quantification with concrete items. Social Networks, 27, 1-29.  

Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: Erg models of a 
friendship network documented on facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 583-
642.  

Woronkowicz, J., Nichols, B., & Iyengar, S. (2012). How the United States funds the arts. 
Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/how-the-us-funds-the-arts.pdf 

 
																																																								
i Additional technical documentation is available at http://amerispeak.norc.org/research [Accessed April 18, 2017] 
ii Complete regression results available from authors.	

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/5650624/want-a-job-in-the-music-business-these-are-the-cities-you-should-live-in-from
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/5650624/want-a-job-in-the-music-business-these-are-the-cities-you-should-live-in-from
http://k.web.umkc.edu/keltons/ECON336Public_Perceptions.pdf
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/2012-sppa-feb2015.pdf
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35478.v4
http://snaap.iub.edu/pdf/SNAAP_Admin/SNAAP_Career_Skills_Module.pdf
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NADAC/studies/35571
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35571.v1
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/how-the-us-funds-the-arts.pdf

