
































Microsoft Word - 3.docx


ARTIVATE: A JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE ARTS 
VOL. 8, NO. 2, WINTER 2019  

A Theory of Arts Entrepreneurship as Organizational 
Attack  

Jason C. White 
College of Charleston 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.8.2.3 

Theory is developed by way of a systematic process that attempts to explain or provide a 
rationale for the way something works. Kuratko () defines a theory of entrepreneurship 
as “a formulation of verifiable relationships, or underlying principles that explain 
entrepreneurship, predict entrepreneurial activity, or provide normative guidance” (p.). 
Scholars in the entrepreneurship literature have been critical of the lack of theory guiding 
entrepreneurship research, education and practice (Baumol ; Bull & Willard ; 
Bygrave & Hofer ; Chandler & Lyon ; Cooper ). Distinguished 
entrepreneurship scholars Shane and Venkataraman () soften this critique and suggest 
entrepreneurship theory is underdeveloped. In addition to the establishment of a discipline, 
related professional associations, and dedicated career paths, scholars in the entrepreneurship 
literature suggest that systematic theory is necessary for the development and advancement 
of an academic field (Bird, Welsch, Astrachan, & Pistrui ). Similarly, in the arts 
entrepreneurship literature, White suggests that there are few proposed theories specific to 
arts entrepreneurship (White ). For example, while White works towards theory 
development (White , ), Essig () proposes a means-ends theory “in the absence 
of a body of theory about arts entrepreneurship specifically” (p.).  

Given that the academic field of arts entrepreneurship is still emerging, it is not 
surprising that arts entrepreneurship theory is underdeveloped. As a result, arts 
entrepreneurship researchers have had to import other theories from outside of the arts 
literature to provide a rationale for their conceptual frameworks, models, hypotheses, and 
research conclusions (Essig ; Preece ; White ). Additionally, in arts 



48 

entrepreneurship education, due to the lack of definitional consensus (Chang & Wyszomirski 
), educators might have problems explaining what arts entrepreneurship is to students. 
Although definitional consensus is difficult, Beckman () suggests that the theoretical 
exercise of defining arts entrepreneurship is nevertheless a critical part of our field 
development because “…it communicates the explicit binary – is and isn’t, the study object 
exists or it does not, it is identifiable or it is not” (p.). While a theory of arts entrepreneurship 
could help answer the recurring question (i.e., What is arts entrepreneurship?), without a 
theory or theories based on repeated observations that are verifiable, what arts 
entrepreneurship “is” may be based on individual subjectivity, discipline-based bias, and 
untested assumptions. To address this gap in the arts entrepreneurship literature, I propose a 
theory of arts entrepreneurship evidenced by repeated observations that are verifiable via case 
study experiences. 

Methodology 
To aid in the collection of supporting empirical data, the theorist uses grounded theory as a 
method for theory development. As internationally recognized grounded theorist Anselm 
Strauss () points out, “In theorizing, a fair amount of imagination is reflected and even 
unabashed speculation. Not anything goes, because these operate within the constraints of 
some current knowledge; yet rigor seems reserved for verification – that is, for the creating, 
eliciting and discovering of evidence” (p. ). In grounded theory, researchers aim to move 
beyond description to a “unified theoretical explanation” for an observed phenomenon 
(Corbin & Strauss , p.). In discussing grounded theory, Creswell () states, “a key 
idea is that theory development does not come off the shelf, but rather is generated or 
grounded in data from participants who have experienced the process (Chapter , section , 
para ). Continuing, Creswell suggests that by discovering emerging patterns in the data, the 
researcher is able to “generate a general explanation (a theory) of a process, an action, or an 
interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants” (Chapter , section , para 
). Long recognized as an effective scientific method by researchers in the qualitative 
paradigm, the grounded theory method is a systematic process with defining features; such 
as a focus on a process or action that has distinct steps or phases, data collection by way of 
connecting implicit meanings, and data analysis leading to either a general theoretical model 
or a theory presented as a diagram, propositions, or a discussion (Corbin & Strauss ; 
Creswell ).   

Theoretical Foundations 
As there is little consensus amongst scholars in both the arts and entrepreneurship literature 
on a definition of “entrepreneurship,” a selected definition may be useful for understanding 
and interpreting the proposed theory. Throughout the majority of the entrepreneurship 
literature, scholars have tended to recognize the entrepreneur as an individual who fills 



49 

market gaps in an economy by engaging in a process of innovation and (for-profit) business 
creation in one or more economic industries and/or sectors (Gartner ; Kuratko ; 
Schumpeter ). While the economic frame of entrepreneurship has helped to advance the 
entrepreneurship field, researchers who use this particular lens often fail to recognize 
entrepreneurship as both a social and collective activity that is enabled and constrained by 
social structures (i.e., the pattern of social relationships which regulates social interactions 
and guides socio-cultural norms in a society). As such, a structuration view is hereafter 
utilized because this particular frame of reference can help researchers recognize 
entrepreneurs as “reflexive agents engaging in purposeful action carried out in the context of 
social systems” (Sarason, Dean, & Dillard , p.). In addition, according to Sarason, 
Dean and Dillard (), a structuration view of entrepreneurship can help researchers gain 
a better understanding of how entrepreneurs both interpret and influence society.  

Entrepreneurship scholars have long called for a re-attention to the context in which 
entrepreneurship occurs (Welter ); because as Gartner () notes, observers “…have 
a tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence 
of internal or personal factors when making judgments about other individuals” (p.). To 
better recognize the influence of both internal and external factors on arts entrepreneurs’ 
behavior, Howard Becker’s art world(s) metaphor () is hereafter utilized to provide 
context. Note that as an alternative to Pierre Bourdieu’s metaphor of art field(s) (), the 
art world(s) metaphor has been selected to encourage the reader to think about how both art 
and entrepreneurship activity is created within a particular “social” (world) rather than a 
particular “spatial” (field) context. In support Becker states, “…the metaphor of world – 
which does not seem to be at all true of the metaphor of field - contains people, all sorts of 
people, who are in the middle of doing something that requires them to pay attention to each 
other, to take account consciously of the existence of others and to shape what they do in light 
of what others do” (, p.). In addition, Becker’s art world thesis not only provides 
context but also rightly acknowledges the production of art (i.e., a psychological product) as 
a collective rather than singular activity carried out by a lone artist. This understanding helps 
us to recognize that artworks “are not the products of individual makers” (e.g. artists), but 
rather “joint products” created by groups of people within the art world who follow 
conventions (i.e. patterns, rules of order, standard ways of doing things) (Becker , p.). 
Thus, theorizing entrepreneurship in the context of art worlds may help the field recognize 
patterns (conventions) of entrepreneurship activity that have since lead to either innovation 
in art worlds, revolutionary changes in art worlds, or the creation of wholly new art worlds. 
Building on Becker’s () pioneering text and supported by case study observations, this 
theory helps to explain how arts entrepreneurs facilitate revolutionary changes in artworlds.  

Rationale 
The central argument of this theory is that through coordinated organizational attacks on the 
social structure and sacred aesthetic beliefs of an artworld, arts entrepreneurs change 



50 

established conventions in the artworld, which results in revolutionary changes to both the 
artworld and the work of art in society. Importantly, the work of art does not refer to an art 
object, but rather to what an art object does to or for others. For example, there is a difference 
between observing a painting (i.e., the art object); and being lead to a new understanding by 
the combined elements within the painting (e.g., colors, style, shapes, strokes, symbols) to 
think, see, smell, hear, taste and touch things in the world from a different perspective. 
Additionally, there is a difference between a play (the art object) and attending a live theatrical 
production of a play (the experience). The latter refers to the work of art, or rather to the 
psychological (Kreitler & Kreitler ), biological (Fancourt ) and socio-cultural 
changes (Gonçalves & Majhanovich ) often triggered by aesthetic experiences. Empirical 
support for the concept of aesthetic experience can be found in direct observations written by 
John Dewey (). Arguably through the work of art, we are drawn away from our own 
perspective of human experience towards another, which results in a revelation (or new 
understanding) about the world that we live in. Thus as Martin Heidegger references in his 
landmark essay The Origin of A Work of Art, embedded in an artwork “truth is set to work” 
and “the revelation that occurs through an encounter with an artwork, not the art object itself, 
is the work of art” (Bolt,  p.). Thus, for those who seek revolutionary change in 
artworlds, the work of art may be the best value proposition because arguably, the work of art 
is what the artworld values the most.   

In theorizing entrepreneurship within the context of artworlds, it is important to 
recognize that while all members of an artworld utilize entrepreneurial thinking to guide 
diverse forms of entrepreneurial action(s) (or behavior), not all entrepreneurial action(s) 
result in revolutionary changes to artworlds. For example, effectuation and causation are 
recognized as the two primary logics which guide entrepreneurial action(s) and help to reduce 
uncertainty. As Saras Sarasvathy notes in her pioneering text on effectuation, “Causal logics 
helps us choose; effectual logics help us construct” (Sarasvathy , p.). Arguably, the logic 
which guides the production of art can be effectual (goals emerging through recurrent rounds 
of experimentation), such as in work-shopping a play; or causal (predictive and strategic), 
such as in design thinking. Additionally, effectual logic can be observed in the process of 
artistic creation. In support, Jonathan Gangi draws our attention to the synergies of artistic 
and entrepreneurial action () and the relationship between effectuation and artistic 
creation (). Causal thinking can be observed in the process of firm creation as undertaken 
by artists. In support, Essig () argues that “artists form firms (a predictive and strategic 
process) or otherwise undertake entrepreneurial action toward the end of creating art 
sustainably” (p.). Empirical research suggests that in addition to artists, distinct members 
of the artworld also use both causal and effectual logic to guide various entrepreneurial 
actions. For example, arts managers use causal logic when they create strategic plans for arts 
organizations, often to address internal or external challenges that call for organizational 
and/or institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum ; Grandori & 
Gaillard ). Arts policymakers use effectual logic when they recognize an opportunity (a 



51 

policy window), mobilize policy support (acquire social capital), draft the policy (innovation), 
test its effects on a smaller scale of the artworld (prototyping), and learn from policy failure 
(entrepreneurial learning) (Heidelberg ). In short, based on direct observations in 
artworlds (Becker ), it seems apparent that many members of the artworld utilize 
entrepreneurial logic on an everyday basis, and thus “think as entrepreneurs.”   

Who then is the arts entrepreneur if all members of the artworld think as entrepreneurs? 
The answer to this question can be informed by a similar topic discussed by Gartner (), 
who concluded that who the entrepreneur is - is best identified by determining a distinct 
pattern of behavior. Moreover, Gartner () argued that what differentiates entrepreneurs 
from non-entrepreneurs is that entrepreneurs create organizations. At its most foundational 
level of analysis, an organization is a group of people coming together for a shared or common 
goal (Staber, ). Contextual support for this assertion can be found in Becker’s artworld 
thesis, when he states, “The history of art deals with innovators and innovations that won 
organizational victories, succeeding in creating around themselves the apparatus of an 
artworld, mobilizing enough people to cooperate in regular ways that sustained and furthered 
their idea” (, p.). Becker () refers to some of these innovations as “organizational 
attacks” that “disrupt routine patterns of cooperation [conventions], which with some 
stretching of Thomas Kuhn’s () usage, could be called a ‘revolution’ ” (pp.-). 
Additionally, Becker () refers to these organizational attacks as “an attack on social 
structure” (p.) and sacred “aesthetic beliefs” (p.), which through coordination aim to 
“take over sources of support, audiences and distribution facilities” (p.), resulting in either 
revolutionary changes to, or the creation of artworlds (i.e. networks of “people who have never 
cooperated before to produce art based on and using conventions that were previously 
unknown or not exploited in that way” [, p.]). In cases where this is true, there could 
be a pattern of coordination to these organizational attacks which may help distinguish this 
particular form of entrepreneurial action from other forms which occur in the artworld (e.g., 
artistic creation, self-employment, firm creation). Case study support for this particular form 
(i.e., organizational attacks) can be observed within the art history, creative, and cultural 
industries literature.  

Case Study Support for Organizational Attack 
Becker provides evidence of organizational attacks on the social structure and sacred aesthetic 
beliefs of artworlds by pointing us to socio-cultural movements that have occurred in art 
history (, p.). Susie Hodge () provides a summary useful for theory development. 
According to Hodge (), “Realism was the first art movement to denounce traditions that 
had been established by official art academies” (p.). The realist movement in  was not 
organized by one singular artist, but rather a group of French painters who sought to attack 
the sacred aesthetic beliefs of official art academies which (at that time) valued and prioritized 
art subjects that included religion, history, mythology, and portraits appealing to the rich 
(Hodge ). By recruiting like-minded painters and encouraging relevant painters in the 



52 

visual artworld such as Gustave Courbet, Rosa Bonheur, and Jean Baptiste-Camille Corot to 
paint in a certain way for a certain purpose, groups of French painters were able to 
successfully change the conventional way of painting, which led to the birth of the realist 
movement in .  

Additional support can be gathered by studying the birth of the modern Indian art 
market. According to Mukti Khaire (), prior to , the modern Indian art market did 
not exist either in India nor abroad. This nonexistence is largely because, as Khaire references, 
no criteria for evaluating Indian Art existed. Although existing for centuries in India, the work 
of Indian art wasn’t considered valuable in the western artworld until the ’s, when “both 
academics and art historians (intermediaries) began characterizing it as modernist with a 
particular original aesthetic that they asserted was just as valuable as the aesthetic of Western 
modern artists, albeit different” (Khaire , chapter , section , para ). Arguably, this is 
evidence of a coordinated organizational attack on the sacred aesthetic beliefs of the Western 
artworld. Khaire () states that, “Once this discourse was broadly disseminated and inter-
subjectively accepted, the art was perceived as complying with prevailing norms of 
appropriateness and value. Because of this commentary, auction houses dealing with 
twentieth century Indian art found consumers willing to invest in the works” (chapter , 
section , para ).  

Support can also be found by studying the blue ocean strategy of Guy Laliberté (Former 
street performer & Founder of Cirque du Soleil), who along with a team of street performers, 
undertook causal and effectual actions to change conventions in the circus industry in the 
’s (Kim & Mauborgne , pp.-). Prior to Cirque du Soleil’s emergence, circuses 
around the world were still using live animals and lion tamers in acts, incorporating celebrity 
acrobats and famous clowns known for slapstick routines, exhibiting multiple acts 
simultaneously under the big top (i.e., the three-ring circus model), and focusing on children 
as the primary target market. However, over time, public attitudes shifted in favor of animal 
rights, and children began to acquire increasing options for live entertainment (e.g., video 
games). These changes in the market resulted in rising costs without raising revenues in the 
circus industry (Kim & Mauborgne ). Rather than compete using established 
conventions, Laliberté and his team of street performers broke the best practice rule 
(convention) in the circus industry by eliminating live animals and lion tamers, reducing the 
role of the circus clown, incorporating a more enchanting and sophisticated style of clowning 
and acrobat performance, creating independent shows with singular acts aligned to specific 
themes and storylines, and catering to adults (Kim & Mauborgne ). Arguably, this 
coordinated organizational attack on both the social structure and the sacred aesthetic beliefs 
of the circus industry resulted in revolutionary changes to the work of the circus, which now 
offers audiences the fun and thrill of the traditional circus along with “the intellectual 
sophistication and artistic richness of the theater at the same time” (, p.).  

Consider the birth of Hip Hop music and the interrelated Hip Hop socio-cultural 
movement, both of which did not exist in society before the late s. According to Alridge 



53 

and Stewart (), “Over the past three decades, Hip Hop has developed as a cultural and 
artistic phenomenon affecting youth culture around the world” (p.). They assert that “for 
many youth, Hip Hop reflects the social, economic, political and cultural realities and 
conditions of their lives, speaking to them in a language and manner they understand” (, 
p.). As Khaire () notes, at the beginning of Hip Hop’s emergence, “Some listeners 
questioned its very categorization as music” (Khaire , chapter , section , para ), let 
alone as a socio-cultural movement. However, through public discourse about Hip Hop 
generated by both emerging Hip Hop artists and music intermediaries, knowledge about the 
work of Hip Hop spread, participation in the Hip Hop movement increased, and evaluation 
criteria for Hip Hop music was socially constructed (Khaire ). Notably, the Hip Hop 
movement is an example of a coordinated organizational attack on the social structure and 
sacred aesthetic beliefs of the music world that resulted in the creation of a new artworld (i.e., 
the Hip Hop industry) (Rabaka ).  

More recent support can be found by studying the emergence of hiplet in the 
contemporary dance world. In an effort to overcome conventional racial barriers to 
participation in ballet, Homer Bryant (former principal dancer of the Dance Theater of 
Harlem) created hiplet in the s. Although the art form is still emerging, hiplet has been 
recognized as a fusion between classical pointe technique, hip-hop, and a variety of other 
urban dance styles (Chicago Multicultural Dance Center n.d.). As art is socially constructed, 
it is not surprising that public discourse on hiplet began when a performance by the hiplet 
ballerinas went viral on Bryant’s Instagram page in . While some members of the 
contemporary dance world have since shown love and support for hiplet, others have been 
critical suggesting, “a lack of ballet technique, being neither hip-hop nor ballet, undercutting 
legit advances for black dancers, feeling immature and opportunistic” (Howard ). In 
addressing the critics, Bryant both defends and re-asserts the work of hiplet, when he states: 
“That’s why we have so many haters. People are like, who does this guy think he is? I have 
other teachers, white teachers, telling me I’m going to break their ankles and maybe I should 
go take a ballet class. I love the conversation, though. It’s going to bring more African-
American kids into us” (Marks ). This particular example is helpful for theory 
development because it not only references a coordinated organizational attack on the social 
structure and sacred aesthetic beliefs of an artworld, but also the resistance one may 
experience from members of an artworld when attempting to do so.  

Coordinated Attack Patterns 
Upon analyzing each of these case studies, it is apparent to the theorist that the process of 
organizational attack (as previously defined) in artworlds may not be a static linear process, 
but rather more like a pattern or repeated design that includes different colors with every 
iteration. In other words, organizational attacks in artworlds may be similar (i.e., repeated 
design), but are unlikely to begin or be carried out in the same way (i.e., different colors). For 
example, while the realism movement began with a group of painters feeling restricted by 



54 

romanticism, the surrealist movement began in Paris with one author’s (André Breton) 
publication of The Manifesto of Surrealism (Hodge ). While the birth of the Indian art 
market began with a recognition of aesthetic value amongst Western academics and art 
historians, the birth of the African American art market began when both African American 
visual and literary artists started challenging aesthetic standards (conventions) put forth by 
white artists, white academics and white art historians (Addison Jr. ). While Cirque du 
Soleil began with the Canadian government asking a group of street performers to 
develop a new artistic concept (Eng, ), the Royal Court Theatre, known in the 
’s for championing the works of undesirable playwrights, began with artistic 
director George Devine aiming to discover “hard hitting, uncompromising writers”, in 
an effort to create a company that would challenge and stimulate British theatre” 
(Billington ; “History of Royal Court Theatre” n.d.). Arguably, the pattern evident 
across all these case studies reveals a call to action, influenced by a desire to move away from 
one or more conventions in an artworld, followed by the creation and promotion of an 
alternative (i.e., a value proposition).  

Additionally, each of these case study examples involves one or more members of an 
artworld convincing a group of people from within an existing artworld to participate in the 
alternative. Empirical support for this assertion can be found in Becker’s artworld thesis, 
when he states, “revolutionary changes succeed when their originators mobilize some or all 
of the members of the relevant art world to cooperate in the new activities their vision of the 
medium requires” (, p.). In cases where this is true, the process of organizational 
attack in artworlds would likely include social innovation (i.e., “efforts that are begun and 
maintained by a core group of committed people who share the work”) (McKnight & 
Plummer , pp.-). According to the research of McKnight & Plumber (), social 
innovation tends to begin by way of an encounter with one or more individuals presenting a 
call to action that has been “strengthened by shared insights, complementary abilities, mutual 
support and multiple bonds” (p.). Moreover, McKnight & Plumber note, “participation in 
social innovation efforts requires consensus building, which can be time consuming and 
frustrating” (p.). In addition, McKnight & Plumber assert, “social innovation requires 
significant dedication from core members of a steering committee, and many efforts fail 
because the individuals are unwilling or unable to invest the time and energy needed for 
success” (p.). Support for the failure of social innovation efforts in artworlds can be found 
in Becker’s () artworld thesis, when he states, “Artistic mavericks show what happens to 
innovators who fail to develop an adequate organizational support system” (p.); a 
reference to those members of the artworld who propose revolutionary changes to artworlds 
without a convincing call to action (i.e., value proposition).  

Furthermore, each of these case studies points to the role of discourse (i.e., intentional 
written or spoken communication or debate) as a key strategy for sustainability of the call to 
action. Khaire () supports this assertion when she states, “a single source of commentary 
that proposes and supports a new idea, definition, or set of evaluation criteria or standards of 



55 

quality will likely not be impactful unless that discourse is disseminated widely and reinforced 
in the general commentary. Without intersubjective agreement over the value of the new idea, 
most consumers, unsure of the social validity of adopting it, will not change their beliefs and 
preferences” (Chapter , Sec , para ). Through discourse centered on the social structure 
and sacred aesthetic beliefs of an artworld, established conventions of the artworld are 
challenged (Becker ). In the artworld this discourse often occurs through “the linked 
practices” of arts criticism, art curatorship, arts patronage, and arts scholarship (McCarthy, 
Ondaatje, Brooks, & Szántó , p.), or through such forms as “manifestos, critical essays, 
aesthetic and philosophical reformulations,” and revisionist histories (Becker , p.). 
Arguably, by generating and facilitating discourse related to the call to action, opportunities 
are created inside the artworld for social innovation, elaboration and defense of the call to 
action; thus making organizational attacks in artworlds easier to initiate and sustain. In 
addition, related discourse generated and facilitated outside the artworld can lead the public 
to question prior beliefs about conventions within the artworld (Khaire ), which can 
result in a better understanding of the call to action, and public support for revolutionary 
change in the artworld. Given the seemingly vital role of discourse in the pattern of 
organizational attack, the ability to generate and facilitate discourse is perhaps one defining 
skill of the arts entrepreneur; considering the necessity of discourse in facilitating 
revolutionary change(s) to the social structure and sacred aesthetic beliefs of artworlds.  

Summary of the Theory 
Based on the aforementioned empirical research conclusions, the theorist is prepared to offer 
a foundational theory that may help the field recognize a distinct and observable dimension 
of entrepreneurship activity. To restate, the central argument of this arts entrepreneurship 
theory is that through coordinated organizational attacks on the social structure and sacred 
aesthetic beliefs of an artworld, arts entrepreneurs change established conventions in the 
artworld, which results in revolutionary changes to both the artworld and the work of art in 
society. Motivated in part by a desire to move away from one or more established conventions 
in an artworld, arts entrepreneurs develop a call to action which functions as a value 
proposition. The purpose of this value proposition is to get enough members in the artworld 
to participate in revolutionary changes to both the social structure and sacred aesthetic beliefs 
of an artworld. Participation in revolutionary change is not certain because revolutionary 
change may be perceived as inconvenient or disruptive to routine patterns of cooperation. As 
a strategy, arts entrepreneurs engage in social innovation in artworlds, utilizing their social 
capital to mobilize and encourage specific influential members of the artworld to participate 
in the attack. Attacks are organized and coordinated by way of the linked practices of arts 
criticism, art curatorship, arts patronage, and arts scholarship; or may be presented in the 
tangible written discourse of manifestos, critical essays, aesthetic or philosophical 
reformulations, or revisionist histories. In the artworld, this discourse functions as a key 
strategy for organizational attack because it creates opportunities for both the introduction, 



56 

elaboration and defense of the value proposition. Outside the artworld, this discourse can lead 
people to question prior beliefs about conventions within the artworld, which can result in 
external support for the value proposition. While not all organizational attacks in artworlds 
are successful, success is achieved when the attack either results in revolutionary changes to 
conventions that are accepted by the relevant majority or, when the attack results in the birth 
of a whole new artworld. Importantly, in both cases of success, the work of art in society will 
change, because the conventions used to produce art will change.  

Conclusion 
In theorizing art as experience, Dewey () reminds us that, “theory is a matter of 
understanding…the trouble with existing theories is that they start from a ready-made 
compartmentalization or from a conception of art that spiritualizes it out of connection with 
the objects of concrete experience” (, p.). Guided by Dewey’s thoughts on theory 
development, this proposed entrepreneurship theory advances both the arts entrepreneurship 
field and Becker’s theory of artworlds by recognizing a distinct type of entrepreneurship 
activity that occurs in artworlds. In doing so, the theorist further clarifies the difference 
between entrepreneurship activity, and arts entrepreneurship activity. The former focused on 
entrepreneurial action more broadly (e.g., new venture creation, self-employment, firm 
creation, intrapreneurship, innovation, etc.), the latter focused on a dimension of 
entrepreneurial action specific to the artworld (i.e., organizational attack). In addition, by 
supporting the theory with case study observations, the theorist has created opportunities for 
explanatory power, or the degree to which a theory affords the most rational and sensible 
explanation for a phenomenon of study. In discussing theory development strategies in the 
broader entrepreneurship field, Kenworthy & McMullen remind us that “theories with high 
explanatory power can make sense of a large amount of data from many studies” (, p.).   

In addition to explanatory power, the theorist has created opportunities for predictive 
power, or an assessment of practical predictive significance (Kenworthy & McMullen ). 
For example, embedded in this theory is the assertion that in the artworld, a call to action 
functions as a value proposition. This logic is supported by current thinking in customer value 
propositioning, which as Neck et al. state, “ …should always be focused on the value generated 
for the customer” (Neck, Neck, & Murray ) (Amit ). Given lessons learned from the 
research on customer value propositioning (Neck et al., 2018), this theory predicts that 
organizational attacks in artworlds will be more successful if the attack is perceived to benefit 
the artworld significantly. Importantly, this assertion can be tested through the case study 
method, and thus adds to the predictive power of the theory.  

In theorizing arts entrepreneurship “as” an organizational attack in artworlds, the 
theorist has also aided the field in reducing arguments about the constituent and contextual 
definitions of arts entrepreneurship. Beckman concurs when he states, “we may find it more 
helpful to discuss art and entrepreneurship within a broader theory (or theories) of arts 
entrepreneurship” (Beckman , p.). Continuing, Beckman states “Using this theory 



57 

methodology can account for multiple observations of the phenomenon, thus providing 
distinct data points and hypotheses with which to develop not only a unified theory, but to 
help disprove theories that cannot support predictions” (, p.). In addition, by framing 
arts entrepreneurs as distinct members of the artworld who both initiate and gain 
participation in organizational attacks on the social structure and sacred aesthetic beliefs of 
an artworld, the theorist helps us to recognize that while all members of the artworld think as 
entrepreneurs, not all of them initiate and gain participation in organizational attacks, which 
is arguably a distinct behavior of arts entrepreneurs. If this theory is advanced, it could help 
the broader entrepreneurship field distinguish between the behavior of business 
entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and arts entrepreneurs.  

 
 

References 

Addison Jr., G. (). The Black aesthetic. Garden City, 
NY: Doubleday. 

Alridge, D. P., & Stewart, J. B. (). Introduction: Hip 
Hop in History: Past, Present, and Future. The 
Journal of African American History, (), –. 

Amit, R. (). The Latest Innovation: Redesigning the 
business model. Retrieved May , , from 
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/redes
igning-business-model/). 

Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (). How 
Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of 
Institutional Entrepreneurship. The Academy of 
Management Annals, (), –. 

Baumol, W. J. (). Formal Entrepreneurship Theory 
in Economics: Existence and Bounds. Journal of 
Business Venturing, (), –. 

Becker, Howard S. () Art Worlds, th Anniversary 
Edition. Oakland, CA. University of California 
Press. 

Beckman, G. D. (). What Arts Entrepreneurship 
Isn’t. Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Research, 
(), –. Retrieved from https://jaer.ncsu.edu/ 

Billington, M. (). The Theater That Sparked A 
Revolution. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com////theater/the-
theater-that-sparked-a-revolution.html 

Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J. H., & Pistrui, D. 
(). Family Business Research: The Evolution of 
an Academic Field. Family Business Review, (), 
–. https://doi.org/./j.-
...x 

Bolt, B. (). Heidegger Reframed. New York, NY: I.B. 
Tauris & Co. Ltd. 

Bourdieu, P. (). The Rules of Art: Genesis and 
Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, CA: 
Stanford University Press. 

Bull, I., & Willard, G. E. (). Towards A Theory of 
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 
(), –. Retrieved from 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/ 

Bygrave, W., & Hofer, C. (). Theorizing about 
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and 
Practice, (), –. 

Center, C. M. D. (n.d.). hiplet. Retrieved May , , 
from https://www.hipletballerinas.com/ 

Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (). Issues of 
Research Design and Construct Management in 
Entrepreneurship Research: The Past Decade. 
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (), –
. 

Chang, W. J., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (). What is 
Arts Entrepreneurship? Tracking The Development 
Of Its Defintion In Scholarly Journals. Artivate: A 
Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, (), –. 

Cooper, A. C. (). Challenges in Predicting New 
Firm Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 
(), –. 

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (). Basics of qualitative 
research:Techniques and procedures for developing 
grounded theory (rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage Publications. 

Creswell, J. W. (). Qualitative Inquiry & Research 
Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Kindle 
(r). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Dewey, J. (). Art as Experience (Kindle). New York, 
NY: Penguin Books. 

Eng, D. (). How Cirque du Soleil got started. 
Retrieved from 
https://archive.fortune.com////smallbusin
ess/cirque_du_soleil_guy_laliberte.fortune/index.ht
m 



58 

Essig, L. (). Means and Ends: A Theory Framework 
for Understanding Entrepreneurship in the US Arts 
and Culture Sector. The Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, (), –. 
https://doi.org/./.. 

Fancourt, D. (). Arts in Health. Oxford, UK: 
Oxford University Press. 

Gangi, J. (). The Synergies of Artistic and 
Entrepreneurial Action. The Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, (), –. 
https://doi.org/./.. 

Gangi, J. (). Towards Consensus: Suggested 
Foundational Building Blocks For 
Entrepreneurship Research and Pedagogy. Artivate: 
A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, (), –
. 

Gartner, W. B. (). A Conceptual Framework for 
Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture 
Creation. Academy of Management Review, (), 
–. 
https://doi.org/./AMR.. 

Gartner, W. B. (). “Who Is An Entrepreneur?” Is 
the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small 
Business, (), –. 

Gartner, W. B. (). Aspects of organizational 
emergence. In H. Thomas, I. Bull, & G. E. Willard 
(Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Perspectives on theory 
building (pp. –). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. 

Gonc ̧alves, S., & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.). (). Art and 
intercultural dialogue (E-book). Rotterdam: The 
Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 

Grandori, A., & Gaillard, L. G. (). Organizing 
Entrepreneurship. NY, NY: Routledge. 

Heidelberg, B. M. (). Learning From Negative 
Space: Categorizing Success in Arts Policy 
Entrepreneurship. Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, (), –. 

History of Royal Court Theatre. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://royalcourttheatre.com/about/history/ 

Hodge, S. (). The Short Story of Modern Art. 
London: Laurence King Publishing. 

Howard, T. R. (). Why Some Dancers Are Giving 
Hiplet Serious Side Eye. Retrieved May , , 
from https://www.dancemagazine.com/why-are-so-
many-people-cringing-over-hiplet-
.html 

Kenworthy, T. P., & McMullen, W. E. (). From 
philosophy of science to theory testing: generating 
practical knowledge in entrepreneurship. In A. 
Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Handbook of 
Research Methods and Applications in 
Entrepreneurship and Small Business (pp. –). 
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 

Khaire, M. (). Culture and Commerce: The value of 
entrepreneurship in creative industries (Kindle). 
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (). Blue Ocean 
Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space 
and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston, MA: 
Harvard Business Review Press. 

Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (). Psychology of the Arts. 
Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 

Kuratko, D. F. (). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process 
and Practice (Kindle). Mason, OH: Cengage. 

Marks, A. (). Why Are People So Riled Up About 
Black Girls Dancing Hip-Hop on Pointe? Retrieved 
May , , from 
https://www.chicagomag.com/arts-culture/June-
/Hip-Hop-Ballet-Hiplet-Homer-Bryant/ 

McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Brooks, A., & Szántó, 
A. (). A Portrait of the Visual Arts: Meeting the 
Challenges of a New Era. Santa Monica, CA. 
Retrieved from 
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG.ht
ml 

McKnight, J. S., & Plummer, J. M. (). Community 
Organizing: Theory and Practice (Kindle). New 
York, NY: Pearson. 

Neck, H. M., Neck, C. P., & Murray, E. L. (). 
Entrepreneurship: The Practice and the Mindset 
(Kindle). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Preece, S. B. (). Social Bricolage in Arts 
Entrepreneurship: Building a Jazz Society From 
Scratch, (), –. 

Rabaka, R. (). The Hip Hop Movement: from R&B 
and the civil rights movement to rap and the hip hop 
generation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. 

Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (). 
Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and 
opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of 
Business Venturing, (), –. 
https://doi.org/./j.jbusvent... 

Sarasvathy, S. D. (). Effectuation: Elements of 
Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham, UK: Edward 
Elgar. 

Schumpeter, J. A. (). The theory of economic 
development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, 
interest, and the business cycle. Chicago, IL: 
University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign’s 
Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical 
Reference in Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from 
https://ssrn.com/abstract= 

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (). The Promise of 
Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy 
of Management Review, (), –. 

Staber, U. (). Understanding Organizations: 
Theories and Images (Kindle). Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage Publications. 

Strauss, A. L. (). Notes on the Nature and 
Development of General Theories. Qualitative 
Inquiry, (), –. 

Welter, F. (). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—
Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. 
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (), –
. https://doi.org/./j.-
...x 

White, J. C. (). Toward a Theory of Arts 
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship 
Education, (), –. 

White, J. C. (). Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the 
U.S. Arts Sector: Identifying Arts Entrepreneurs 



59 

Demographics and Shared Characteristics. Artivate: 
A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, (), –. 

White, J. C. (). Toward a Theory of Minority 
Entrepreneurship in the Non-Profit Arts Sector. 

Journal of Arts Management Law and Society, (), 
–. 
https://doi.org/./.. 

  



60 

 


