Cultural Entrepreneurship & Innovation Summary Articles
Week 1 Cultural Markets & Creative Competitors
- Bradshaw, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2007) Remembering Chet: theorizing the mythology of the
self-destructive bohemian artist as self-producer and self-consumer in the market for
romanticism Marketing Theory Vol. 7(2): 115–136.
- Dubois, S. 2012 Recognition and renown, the structure of cultural markets: evidence from French
poetry, Journal of Cultural Economics,36:27–48.
- Velthuis, O. 2003. Symbolic meanings of prices: constructing the value of contemporary art in
Amsterdam and New York galleries. Theory and Society. 32(2) 181-215.
Week 2 Entrepreneurship & Risk & Innovation
- Menger, P-M. (1999) Artistic labor Markets and careers, Annual review of Sociology, Vol. 25, 541-574.
- Hayward, M.L.A.; Shepherd, D.A. & Griffin, D. (2006) A Hubris Theory of Entrepreneurship
Management Science, 52, 2, 160-172.
- Mol, J.M., Chiu, M.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Love me Tender: New Entry in Popular Music, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 25, 1: 88 - 120.
- Ebbers, J.J. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Nascent Ventures Competing for Start-up capital: Matching
Reputations and Investors, Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 3, pp. 372-384.
Week 3 Creative Production & Management of Creatives
- Cowen, T (1996) “Why I do not Believe in the Cost Disease: a Comment on Baumol” Journal of Cultural
Economics, 20; 207-214. Link- Dunham, L and Freeman, R. E. (2000) “There is no Business like Show
Business: Leadership Lessons from the Theatre”, Organizational Dynamics,vol 29, no2, 108- 133.
- Turbide, J. and Laurin, C. 2009. Performance Measurement in the Arts Sector: The Case of the
Performing Arts, International Journal of Arts Management, 11, 2: 56-70.
- Bhansing, P.V., Leenders, M.A.A.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Performance Effects of Cognitive
Heterogeneity in Dual Leadership Structures in the Arts: The Role of Selection System Orientations,
European Management Journal, 30, 6: 523-536.
Week 4 Critics & Publics
- Eliashberg J, Shugan SM. 1997. “Film Critics: Influencers or Predictors?” Journal of Marketing 61:68-78.
- Shrum, W. (1991) “Critics and Publics: Cultural mediation in Highbrow and Popular Performing Arts”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, no. 2, 347-375.
- Gemser, G; Van Oostrom, M. & Leenders, M.A.A.M (2007) “The Impact of Film reviews on the Box
Office Performance of Arthouse versus Mainstream Motion Pictures”, Journal of Cultural Economics,
31, 43-63.
- Dempster, A (2006) “Managing Uncertainties in the Creative Industries: Lessons from Jerry Springer
The Opera.” Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 3, 224-233.
Week 5 Big Data & Big Art
- Fraiberger, S. P., Sinatra, R., Resch, M., Riedl, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2018). Quantifying reputation and
success in art. Science, 362(6416), 825-829.
- Wachs, J., Daróczy, B., Hannák, A., Páll, K., & Riedl, C. (2018). And Now for Something Completely
Different: Visual Novelty in an Online Network of Designers.
- Xu, N., Zhang, N., Zhou, L. (2019). Validity Concerns in Research Using Organic Data. Journal of
Management (ahead of print).
- Gervais, D. J. (2019). The Machine As Author. Iowa Law Review, 105.
Week 6 Art & Policy
- Frey, B.S. (2003). Public support. In: A handbook of cultural economics, 389–398.
- O’Hare, M. (2008) Arts policy research for the next 25 years: a Trajectory after Patrons Despite
Themselves, Journal of Cultural Economics, Volume 32, Number 4, 281-291.
- Alexander, V.A. (1996) “Pictures at an Exhibition: Conflicting pressures in Museums and the Display of
Art”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 101, no. 4, 797-839.
- Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural institutions: theory, evidence and
policy implications. International journal of cultural policy, 18(2), 205-222.
1
,Week 1 Economics & culture
Article 1 Bradshaw & Holbrook (2007) theorizing the mythology of the self-destructive
bohemian artist as self-producer and self-consumer in the market for romanticism. This
article is about competing career orientations arising from the contradictory demands for
musicians to produce aesthetic experiences for an audience of experts, cognoscenti, or
devoted fans while also facing the need to earn cash in the mass market constituted by non-
experts. This article explores the lived tragedy and mythology of Chet Baker as an
epiphenomenon of the market’s thirst for self-destructing artists that has plagued jazz for
much of the past century.
On one hand, musicians are expected to create music that is oppositional, autonomous, and
innovative, thereby pleasing themselves above all else while simultaneously satisfying the
Romantic ideal of art by inducing a profound state of aesthetic contemplation or even
ecstatic rapture. On the other, they are forced to create music that, bound by mundane
realities, will raise the cash needed to sustain their professional careers by putting food on
the table. How the artist negotiates this precarious trade-off tends to position the resulting
creative offering at one or another level on the bohemianism dimension.
Bohemia = musicians or other artists who perform primarily for themselves as expert self-
consumers seeking to maximize their own profound aesthetic experience as an audience for
the consumption of their own playing.
Alienation = music made purely for the commercial pursuit of a monetary reward and aimed
at an audience of nonexpert consumers who have no special knowledge of the art form, who
are cultivated for the dollars they can provide rather than for the sincere appreciation they
can bestow, and who will respond favorably to the music only if it is dumbed down in ways
that make it easily accessible.
On the bright side, bohemia might manifest itself as authenticity based on the integrity of
playing for the aesthetic appreciation of expert judges. Logically, pure bohemia, defined in
marketing-related terms as the equation of the artistic producer and aesthetic consumer,
need not necessarily involve self-destruction. At the other extreme from bohemia, the
alienation associated with pure pandering represents complete subservience to the
marketplace. Admittedly, in its most benign form, pandering is a not-very-nice term for
something quite endearing.
Main point: The previously-mentioned cases of self-destruction in general and that of Chet
Baker in particular serve to illustrate the difficulties of achieving credibility in a marketplace
that makes mutually contradictory demands. For musicians, the major challenge lies in
overcoming the fundamental contradiction between producer-as-consumer (pure
bohemianism through creative integrity) and consumer-as-producer (pure alienation
through pandering) so as to achieve some degree of self-actualization as an artist who can
satisfy, at least partially, the bohemian expectation of autonomous production but who
nonetheless manages to survive or even thrive rather than self-destruct, without of course
moving too far past scuffling into the murky waters of alienated pandering.
2
, Article 2 Dubois (2011) Recognition and renown, the structure of cultural markets:
evidence from French poetry
This article explores the organization of cultural markets through the case of French
contemporary poetry, distinguishing the market for recognition and the wider market for
renown. if the status of firms is remarkably stable, artists may move from small publishers to
large-scale ones.
Empirical studies have shown that the genres of seemingly smaller appeal can reach the core
of the market by gaining consecration, as illustrated in the contexts of contemporary music,
art or literature. the structure of markets corresponds to that of reputations, which array
themselves according to the two stages of recognition and renown.
Reputation = a category of collective thought, a perception. It has meaning only when
shared. It emerges from a collective effort that positions individuals within a common space
through the use of a ‘‘label’’. Reputation functions along vertical and horizontal axes:
vertically, reputation orders individuals within a hierarchy; horizontally, it is shared among a
more or less large community.
Recognition = occurs in small, specialized circles where the economic power of businesses
counts for little.
Renown = comes to the artist whose name goes beyond the circles of the initiated to enter
into History, that arbiter who ‘‘recognition to posterity”. Renown is at the heart of the
sociology and the economics of art, since that is where we find the names and works that
will enter the canon. Renown refers to a phenomenon that is familiar to the worlds of art:
over-selection.
The central hypothesis of this article is that reputation governs cultural markets and that
stages of recognition and renown act on two related but different markets in terms of both
artists and firms.
The status of publishers is remarkably stable over time, whereas poets may gain in
reputation and move from small firms to large and high-status publishers. These moves
make sense in terms of the distinction between recognition, the reputation an artist enjoys
within his or her original world of art, and renown, the extension of the artist’s reputation
beyond his or her world of art. The central argument here is that the structure of markets
corresponds to that of reputations, which array themselves according to the two stages of
recognition and renown.
Main point = Reputation structures the cultural marketplace by differentiating the two ideal
type moments, recognition and renown. Everything hinges on the market in question and its
particular means of constructing reputation. Art worlds may need to create reputations that
last over time in order to stabilize the slow-moving markets that would not survive without
those at the head of the pack. The major poets of the time pull the market forward on the
strength of their stable reputations. By contrast, speculative markets like the contemporary
markets for art or pop music rely on reputations that fluctuate wildly in the short term, even
if history will later settle the matter of reputation, as shown in the classical art market.
3
