Samenvatting
Summary Cultural Entrepreneurship & Innovation
Here you find a complete summary of all articles from Cultural Entrepreneurship & Innovation course .
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 43 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 43 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Cultural Entrepreneurship and InnovationWeek 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. Link
- Dubois, S. 2012 Recognition and renown, the structure of cultural markets: evidence
from French poetry, Journal of Cultural Economics, 36:27–48. Link
- 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. Link
Week 2 Entrepreneurship & Risk & Innovation
- Menger, P-M. (1999) Artistic labor Markets and careers, Annual review of Sociology, Vol.
25, 541-574. Link
- Hayward, M.L.A.; Shepherd, D.A. & Griffin, D. (2006) A Hubris Theory of
Entrepreneurship Management Science, 52, 2, 160-172. Link
- 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. Link
- 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.
Link
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.
Link
- 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. Link
- 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. Link
Week 4 Critics & Publics
- Eliashberg J, Shugan SM. 1997. “Film Critics: Influencers or Predictors?” Journal of
Marketing 61:68-78. Link
- Shrum, W. (1991) “Critics and Publics: Cultural mediation in Highbrow and Popular
Performing Arts”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, no. 2, 347-375. Link
1
,- 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. Link
- Dempster, A (2006) “Managing Uncertainties in the Creative Industries: Lessons from
Jerry Springer The Opera.” Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 3, 224-233. Link
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.Link
- 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. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1804.05705 [Link]
- Xu, N., Zhang, N., Zhou, L. (2019). Validity Concerns in Research Using Organic
Data. Journal of Management (ahead of print). [Link]
- Gervais, D. J. (2019). The Machine As Author. Iowa Law Review, 105. [Link]
Week 6 Art & Policy
- Frey, B.S. (2003). Public support. In: A handbook of cultural economics, 389–398. Link1
Link2
- 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.
Link
- 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. Link
- Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural institutions: theory,
evidence and policy implications. International journal of cultural policy, 18(2), 205-222.
Link
2
, Week 1 – Cultural Markets & Creative Competitors
Bradshaw & Holbrook (2007) – Self-destructive artist: myth & reality
Chat Baker / Amy Winehouse – self-destructiveness
Tension between art & commerce à if you can combine both, it is very advantageous.
The article is about a strategic marketing tactic: self-destruction. You want a great artistic
career, but also want to make a lot of money. Chat combines these without losing legitimacy.
How? Self-destruction = strategy à with self-destructive image you can be famous + remain
your artistic integrity together.
• Why good idea? Finding solution for art vs. commerce, which is difficult to combine
so this could be solution BUT it’s extreme. Consumers find it appealing, as they
present emancipated world, free from monetary power, materialism and capitalism.
Why would this help? Get attention; make reasons for people to write about you. Besides, it
might correlate with your storyline, be a part of themes you sing about for example. Third, he
got popular among people who don’t know much about music. à If it is at that level, you are
not seen as very credible anymore + lose your highbrow status.
• Except when you convince people, that it was unplanned to reach these people. You
were still there for highbrow status people, but the lowbrow people also pick you up.
You need to make sure that the highbrow people, know you are not there to make money.
This is why self-destruction supports this. If you are that stupid to self-destruct, this will
make it more believable that you’re not there to make money, or change your songs to also
reach lowbrow music people. If you are self-destructive in an open way, it allows you to get
popular, without losing your credibility.
Two extremes within the music industry:
1. Pure bohemianism (art for art) = producer as consumer à consumer strategy à
creative integrity. Musicians who perform primarily for themselves. Bride side:
authenticity, creative integrity.
2. Pure alienation (art for commercial) = consumer as producer à producer strategy
à pandering. Music purely made for commercial pursuit. Down side: pandering
represents complete subservience (onderdanigheid) to the marketplace.
Ø Many artists escape these extremes by settling for some form of scuffling that
preserves a degree of artistic integrity, while managing to make ends meet in a way
that will avoid starvation à overcome the fundamental contradiction between
consumer & producer strategy to achieve some degree of self-actualization as an
artist who can satisfy in order to survive, rather than self-destruct.
Pandering: ‘lowering yourself’ as an artist for commercial purposes.
Scuffling: having second job during daytime (lot of artists found their solution in this).
Legitimizing: keep authenticity & make creative products align with your aspiration, BUT
also for the commercialized crowd à it’s a mix, not 2 separate objectives.
3
, Dubois (2012) – Recognition and renown in the market for poetry
Purpose of the article: to look closely at the structure of cultural markets & at the circulation
of works between the two poles of large and fringe firms.
The article is about – niche – poetry in French; nobody makes big money (neither writers, nor
publishers). But why should you publish if there is no money in it?
• Prestige, serious poetry of a serious writer, way to attract people / genres, or
corporate reputation.
Creative industries à oligopoly fringe model: large businesses dominate bulk of the
market, leaving niches they deem insufficient profitable to small firms. The upstream selector
role of the large business plays a key role.
Two poles of production:
1. Highbrow literature: restricted production, limited appeal, niche markets.
2. Lowbrow literature: large scale production, wide appeal, mass-market literature.
Ø Concluding, the market is defined by the 80/20 principle: 80% of the market is
dominated by 20% or less of the firms.
The distinction between recognition & renown causes successful French poets to move
from small time publishes to majors. Their reputation is first recognition, but in order to
become renown, they need to go big.
Selective matching: associations with high-status partners – proves the most efficient
mechanism for building reputation. So majors want big artists to keep their reputation, big
artists want the majors to become renown. In addition, other reputational building
mechanisms such as awards, criticism and media coverage have an important role.
Competition is not about money, but about reputation…
Reputation as collective category: reputation is a category of collective thought, a
perception. Only has meaning when shared. Reputation functions along two axes:
− Vertically: reputation orders individuals within a hierarchy.
− Horizontally: it’s shared among a more or less large community. It structures the
cultural marketplace by differentiating two types:
− Recognition à reputation an artist enjoys within his / her original world of art.
o Minor publisher (big publishers don’t want you).
− Renown à extension of artists’ reputation beyond his / her world of art.
o Major publisher (they can help you grow).
Ø So, reputation has a chronological dimension: the success in earlier trials is a
condition for success in those to come, called process of legitimation.
The status of publishers is stable over time; whereas poets can rise and fall in status à
these moves make sense in terms of the distinction between recognition (= reputation an
artist enjoys within his / her original world of art) and renown (= extension of the artists’
reputation beyond his / her world of art).
Ø Gain reputation & move from small firms to large or high-status publishers à
because if a poet gets famous it goes to another publisher.
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lynngreeven. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,48. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 55628 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen