Debate on ‘Entrepreneurship’: Summary of Arguments
- Below are notes documenting some of the arguments proposed during the debates we held in class during Week 3.
- The motion was as follows: ‘This house believes that encouraging entrepreneurship in the arts is harmful to artists and to art’
- These lists are not exhaustive of everything that was discussed in the sessions. Nor, of course, are they exhaustive of all the potential arguments that could be made!
- Please treat these arguments as a resource with which to further develop your own critical thinking.
Arguments in Favour of the Motion
- Making art to serve a commercial imperative is not always good for art.
- A focus on monetary value could limit artistic creativity.
- There is a danger of a cycle of reproduction (producing the same art again and again, because it sells).
- Less space for experimentation.
- A danger of valuing quantity over quality.
- The measure of success in entrepreneurship does not match success in arts.
- Organisations might insist on more work in the same style. (See argument number 3, above.)
- Government may step back from supporting the arts.
- The image of the entrepreneur is a problem – harmful in terms of diversity.
- Entrepreneurialism is a key part of neoliberalism: this leads to individualization; precarity; reduction in public funding; prioritising social capital.
- Entrepreneurialism privileges technology-focused art / culture.
- Artists will be distracted from making art.
- What is the value of using the term ‘entrepreneurship’? Does it help?
- Creativity should not be motivated by profit. Creativity won’t thrive in that situation. (e.g. We see in YouTube how content changes, for the worse, with the profit motive).
- Entrepreneurship favours the idea of artists as self-employed: but this is not always best. Self-employment can lead to self-exploitation, and very poor work-life balance.
- Risk-taking can be valuable, but individualized risk taking, as per entrepreneurialism, is harder than when taking risks together.
- Entrepreneurship is competitive, and art is in its nature not competitive.
- Entrepreneurship suggests that everyone can be creative: reducing the value of artists.
- Art can be pressurized by economic value.
- Under a system of entrepreneurialism: taste = money.
- Drive for innovation may be in tension with authenticity.
- Entrepreneurs can appropriate the very idea of museums for narrowly commercial purposes. E.g. The Museum of Ice Cream.
- Exploitation and self-exploitation in make artistic products. Who can afford to work like that – for free? Who can afford to work long hours for little money? And perhaps some people will be excluded from becoming audiences – people who can’t afford a commercial rate for a ticket.
- How can economic gain go hand in hand with other types of ‘capital’?
- It’s a problem if the artistic process is driven by consumer demand. There has to be a role for art to ‘educate’ the consumer.
- There is a danger that smaller artists will be pushed aside. What will rise will those with entrepreneurial skills. Quality of artistic work will decrease.
- Not to say that art shouldn’t make money, but, to have an artistic world that’s entirely entrepreneurial is exclusive. This relates to what is rewarded: the ‘maverick’, the ‘disruptive’. Women / minorities may be less likely to have their voices heard within this kind of context.
- Artists should be freed to focus on their work. A business focus could devalue the artistic work.
- There could be someone else doing the management / entrepreneurialism, leaving the artist to get on with making art.
- The entrepreneurial framework is white and male: this has to change.
- Entrepreneurialism: implies only one world / type of person.
- Don’t limit artists by focusing on profit.
- If you push cultural workers into entrepreneurship, you shift from a ‘can do’ environment to a ‘must do’ environment. This is harmful.
- Entrepreneurship and art-making are completely different mindsets.
- The stereotype of the entrepreneur is very limiting. This is a problem for women, and anyone who doesn’t fit.
- We need to think about the best environment for the best art to be made and presented.
- The creation of art can be selfish. (It doesn’t have to be for other people, or a market.)
Arguments Against the Motion
- Entrepreneurship is necessary for survival. (Artists need it to survive.)
- Entrepreneurialism enables artists to consider the variety of modern materials – really different artistic media available.
- Technology, the use of social media, for example, enables artists to expand their profile.
- Entrepreneurship helps the arts to make a stronger case to government (for public funding).
- Funds generated through entrepreneurship can enable artists to work with communities, to generate social value.
- Art might be about commerce – e.g. Andy Warhol.
- Passion can make great things happen. E.g. the example of Morgan Khan, in the Stuart Moss reading on this week’s reading list.
- Innovation and creativity may be the same thing / synonymous.
- Entrepreneurship allows creatives to create many types of value, not just monetary value.
- We can break down the image of the entrepreneur – move beyond the stereotype – and see.
- Innovation / creativity / leadership – all are very similar to what artists do: creating something new, something different, from what’s already there.
- Artists are innovative and always have been: so, it’s not about ‘encouraging’ entrepreneurship: it’s already there.
- The example of monetizing content on YouTube: it motivates more people to want to do it. More is not necessarily bad.
- Self-employment is good: making art as survival.
- Whether they call themselves ‘cultural entrepreneurs’ or not, they already are. E.g. Banksy.
- Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation: there can be a middle ground.
- Entrepreneurship is not just for money: it can be motivated by self-satisfaction.
- Entrepreneurship is essential for any industry, but especially for arts – creativity.
- There are at least two definitions of entrepreneurialism.
- There has to be money. How is it to be generated?
- Creating profit has always been part of the arts. From Shakespeare to Damien Hirst.
- Entrepreneurialism can generate value for society: more holistic. Joy, self-value, education.
- Entrepreneurialism is synonymous with artistic process.
- Competition is a reality.
- Entrepreneurialism is fundamental for innovation in every kind of field. To keep art alive, we need innovation.
- Contemporary artists are entrepreneurs. E.g. Banksy.
- It’s possible to be anti-capitalist and an entrepreneur. E.g. Banksy.
- Art has changed the world from a political point of view.
- There is an inherent connection between artists and entrepreneurs.
- Artists can build on resources – creating things which are artistically more valuable.
- The qualities that artists and entrepreneurs have are very similar. They are non-conformist and risk-taking.
- Artists have to feed themselves, and entrepreneurialism could allow people to fund more artistically valuable work.
- Through entrepreneurialism, artists can strengthen their ties with the ‘outside world’, and get their work out there.
- Taking out the middle man is good.
- We can think in terms of social value.
- Entrepreneurialism has different aspects: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.
- Art is entrepreneurship.
- Creativity and innovation: without entrepreneurship, no innovation – art wouldn’t change.
- Making money from art not a bad thing in itself. And the money made can fund all kinds of artistic activity – including the work of organisations with an explicitly social mission, such as a theatre company addressing questions of disability – they need money to operate.
- We can break glass ceilings of entrepreneurship… via cultural entrepreneurship specifically.
- You need enough money in order to make your art.
- Entrepreneurship gives artists more independence.
- Arts funding, from governments, is being cut.
- There can be ‘shades’ of entrepreneurship. E.g. blogging. You don’t have to put all your life savings into it.
- What is an artist? It’s not just a painter in an attic. Could also be a music label guy (like in the Stuart Moss chapter), or Banksy. Artists don’t have to be poor.
- Through entrepreneurship you can make a job out of your passion.
- Entrepreneurship does not limit art but is ‘limitless with art’.
- If you are able to pursue your own opportunities, you will be able to bring about the art you want.
- There are lots of similarities between setting up a business and making art.
- The musical Hamilton is a great example of how entrepreneurship and making art go hand in hand / overlap. Lin Manuel Miranda is an entrepreneur. He is now influencing the world, and changing the field.
- The entrepreneur has found a gap. Without arts entrepreneurship we wouldn’t have any new art!
- Entrepreneurship isn’t only about money. Social entrepreneurship! There is a morality to this.
- Not all entrepreneurs look the same. We can change, and understand entrepreneurship in new ways. Entrepreneurship does not have to mean white and male.
- An entrepreneur doesn’t have to be solitary. And entrepreneur can work with other people – other entrepreneurs.
Questions to the Team Proposing the Motion
- What about funding? If not entrepreneurship, how to fund the making of art?
- Isn’t entrepreneurship simply creativity?
- How can people make art without seeking to make a profit? Would this then mean, without entrepreneurship, it’s only the rich who can make art?
- Competition will always be there, in the making of art, whether entrepreneurialism is encouraged or not. What’s the difference?
- Banksy is part of the institution of art: is he hypocritical or not?
- There needs to be money in the art world. How to generate it?
- How do we fund this art world?
- Is mediation of the artist’s work (by other people / organisations) really needed?
- Without entrepreneurship, will artists just be in an arts bubble?
- Isn’t making art entrepreneurial in itself?
- Wouldn’t there be a danger in separating the making of art from a marketing / management function?
- Aren’t artists more free away from government?
- What if there are no jobs available? Isn’t money important?
- Are entrepreneurship and being an artist different? Perhaps they are the same thing?
Questions to the Team Opposing the Motion
- Is ‘entrepreneurship’ really inevitable?
- Does adaptation to the market really encourage creativity?
- Doesn’t the purpose of a YouTube video change when the maker is seeking to generate money? Doesn’t the content’s ‘authenticity’ suffer?
- Doesn’t entrepreneurialism undermine judgements of value? Don’t we need other judgements of value than those of monetary value and the market?
- There is too much focus on individuals: what about government / public responsibility?
- Shouldn’t there be room for artists to make mistakes? Doesn’t a culture of entrepreneurialism, without government support, jeopardize that?
- Isn’t entrepreneurialism in the arts letting governments off the hook in terms of their responsibility to create environments for art-making?
- If you are committed to entrepreneurialism, how can you change working conditions for arts workers? We know there are many inequalities – what could be the solutions?
- Are you so sure it is going to be easy to challenge the prevailing image of the entrepreneur?
- Is art only valid when it ‘fills a gap’?
- How much time in an art school curriculum should be devoted to entrepreneurial skills?
- Is it really possible to balance the activities of business and those of making art?