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

1. Making art to serve a commercial imperative is not always good for art.
2. A focus on monetary value could limit artistic creativity.
3. There is a danger of a cycle of reproduction (producing the same art again and again, because it sells).
4. Less space for experimentation.
5. A danger of valuing quantity over quality.
6. The measure of success in entrepreneurship does not match success in arts.
7. Organisations might insist on more work in the same style. (See argument number 3, above.)
8. Government may step back from supporting the arts.
9. The image of the entrepreneur is a problem – harmful in terms of diversity.
10. Entrepreneurialism is a key part of neoliberalism: this leads to individualization; precarity; reduction in public funding; prioritising social capital.
11. Entrepreneurialism privileges technology-focused art / culture.
12. Artists will be distracted from making art.
13. What is the value of using the term ‘entrepreneurship’? Does it help?
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. Risk-taking can be valuable, but individualized risk taking, as per entrepreneurialism, is harder than when taking risks together.
17. Entrepreneurship is competitive, and art is in its nature not competitive.
18. Entrepreneurship suggests that everyone can be creative: reducing the value of artists.
19. Art can be pressurized by economic value.
20. Under a system of entrepreneurialism: taste = money.
21. Drive for innovation may be in tension with authenticity.
22. Entrepreneurs can appropriate the very idea of museums for narrowly commercial purposes. E.g. The Museum of Ice Cream.
23. 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.
24. How can economic gain go hand in hand with other types of ‘capital’?
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Artists should be freed to focus on their work. A business focus could devalue the artistic work.
29. There could be someone else doing the management / entrepreneurialism, leaving the artist to get on with making art.
30. The entrepreneurial framework is white and male: this has to change.
31. Entrepreneurialism: implies only one world / type of person.
32. Don’t limit artists by focusing on profit.
33. If you push cultural workers into entrepreneurship, you shift from a ‘can do’ environment to a ‘must do’ environment. This is harmful.
34. Entrepreneurship and art-making are completely different mindsets.
35. The stereotype of the entrepreneur is very limiting. This is a problem for women, and anyone who doesn’t fit.
36. We need to think about the best environment for the best art to be made and presented.
37. The creation of art can be selfish. (It doesn’t have to be for other people, or a market.)

 

Arguments Against the Motion

1. Entrepreneurship is necessary for survival. (Artists need it to survive.)
2. Entrepreneurialism enables artists to consider the variety of modern materials – really different artistic media available.
3. Technology, the use of social media, for example, enables artists to expand their profile.
4. Entrepreneurship helps the arts to make a stronger case to government (for public funding).
5. Funds generated through entrepreneurship can enable artists to work with communities, to generate social value.
6. Art might be about commerce – e.g. Andy Warhol.
7. Passion can make great things happen. E.g. the example of Morgan Khan, in the Stuart Moss reading on this week’s reading list.
8. Innovation and creativity may be the same thing / synonymous.
9. Entrepreneurship allows creatives to create many types of value, not just monetary value.
10. We can break down the image of the entrepreneur – move beyond the stereotype – and see.
11. Innovation / creativity / leadership – all are very similar to what artists do: creating something new, something different, from what’s already there.
12. Artists are innovative and always have been: so, it’s not about ‘encouraging’ entrepreneurship: it’s already there.
13. The example of monetizing content on YouTube: it motivates more people to want to do it. More is not necessarily bad.
14. Self-employment is good: making art as survival.
15. Whether they call themselves ‘cultural entrepreneurs’ or not, they already are. E.g. Banksy.
16. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation: there can be a middle ground.
17. Entrepreneurship is not just for money: it can be motivated by self-satisfaction.
18. Entrepreneurship is essential for any industry, but especially for arts – creativity.
19. There are at least two definitions of entrepreneurialism.
20. There has to be money. How is it to be generated?
21. Creating profit has always been part of the arts. From Shakespeare to Damien Hirst.
22. Entrepreneurialism can generate value for society: more holistic. Joy, self-value, education.
23. Entrepreneurialism is synonymous with artistic process.
24. Competition is a reality.
25. Entrepreneurialism is fundamental for innovation in every kind of field. To keep art alive, we need innovation.
26. Contemporary artists are entrepreneurs. E.g. Banksy.
27. It’s possible to be anti-capitalist and an entrepreneur. E.g. Banksy.
28. Art has changed the world from a political point of view.
29. There is an inherent connection between artists and entrepreneurs.
30. Artists can build on resources – creating things which are artistically more valuable.
31. The qualities that artists and entrepreneurs have are very similar. They are non-conformist and risk-taking.
32. Artists have to feed themselves, and entrepreneurialism could allow people to fund more artistically valuable work.
33. Through entrepreneurialism, artists can strengthen their ties with the ‘outside world’, and get their work out there.
34. Taking out the middle man is good.
35. We can think in terms of social value.
36. Entrepreneurialism has different aspects: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.
37. Art is entrepreneurship.
38. Creativity and innovation: without entrepreneurship, no innovation – art wouldn’t change.
39. 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.
40. We can break glass ceilings of entrepreneurship… via cultural entrepreneurship specifically.
41. You need enough money in order to make your art.
42. Entrepreneurship gives artists more independence.
43. Arts funding, from governments, is being cut.
44. There can be ‘shades’ of entrepreneurship. E.g. blogging. You don’t have to put all your life savings into it.
45. 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.
46. Through entrepreneurship you can make a job out of your passion.
47. Entrepreneurship does not limit art but is ‘limitless with art’.
48. If you are able to pursue your own opportunities, you will be able to bring about the art you want.
49. There are lots of similarities between setting up a business and making art.
50. 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.
51. The entrepreneur has found a gap. Without arts entrepreneurship we wouldn’t have any new art!
52. Entrepreneurship isn’t only about money. Social entrepreneurship! There is a morality to this.
53. Not all entrepreneurs look the same. We can change, and understand entrepreneurship in new ways. Entrepreneurship does not have to mean white and male.
54. An entrepreneur doesn’t have to be solitary. And entrepreneur can work with other people – other entrepreneurs.

 

 

Questions to the Team Proposing the Motion

1. What about funding? If not entrepreneurship, how to fund the making of art?
2. Isn’t entrepreneurship simply creativity?
3. 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?
4. Competition will always be there, in the making of art, whether entrepreneurialism is encouraged or not. What’s the difference?
5. Banksy is part of the institution of art: is he hypocritical or not?
6. There needs to be money in the art world. How to generate it?
7. How do we fund this art world?
8. Is mediation of the artist’s work (by other people / organisations) really needed?
9. Without entrepreneurship, will artists just be in an arts bubble?
10. Isn’t making art entrepreneurial in itself?
11. Wouldn’t there be a danger in separating the making of art from a marketing / management function?
12. Aren’t artists more free away from government?
13. What if there are no jobs available? Isn’t money important?
14. Are entrepreneurship and being an artist different? Perhaps they are the same thing?

 

Questions to the Team Opposing the Motion

1. Is ‘entrepreneurship’ really inevitable?
2. Does adaptation to the market really encourage creativity?
3. Doesn’t the purpose of a YouTube video change when the maker is seeking to generate money? Doesn’t the content’s ‘authenticity’ suffer?
4. Doesn’t entrepreneurialism undermine judgements of value? Don’t we need other judgements of value than those of monetary value and the market?
5. There is too much focus on individuals: what about government / public responsibility?
6. Shouldn’t there be room for artists to make mistakes? Doesn’t a culture of entrepreneurialism, without government support, jeopardize that?
7. Isn’t entrepreneurialism in the arts letting governments off the hook in terms of their responsibility to create environments for art-making?
8. 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?
9. Are you so sure it is going to be easy to challenge the prevailing image of the entrepreneur?
10. Is art only valid when it ‘fills a gap’?
11. How much time in an art school curriculum should be devoted to entrepreneurial skills?
12. Is it really possible to balance the activities of business and those of making art?