Looking Back, Looking Forward: Arts-Based Careers and Creative Work
Abstract
The last two decades of research and policy discussion have illuminated important changes in both the opportunities and challenges facing artists and artistic workers as they pursue their careers and advance their artistry. The authors argue that artists need to be masters of navigating across historically disparate domains, for example, specialization and generalist skills, autonomy and social engagement, the economy’s periphery and the core, precarious employment and self-directed entrepreneurialism, and large metro centers and regional art markets. In addition, artists both work beyond existing markets and create entirely new opportunities for themselves and others. As catalysts of change and innovation, artistic workers face special challenges managing ambiguity, developing and sustaining a creative identity, and forming community in the context of an individually based enterprise economy.
Almost 15 years ago, Pierre-Michael Menger (1999) published his seminal review article on artistic labor markets and careers. Menger raised a critical question that has puzzled social scientists for decades: Why do we see both rising employment and unemployment in the arts simultaneously? What accounts for this structural imbalance where the supply of labor (aspiring artists) outstrips demand (available jobs)? And, importantly, how does this disequilibrium influence arts-based careers? Menger and others have convincingly demonstrated that the oversupply of artists and arts-related workers is due to a number of factors including the low barriers to entry (e.g., no license or degree required to practice), the lure of autonomy and freedom, and a chronic underestimation of the risk involved and chances of success (Alper & Wassall, 2006; Menger, 2001; Neff, Wissinger, & Zukin, 2005; Throsby, 1992).
The uncertainty faced both by cultural organizations as well as artists shapes decisions and work arrangements throughout the cultural sector. Cultural organizations manage uncertainty through project-based work and flexible employment, using short-term contracts to hire artists to do specific jobs on a case-by-case basis, thereby avoiding high overhead costs while remaining adaptable to shifting marketplace demands (Storey, Salaman, & Platman, 2005). Artists manage uncertainty—including high rates of unemployment and underemployment—by holding multiple jobs, gaining continuous on the job learning and stretch work that allows them to compete for many different types of jobs and occupational roles, and developing and maintaining strong social networks in order to keep abreast of opportunities and to secure jobs through multiple referrals (Bridgstock, 2005; O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006; Pinheiro & Dowd, 2009; Throsby & Zednik, 2011). While developing and extending their skill sets is an important way for artists to manage contingency and uncertainty, other scholars have focused on the symbolic work that artists do to build reputations, convince others of their legitimacy as artists and professionals, and, importantly, to make sense of their precarious existence, find worth in what they do, and persist in spite of daunting personal and professional challenges (Grazian, 2004; Jones, 2002; Lena & Pachucki, 2013; Lloyd, 2010; McRobbie, 2004a, 2011; Neff et al., 2005).
Since Menger’s article, both scholars and policy makers continue to study artists and explore ways of nurturing and supporting artistic careers. Our goal in organizing this special issue was to examine both what insights continue to hold true as well as what has changed over the past 15 years in our understanding of artistic careers. Importantly, along with important recent scholarship, we wanted to include the perspectives of people working in a variety of policy arenas in order to more directly consider how our accumulating knowledge about artists might translate into policies to support artists and creative workers.
But why do we study artists in the first place? And why should we pursue policies designed to support artistic work? Cultural observers and critics, arts leaders, government agencies, and foundations have long been interested in the plight of artists. In 1790, U.S. Congress passed the first copyright law that set out to protect the economic interests of artists (Vaidhyanathan, 2003). In 1933, the Federal government recognized the plight of unemployed artist during the depression, leading to the creation of the Public Works of Art Project intended to employ artists in the decoration of public buildings and parks. In 1965, in part motivated by the Cold War, the United States established the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The new agency provided individual artist fellowships in support of the vision of the artist as independent and incorruptible and as fearless truth-teller, demonstrating to the world that the American way encouraged freedom and creativity (Brenson, 2001; Dubin, 1987).
More recently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted recommendations concerning the status of artists, encouraging member states to recognize “the essential role of art in the life and development of the individual and of society” and to “protect, defend, and assist artists and their freedom of creation” (UNESCO, 1980). Ten years ago, 37 national and local funders in the United States contributed to a multimillion dollar research initiative, Investing in Creativity, that analyzed support structures for artists in the United States (Jackson, 2004). Most recently, in 2005, the Ford Foundation raised $22 million to support individual artists, arguing “most artists working in their chosen fields can not sustain themselves financially” and that working in “jobs in restaurants, schools, and stores just to make ends meet, leaves little time to create the great works of which they are capable. They need proper places to work and live and reasonably priced health insurance. In other words, funding” (U.S. Artists, 2013). In short, the well-being of the individual artist remains a major concern for both arts leaders and funders.
While there is widespread agreement that both the nation’s economic and health interests are advanced by studying and supporting the pipeline of scientists and engineers, nurses, doctors, and teachers, it is less obvious why artists deserve the same attention. Artistic careers are important for a number of reasons. First, scholars are attracted to artistic labor markets because they present interesting economic puzzles—an oversupply of aspirants, a predominance of project-based work, widely uneven rewards, and rampant unpredictability where all hits are flukes (Bielby & Bielby, 1994; Menger, 1999; Throsby, 1992, 2012). Second, artists are increasingly seen as key economic drivers for cities and nations. In the post-industrial, global economy, many have argued that intellectual property—and specifically art, culture, entertainment, and media—will increasingly represent a growing portion of the gross domestic product. Governments have been interested in how to nurture more creative talent and produce the conditions where such talent can be leveraged to create new enterprises and innovation (Böhm & Land, 2009; DCMS, 2006, 2008; Florida, 2012; Howkins, 2002; Smith, 1998). Third, artistic workers often serve as canaries in the mine, foreshadowing larger trends in employment and careers (McRobbie, 2004b). A recent study by the Department of Labor finds that, on average, Americans between the ages of 24 and 45 will work 11 different jobs in their lifetimes (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Both self-employment and project-based work are on the rise, and workers increasingly hold multiple jobs, face bouts of underemployment, and work across sectors and occupational roles. Studying how artists cope with uncertainty and the factors that influence their success should be relevant for understanding these broader social and economic trends facing today’s (and tomorrow’s) workforce.
To introduce this special issue, we first offer a review of critical findings from the last two decades that add new insight to our understanding of artistic careers and labor markets. After looking back, we then look forward, laying out a research agenda for scholars, policy makers, and educators.
From Specialist to Generalist
A significant transformation in America’s cultural life took place over the course of the 20th century. With the rise of new technologies and the growth of national art markets, cultural production shifted from the studio to the corporation—from a craft orientation to a well-organized, professional, and differentiated system of work (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1944; H. S. Becker, 1984; Negus, 2004; Tepper & Ivey, 2008). Howard Becker (1984) describes late-20th-century art worlds as highly specialized, where individuals with specific talents and technical abilities work collaboratively to produce films, music, advertising, or fine art exhibits. A glance at the rolling credits at the end of a movie reveals the highly differentiated nature of many art worlds today. Moreover, the very competitive nature of artistic labor markets rewards those who are A-list artists, differentiating themselves based on being the most talented and experienced (Caves, 2002; Dowd & Pinheiro, 2013; Faulkner, 1983; Menger, 2001; Zuckerman, 2005). Thus, we often hear that success in the arts requires a minimum of 10,000 hr of training (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Sawyer, 2012). Many arts training institutions, hoping their graduates will be competitive in high-stakes auditions and for prestigious fellowships, continue to emphasize disciplinary-based skill development, requiring students to specialize and invest countless hours mastering a very narrow skill set.
While specialization continues to be the norm in some artistic fields, the overall pattern, many argue, is toward generalization, flexibility, and broad competencies, rather than discipline-specific skills (Ellmeier, 2003; Iyengar, 2013). Careers have been described as protean, requiring artists to shift and adapt to diverse opportunities and to work in multiple roles (D. T. Hall, 2004; Inkson, 2006). In the current special issue, Kristin Thomson (“Roles, Revenues and Responsibilities: The Changing Nature of Being a Working Musician”) describes the many different ways musicians earn a living in today’s economy. Others describe these new labor market trends with the term portfolio careers (Bridgstock, 2005; Throsby & Zednik, 2011). Success increasingly requires meta-competencies such as broad creative skills, commercial acumen, and the ability to work across multiple media platforms (A. L. Bain & McLean, 2013; Bridgstock, 2011; Haukka, 2011; McRobbie, 2004b; Mietzner & Kamprath, 2013). Pinheiro and Dowd (2009) and Dowd and Pinheiro (2013), for example, find that jazz musicians who play many different genres earn more money and develop larger social networks than those who specialize in just one genre. And not only does success seem to require being a jack of all trades, but artistic aspirants themselves also seem eager to work across occupational roles and to develop more diverse skill sets (Throsby & Zednik, 2011). Today, interdisciplinary degrees and majors are some of the most popular courses of study for art students (Fendrich, 2005).
From the Margins to the Center of Economic Life
Beginning in the 19th century with the rise of Romanticism, artists have positioned themselves as rebels and social outsiders working largely in opposition to the market economy (Røyseng, Mangset, & Borgen, 2007). While many artists work squarely within the commercial sector, status in the field of cultural production has largely been granted to those artists who embrace an art for art’s sake outlook (Bourdieu, 1993). Critics, fellow artists, and the public attach the badge of authenticity to those artists who reject economic motives and embrace the bohemian ethic (Lloyd, 2010; Røyseng et al., 2007). Moreover, since the late 19th century, American elites have supported nonprofit, high-culture institutions—museums, opera houses, orchestra halls, theaters— as a way to institutionalize their tastes and secure their class position (DiMaggio, 1982). These nonprofit institutions further reinforce the idea that the best artists and artworks require support beyond the market place.
This bifurcation between the commercial and the noncommercial, the excellent and the base, the elite and the popular, is increasingly breaking down (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007). Richard Peterson was one of the first to bring attention to the idea that boundaries between art forms— and between the high and the popular arts—were blurring for arts consumers, with high-status consumers shifting from snobbish tastes to omnivorous tastes, liking both reggae and Rachmaninoff (Peterson & Kern, 1996; Walker & Scott-Melnyk, 2002). But recent studies of artistic careers also suggest that artists are willing to move across sectors and no longer see working outside the commercial sector as a badge of distinction or authenticity (Bridgstock, 2013; Ellmeier, 2003). This transformation may, in part, be due to shifts in policy language, with government leaders (Böhm & Land, 2009; DCMS, 2006, 2008; Florida, 2012; Howkins, 2002; Smith, 1998) and academics (Florida, 2012; Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2010; Lloyd, 2010) increasingly focusing on the role of artists as drivers of economic growth and innovation. In his article in this issue, Sunil Iyengar, director of Research and Analysis for the NEA, describes how the NEA shifted its focus over the past 5 years to the idea of artists as workers. He quotes the NEA chairman as saying, “The time has come to insist on an obvious but overlooked fact—artists are workers. They make things and perform services, just like other workers, and these goods and services have value—not merely in lofty spiritual terms but in dollars and cents” (2013, p. 498).
Research increasingly demonstrates that most artists work across sectors, and they do so with little regret or concern about selling out (Ellmeier, 2003; Lindemann & Tepper, 2012; Markusen, Gilmore, Johnson, Levi, & Martinez, 2006). Artists are crafting portfolios of jobs that enable them to harness their creativity and earn a living, whether working in nonprofits, commercial enterprise, in their own business, or working for free. The Future of Music Coalition’s Kristin Thomson, a contributor to this special issue, conducted a recent study of artist revenue streams and concludes that “the artist as entrepreneur is now not only possible, but almost a prerequisite” (2013, p. 516). In fact, business and management skills are the number one area that graduates of arts programs wish they had been more exposed to in college (Strategic National Arts Alumni Project [SNAAP], 2011; Tepper & Kuh, 2010).
From Autonomous to Socially Engaged
Our understanding of artistic work and careers is largely influenced by assumptions of unique, autonomous artists who value, above all else, the opportunity to express their individual talents and creative visions (G. Becker, 2001; Boorstin, 1992; Røyseng et al., 2007). Given this view, we place a premium on nurturing and developing this individual spark of genius. On a recent music panel in Nashville, a group of artists’ managers talked at length about nurturing and developing artists over a long period, including allowing time to audition different ideas, fail often, and eventually cultivate a core sense of their unique artistic expressions. Charlie Peacock (2012), a Grammy-award-winning producer, remarked, “The goal of the artist manager is to help the artist get to a place where they say, ‘Oh, this is who I am; this is what I am supposed to be doing; this is what I want to say.’” While artists have always collaborated to get their work seen or heard, they have long labored under the assumption that freedom and autonomy from social obligation is essential (Tepper, 2011). In fact, the work preference model in economics suggests that artists take on multiple jobholdings, work long hours, and accept low earnings largely because they will do almost anything in order to subsidize their own, individual, art making (Throsby, 1994). But, according to Bill Ivey (2008), former chairman of the NEA in the United States, this autonomy and independence comes at the price of diminished social standing. Ivey writes, “While artists can bring a special perspective to public policy, Americans remain suspicious of artists who insert themselves into the public sphere” (p. 65).
But, importantly, recent work and writing has found that many artists see their roles differently. Instead of an artistic career organized to optimize opportunities for individual creativity, artists instead seek to be socially engaged in their communities. They see themselves as educators, social workers, policy actors, and health providers (Lena & Cornfield, 2008; Simonds, 2013; Throsby & Zednik, 2011). And Nick Rabkin (2013), in his article for this special issue (“Teaching Artists: A Century of Tradition and a Commitment to Change”), points out that the role of the artist as both educator and social service provider has a long history, beginning in the United States with the settlement movement inspired by Jane Addams and the Hull House in Chicago. And today, Rabkin reminds us, more arts graduates end up in education than in any other occupation.
In addition to teaching, many observers have described the growing trend toward social practice art. According to a recent story in the New York Times, practitioners “freely blur the lines among object making, performance, political activism, community organizing, environmentalism and investigative journalism, creating a deeply participatory art that often flourishes outside the gallery and museum system” (Kennedy, 2013, p. AR1). While artists have long used their artwork to make political statements, contemporary social practice art has become one of many ways in which artists can build careers. Such art engages community members less as audience and more as active participants. Importantly, its creation and presentation requires working with community partners outside of the arts, navigating community politics, and gathering resources from agencies, nonprofits, and other social service providers. Most artists do not have the training required for this type of work; likewise, most arts institutions and funding agencies have no experience supporting and recognizing such work (Brown & Tepper, 2012). So while the opportunities for socially engaged art might seem abundant, such artists fall in the cracks between existing institutional structures that are set up to support either art making or social service provision, but not both together.
From the Precariat to the Self-Empowered
Artists are often depicted as victims of a post-Fordist economy. Companies have shifted the risk of creative work onto artists who are underemployed when business is slow, pay for their own education and continued training, work multiple jobs to make ends meet, and survive with little social provision, health care, or affordable housing (A. Bain & McLean, 2013; Eikhof & Warhurst, 2013; Ekinsmyth, 2002; Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2010; McRobbie, 2002; Neff et al., 2005; Standing, 2011). Importantly, for critics of neoliberalism, creative workers get lured by the hype of autonomy and creativity only to find themselves exploited by low wages, part-time jobs, and often unglamorous routine work (Comunian, Faggian, & Jewell, 2011; Crawford, 2009; McRobbie, 2002). The artistic precariat find themselves employed in “career-less jobs, without traditions of social memory, a feeling they belong to an occupational community steeped in stable practices, codes of ethics and norms of reciprocity and fraternity” (Standing, 2011, p. 12).
But the post-Fordist economy, while creating uncertainty and risk for artists and creative workers, also cedes a great deal of control to those who work as freelancers. Today, we see a reversal of classic economic arrangements where capital hires labor. Instead, talented individuals—whether artists or software designers—are hiring capital, management, and related services (e.g., studios, presses, social media platforms, publicists, distributors) in order to take creative projects of their own choosing from concept to market.
As we write this article, the subject line from an incoming marketing e-mail from a company called Entrepreneur the Arts reads, “Are you ready to design your life?” The email offers a series of workshops geared toward artists to “take your creativity someplace you want it to go. . . .” Similarly, the front cover of the July 6 issue of Billboard reads, “The New DIY, Your Career in Your Hands.” Featured on the cover is a smart phone with a dozen different icons, each representing a different part of the work a modern musical artist must master: record tracks, distribute music, promote brand, engage fan base, book tours, sell tickets, handle merch, shoot videos, raise capital, manage yourself, and secure synchs. The article suggests that, thanks to new technology, “independent artists can control their own destinies wherever they are, from their phone, tablets and laptops” (Nagy, 2013, p. 22).
Throsby and Zednik (2011) argue that artists increasingly see these other activities as useful new assets in their career portfolio, an evolving patchwork of projects, jobs, educational experiences, and skills. Similarly, Charles Handy (1995) argues that creative workers shun traditional career trajectories and, instead, “develop a product, skill, or service, assemble a portfolio that illustrates these assets, and then go out and find customers for them” (p. 26). Ultimately, today’s artists increasingly take responsibility for their careers; they are proactive and self-directed, anticipate change, and transform their skills and attitudes to accommodate such change (Inkson, 2006). As Bridgstock (2005) notes, this portfolio of skills allows artists to switch from seeking employment security to security in employability.
Throsby suggests one implication of the portfolio career is that emerging artists need to be exposed to specific training in career management. Similarly, Bridgstock (2011) argues that it is critical for arts training institutions to help students develop an entrepreneurial artist identity, which involves being able to identify creative opportunities consistent with core values and purpose, and then generating ventures or enterprises, finding collaborators, and pursuing these opportunities. She argues that artists must approach their career strategically:
But, as many have pointed out, collecting a portfolio of skills, especially in a competitive marketplace, may require aspirants to work for free just to get experience. In his ethnography of music business interns appearing in this special issue (“Making the Intern Economy”), Alexandre Frenette (2013) describes the challenges that interns face in developing meaningful skills in the context of low-status and highly ambiguous (and ambivalent) roles.They must make a realistic appraisal of their current skills and knowledge in the context of the present state of the industry, whilst maintaining a strong idea of their personal career goals. They must then use their professional networks to identify and to exploit emerging strategic opportunities to showcase their transferrable work skills and gain new ones. (Bridgstock, 2005, p. 44)
From the Core to the Periphery
Scholars have long recognized the importance of cities for creative and artistic work. Large cities benefit artists in part because they provide a more robust arts market, with a larger and more educated audience; they exhibit agglomeration effects, where a dense networks of cultural producers and project-based work make it easier for artists to piece together employment; and historically, core cities—that is, Vienna, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, and London—both develop reputations as artistic hubs and serve as magnets for artists seeking the aura and status of the city as sources of validation (e.g., “you’re not a real artist unless you’ve made it in New York”; Blau, 1992; P. G. Hall, 1998; Shaw, in press). While both small and medium-sized cities have seen their artistic assets—museums, performance halls, and theaters—grow in the last 50 years, research on creative workers in the United States has disproportionately focused on core cities—New York (Crane, 1989; Currid, 2006, 2007; Heckathorn & Jeffri, 2001; Neff, 2005; Pinheiro & Dowd, 2009; Zukin, 1995), Chicago (Grazian, 2005; Lloyd, 2010), and Los Angeles (Faulkner & Anderson, 1987; Scott, 1996, 1997).
Yet recent research suggests that many artists choose to work in peripheral cities, and that understanding the labor market dynamics of these second-tier or off-center cities is critical to understanding artistic workers in the 21st century. Ann Markusen’s 2013 article for this special issue (“Artists Work Everywhere”) demonstrates that a majority of artists “work outside of the three largest megalopolises, especially in medium-sized cities and metros, where their shares of the workforce sometimes exceed national averages. Even farther from the stereotype, many artists choose to work in small towns and rural areas.” Markusen’s research shows that cities such as Boston, Seattle, Minneapolis/St. Paul, San Diego, Nashville, Miami, and Washington, DC, have above average artist concentrations. Many of these second cities have magnet industries that make them attractive to artists, for example, advertising, film, technology, and music. Pacey C. Foster’s 2013 article in this issue (“Mobile Project Networks”) shows how the budding film industry in Boston is creating a collection of highly mobile, creative projects that support a growing cluster of creative workers and service firms.
Yet artists also move to second cities because they are both more affordable and offer a better quality of life. With growth and dispersion of arts training institutions across the country, many artists today spend considerable time in cities where they attend school. During these formative years, they develop dense networks of teachers, classmates, and local artists; such a supportive and familiar environment may be hard to leave, and many graduates stay and work near their alma mater after graduation. In fact, SNAAP reports that 35% of all graduates stay and work in the city where they attended school, with the largest numbers remaining in nontraditional art cities in the Midwest and South (SNAAP, 2013).
Importantly, as artists build careers in second cities or off-center art worlds, many seek ongoing connections with center cities (e.g., New York, Los Angeles) in order to boost their reputations and their market opportunities. Samuel Shaw’s (in press) research on contemporary visual artists in Portland and Nashville, for example, shows that many off-center artists are forced to build their career translocally, both by seeking network connections and exhibition opportunities elsewhere and by working to establish a positive reputation for their local scenes. Similar to the other trends discussed earlier, the movement from center to periphery is complicated, and most artists occupy a space somewhere between the two poles. As discussed later, this presents some unique challenges for artists in both forging their own artistic identity and establishing an ongoing community of support and practice.
Looking Forward: A Focus on Artistic Catalysts as an Agenda for Future Research
Much of our research and writing about artistic careers has been focused on the fundamental economic irregularity of an oversupply of labor—too many aspirants for too few jobs—and questions such as: What drives people to pursue (and continue to pursue) work where the risk/reward ratio is so skewed? How does this oversupply structure the market in terms of wages and contracts, self-employment, winner-take-all dynamics, and the nature of gatekeeping? The oversupply thesis assumes that the system is stable and static—that we are seeking an equilibrium where a certain set of workers are matched to an equal number of jobs, requiring a certain set of skills applied across a discrete set of industries and sectors.
The last two decades of research and policy discussion have illuminated important changes in the opportunities and challenges facing artists as they pursue their careers and advance their artistry. Artists need to be masters of navigating historically disparate domains—for example, specialization and generalist skills, autonomy and social engagement, the economy’s periphery and its core, large metro centers and regional art markets, artistic imaginations with pragmatic, commercial tasks—as they seek to create ways to capture income from their creative talents.
Moreover, artists are not only navigating these disparate domains; they are also synthesizing and integrating across them, all the while developing new, emergent opportunities for securing resources, projects, expertise, and jobs. In the cultural industries, labor markets are dynamic, entrepreneurialism is rampant, and the ceaseless push for innovation means that opportunities emerge quickly and often bring together newly combined resources and talents. In such an environment, focusing on artists working within a fixed labor market of professions and occupations needs to be coupled with an emphasis on artists as catalysts of change and innovation (Cornfield, in press). Artists are not only using hybrid roles and skill sets to secure legitimacy and resources for their projects (Baker & Faulkner, 1991), but they are also inventing wholly new titles, products, and markets that do not yet exist.
Studying artists as change agents and system innovators requires new research questions. Instead of trying to isolate the skills, work practices, contracts, wage differentials, employment incentives, formal credentials, employment pipelines, and labor flows of differentiated occupational categories, we argue that scholars who study cultural industries need to pay attention to the role of artists as catalysts of change. We need to better understand how artists both create changes in the labor market itself and the way cultural work is done. What is their process of innovation and enterprise? What is the nature of their work and the resources they draw upon? How do different network structures produce different opportunity spaces? How do artistic workers create and manage planned serendipity—the spaces and exchanges that produce unexpected collaborations and opportunities? And how do creative workers broker and synthesize across occupational, genre, geographic, and industry boundaries to create new possibilities?
Nexus Work: Managing Ambiguity in Creative Projects
As artists advance their creative projects from idea stage to implementation, they need to garner and bring together resources, expertise, and commitment from across disciplines, genres, organizations, communities, and industries. While generating ideas is a key first step, recent research suggests that if implementation of those ideas is required, researchers must also pay attention to how the ideas and perspectives of contributors to the project are integrated and synthesized (Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Ibarra, Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005; Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010; Obstfeld, 2005). More specifically, Lingo and O’Mahony (2010) suggest that creative producers must strategically leverage and manage three types of ambiguity in their integration work (or what they call nexus work): differing interpretations and perceptions of where the project is going (what is success?), who should have control over decisions (who is the expert?), and how the work should proceed (what process should we use?). A focus on ambiguity provides an important distinction from existing research in the cultural industries that has examined uncertainty in the labor matching and resource-gatekeeping process. Unlike uncertainty, ambiguity cannot be resolved with additional information. Instead, ambiguity arises when multiple interpretations are both possible and present and is made more salient when the leader of the project does not have clear authority over others involved. If ambiguity is not managed deftly, conflict over claims to control and expertise can undermine both commitments to the project as well as the project’s ultimate success. In many ways, all of the changes described earlier suggest that dealing with ambiguity will be the key challenge and opportunity for artistic workers in years to come.
Building off Lingo and O’Mahony’s (2010) work, further research is needed that examines how a broader range of cultural producers—representing different disciplines, art forms, and different types of creative projects—manage ambiguity arising in their work. For example, how did the creative team seeking to advance the +POOL project, a civic project to design a floating, clean river swimming pool in New York’s East River, manage ambiguity as they worked with federal and state officials, engineering firms, citizens, and crowd funding backers to advance to the pilot phase of their project? Do additional types of ambiguity arise as artists embark on civic projects and, if so, how do artists manage this ambiguity? What support structures and work practices are more or less useful for artists as they advance projects that integrate resources, expertise, and support across different combinations of genres, art forms, cities, industries, and purpose?
These findings have particular relevance for educators interested in preparing their students to be catalysts of change and innovation. First, they must look beyond traditional entrepreneurial courses focused on marketing and finance to courses and experiences designed to prepare artists to not only invent and imagine but also to deftly respond to ambiguity by navigating the implementation of their often complicated, collaborative, and multifaceted projects. Such experiences might help focus on the ability to improvise and respond in the moment; elicit the ideas and interpretations of others; translate and share ideas across disciplines; broker and negotiate differences in perspectives, goals, and interests across contributors to their projects; build coalitions; and analyze and manage obstacles to change—for example, technological, cultural, social, political, and organizational. Increasingly, this is the future context that awaits many artists and artistic workers.
Cultural Work and Identity
The protean career described both earlier and in the pages of this special issue requires the constant reinvention of the self (D. T. Hall, 2004). But successful reinvention also requires a core, stable, artistic identity. As Inkson (2006) notes, “the paradox might be that the more the career protagonist stays the same (on the inside) the more he or she has a firm base around which to change (in adapting to different roles)” (p. 59). Dealing with uncertainty, setbacks, and constantly shifting opportunities requires artists to have a strong personal compass—a sense of what makes them tick, what they are good at, and what network of enterprises or projects will best sustain their career (Gruber, 1988; Zwaan, ter Bogt, & Raaijmakers, 2010). The elements of this identity include answers to such questions as “Who am I?” “Who do I want to be?” “What is important to me?” and “How can my work advance these values?” (Ghassan, Bohemia, & Stappers, 2011).
But, what are the cultural resources available to artists as they forge their artistic identities? Richard Lloyd (2010) demonstrates how artists draw on the long-standing cultural narrative of bohemia to justify their marginal economic position: Aspiring artists, largely from middle class backgrounds, take working class jobs in order to live like an artist. Others discuss the importance of the charismatic myth for young artists, a belief that they are called to be artists because of their extraordinary talents (A. Bain, 2005). This myth, according to Menger (1989), maintains the artists’ belief in magic and supernatural powers that can help them persist in the face of insecurity (as cited in Røyseng et al., 2007, p. 3).
But, Røyseng et al. (2007) argue that this identity, based upon the charismatic myth, is difficult to sustain as artists work increasingly outside of institutions dedicated to perpetuating the myth (i.e., noncommercial arts institutions) and as boundaries blur between popular and fine art as well as between nonprofit and commercial culture. Interviews with young artists reveal that they still believe they have a special gift, and many believe artistic work is a calling. But they also reinterpret the myth in ways that emphasize the hard work involved in becoming an artist, the routine and unglamorous aspects of their careers, and the integral role commerce plays in their lives. Grimes and Lingo (2013) find that the socialization process of artists and entrepreneurs (whether in entrepreneurial incubators or creative studios) involves supplanting the myth of artists as individual, heroic geniuses with a more collective and commercially oriented conception and practice that involves both advocating for one’s idea while also eliciting and synthesizing the input of others.
Nevertheless, (and as noted earlier), consistent with the bohemian ideology and reinforced through public discourse about contemporary art, artists often see themselves as outsiders. Wittkower and Wittkower (2006) capture this aspect of artistic identity when they note that “The ‘otherness’ of artists is widely accepted by the general public . . . . there is an almost unanimous belief that artists are, and always have been, egocentric, temperamental, neurotic, rebellious, unreliable, licentious, extravagant, obsessed by their work, and altogether difficult to live with” (as cited in Gaztambide-Fernández, 2008, p. 233; see also Getzels & Csikzentmihalyi, 1976). George Becker (2001) notes how such an image creates a self-fulfilling dynamic: Artists and creative individuals come to believe that true artists display these personality traits and then organize their identities in part based on these traits to signal to others that they are true artists. But, with the changes discussed earlier (e.g., self-employment and promotion, entrepreneurialism, project-based work, social and political engagement), artists increasingly work in settings that require a different set of personality characteristics and dispositions, for example, professionalism, marketing, negotiation, political acumen, and sociability. Thus, today’s creative artists might best be described as having complex personalities that allow them to succeed in multiple contexts. Such complexity, resulting from a breakdown in clear roles, creates what Fred Davis (1994) calls identity ambivalence, contradictions between one’s self-image and the image and expectations that society has of you. Laurie Fendrich (2005) argues that today’s aspiring artist is caught in a “tug of war over what exactly constitutes an artistic identity” (p. B6).
So, artists need a strong creative and artistic identity in order to handle diversity, risk, and failure while sustaining their purpose and passion in the absence of regular financial rewards (Bridgstock, 2005, 2011, 2013; D. T. Hall, 2004; Inkson, 2006). But the old tent poles of this identity are strained by structural changes in not only the art world and the economy but also by new artistic practices and contexts that challenge traditional notions of who an artist is and what an artist does. We need more research on what sustains creative identity as artists move across diverse contexts and increasingly find themselves working in nonarts jobs (Pachucki, Lena, & Tepper, 2010). How are their identities reinforced? What type of communities and what sorts of connections help sustain their creative identities? In their research on graduates of arts training institutions, Lindemann and Tepper (2013) find that an artist’s creative identity should not be taken for granted. For example, some arts graduates have a more portable creative identity than others and therefore are able to see themselves as creative even when working outside of the arts or in a variety of everyday contexts. In short, we need a robust theory of artistic identity that takes into account how artists become professionally socialized in a world where the definition of professional artist is murky and the locations of socialization are varied and diverse.
Communities of Practice and Support
Much of what is described earlier and in the following pages reflects a postbureaucratic, deunionized, and highly individualized world of work. Two blocks from the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy, Nashville’s historic Music Row is showing signs of decline. In its heyday in the 1980s and 1990s, Music Row was a bustle of music labels, publishing houses, and, most importantly, music studios. But the remaining large studios exist mainly as historical markers of a bygone age. Increasingly, musicians are working from their home studios, recording digital tracks and sending them to producers and engineers through the Internet, who assemble tracks from other musicians, also working remotely, into the final product. In short, while there are still important physical spaces where musicians and arts-related workers gather in Nashville, more and more work happens in isolation. Thus, the itinerant cultural worker (Barley & Kunda, 2006) must marry the benefits of free agency with the downside of social isolation and the breakdown of traditional occupational communities. Hesmondhalgh and Baker (2010) quote a freelance music writer who sums up the isolation felt by many artists: “You don’t talk to anyone, you don’t see anyone anymore” (p. 38).
While such isolation may seem extreme, a larger issue raised by this introduction and the special issue is how artists can create new forms of community and collective support in the absence of traditional organizations, unions, and professional communities (Wittel, 2001). Dowd and Pinhiero (2013) in this issue (“Ties Among the Notes: The Social Capital of Jazz Musicians in Three Metro Areas”) remind us that the social life of the artists and the networks that form as a result have a large impact on artistic careers. Wittel describes new forms of network sociality where independent media workers mix work and play through monthly salons, networking events like First Mondays, regular dinner parties, conferences, and speed dating events. These intense, if fleeting, interactions are the “paradigmatic social form of late capitalism and the new cultural economy” (p. 72). Similarly, Dan Cornfield’s forthcoming book Agents of a Changing Art Word: Creating Community in an Enterprising Age attempts to identify the way entrepreneurial artists are remaking vital artistic communities in an increasingly individualistic art world. He describes artists who start businesses to help promote and support other artists; he also describes artistic advocates who create nonprofit organizations that provide a range of professional services from career development to economic, legal, and policy functions. Cornfield also describes how unions themselves are being transformed to offer new health insurance programs, practice space for musicians, and new wage scales for artists who work in nontraditional settings. Similarly, Markusen describes the important role played by artist centers such as the Minnesota Center for Book Arts and the Ninth Street Media Consortium in San Francisco where artists can learn, network, get and give feedback, exhibit, perform, and share space and equipment (Markusen & Johnson, 2006).
Furthermore, entrepreneurial artists who regularly stretch the existing horizon of possibilities regularly encounter both failure and the isolation of working across boundaries while not quite belonging to any of the groups that they span (Shorthose & Strange, 2004). Who do they turn to for support as they embark upon their experiments? Where does community and networking reside? Additional research is needed that examines the emerging platforms that both foster community and support the boundary-spanning work of these artists. Such inquiry should examine both funding platforms (e.g., Kickstarter and IndieGogo) that connect artists with interested funders as well as search platforms (e.g., CollabFind) that provide ways for individuals to search and connect with specialized talent—local or global—for projects. While these platforms provide support, do they also create ties that bind? Do they provide mentors? Do they create safe spaces for artists to audition ideas and get feedback? What is the role of conferences (e.g., Better World by Design) in feeding a sense of community and support for nonroutine projects among like-minded artists? How can policy makers augment and foster these types of community?
Returning to the Question of Why We Study Artists
This special issue offers both evidence of and argument for new ways of thinking about artistic careers as well as fruitful areas for future scholarship and policy making. While we can justify such research and policy in our efforts to grow and support the creative economy and economic competitiveness, we should also recognize the important contribution artists make not only to our economic bottom line but also to our culture and heritage. There is a popular line among Nashville music industry leaders, adopted by the Nashville Songwriters Association International, that “it all begins with a song.” The expression calls attention to the belief that the success of an artist, an album, a record label, and the entire music business depends on extraordinary songs written by talented artists. In other words, regardless of the changes in how art worlds are organized and the structure of artistic labor markets, in the end we must consider the art itself.
Focusing on the quality and content of art is particularly important as we seek to generalize insights from artistic careers and creative production to other creativity-based industries. What do the labor market dynamics described earlier and throughout this special issue mean for art and the production of novel ideas and innovation in other contexts? How do these different work arrangements, different ways of developing a career, and different motivations change the type of art and creative outcomes available to the public? How does the structure of artistic work shape the innovation, excellence, content, and themes inscribed in our books, films, music, galleries, and performance halls, and what does this imply for creative workers in other contexts? In the past, scholars have looked at macroeconomic structures and their impact on cultural production (Peterson & Anand, 2004; Peterson & Berger, 1975). But how do daily career and work pressures facing artists influence what they choose to work on and the talents they bring to their chosen projects? When artists forge their careers in the highly public spaces of YouTube and Facebook, does it influence the quality and content of their creative production? Fewer young artists today have the luxury to develop their artistic voice within the safety of a record or publishing deal, or in a long-term contract with a gallery or a theater. Today’s artists are exposed to market forces, audiences and fans, and critics much earlier and much more often. How do these factors influence the risks artists take and the projects they work on?
Now is the time to reconsider how to bring the work itself back in to our studies of artistic careers and the creative workforce (Barley & Kunda, 2001). As other disciplines seek to incorporate skills and practice from artistic careers and work—for example, Philadelphia University’s Strategic Design MBA for Hybrid Thinkers™ embraces empathic listening, user-centered design, integrative thinking, and rapid prototyping to address today’s business challenges—we need to better understand how artistic creativity is influenced by career decisions: The strategies for getting and finding work, the ways in which artists develop and sustain networks, the ways in which they promote themselves, the teams they assemble to make and market their work, and the integrative work involved in bringing creative projects from idea stage to implementation in 21st-century markets. We believe that the contributions to this special issue begin to illuminate the careers of artistic entrepreneurs who often work in between existing institutional spaces, and, in so doing, redefine both how culture works (Schudson, 1989) and the work of culture.
Authors' Note
This introduction and the special issue more generally deals with both artists—for example, those who create original works of art—as well as those who work in roles that support its production and distribution—producers, managers, agents, publishers, editors, and so on. Throughout the essay, we use artists as shorthand for both artists and arts-related workers.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Jennifer Lena, Sally Gaskill, and Danielle Lindemann who helped conceive of this special issue and provided commentary and guidance along the way. Heather Rippetoe provided masterful editing, and Work and Occupations Deputy Editor Erin Bergner lent important editorial assistance. The project would not have been possible without support from the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adorno T., Horkheimer M. (1944) The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception, dialectic of enlightenment, New York, NY: Continuum.
Alper N. O., Wassall G. H. (2006) Artists’ careers and their labor markets. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture 1: 813–864.
Bain A. (2005) Constructing an artistic identity. Work, Employment & Society 19: 25–46.
Bain A., McLean H. (2013) The artistic precariat. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 6: 93–111.
Bain A. L., McLean D. M. (2013) From post to poster to post-industrial: Cultural networks and eclectic creative practice. In: Breitbart M. (eds) Cultural economies in post-industrial cities: Manufacturing a (different) scene, Aldershot, England: Ashgate, pp. 97–122.
Baker W. E., Faulkner R. R. (1991) Role as resource in the Hollywood film industry. American Journal of Sociology 97: 279–309.
Barley S. R., Kunda G. (2001) Bringing work back in. Organization Science 12: 76–95.
Barley S. R., Kunda G. (2006) Gurus, hired guns, and warm bodies: Itinerant experts in a knowledge economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Becker G. (2001) The association of creativity and psychopathology: Its cultural-historical origins. Creativity Research Journal 13: 45–53.
Becker H. S. (1984) Art worlds, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bielby W. T., Bielby D. D. (1994) “All hits are flukes”: Institutionalized decision making and the rhetoric of network prime-time program development. American Journal of Sociology 99: 1287–1313.
Blau J. R. (1992) The shape of culture: A study of contemporary cultural patterns in the United States, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Böhm S., Land C. (2009) No measure for culture? Value in the new economy. Capital and Class 97: 75–98.
Boorstin D. J. (1992) The creators: A history of heroes of the imagination, New York, NY: Random House Digital.
Bourdieu P. (1993) The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Brenson M. (2001) Visionaries and outcasts: The NEA, Congress, and the place of the visual artist in America, New York, NY: New Press.
Bridgstock R. (2005) Australian artists, starving and well-nourished: What can we learn from the prototypical protean career? Australian Journal of Career Development 14: 40–47.
Bridgstock R. (2011) Skills for creative industries graduate success. Education & Training 53: 9–26.
Bridgstock R. (2013) Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 12: 122–137.
Brown A. S., Tepper S. J. (2012) Placing the arts at the heart of the creative campus, New York, NY: Association of Performing Arts Presenters.
Caves R. E. (2002) Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Comunian R., Faggian A., Jewell S. (2011) Winning and losing in the creative industries: An analysis of creative graduates’ career opportunities across creative disciplines. Cultural Trends 20: 291–308.
Cornfield, D. (in press). Agents of a changing art World: Creating community in an enterprising age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Crane D. (1989) The transformation of the avant-garde: The New York art world, 1940–1985, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Crawford M. B. (2009) Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work, New York, NY: Penguin.
Currid E. (2006) New York as a global creative hub: A competitive analysis of four theories on world cities. Economic Development Quarterly 20: 330–350.
Currid E. (2007) The Warhol economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Davis F. (1994) Fashion, culture, and identity, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
DCMS (2006) Making the case for public investment: Developing entrepreneurship for the creative industries–the role of higher education, London, England: Author.
DCMS (2008) Creative Britain: New talents for a new economy, London, England: Author.
DiMaggio P. (1982) Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: The creation of an organizational base for high culture in America. Media, Culture and Society 4: 303–322.
Dowd, T. J., & Pinheiro, D. L. (2013). The ties among the notes: The social capital of jazz musicians in three metro areas. Work and Occupations, 40, 431–464.
Dubin S. (1987) Bureaucratizing the muse: Public funds and the cultural worker, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Eikhof D. R., Haunschild A. (2007) For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production. Organizational Behavior 28: 523–538.
Eikhof R., Warhurst C. (2013) The promised land? Why social inequalities are systemic in the creative industries. Employee Relations 35: 495–508.
Ekinsmyth C. (2002) Project organization, embeddedness and risk in magazine publishing. Regional Studies 36: 229–243.
Ellmeier A. (2003) Cultural entrepreneurialism: On the changing relationship between the arts, culture and employment. The International Journal of Cultural Policy 9: 3–16.
Ericsson K. A., Krampe R. T., Tesch-Römer C. (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100: 363–363.
Faulkner R. (1983) Music on demand: Composers and careers in the Hollywood film industry, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Faulkner R. R., Anderson A. B. (1987) Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology 92: 879–909.
Fendrich L. (2005) A portrait of the artist as a young mess. Chronicle Review 51: 39–39.
Fleming L., Mingo S., Chen D. (2007) Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly 52: 443–475.
Florida R. L. (2012) The rise of the creative class: Revisited, New York, NY: Basic books.
Foster, P. C. (2013). Mobile project networks: Regional dynamics in the U.S. film and television industry. Work and Occupations, 40, 398–430.
Frenette, A. (2013). Making the intern economy: Role and career challenges of the music industry intern. Work and Occupations, 40, 364–397.
Gaztambide-Fernández R. A. (2008) The artist in society: Understandings, expectations, and curriculum implications. Curriculum Inquiry 38: 233–265.
Getzels J., Csikszentmihalyi M. (1976) The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art, New York, NY: Wiley.
Ghassan A., Bohemia E., Stappers P. J. (2011) Notions of self: Becoming a “successful” design graduate. In: Roozenburg N., Chen L. L. (eds) IASDR2011: Fourth world conference on design research, Delft, the Netherlands: TU Delft, pp. 1–9.
Grazian D. (2004) Production of popular music as confidence games. Qualitative Sociology 27: 137–258.
Grazian D. (2005) Blue Chicago: The search for authenticity in urban blues clubs, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grimes, M., & Lingo, E. L. (2013). Battling heroes and myths: The socialization of entrepreneurs and artists. Working paper, University of Alberta School of Business, Alberta, Canada.
Gruber H. E. (1988) The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal 1: 27–51.
Hall D. T. (2004) The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 65(1): 1–13.
Hall P. G. (1998) Cities in civilization, New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Handy C. (1995) Beyond certainty: The changing worlds of organizations, London, England: Hutchinson.
Haukka S. (2011) Education-to-work transitions of aspiring creatives. Cultural Trends 20: 41–64.
Heckathorn D. D., Jeffri J. (2001) Finding the beat: Using respondent-driven sampling to study jazz musicians. Poetics 28: 307–329.
Hesmondhalgh D., Baker S. (2010) ‘‘A very complicated version of freedom’’: Conditions and experiences of creative labour in three cultural industries. Poetics 38: 4–20.
Howkins J. (2002) The creative economy: How people make money from ideas, London, England: Penguin.
Ibarra H., Kilduff M., Tsai W. (2005) Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science 16: 359–371.
Inkson K. (2006) Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors. Journal of Vocational Behavior 69: 48–63.
Ivey W. (2008) Arts Inc.: How greed and neglect have destroyed our cultural rights, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Iyengar, S. (2013). Artists by the Numbers: Moving from descriptive statistics to impact analyses. Work and Occupations, 40, 496–505.
Jackson M. R. (2004) Investing in creativity: A study of the support structure for US artists. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 34: 43–58.
Jones C. (2002) Signaling expertise: How signals shape careers in creative industries. In: Peiperl M. A., Arthur M. B., Anand N. (eds) Career creativity: Explorations in the remaking of work, London, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 209–228.
Kennedy, R. (2013, March 20). Outside the citadel: Social practice art is intended to nurture. The New York Times, p. AR1.
Lena J. C., Cornfield D. B. (2008) Immigrant arts participation: A pilot study of Nashville artists. In: Tepper S. J., Ivey B. (eds) Engaging art: The next great transformation of America’s cultural life, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 147–169.
Lena J. C., Pachucki M. C. (2013) The sincerest form of flattery: Innovation, repetition, and status in an art movement. Poetics 41: 236–264.
Lindemann, D. & Tepper, S. J. (2013). ‘‘I don’t take my tuba to work at Microsoft’’: Toward a theory of creative identity. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Lindemann D. J., Tepper S. J. (2012) Painting with broader strokes: Reassessing the value of an arts degree, Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary Research, University of Indiana.
Lingo E. L., O’Mahony S. (2010) Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 47–81.
Lloyd R. (2010) Neo-bohemia: Art and commerce in the postindustrial city, New York, NY: Routledge.
Markusen, A. (2013). Artists work everywhere. Work and Occupations, 40, 481–495.
Markusen A., Gilmore S., Johnson A., Levi T., Martinez A. (2006) Crossover: How artists build careers across commercial, nonprofit, and community work, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
Markusen A., Johnson A. (2006) Artists’ centers: Evolution and impact on careers, neighborhoods and economies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
McRobbie A. (2002) Clubs to companies: Notes on the decline of political culture in speeded up creative worlds. Cultural Studies 16: 516–531.
McRobbie A. (2004a) British fashion design: Rag trade or image industry?, London, England: Routledge.
McRobbie A. (2004b) Everyone is creative. Artists as pioneers of the new economy. In: Siva E., Bennet T. (eds) Contemporary culture and everyday life, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, pp. 186–199.
McRobbie, A. (2011). Re-thinking creative economy as radical social enterprise. Variant, 41. Retrieved from http://www.variant.org.uk/41texts/variant41.html#L9.
Menger P.-M. (1989) Rationalité et incertitude de la vie d’artiste. l’Année sociologique 39: 111–151.
Menger P.-M. (1999) Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 541–574.
Menger P.-M. (2001) Artists as workers: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Poetics 28: 241–254.
Mietzner D., Kamprath M. (2013) A competence portfolio for professionals in the creative industries. Creativity and Innovation Management 22(1): 1–15.
Nagy, E. (2013, July 6). The state of independents. Billboard, pp. 23–27.
Neff G. (2005) The changing place of cultural production: The location of social networks in a digital media industry. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597: 134–152.
Neff G., Wissinger E., Zukin S. (2005) Entrepreneurial labor among cultural producers: “Cool” jobs in “hot” industries. Social Semiotics 15: 307–334.
Negus K. (2004) Music genres and corporate cultures, New York: Routledge.
Obstfeld D. (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 100–130.
O’Mahony S., Bechky B. A. (2006) Stretchwork: Managing the career progression paradox in external labor markets. Academy of Management Journal 49: 918–941.
Pachucki M. A., Lena J. C., Tepper S. J. (2010) Creativity narratives among college students: Sociability and everyday creativity. The Sociological Quarterly 51: 122–149.
Peacock, C. (2012, December). Who am I. Panel presentation at Leadership Music, Nashville, TN.
Peterson R. A., Anand N. (2004) The production of culture perspective. Annual Review of Sociology 61: 311–334.
Peterson R. A., Berger D. G. (1975) Cycles in symbol production: The case of popular music. American Sociological Review 40: 158–173.
Peterson R. A., Kern R. M. (1996) Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review 61: 900–907.
Pinheiro D. L., Dowd T. J. (2009) All that jazz: The success of jazz musicians in three metropolitan areas. Poetics 37: 490–506.
Rabkin, N. (2013). Teaching artists: A century of tradition and a commitment to change. Work and Occupations, 40, 506–513.
Røyseng S., Mangset P., Borgen J. S. (2007) Young artists and the charismatic myth. International Journal of Cultural Policy 13(1): 1–16.
Sawyer R. K. (2012) Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schudson M. (1989) How culture works. Theory and Society 18: 153–180.
Scott A. J. (1996) The craft, fashion, and cultural-products industries of Los Angeles: Competitive dynamics and policy dilemmas in a multisectoral image-producing complex. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 86: 306–323.
Scott A. J. (1997) The cultural economy of cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 21: 323–339.
Shaw, S. (in press). Off center: Art careers in peripheral places (Dissertation). Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Shorthose J., Strange G. (2004) The new cultural economy, the artist and the social configuration of autonomy. Capital & Class 84: 43–59.
Simonds W. (2013) Presidential address: The art of activism. Social Problems 60(1): 1–26.
Smith C. (1998) Creative Britain, London, England: Faber & Faber.
Standing G. (2011) The precariat: The new dangerous class, London, England: A&C Black.
Storey J., Salaman G., Platman K. (2005) Living with enterprise in an enterprise economy: Freelance and contract workers in the media. Human Relations 58: 1033–1054.
Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) (2011) Forks in the road: The many paths of arts alumni, Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary Research, University of Indiana.
Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) (2013, Fall) Data brief 8: Spotlight on geography, Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary Research, University of Indiana.
Tepper S. J. (2011) Not here, not now, not that! Protest over art and culture in America, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tepper S. J., Kuh G. (2010) Let’s get serious about cultivating creativity. Chronicle of Higher Education 58: B13–B14.
Tepper S. J., Ivey W. (2008) Engaging art: The next great transformation of America’s cultural life, New York, NY: Routledge.
Thomson, K. (2013). Roles, revenue, and responsibilities: The changing nature of being a working musician. Work and Occupations, 40, 514–525.
Throsby D. (1992) Artists as workers. In: Towse R., Khakee A. (eds) Cultural economics, Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 201–208.
Throsby D. (1994) A work-preference model of artist behaviour. In: Peacock A. T., Rizzo I. (eds) Cultural economics and cultural policies, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 69–80.
Throsby D. (2012) Artistic labour markets: Why are they of interest to labour economists? Economia della Cultura 22: 7–16.
Throsby D., Zednik A. (2011) Multiple job-holding and artistic careers: Some empirical evidence. Cultural Trends 20: 9–24.
UNESCO. (1980). Recommendation concerning the status of the artist. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=32056&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
U.S. Artists. (2013). Why do artists need USA: Jobs vs. art. Retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/about.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Number of jobs held, labor market activity, and earnings growth among youngest baby boomers: Results from a longitudinal survey. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/nlsoy_09102010.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan S. (2003) Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity, New York: NYU Press.
Walker C., Scott-Melnyk S. (2002) Reggae to Rachmaninoff, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Wittel A. (2001) Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture & Society 18: 51–76.
Wittkower R., Wittkower M. (2006) Born under Saturn: The character and conduct of artists: A documented history from antiquity to the French revolution, New York: New York Review of Books Classics.
Zuckerman E. W. (2005) Typecasting and generalism in firm and market: Genre-based career concentration in the feature film industry, 1933–1995. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 23: 171–214.
Zukin S. (1995) The cultures of cities, New York, NY: Blackwell.
Zwaan K., ter Bogt T. F., Raaijmakers Q. (2010) Career trajectories of Dutch pop musicians: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior 77: 10–20.
Biographies
Elizabeth L. Lingo, founder of Nexus Work, specializes in building creative capacity to advance innovative projects and novel solutions. Elizabeth has published her research in top journals, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Poetics, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. She teaches in the Strategic Design MBA at Philadelphia University and was Founding Director of Vanderbilt University's Creative Campus and Curb Scholars Programs.
Steven J. Tepper is associate professor of sociology and associate director of the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University. He studies creativity and higher education, creative workers, cultural participation, cultural conflict, and community change. He is author of Not Here, Not Now, Not That: Protest Over Art and Culture in America (Chicago, 2011).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
- wox_steven_tepper.mp3
- 4.80 MB
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: October 21, 2013
Issue published: November 2013
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 17913
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 126 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 0
-
Staying in Bad Jobs: An “Institutional Peg” as Poland’s Adaptation to ...
-
The Hidden Strains of ‘Cool’ Jobs
-
Bibliometric analysis of the art market: from art price to market effi...
-
Splendid isolation: Managing time and making culture among novelists d...
-
Socially distanced artistic careers: Professional social interactions ...
-
Student loan debt and the career choices of college graduates with maj...
-
The dark side of optimism: Musical dreams, belief, and gambling
-
Groups and Biases: The Role of Social Identity in the Musical Career P...
-
Playing with social relationships. Their role among actors in the vide...
-
Understanding changes to perceived socioeconomic and psychosocial adve...
-
Artists, government and cross-sector collaboration: A guiding framewor...
-
Continuing in a creative career: Claiming an artistic identity and ali...
-
Marching to Her Own Beat: Asynchronous Teamwork and Gender Differences...
-
Polyoccupationalism: Expertise Stretch and Status Stretch in the Posti...
-
“Not just for coal miners”: Unionization in U.S. art museums
-
(Up)rooted in mobile careers: Impacts of sustained geographic mobiliti...
-
A framework for knowledge sharing in the art world in Zimbabwe
-
The New Labor Activism, a New Labor Sociology
-
Workers and Work in the Arts: Definitional Challenges and Approaches t...
-
Marketing the Self vs. Preserving the Self: Resisting Downward Mobilit...
-
Funding arts and culture: Everyday experiences and organisational port...
-
Urban Art in Lisbon: Emerging Opportunities and Career Aspirations
-
Creative Jolts: Exploring How Entrepreneurs Let Go of Ideas During Cre...
-
Sustainable development of art industry and a statistical analysis of ...
-
Ideas in the Space Between: Stockpiling and Processes for Managing Ide...
-
“Where is your fixed point?” Dealing with ambiguous freelance musician...
-
She Still Works Hard for the Money: Composers, Precarious Work, and th...
-
Who Did You Meet at the Venice Biennale? Education-to-Work Transition ...
-
Educação Empreendedora nas Artes: perspectivas e desafios
-
Entrepreneurship Education in the Arts: perspectives and challenges
-
Too Muslim or not Muslim enough? Exploring identity negotiations for w...
-
Recognition Struggles of Young Danes Under the Work First Paradigm - a...
-
Building bridges across borders: An integrative literature review of p...
-
Campus connections for creative careers: Social capital, gender inequa...
-
Creativity in the gig economy: Opportunities for creativity researcher...
-
Work strategies developed by creative workers in Mexico City: Enhanced...
-
Student experiences and entrepreneurship education in a specialist cre...
-
“Don’t they jump on the seats?” The underrepresentation of migrant and...
-
A life without a plan? Freelance musicians in pandemic limbo
-
Multi-platform practices among digital patronage creators
-
Platformed intimacies: Professional belonging on social media
-
Gaming innovation ecosystem: actors, roles and co-innovation processes
-
Designing Sustainable Craft Curricula: Balancing Academic and Practica...
-
Placemaking in Practice: Municipal Arts and Cultural Plans’ Approaches...
-
Urban alternative cultural production in Turin: An ecological communit...
-
Unpacking “Ideas” in Creative Work: A Multidisciplinary Review
-
The winner loses: The construction of professional identities and care...
-
Milestones in music: Reputations in the career building of musicians i...
-
Artistic Impact: From Casual and Serious Leisure to Professional Caree...
-
Who cares? At what price? The hidden costs of socially engaged arts la...
-
Innovative and artistic: Conceptions of creativity among the American ...
-
The working life of musicians: mapping the work activities and values ...
-
Locating Meaning in Contemporary Art: How Artists Conceptualize the Ae...
-
A Heterodox Re-Reading of Creative Work: The Diverse Economies of Dani...
-
What Makes an Artrepreneur?
-
Dilemma Work: Problem-Solving Multiple Work Roles Into One Work Life
-
Auto-tuned and R-Squared: Reflecting Audience Quality Evaluations in t...
-
A hard day’s night: building sustainable careers for musicians
-
Lorsque le travail devient invisible. L’action publique et le travail ...
-
“There are no days off, just days without shows”: precarious mobilitie...
-
‘Thriving instead of surviving’: A capability approach to geographical...
-
City context and subjective career success: How does creative workers’...
-
Choosing Bad Jobs: The Use of Nonstandard Work as a Commitment Device
-
Masters of None? How Cultural Workers Use Reframing to Achieve Legitim...
-
Friends, not ATMs : parasocial relational work and the c...
-
Creative industries micro-enterprises and informality: a case study of...
-
‘Start Me Up’: The Challenge of Sustainable Cultural Entrepreneurship ...
-
The Composition of Success: Competition and the Creative Self in Conte...
-
Propuesta de un Marco Teórico para Abordar el Emprendimiento en la For...
-
Indirect nepotism: Network sponsorship, social capital and career perf...
-
The intern economy in the cultural industry: an empirical study of the...
-
Do the cultural industries offer labour market opportunities for women...
-
When theory and practice meet: Avenues for entrepreneurship education ...
-
Need for space. How artists rely on space to face precarious work cond...
-
The linear and curvilinear relation between personality and subjective...
-
Designers’ road(s) to success: Balancing exploration and exploitation
-
Harmonic Dissonance: Coping with Employment Precarity among Profession...
-
Bridging structural and micro-level factors in cultural labor studies
-
Do state funding, geographic location, and networks matter?
-
How have recent health insurance expansions affected coverage among ar...
-
Turning to the dark side: Challenging the hegemonic positivity of the ...
-
L’entrepreneuriat en marge des masses dans les industries créatives et...
-
Living Precarious Lives? Time and Temporality in Visual Arts Careers
-
Mission-driven arts organisations and initiatives
-
Harmonizing Small-Group Cohesion and Status in Creative Collaborations...
-
Access Inequalities in the Artistic Labour Market in the UK: A Critica...
-
Growth strategies in creative industries
-
Enacting creative calling when established career structures are not i...
-
‘Keep hoping, keep going’: Towards a hopeful sociology of creative wor...
-
Building sustainable portfolio careers in music: insights and implicat...
-
Arts Entrepreneurship in China: Exploring the Professional Career Deve...
-
Socializing Rejection and Failure in Artistic Occupational Communities
-
The politics of temporal sovereignty and the subaltern MA
-
Creative economy, cultural economics and entrepreneurship – Questions ...
-
Boundary Work and Early Careers in Design and Media
-
‘Creativity is a skill that everyone has’: analysing creative workers’...
-
Informal creative labour practices: A relational work perspective
-
With their feet on the ground: a quantitative study of music students’...
-
Sustaining Enchantment: How Cultural Workers Manage Precariousness and...
-
Oscillate wildly: the under-acknowledged prevalence, predictors, and o...
-
Class, culture, and downward mobility
-
Embedded in the Crowd: Creative Freelancers, Crowdsourced Work, and Oc...
-
Young musicians’ career identities: do bohemian and entrepreneurial ca...
-
Organizational innovativeness and coopetition: a study of video game d...
-
“It usually works out, but you never know”. Emotion Work as a Strategy...
-
Affectual Demands and the Creative Worker: Experiencing Selves and Emo...
-
Hope Labour Revisited: Post-socialist Creative Workers and Their Metho...
-
The Artist and the Artistic Myth
-
“Hopeful Work” and the Creative Economy
-
Creative economy assessment: a case study of Kish Island
-
Fashioning Gender: The Gendered Organization of Cultural Work
-
Lost in Transition: College Resources and the Unequal Early-Career Tra...
-
Arts graduates in a changing economy
-
Employment Management Work: A Case Study and Theoretical Framework
-
After Art School: Professional Development Training in Nonprofit Organ...
-
Becoming an artist: exploring the motivations of undergraduate student...
-
The Layers of a Clown: Career Development in Cultural Production Indus...
-
Theorising Artists as Actors of Urban Change
-
Professionalisierung als Weg zur Autonomie der Künste?
-
Me, Myself, I, and Creativity: Self-Concepts of Eminent Creators
-
Jovens, formação e mercados artísticos: estudos sociológicos em Portug...
-
Relacje społeczne kadry zarządzającej oraz pracowników kreatywnych w k...
-
An Asymmetrical Portrait...
-
Understanding the role of cultural networks within a creative ecosyste...
-
Work Identity without Steady Work: Lessons from Stage Actors
-
Disappearing into the Object: Aesthetic Subjectivities and Organizatio...
-
Unemployment of professional artists: empirical evidence from Australi...
-
Specificity Of Long-Term Unemployment Risk Among Creative Economy Work...
-
“That’s the Experience”...
-
The impact of sectoral changes on individual competences: A reflective...
-
“Write a Word, Get a Third”...
-
Creativity reconsidered - so your firm is creative, but how much? A tr...
-
Creative occupations as knowledge practices: Innovation and precarity ...
-
K-12 Arts Pedagogies and Technology Use Transitioning into Higher Educ...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
View options
PDF/ePub
View PDF/ePubGet access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
