CHAPTER 2

We Are Not a Commercial Firm

Deirdre McQuillan

“We are not a commercial firm” was the response by a multi-award winning architect of international renown when asked how he would characterize his business. At the time of offering this statement his firm was active in business for 45 years with an enviable client base of individuals cited on “top 100” rich lists. Intriguingly within the arts, admitting to being “commercial” can feel uncomfortable and somehow distorted from artistic integrity. What the ordinary individual would understand as “commercial” being connected to such notions as being profitable, sustainable, or successful feels like a “sell-out” for many artists, possibly disjointed from their artistic sensibilities. Even within the artistic professions such as architecture individuals study for years to become experts in their field, but identifying with such shameful business practices as marketing, selling, or making a profit somehow runs counterintuitive to how they would like to be known and perceived by others.

To illuminate this problem, it is probably unhelpful to engage in explicating the simplistic differences between more mainstream traditional firms and artistic enterprises. A more subtle exploration of the paradox that exists between artists and entrepreneurship is warranted and an insight into the challenges for commercialization in the arts can provide a more useful focus to explain this reluctance by entrepreneurs to be perceived as commercial.

The Paradox of the Artist and the Entrepreneur—An Artist’s Story

Tension between the artist and the entrepreneur can be interpreted as existing at the two levels. The first at the level of the individual artist and the second at the level of the workplace. There is a longstanding cultural narrative among artists of “bohemia” to justify their marginal economic position. Individuals accept a marginal economic position in order to justify their existence (Lloyd 2010). This narrative suggests a “charismatic myth” for young artists that they are called “artists” because of their extraordinary talents (Bain 2005). Artistic work, for those that connect to this story, is a calling. This “otherness” of artists also extends to a public image of the artist and his or her anti-social personality traits (Csikszentimalyi 1990; Kosmala 2007). A personality profile well described in writers, artists, and composers might be envisaged in the intensity and moodiness of Vincent van Gogh or the turbulence that existed in the marriage of Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath. In the extreme case, this artistic personality borders on mental illness. What is missing in that analogy however is the neglect to explain how togetherness exists, or a more collective and commercially orientated conception of art and practice. Yet, this tale of individual desire often creates a self-fulfilling dynamic (Becker 2001) which may become a “tug of war” with contemporary professional dispositions required by artists for work such as political acumen, sociability, and professionalism.

In practice, starting a business, or aiming to commercialize, implies distinguishing between work and other aspects of life. There is an intrinsic relationship between the self, creative self-realization, and the work place. This introduces the second tension identified as creating a need for the special management of spaces (Kosmala 2007). The artist may require occupational solitude to create work, but for commercialization purposes that should not detract from the focus of getting paid. Problems arise however because readymade stories of the self by artists provide identification through transgression of the home-work boundaries (Bain 2005). These readymade stories also become a mode of engagement with the outside world (Kosmala 2007).

It could be suggested therefore, that many do themselves a disservice in their characterizations and self-fulfilling beliefs about who they should be as artists and how they should practice and engage with others in ways that can run counter to an entrepreneurial mindset. This paradox is perpetuated by the formation of the artist’s characteristics as a dynamic between self-shaping and passive social determination implying that it may be difficult therefore to interpret the political, private, and artistic threads separately in the artist and the management of their practice (Kosmala 2007). This convolution ensures that traits normally associated with commercialism remain hidden or weak within the identity shaping behaviors of the artist.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem for entrepreneurship, because the personality of the artist reinforces the idea that they exhibit attributes of challenge, arrogance, societal interference, and hostility (Csikszentimalyi 1990; Kosmala 2007). If translated into a rebellious nature against established norms it creates challenges for organizing and working together. Entrepreneurs in the arts must recognize their need to navigate disparate domains. They must simultaneously demonstrate specialization and generalist skills, autonomy and social engagement, periphery and core location choices, artistic imaginations with commercial tasks (Lingo and Tepper 2015). But challenging assumptions and possibly desires of disconnect and an artistic lifestyle conflicts with the economics and behaviors of successful business. Quite likely however, a strong artistic identity is needed to handle the high risk and failure inherent in the sector (Bridgstock 2011; Hall 2004; Inkson 2006). Nevertheless, doing business in this challenging field requires artists to unify the paradoxical constructs and long held beliefs that normally create disjoint between the individual and his or her ability to commercialize their work.

The “Real” Challenge of Commercialism in the Arts

The artistic labor market is characterized by permanent excess supply (Bille et al. 2013) for a number of possible reasons. One reason connects to the existence of a “superstar” market (Rosen 1981) wherein relatively small numbers of people earn enormous amounts of money and dominate their segment of the arts. This seems to be increasingly important in the modern world. Sklair (2005, 2006) shows how this phenomenon has, in more recent years, evolved to become more defined and sponsored by corporate institutions and their agents. Attracted by this visible potential, many artists persist in the industry fed on the dream of superstardom and its latent rewards contributing in reality to a rather precarious existence.

Individual artists legitimize this precarious existence through reputation building and persistence despite daunting personal and professional challenges (Grazian 2004; Lena and Pachucki 2013; Lloyd 2010). Art work connects to the relative irrationality of artists (Towse 2006) who tend to engage in high uncertainty strategies or simply an irrational “work preference” to be active in the art market (Bille, Loyland, and Fjaellegaard 2012; Steiner and Schnieder 2013; Bille et al. 2013). Structurally, artists and arts-related workers face low barriers to entry and a resultant chronic underestimation of the risk involved and the chances of success (Alper and Wassall 2006; Menger 2001; Neff, Wissinger, and Zukin 2005; Throsby 1992).

Apart from the structural challenges, institutional factors are also highly influential on the work climate for artists. Government support for creative industries, creative cities (Florida 2007, 2002), and smaller enclaves (Markusen 2013) creates financing and visualization opportunities for professional artists. Conversely political censorship for example, within past communist regimes (Kosmala 2007) influences a different trajectory. Some professional artists may choose to locate their practice outside of mainstream ideology in a counter-cultural space (Andreas 1999), where underground movements challenge regimes by questioning the role of dominant systems in the construction of identity and difference (Polit 2000). Indeed, identification with the mainstream through formal art practice, state commissioning or corporate sponsorship may be frowned upon by peers, infringing on the commercialization potential of the artist seeking the respect of their community.

Between the characteristics of a somewhat irrational individual and the institutional work climate belies a fundamental challenge of commercialization in the arts. Innovation and creativity in the arts seems to rest on criticism. Caring about peers and positioning may be necessary for creativity. Peers give industry awards, publicize “good work” and often act as expert interpreters for customers or the general public. While in other playing fields innovation may rest in technology or design, the artist depends on criticism for their creativity and this requires engaging with multiple possibly disparate audiences.

Responding to this great idealism and uncertainty, artistic entrepreneurs and organizations correspondingly manage through engagement in project-based work and flexible employment (Storey, Salaman, and Platman 2005). The commercialization of organizations within the arts means dealing with businesses that sit at the crossroads of the arts, business, and technology. Entrepreneurs are trading in both business and creativity and often have particular issues when positioning their firms between satisfying clients and satisfying peers (Winch and Schneider 1993; Gutman 1988). Indeed their ambitions may involve simultaneous ambitions of satisfying clients, satisfying peers, educating and providing a social service (Rabkin 2013; Simonds 2013; Gutman 1988). Basic strategy thinking about market positioning and being “stuck in the middle” (Porter 1985) would allude to the fundamental challenges that entrepreneurs in the arts are confronted with. By trying to target multiple audiences with different needs, artists seeking to commercialize must adopt a somewhat schizophrenic visioning process.

It could also be noted that education within artistic segments plays an important role in commercialization activities. Education ultimately influences the business model of the artist itself (Moureau and Sagot-Duvauroux 2012). Characteristics of the training and early career experiences create an imprint on the artist. The Bauhaus for example was the most influential modernist art school of the 20th century, boasting a renowned faculty of artists which included Wassily Kandinsky, Josef Albers, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Paul Klee, and Johannes Itten architects Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and designer Marcel Breuer. Through its artists, the Bauhaus approach to teaching and understanding art’s relationship to society and technology had a major impact both in Europe and the United States long after it closed.

But what about learning commercial skills? Many arts institutions continue to emphasize disciplinary specific skill development (Lingo and Tepper 2015) despite much argument toward generalization, flexibility and broad competency skills (Iyengar 2013) required for the protean careers of artists in their challenging environment (Hall 2004; Inkson 2006). Success increasingly requires meta-competencies (Bain and McLean 2013; Bridgstock 2011) beyond the traditional disciplinary specific training of professional artists although educational institutions have been poor to respond to this need in practice.

Aside from the influence on the artist as students, recent studies have found that artists often seek to be socially engaged with their communities and perceive their role more than just an artist, but as educators and social service providers (Rabkin 2013; Simonds 2013). An additional challenge that prevents artists from developing managerial and commercial competencies is their tendency to engage in multiple job holding as a means to supplement income (Throsby and Zednik 2011; Lingo and Tepper 2015). Apart from teaching, such work is often unskilled “between jobs” work. Greater casualization in more recent years suggests more “portfolio careers” are common among artists (Throsby and Zednik 2011; Bridgstock 2005) which might facilitate the transfer of artistic skills to other domains applying creative skills in new and imaginative ways, but it is unclear how this transfers other skills back into the artistic profession. Funding from other organizational settings means that artists may fall through the cracks that are set up to support paid work in the arts (Lingo and Tepper 2015; Brown and Tepper 2012).

Thus, it is suggested that a reluctance combined with multiple structural barriers to developing commercial business skills becomes a problem for the artist insofar as he or she can end up distracted with other work. It is also a problem for the development of entrepreneurship in the field. As long as artists are not developing commercial acumen, they are unskilled in seeking and developing support that can help them to identify and engage with entrepreneurial opportunities.

Being a Sellout?

Current studies appear to suggest that the “art for art’s sake” outlook (Bourdieu 1993; Lloyd 2010) traditionally affording the artist status in the field by the public and profession has evolved and many studies indicate that most artists now have little concern about selling out (Lindeman and Tepper 2012; Lingo and Tepper 2015). It is unlikely however that this is the reality for a great many individuals or indeed whether such a position is sustainable in terms of a productive and fulfilling career for many artists. Certainly there is a large trend toward replication, and this can give artists status and popularity (Lena and Pachucki 2013). This is evidenced in the music industry whereby very little original work reaches the mainstream radio charts. Boybands and girlbands proliferate the television screens in shows such as “American Idol” and similar examples exist across artistic segments.

For the original artist, intuitively being able to work in their field also has wide benefits for the artists themselves, for their beneficiaries and for society as a whole. However, in confronting the complexities of a commercial organization within artistic fields, entrepreneurs are also dealing with themselves and their own peculiarities. Entrepreneurs are typically thought of (somewhat mythically) as hardnosed extroverts chasing the elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But why would individuals owning creative talent and possibly after years of study not expect to sustain themselves commercially through their work. These individuals must be challenged by the creative and destructive possibilities in the process of both identity construction and business management (Jeffcut 1993). Artists demanding authorship over their output may be adverse to the interference of others, for example through marketing, client interaction, or planning but maintaining artistic integrity while confronting commercialization challenges of the field should not require selling out.

The Secrets Behind the Commercial-Uncommercial Firm

This chapter concludes by discussing what the firm that is “not a commercial firm” does well that creates commercial success. In essence maintaining the credibility of not being a commercial firm and being a commercial firm simultaneously requires success to come from creative competencies. Obviously this has restrictions on size because managing larger firms becomes somewhat like a bus conductor where artistic competencies are replaced by the need to manage people and teams and sheer volumes of work.

The successful commercial-uncommercial firm fosters the image of the artist working from the space of the studio environment and does not compromise on style. This means seeking good customers who do not interfere with the work of the artist. This is what categorizes a good customer in the commercial-uncommercial firm. Over time, good customers allow the artist to maintain their artistic integrity ensuring that their work gets seen by others and networks of relationships and appreciators build up over time. This is of course aided by networks in the professional sphere that may award or publicize work improving reputation and notoriety.

Technology today allows firms to promote their work and exist in spaces what would have previously ensured they remain unknown and uncommercial. The influence of technology means that physical spaces have altered and trends such as remote working and more “freelancing” that can create greater social isolation and a breakdown of traditional occupational communities (Hesmondlalgh and Baker 2010). Thus, processes for organizing are also evolving to support, advocate and connect artists to their customers and to the wider society.

Above all however, maintaining a passion for work makes the uncommercial commercial and ensures survival of the artist as the opening example illuminates. It is worth noting that both art and entrepreneurship calls for passion-driven action. The paradoxical commonality between a type of desire for the constant re-creation of the self into art and the absolute exertion of self into business (Pitsis 2009; Guillet de Monthoux 2005) can be answered though an unwavering passion, an unwillingness to compromise on work and a business model that reflects these values.

References

Alper, N., and G. Wassall. 2006. “Artist’s careers and their labour markets.” Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture 1, pp. 813–64.

Andreas, E. 1999. “Gender Minefield, the Heritage of the Past.” International Feminist Art Journal 11, pp. 4–9.

Bain, A. 2005. “Constructing an Artistic Identity.” Work, Employment and Society 19, no. 1, pp. 25–46.

Bain, A., and D. McLean. 2013. “From Post to Poster to Post-Industrialist: Cultural Networks and Eclectic Creative Practice.” In Cultural Economies in Post-Industrial Cities: Manufacturing a (Different) Scene, ed. M. Breitbart. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Becker, G. 2001. “The Association of Creativity and Psychopathology: Its Cultural Historial Origins.” Creativity Research Journal 13, pp. 45–53.

Bille, T., C. Bryld Fjaellegaard, B. Frey, and L. Steiner. 2013. “Happiness in the Arts—Internationla Evidence on Artists’ Job Satisfaction.” Economic Letters 121, pp. 15–18.

Bille, T., K. Loyland, and C. Fjaellegaard. 2012. “Work for Passion—Labour Supply of Norwegian Artists.” 17th International Conference on Cultural Economics, Kyoto, Japan.

Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University 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, pp. 40–47.

Bridgstock, R. 2011. “Skills for Creative Industries Graduate Success.” Education and Training 53, no. 1, pp. 9–26.

Brown, A., and S. Tepper. 2012. Placing the Arts at the Heart of the Creative Campus. New York: Association of Performing Arts Presenters.

Csikszentimalyi, M. 1990. “The Domain of Creativity.” In Theories of Creativity, eds. M. Runco and R. Albert. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: and How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

Florida, R. 2007. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. New York: HarperCollins.

Grazian, D. 2004. “Production of Popular Music as Confidence Games.” Qualitative Sociology 27, pp. 137–258.

Guillet de Monthoux, P. 2005. “Momo Management: A Note on the Insultant Antonin Artaud and his Clients.” Culture and Organization 11, no. 4, pp. 259–68.

Gutman, R. 1988. Architectural Practice: A Critical Review. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Hall, D. 2004. “The Protean Career: A Quarter-Century Journey.” Journal of Vocational Behaviour 65, no. 1, pp. 1–13.

Hesmondlalgh, D., and S. Baker. 2010. “A Very Complicated Version of Freedom: Conditions and Experiences of Creative Labour in Three Cultural Industries.” Poetics 38, pp. 4–20.

Inkson, K. 2006. “Protean and Boundaryless Careers as Methphors.” Journal of Vocational Behaviour 69, pp. 48–63.

Iyengar, S. 2013. “Artists by the Numbers: Moving from Descriptive Statistics to Impact Analyses.” Work and Occupations 40, pp. 496–505.

Jeffcut, P. 1993. “From Interpretation to Representation.” In Postmodernism and Organizations, eds. J. Hassard and M. Parker. London: Sage.

Kosmala, K. 2007. “The Identity Paradox? Reflections on Fluid Identity of Female Artist.” Culture and Organization 13, no. 1, pp. 37–53.

Lena, J., and M. Pachucki. 2013. “The Sincerest Form of Flattery; Innovation, Repetition and Status in the Art Movement.” Poetics 41, pp. 236–64.

Lindeman, D., and S. Tepper. 2012. Painting with Broader Strokes: Reassessing the Value of an Arts Degree. Indiana: University of Indiana.

Lingo, E., and S. Tepper. 2015. “Looking Back, Looking Forward: Arts-Based Careers and Creative Work.” Work and Occupations 40, no. 4, pp. 337–63.

Lloyd, R. 2010. Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustiral City. New York: Routledge.

Markusen, A. 2013. “Artists Work Everywhere.” Work and Occupations 40, no. 4, pp. 481–95.

Menger, P. 2001. “Artists as Workers: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges.” Poetics 28, pp. 241–54.

Moureau, N., and D. Sagot-Duvauroux. 2012. “Four Business Models in Contemporary Art.” International Journal of Arts Management 14, no. 3, pp. 44–56.

Neff, G., E. Wissinger, and S. Zukin. 2005. “Entrepreneurial Labour Among Cultural Producers: ‘Cool’ Jobs in ‘hot’ Industries.” Social Semiotics 15, pp. 307–34.

Pitsis, A. 2009. “Artaud’s Poetic Vision and Some Comments on Frederick Taylor.” Advances in Organization Studies 4, pp. 67–81.

Polit, P. 2000. Experiences of Discourse: Polish Art of 1965–1975. In ARTMargins.

Porter, M. 1985. “Competitive Strategy.” In Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press, Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group.

Rabkin, N. 2013. “Teaching Artists: A Century of Tradition and a Commitment to Change.” Work and Occupations 40, pp. 506–13.

Rosen, S. 1981. “The Economics of Superstars.” American Economic Review 71, pp. 845–58.

Simonds, W. 2013. “Presidential Address: The Art of Activism.” Social Problems 60, no. 1, pp. 1–26.

Sklair, L. 2005. “The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29, no. 3, pp. 485–500.

Sklair, L. 2006. “Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization.” City 10, no. 1, pp. 22–47.

Steiner, L., and L. Schnieder. 2013. “The Happy Artist? An Empirical Application of the Work-Preference Model.” Journal of Cultural Economics 37, pp. 225–46.

Storey, J., G. Salaman, and K. Platman. 2005. “Living with Enterprise in an Entreprise Economy: Freelance and Contract Workers in the Media.” Human Relations 58, pp. 1033–54.

Throsby, D. 1992. “Artists as Workers.” In Cultural Economics, eds. R. Towse and A. Khakee, 201–08. Berlin: Springer.

Throsby, D., and A. Zednik. 2011. “Multiple Job-Holdingand Artistic Careers: Some Empirical Evidence.” Cultural Trends 20, no. 1, pp. 9–24.

Towse, R. 2006. “Human Capital and Artists’ Labour Markets.” In Handbook of Economics of Art and Culture, eds. A. Victor and T. David, 865–94. Elsevier.

Winch, G., and E. Schneider. 1993. “Managing the Knowledge-Based Organization: The Case of Architectural Practice.” Journal of Management Studies 30, no. 6, pp. 923–37.