Cultural Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Week 1 Cultural Markets & Crea ve Compe tors
1. Bradshaw, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2007) Remembering Chet: theorizing the mythology of
the self-destruc ve bohemian ar st as self-producer and self-consumer in the market for
roman cism Marke ng Theory Vol. 7(2): 115–136. Link
2. Dubois, S. 2012 Recogni on and renown, the structure of cultural markets: evidence from
French poetry, Journal of Cultural Economics, 36:27–48. Link
3. Wijnberg, N.M. (1997) Art and Appropriability in Renaissance Italy and the Netherlands of
the Golden Age: The Role of the Academy, De Economist, Vol.145, No.2, pp.139-158. Link
4. Velthuis, O. 2003. Symbolic meanings of prices: construc ng the value of contemporary art
in Amsterdam and New York galleries. Theory and Society. 32(2) 181-215. Link
Week 2 Entrepreneurship & Risk & Innova on
1. Menger, P-M. (1999) Ar s c labor Markets and careers, Annual review of Sociology, Vol.
25, 541-574. Link
2. Hayward, M.L.A.; Shepherd, D.A. & Gri n, D. (2006) A Hubris Theory of Entrepreneurship
Management Science, 52, 2, 160-172. Link
3. Mol, J.M., Chiu, M.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Love me Tender: New Entry in Popular
Music, Journal of Organiza onal Change Management, 25, 1: 88 - 120. Link
4. Ebbers, J.J. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Nascent Ventures Compe ng for Start-up capital:
Matching Reputa ons and Investors, Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 3, pp. 372-384.
Link
Week 3 Crea ve Produc on & Management of Crea ves
1. Cowen, T (1996) “Why I do not Believe in the Cost Disease: a Comment on Baumol”
Journal of Cultural Economics, 20; 207-214. Link
2. Dunham, L and Freeman, R. E. (2000) “There is no Business like Show Business: Leadership
Lessons from the Theatre”, Organiza onal Dynamics, vol 29, no2, 108- 133. Link
3. Turbide, J. and Laurin, C. 2009. Performance Measurement in the Arts Sector: The Case of
the Performing Arts, Interna onal Journal of Arts Management, 11, 2: 56-70. Link
4. Bhansing, P.V., Leenders, M.A.A.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Performance E ects of
Cogni ve Heterogeneity in Dual Leadership Structures in the Arts: The Role of Selec on
System Orienta ons, European Management Journal, 30, 6: 523-536. Link
Week 4 Cri cs & Publics
1. Eliashberg J, Shugan SM. 1997. “Film Cri cs: In uencers or Predictors?” Journal of
Marke ng 61:68-78. Link
2. Shrum, W. (1991) “Cri cs and Publics: Cultural media on in Highbrow and Popular
Performing Arts”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, no. 2, 347-375. Link
3. Gemser, G; Van Oostrom, M. & Leenders, M.A.A.M (2007) “The Impact of Film reviews on
the Box O ce Performance of Arthouse versus Mainstream Mo on Pictures”, Journal of
Cultural Economics, 31, 43-63. Link
4. Dempster, A (2006) “Managing Uncertain es in the Crea ve Industries: Lessons from Jerry
Springer The Opera.” Crea vity and Innova on Management, 15, 3, 224-233. Link
Week 5 Big Data & Big Art
1. Fraiberger, S. P., Sinatra, R., Resch, M., Riedl, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2018). Quan fying
reputa on and success in art. Science, 362(6416), 825-829.Link
titi ffiti ti titi ti ti ti tititititi ti ti ti ffitititititi fl ti ti titi ffti ti
,2. Wachs, J., Daróczy, B., Hannák, A., Páll, K., & Riedl, C. (2018). And Now for Something
Completely Di erent: Visual Novelty in an Online Network of Designers. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1804.05705
3. Xu, N., Zhang, N., Zhou, L. (2019). Validity Concerns in Research Using Organic Data.
Journal of Management (ahead of print). [Link]
4. Gervais, D. J. (2019). The Machine As Author. Iowa Law Review, 105.
Week 6 Art & Policy
1. Frey, B.S. (2003). Public support. In: A handbook of cultural economics, 389–398. Link1
Link2
2. O’Hare, M. (2008) Arts policy research for the next 25 years: a Trajectory a er Patrons
Despite Themselves, Journal of Cultural Economics, Volume 32, Number 4, 281-291. Link
3. Alexander, V.A. (1996) “Pictures at an Exhibi on: Con ic ng pressures in Museums and the
Display of Art”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 101, no. 4, 797-839. Link
4. Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural ins tu ons: theory,
evidence and policy implica ons. Interna onal journal of cultural policy, 18(2), 205-222.
Link
Some LINKS:
⁃ Week 2: Menger & Hayward (Entrepreneurs are like ar st in respect to risks? High risk
preference, longer me horizon and higher evalua on me)
⁃ Cowen Cost Disease with Week 4: Kanter & Moss (Which sectors are stagnant?
Laggard sectors will be cultural industries of perfuming arts, but there is not a prior reason
to expect this.)
⁃ Week 4: Eliasberg & Gemser (in uencing or predic ng e ects on mainstream and art-
house movies)
⁃ Week 6: Bakhshi & Frey (Innova on Dilemma)
⁃ Dunham & Bradshaw (Self-Destruc ve Behavior as a Marke ng Strategy)
⁃ Gervais & Cowen (AI e ect on cost disease)
ff ti ff ti flti ti ti ti ti fl tititi
ff ti ti ti ft
, Week 1
Symbolic Meanings of Prices: Constructing the Value of Contemporary Art in Amsterdam and
New York Galleries
Abstract:
Through in-depth interviews, the paper addresses two pricing norms: one inhibiting art dealers
from decreasing prices; the other inducing them to set prices according to size.
—> author argues that price setting is not just an economic act but also a signifying act
Conclusion:
- people nd ways of communicating non-economic values via the economic medium of price;
prices tell a story not only about the money
- important to take cognitive and symbolic meanings of prices into account; eg. a price
increase might be analyzed as an increase in demand on the economic side, but might be
interpreted as a sign of quality to collectors or a source of self-esteem for the artists
- price decrease might also diminish belief in the value; price and value are constituted
simultaneously
- indications that cultural understandings of prices are pertinent to the bargaining rituals that
accompany price settings in these economies (cf. bazaar)
- pricing of consumer goods more complex than economic theory
- cognitive meanings of prices are relevant when uncertainty about the quality of goods is high
Art and Appropriability in Renaissance Italy and the Netherlands in the 17th Century: The Role of
the Academy
- What is the nature of the competitive processes on the art markets in these two place-period
couples?
- How are the characteristics pof art markets and the strategies artists chooses determined by
the available means of appropriability?
Introduction:
- during the 17th century, maybe artists were successfully employed
- visual art market very speci c and special, especially the relation between demand & supply
- high information asymmetries between between producers, dealers and consumers
- visual artists need backing of experts
- Italian Renaissance: radical change in selection system
Conclusion:
- 15th century: artists used to be painters were craftsmen who were organized in guilds;
selection system used to be very clearly a market selection (main customers = religious and
civic corporations)
- changes in demand (newly rich) also lead to changes in supply (artists become richer); artists
soon drive away from guilds and separate themselves from market selection (only possible
through presence of of adequate alternative means of appropriability)
- through the academy: peer selection and a measure of expert selection become dominant
- The Academy: tool to impress royal power and taste of the nation, controlled the system of
prizes and regular exhibitions
- Exception “Netherlands”: legitimation of power and wealth not such a signi cant motivation;
more people consumed art; —> competition on the art market became more free and less
regulated, after the 17th century: dramatic decrease in demand, which lead to academic
system
- a selection system can only change radically if alternative means of appropriability, suitable
to the new system, are found or created
fi fi fi
Week 1 Cultural Markets & Crea ve Compe tors
1. Bradshaw, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2007) Remembering Chet: theorizing the mythology of
the self-destruc ve bohemian ar st as self-producer and self-consumer in the market for
roman cism Marke ng Theory Vol. 7(2): 115–136. Link
2. Dubois, S. 2012 Recogni on and renown, the structure of cultural markets: evidence from
French poetry, Journal of Cultural Economics, 36:27–48. Link
3. Wijnberg, N.M. (1997) Art and Appropriability in Renaissance Italy and the Netherlands of
the Golden Age: The Role of the Academy, De Economist, Vol.145, No.2, pp.139-158. Link
4. Velthuis, O. 2003. Symbolic meanings of prices: construc ng the value of contemporary art
in Amsterdam and New York galleries. Theory and Society. 32(2) 181-215. Link
Week 2 Entrepreneurship & Risk & Innova on
1. Menger, P-M. (1999) Ar s c labor Markets and careers, Annual review of Sociology, Vol.
25, 541-574. Link
2. Hayward, M.L.A.; Shepherd, D.A. & Gri n, D. (2006) A Hubris Theory of Entrepreneurship
Management Science, 52, 2, 160-172. Link
3. Mol, J.M., Chiu, M.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Love me Tender: New Entry in Popular
Music, Journal of Organiza onal Change Management, 25, 1: 88 - 120. Link
4. Ebbers, J.J. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Nascent Ventures Compe ng for Start-up capital:
Matching Reputa ons and Investors, Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 3, pp. 372-384.
Link
Week 3 Crea ve Produc on & Management of Crea ves
1. Cowen, T (1996) “Why I do not Believe in the Cost Disease: a Comment on Baumol”
Journal of Cultural Economics, 20; 207-214. Link
2. Dunham, L and Freeman, R. E. (2000) “There is no Business like Show Business: Leadership
Lessons from the Theatre”, Organiza onal Dynamics, vol 29, no2, 108- 133. Link
3. Turbide, J. and Laurin, C. 2009. Performance Measurement in the Arts Sector: The Case of
the Performing Arts, Interna onal Journal of Arts Management, 11, 2: 56-70. Link
4. Bhansing, P.V., Leenders, M.A.A.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2012) Performance E ects of
Cogni ve Heterogeneity in Dual Leadership Structures in the Arts: The Role of Selec on
System Orienta ons, European Management Journal, 30, 6: 523-536. Link
Week 4 Cri cs & Publics
1. Eliashberg J, Shugan SM. 1997. “Film Cri cs: In uencers or Predictors?” Journal of
Marke ng 61:68-78. Link
2. Shrum, W. (1991) “Cri cs and Publics: Cultural media on in Highbrow and Popular
Performing Arts”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, no. 2, 347-375. Link
3. Gemser, G; Van Oostrom, M. & Leenders, M.A.A.M (2007) “The Impact of Film reviews on
the Box O ce Performance of Arthouse versus Mainstream Mo on Pictures”, Journal of
Cultural Economics, 31, 43-63. Link
4. Dempster, A (2006) “Managing Uncertain es in the Crea ve Industries: Lessons from Jerry
Springer The Opera.” Crea vity and Innova on Management, 15, 3, 224-233. Link
Week 5 Big Data & Big Art
1. Fraiberger, S. P., Sinatra, R., Resch, M., Riedl, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2018). Quan fying
reputa on and success in art. Science, 362(6416), 825-829.Link
titi ffiti ti titi ti ti ti tititititi ti ti ti ffitititititi fl ti ti titi ffti ti
,2. Wachs, J., Daróczy, B., Hannák, A., Páll, K., & Riedl, C. (2018). And Now for Something
Completely Di erent: Visual Novelty in an Online Network of Designers. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1804.05705
3. Xu, N., Zhang, N., Zhou, L. (2019). Validity Concerns in Research Using Organic Data.
Journal of Management (ahead of print). [Link]
4. Gervais, D. J. (2019). The Machine As Author. Iowa Law Review, 105.
Week 6 Art & Policy
1. Frey, B.S. (2003). Public support. In: A handbook of cultural economics, 389–398. Link1
Link2
2. O’Hare, M. (2008) Arts policy research for the next 25 years: a Trajectory a er Patrons
Despite Themselves, Journal of Cultural Economics, Volume 32, Number 4, 281-291. Link
3. Alexander, V.A. (1996) “Pictures at an Exhibi on: Con ic ng pressures in Museums and the
Display of Art”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 101, no. 4, 797-839. Link
4. Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural ins tu ons: theory,
evidence and policy implica ons. Interna onal journal of cultural policy, 18(2), 205-222.
Link
Some LINKS:
⁃ Week 2: Menger & Hayward (Entrepreneurs are like ar st in respect to risks? High risk
preference, longer me horizon and higher evalua on me)
⁃ Cowen Cost Disease with Week 4: Kanter & Moss (Which sectors are stagnant?
Laggard sectors will be cultural industries of perfuming arts, but there is not a prior reason
to expect this.)
⁃ Week 4: Eliasberg & Gemser (in uencing or predic ng e ects on mainstream and art-
house movies)
⁃ Week 6: Bakhshi & Frey (Innova on Dilemma)
⁃ Dunham & Bradshaw (Self-Destruc ve Behavior as a Marke ng Strategy)
⁃ Gervais & Cowen (AI e ect on cost disease)
ff ti ff ti flti ti ti ti ti fl tititi
ff ti ti ti ft
, Week 1
Symbolic Meanings of Prices: Constructing the Value of Contemporary Art in Amsterdam and
New York Galleries
Abstract:
Through in-depth interviews, the paper addresses two pricing norms: one inhibiting art dealers
from decreasing prices; the other inducing them to set prices according to size.
—> author argues that price setting is not just an economic act but also a signifying act
Conclusion:
- people nd ways of communicating non-economic values via the economic medium of price;
prices tell a story not only about the money
- important to take cognitive and symbolic meanings of prices into account; eg. a price
increase might be analyzed as an increase in demand on the economic side, but might be
interpreted as a sign of quality to collectors or a source of self-esteem for the artists
- price decrease might also diminish belief in the value; price and value are constituted
simultaneously
- indications that cultural understandings of prices are pertinent to the bargaining rituals that
accompany price settings in these economies (cf. bazaar)
- pricing of consumer goods more complex than economic theory
- cognitive meanings of prices are relevant when uncertainty about the quality of goods is high
Art and Appropriability in Renaissance Italy and the Netherlands in the 17th Century: The Role of
the Academy
- What is the nature of the competitive processes on the art markets in these two place-period
couples?
- How are the characteristics pof art markets and the strategies artists chooses determined by
the available means of appropriability?
Introduction:
- during the 17th century, maybe artists were successfully employed
- visual art market very speci c and special, especially the relation between demand & supply
- high information asymmetries between between producers, dealers and consumers
- visual artists need backing of experts
- Italian Renaissance: radical change in selection system
Conclusion:
- 15th century: artists used to be painters were craftsmen who were organized in guilds;
selection system used to be very clearly a market selection (main customers = religious and
civic corporations)
- changes in demand (newly rich) also lead to changes in supply (artists become richer); artists
soon drive away from guilds and separate themselves from market selection (only possible
through presence of of adequate alternative means of appropriability)
- through the academy: peer selection and a measure of expert selection become dominant
- The Academy: tool to impress royal power and taste of the nation, controlled the system of
prizes and regular exhibitions
- Exception “Netherlands”: legitimation of power and wealth not such a signi cant motivation;
more people consumed art; —> competition on the art market became more free and less
regulated, after the 17th century: dramatic decrease in demand, which lead to academic
system
- a selection system can only change radically if alternative means of appropriability, suitable
to the new system, are found or created
fi fi fi
