Since the cuts, it has become a bitter necessity for many, cultural entrepreneurship. But what exactly that is, nobody knows at all. Even the government actually has no idea when talking about it. But, the government asks, so there must be an answer. In recent years, the Dutch art world has been flooded with self-proclaimed experience experts on cultural entrepreneurship. These experts are in high demand at institutes and academies, because cultural entrepreneurship we will learn.
There is only 1 catch. Is entrepreneurship really the solution to the problem? Does a good cultural entrepreneur make that his product automatically sells in the arts?
The answer to that question must be a resounding 'no'. Cultural entrepreneurship is a myth, it is like new packaging for a product. The label something clearer, more accessible, more specific, different colour or whatever. It is therefore not surprising that many of those cultural entrepreneurship gurus mentioned earlier are not practising artists themselves, but are or have been on the policy side. Then you don't have to worry about the product, which is basically already there. Easy talk, then.
1: Work on your art, not your entrepreneurship
The problem is this. The market does not demand clear communication, the market demands your artwork. It is more valuable to pay attention to your work than to focus on your entrepreneurship: have a website built by someone who knows about it with some of your work and contact details, using social media can and is recommended, but if it doesn't work for you then don't do it. It is good to show your nose once in a while, go to that gallery you think is interesting, to that premiere of that show, or watch those cool bands. Make a date with artist you think are interesting. Invite people specifically and personally when you can finally show your work. An email newsletter (I get a hundred a day) read those people who can help you further rarely.
2: think personally
Those people who can help you further are fellow artists, buyers and gatekeepers. Those gatekeepers are the general media, gallery owners, radio DJs, impresarios, publishers, etc. Those often get hundreds of messages per email a day so there is no point in emailing them all at once. If you want something from them, be personal, short and to the point. That doesn't mean you'll get a response, but with a bit of luck it might just happen. Doing some preliminary research can't hurt, emailing about your metal band to someone who usually plays hip-hop on the radio doesn't seem like a useful idea.
3: Want certainty: become a doctor
Finally then, when it comes to money, anyone who operates in the cultural sector to make money as a goal has simply got it wrong. The autonomy principle of the 19th century allows artists to work in freedom, in exchange for security. Quite simply, not everyone wants every work you make. For security, you have to become a doctor; after all, there will always be a demand for healing. The price for your product has to be market-based according to the position the work occupies in the market. That sounds difficult but looking around a bit to see what the competition is doing will get you a long way. Giving away your work for too little does not seem like a good idea, but neither does giving it away for too much.
4: Being commercial does not sell (in the long run)
Of course, if at all possible, you ask for an amount of money so you can keep doing the things you want to do yourself. But those who really want to make money structurally will have to make concessions to the demand of that market, and thus exploit success products commercially. Whether and how you do that is up to the artist. Just remember, there is an unwritten law, those who repeat themselves too much commercially will get their asses kicked by that same market. Works of art are worth money because they are luxury items, rare items preferably. There may be a few comparable ones, but if there are too many of them, the luxury is gone and the price goes down, which means you have to produce more and so the price goes down again, etc.
5: not bad is not good enough
But ultimately, at the end of the day, all these tips only help if your artwork is good enough. That seems simple but there is already a lot of art that is not bad. There are lots of actors, writers, bands, artists and so on who are not bad. That does not automatically make them good enough. Unfortunately, do or that aforementioned autonomy, it is no longer possible to test artists like doctors (fortunately), but even in a doctor's training, many drop out who do not make it. In the art world, you don't need a diploma, but not everyone is good enough to make it as an artist.
6: Money need not be the goal
By the way, what exactly that "making a living as an artist" means is also unclear. The government likes to think that means running a profitable business, making a profit. But, suppose it means something completely different? (Indeed, in most cases it is.) Then money is not the goal at all, but the work. Some don't want to depend on being artists at all, they just want to perform or get into a museum with their work. A doctor has a much more unambiguous ambition: to make people better. An artist can have many different ambitions. The good news is, they all can and do. If earning enough is one of them, it is possible.
You can take courses on cultural entrepreneurship, marketing, finance and social media all you want if you're not good enough at being an artist, at the end of the day it's really about the product you deliver. If your work is good enough, you have enough talent, you have perseverance and you have a bit of luck, only then can cultural entrepreneurship make the difference to realise your ambitions.
Really, only then.
Giel Beelen really doesn't want to play your new single because you send such good mail, that top gallery in Amsterdam really doesn't want to show your work because you show up at its openings so often, no publisher wants to publish your book because you have such a good social media channel and no one wants to buy your new CD just because the cover looks so nice. It may all help, but really won't make a difference in the end. Cultural entrepreneurship is severely overrated. Can artists please just be artists too?
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
Talent... for sure! If you make trash, it is unlikely that you will be able to make a living from it. Perseverance... once, call it entrepreneurship (...); namely being willing to do whatever it takes. For the most part luck... a dangerous thought, as far as I'm concerned. No one sails without luck, but what is really wrong with giving the cosmos a firm hand? When you say that it depends largely on luck, you become exactly that, dependent...
@Johanna Glas,
I am referring to the artist focusing on his area of interest and his work. There is hopefully nothing romantic about that yet.
If you have to do other work for a living because you can't make ends meet from your job, it is indeed very distracting. Again, had more entrepreneurship really made the difference? For the most part, it remains luck, perseverance and not to mention talent. The market is oversaturated with artists who are not bad, but that doesn't make the work good enough. If someone makes work that really turns the market upside down, the work is bound to get picked up because there are so many ways and avenues in which it can be done these days. It doesn't take much entrepreneurship to do that.
Looking for the niche in the market is a fallacy of aforementioned cultural entrepreneurship gurus, you don't look for it as an artist, you might come across it by chance. As an artist, you start with the question of the work itself, not where it should end up in a commercial sense.
Um... This is my first response in this coop. I even became a member to respond to this. While I completely agree that politicians and policymakers have far too conveniently and thoughtlessly posited 'cultural entrepreneurship' as an alternative to the fallen away schemes that used to keep the arts a little better afloat, I do wonder what you mean when you ask if an artist can please just be an artist? If you mean that another myth, the romantic image of the penniless artist, should be upheld at all costs then I do get a bit of a rash. If you don't have to make a living from it, you're lucky. If you do have the responsibility of making a living, there's nothing left for you but to become proficient in whatever it takes to get it. Of the tips you give for that, most are very useful, but going into other work for a living is very distracting. Those who very purposefully look for ways to make themselves and their work visible and recognisable to an audience that may be underwhelmed by it have, in my view, a very good chance of simply making a living from it. I am in favour of artists learning to see that as their 'work'....
Comments are closed.