Difference between revisions of "Castañer and Campos (2002)"
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
|Name of Study=Castañer and Campos (2002) | |Name of Study=Castañer and Campos (2002) | ||
| − | |Author= | + | |Author=Castañer, X.; Campos, L. |
|Title=The Determinants of Artistic Innovation: Bringing in the Role of Organizations | |Title=The Determinants of Artistic Innovation: Bringing in the Role of Organizations | ||
|Year=2002 | |Year=2002 | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Abstract=This article deals with the determinants of artistic innovation by arts organizations. First, we define artistic innovation. Second, we review the literature on its determinants, identifying some gaps. In particular, we observe that existing research mostly focuses on macro-environmental factors and tends to ignore the role of the organizations themselves. Thus, drawing from the organizational literature on innovation we formulate testable propositions that relate organizational factors to artistic innovation. We hope that our focus on organizational factors contributes to a more comprehensive framework on the determinants of artistic innovation in particular and programming in general. | |Abstract=This article deals with the determinants of artistic innovation by arts organizations. First, we define artistic innovation. Second, we review the literature on its determinants, identifying some gaps. In particular, we observe that existing research mostly focuses on macro-environmental factors and tends to ignore the role of the organizations themselves. Thus, drawing from the organizational literature on innovation we formulate testable propositions that relate organizational factors to artistic innovation. We hope that our focus on organizational factors contributes to a more comprehensive framework on the determinants of artistic innovation in particular and programming in general. | ||
|Authentic Link=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013386413465#page-1 | |Authentic Link=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013386413465#page-1 | ||
| − | |Cross-country= | + | |Reference=Throsby 1994; |
| + | |Plain Text Proposition=The authors have provided a working definition of artistic innovation. They have reviewed the literature and observed two main theoretical perspectives (economical and sociological) and three levels of explanation (macro, meso and micro), noting that that both theoretical perspectivestend to focus on the effect of macro-environmental (demand and supply) and meso (funding mix) factors rather than on organizational ones (such as size, age, structure and power distribution). They also observed that the empirical evidence for both the macro and meso factors is rather mixed and inconclusive and have provided new theoretical propositions about the role of funding mix that take these limitations into account.They also bridged the gap identified in the literature by drawing on the organizational literature on innovation, in a manner consistent with the specific nature of arts organizations, drawing from the behavioral theory of the firm to suggest that the gap between performance andaspiration levels, together with the availability of slack resources, might drive artisticinnovation. In developing this overarching argument, they offer seven testable propositions that also include the role of art managers’ background in determining the organizational preferences. | ||
| + | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare,2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?,5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media) | ||
| + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction),D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability),B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) | ||
| + | |Discipline=L33: Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises and Nonprofit Institutions • Privatization • Contracting Out, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital, Z11: Economics of the Arts and Literature | ||
| + | |Intervention-Response=The authors pose the question to what extent society's preoccupation with commercialization is justified. Clearly, the available data on programming, although scattered, does not support such a pessimistic view. In addition, the empirical evidence on the hypothetical negative role of corporate funding is not supported either. This evidence prompts us to ask ourselves whether society's concern for an artistic deficit might be an elitist attitude. Innovative art can oftentimes alienate (contemporary) audiences if there is no attemptby the artistic community to make innovative works understandable. Innovation per se might not be as valuable for society as it could be. | ||
| + | |Description of Data=The study proposes an economic model for artistic innovation based on a literature review. It contains no original data. | ||
| + | |Data Year=2000 | ||
| + | |Data Type=Secondary data | ||
| + | |Data Source=Review of Existing Academic and Industries Literature; | ||
| + | |Method of Collection=Qualitative content/text mining | ||
| + | |Method of Analysis=Textual Content Analysis | ||
| + | |Industry=Creative, arts and entertainment; | ||
| + | |Country=United Kingdom;United States;Global; | ||
| + | |Cross-country=Yes | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
|Government or policy=No | |Government or policy=No | ||
|Literature review=Yes | |Literature review=Yes | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |Dataset= | + | |Dataset={{Dataset |
| + | |Sample Size=1 | ||
| + | |Level of Aggregation=Case study | ||
| + | |Data Material Year=2002 | ||
| + | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:14, 3 June 2020
Contents
Source Details
| Castañer and Campos (2002) | |
| Title: | The Determinants of Artistic Innovation: Bringing in the Role of Organizations |
| Author(s): | Castañer, X., Campos, L. |
| Year: | 2002 |
| Citation: | Castañer, X. and Campos, L., 2002. The determinants of artistic innovation: Bringing in the role of organizations. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26(1), pp.29-52. |
| Link(s): | Definitive |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | The study proposes an economic model for artistic innovation based on a literature review. It contains no original data. |
| Data Type: | Secondary data |
| Secondary Data Sources: | |
| Data Collection Methods: | |
| Data Analysis Methods: | |
| Industry(ies): | |
| Country(ies): | |
| Cross Country Study?: | Yes |
| Comparative Study?: | No |
| Literature review?: | Yes |
| Government or policy study?: | No |
| Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
| Funder(s): | |
Abstract
This article deals with the determinants of artistic innovation by arts organizations. First, we define artistic innovation. Second, we review the literature on its determinants, identifying some gaps. In particular, we observe that existing research mostly focuses on macro-environmental factors and tends to ignore the role of the organizations themselves. Thus, drawing from the organizational literature on innovation we formulate testable propositions that relate organizational factors to artistic innovation. We hope that our focus on organizational factors contributes to a more comprehensive framework on the determinants of artistic innovation in particular and programming in general.
Main Results of the Study
The authors have provided a working definition of artistic innovation. They have reviewed the literature and observed two main theoretical perspectives (economical and sociological) and three levels of explanation (macro, meso and micro), noting that that both theoretical perspectivestend to focus on the effect of macro-environmental (demand and supply) and meso (funding mix) factors rather than on organizational ones (such as size, age, structure and power distribution). They also observed that the empirical evidence for both the macro and meso factors is rather mixed and inconclusive and have provided new theoretical propositions about the role of funding mix that take these limitations into account.They also bridged the gap identified in the literature by drawing on the organizational literature on innovation, in a manner consistent with the specific nature of arts organizations, drawing from the behavioral theory of the firm to suggest that the gap between performance andaspiration levels, together with the availability of slack resources, might drive artisticinnovation. In developing this overarching argument, they offer seven testable propositions that also include the role of art managers’ background in determining the organizational preferences.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The authors pose the question to what extent society's preoccupation with commercialization is justified. Clearly, the available data on programming, although scattered, does not support such a pessimistic view. In addition, the empirical evidence on the hypothetical negative role of corporate funding is not supported either. This evidence prompts us to ask ourselves whether society's concern for an artistic deficit might be an elitist attitude. Innovative art can oftentimes alienate (contemporary) audiences if there is no attemptby the artistic community to make innovative works understandable. Innovation per se might not be as valuable for society as it could be.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
| Sample size: | 1 |
| Level of aggregation: | Case study |
| Period of material under study: | 2002 |
