1 Teaching Arts Management : Where Did We Lose the Core

In light of the need to start clearing the methodological confusion in the field of arts management, this article provides a critical overview of the teaching curricula in the field. Distinction is made between programs that copy directly from business management; programs that focus on the technological process of producing an artwork (usually run by practitioners); those that interlink cultural management and cultural policy (highlighting the role of public governance as a higher principle); and programs that focus on an entrepreneurial approach to arts management, connecting it to issues of creativity and innovation. The author calls for clear goals to educate administrators and arts or cultural managers. The suggestion is made to follow what I call the Janus syndrome: looking toward managerial and economic realities but primarily focusing on the arts—the aesthetic and the social aspects of the field. A question is raised about the position of art in arts management curricula, as well as the organization of undergraduate and postgraduate studies in the field. Any work of art “quoted” by publicity serves two purposes. Art is a sign of affluence; it belongs to the good life; it is part of the furnishing which the world gives to the rich and beautiful. But a work of art also suggests a cultural authority, a form of dignity, even of wisdom, which is superior to any vulgar material interest; an oil painting belongs to a cultural heritage. —John Berger (1972, 135) In academic programs in the field of arts management in Europe, it is common to begin with an overview of the history of management using a list that many lecturers know by heart: Taylor, Fayol, Follet, Mayo, and Maslow. After that, some “spices” are added, such as Adorno, Horkheimer, and Bourdieu. But is the subject of the arts anywhere on the list? And have we ever really decided what the core essence of arts management is? Or did we simply lose it somewhere along the way? Practicing—and at the same time teaching—arts management has resulted in a great deal of methodological confusion in Europe (Şuteu 2006), which could be defined as preparadigmatic (Mercer 2006). Of course, the origins of the confusion are closely linked to confusion in the field, which is not yet properly constituted (Evrard and Colbert 2000) or, perhaps, does not even exist as such, hiding under the veil of multidisciplinarity (Chong 2002) or posing a dilemma that flirts with sociology and etymology. Is arts or cultural management (as an academic discipline or practice) as narrow as the arts or does it encompass a wider concern with ways of life (Matarasso and Landry 1999)? Do the terms include the creative activities of intellectuals—especially artistic activity (Williams 1983)—as well? Apart from these questions, we must admit that the knowledge base of the field is still unclear. Accomplishments within the field’s history of research are not valued enough, and, most important, arts management is still trying to position itself between theory and practice. There have always been tensions among the many actors in the field. Professionals sometimes lack practical knowledge, academics fight for a stronger scientific approach, “raw managers” treat cultural management as just one area of concentration derived from general management, and administrators insist on procedure over substance. Rarely does anyone in the field take an approach that deals primarily with the social contextualization of art or the processes of creation and innovation. The goal of this article is to map the paths taken by researchers trying to define the field/discipline of arts management, while also raising the question of the position of art and artistic, creative, and innovative processes in research and teaching practices.