Our commitment to social justice sometimes bleeds into our want to consume products. Is that okay?

People everywhere are waking up to the new (old) idea of justice and compassion. This is not news to you. Our continued global connectivity has led to a new sort of global awareness that is in some part affecting not only what we do, but how we do it. Need is becoming known (even if it’s not fully understood). People want to get “involved” more and more. Compassion-based organizations are popping up at an accelerated rate. It’s as though it’s officially cool to care. As a friend of mine often says, “Kids don’t start bands anymore, they start 501C3’s.”

While cynics sit in the corner, throwing their over-informed, under-exposed rocks, I find myself standing up and putting my rally cap on. I can’t help but think more people becoming more “involved” is only a good thing, and has the potential to lead to something truly great for the world we serve and for the individuals serving it.

The aspect of this new awareness that’s most interesting to me, however, is the way that Compassion 2.0 is mashing up with Consumerism 1.0. As more and more young people get their not-for-profits off the ground, the more smart, savvy and saturated they are with the power and magnetism of marketing and consumerism.

I believe we are stumbling into a new age of activism. We’ll call it: “Compassionism.” It’s the way we’ve created of doing good while still consuming goods. It’s a brilliant and subtle strategy (whether conscious or otherwise) to get people to do what they want to do, but are for whatever reason not doing. In other words, if you want people to give … give them something. Compassionism in its current form is the absolute encapsulation of the best and worst of globalization.

In this era of compassionism, it’s the organizations that have the best design and the coolest products that draw the most attention and rally the most followers … and have some of the greatest potential to do the most good.

We can see this already through the first physical manifestation of the Age of Compassionism—“aWEARness.” Let’s be honest, compassion has typically lacked a certain sense of fashion. Those late-night commercials with b-list celebrities from the ‘80s just aren’t cool enough to hook you. You have always known that poverty, hunger, slavery and oppression are wrong, but it didn’t catch your sense of coolness or your longing to belong until Brad said it, or Chris wrote it on his hand, or Gap put it on a red hoodie.

We are learning now what they already knew, that the causes with the coolest stuff are the ones “we” will be most interested in. If “I” see that “we” are all wearing this shirt, I will get one, not because I am interested in that cause, but because I am interested in fitting in. Suddenly (quite simultaneously), your acceptance is connected to your awareness and your awareness is connected to your acceptance.

In other words, you buy the shoes to get “in,” then once you’re “in” you are connected to a small group of people who actually care about the cause behind the consumerism. Your exposure to them may in turn lead to greater exposure to whatever cause or issue your product is originally connected to. Because someone gave you something for giving something, you may actually give more down the road.

Sound a little shallow? Maybe. But maybe not. Because at least now people are getting exposure to issues they previously had little to no exposure to or interest in. The cause becomes that much closer than it was before. The cause is now a reminder in your room, on your floor, on your car. The longer it’s around you, the greater potential it has of getting “in” you—aWEARness may eventually lead to awareness, which may in time actually lead to action. If that process does in fact happen, then it would most definitely make that $20 T-shirt worth every penny.

In this age of compassionism, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to belong, to fit in—that’s human nature. There’s nothing inherently wrong with shirts, shoes and bags. There is nothing inherently wrong with good deeds having good design. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of that … there’s just more.

What if, instead of settling for and perpetuating a culture of aWEARness and compassionism, we raise the stakes a little bit? How can we raise the stakes for what it means to wear one of these shirts, shoes or bags?

What would it look like to have to “earn it” instead of simply buying it? Is there something we can learn from the market principle of scarcity? How can we help the millions of people who own the shirt, shoe or bag begin to own the cause it represents?

I would like to offer a few thoughts and opportunities on how we can help compassion get beyond simply fashion:

• What if we only gave away shirts to people who go to or get involved with wherever or whatever it is the shirt is supposed to represent. Seriously. Have the best designers in the world make a limited run of 100 shirts, or hats, or fanny packs that you get for free when you actually go. Whether it means walking the dusty desolate streets of El Salvador, or feeding displaced families in northern Uganda or volunteering every Saturday night at a suicide prevention center. Turn a $15 shirt into 15 hours or, even better, 15 days and that shirt will mean a whole world of difference more to me.

• To get one of those beautiful bags, pair of earrings or bracelets made by women and children rescued out of human trafficking, you have to actually go and spend a week making them. Go and give that recently rescued sex slave a day off and you make the conflict-free jewelry that day. Go and be with her, hear her story, make her dinner, watch her children for one day. Then you would really have a story! “Merry Christmas, Mom. I worked for four days with former sex slaves to make your necklace. Enjoy!” Priceless.

• Make micro-lending sexy. Make it hip. Something that all the kids are into. Kiva has been killing it here. They’ve raised more money than almost any other “established” nonprofit last year without spending any significant money on traditional marketing, advertising or fund raising. Heifer International is an incredible organization that has been plugging away for years at this. But my hunch is you probably don’t have a Heifer T-shirt. (I’m pretty sure Heifer doesn’t make T-shirts. But if they did, they would be made out of the finest most breathable yak hair available.)

• To get a pair of shoes, ask us to give a pair of our own (at least one pair … and not your crappy old Pumas). Double and triple my return on investment by giving me the opportunity to give more than I get. In so doing, I am becoming more personally invested and connected to the work God is doing on their feet … and in my heart.

These are just a few thoughts on how we can move through our current culture of aWEARness and compassionism. These are not cynical naysayings, but a sincere and heartfelt desire to see my own compassion transcend my consumerism. To join with what God is actually already doing in the world beyond my closet.

About Jarret Stevens
Jarrett Stevens co-pastors Soul.City.Church, a transformational church in Chicago, with his wife Jeanne Stevens. He is the author of The Deity Formerly Known as God as well as the upcoming title, Four Small Words. This article originally appeared in Neue.

Written by Art Licensing Coach J’net Smith

Rule #6

Educate yourself about retail channels.  

It is important to have a clear understanding of the types of licensed products you want your art to appear on, as well as which type of retail channels, and retailers, carry those types of products.

Art licensing doesn’t mean you need to be in Wal-Mart. And while the landscape is always changing, today there are more products featuring licensed art sold in specialty retail channels (Spencer’s Gifts, Hot Topic, etc.), independent retailers (privately owned gift or card stores), and upscale department and chain stores (Bloomingdales, Nordstrom’s, etc.). And less than half of licensed art on products are sold through mass-market channels.

You need to think about where you want your product to ‘live at retail,’ and then plot your strategy for getting there. You, as the licensor (artist), need to make a decision as to where your art fits on products—what type of products, retail price points and retail channels are best for your style of art, and the brand you want to build. And when you make that decision, then you have to stick with it and be determined to make it happen.

There are a lot of manufacturers out there who will get you in department stores, but they also have distribution in drug stores, deep discounters and even ‘dollar’ stores. It’s up to you to ask about a manufacturers’ channel(s) of distribution and to come to an agreement as to where your product will be distributed.

No discussion of retail channels would be complete without the dual acknowledgement that retailers today are being held hostage by the economy, corporate mergers and price-driven consumers, while at the same time acting as the gatekeepers who hold the key to distribution (or not!) for manufacturers. This means retailers are both unusually stressed and powerful at the same time.

Regarding your art licensing business, keep in mind those retailers—whether brick and mortar, catalogs, or online e-tailers—allow or prevent the flow of products to consumers. So, they can help you reach consumers, or they can prevent your licensed products from reaching the consumers’ hands.

Today there are more and more online retailers who can take your art from production all the way to the consumer. But online sales of art licensing products are still miniscule compared to the level sold at brick and mortar retailers.

So, retailers still have the ultimate power. But years from now we may be stating something entirely different here. Understanding who the gatekeeper is—who has the power in an industry—will absolutely affect your marketing plan and how you create and manage your business.

About J’net Smith

Jeanette Smith is the consummate art licensing coach—she is passionate about helping you achieve a level of success beyond imagining and definitely knows how to do it! In just six short years, J’net turned Dilbert™ from a relatively unknown syndication-based comic strip into a 200 million dollar a year global brand. Then in 2000, J’net translated and expanded on her extensive experience to train, advise and license all types of creators. She has helped hundreds of artists, graphic designers, painters, photographers, authors, illustrators, design firms, fine artists, creative companies, non-profits and agents to maximize the power of their brands and talents.

J’net is best described by her combination of specialties—she is one of those very rare people who possess a balanced combination of creative sensibility and extraordinary business acumen. It is this combination that has served J’net over the span of a very impressive career,and has garnered her equally impressive press and testimonials!

From her early days in New York building new divisions for such corporate giants as Official Airline Guides, MacMillan Publishing, Paramount Communications, and VIACOM International, to her six years of work at United Media spearheading the astronomical growth of Dilbert, Jeanette has compiled a long list of satisfied clients and has gained an enormous amount of respect and experience in marketing, licensing, advertising, PR, agenting, negotiating, and much more.

Clint Eastwood was remarkable in the halftime Chrysler Commercial. Wow. So, what’s our strategy, America, for the second half?

Is it going to be about accepting and learning from a new breed of leader?

One who is socially conscious ethically bound creatively fueled and astonishingly- efficient?

The not for-profit-world, and the creative industries especially, are a gold mine for recruiting talent.  All NFP leaders need is some for-profit entrepreneurial training to become REAL CHANGE AGENTS to fortune 1000. And to all you hard core NFP leaders- we need to fight for some funding innovation. Look what happened in Detroit. A big government INVESTMENT came along for our auto industry at the RIGHT TIME (aka now) and  RAPID GROWTH and RECOVERY occurred.

And to all you foundations who don’t know how to deal with us up starts in your space? Not everything has to be old and established to be your next best investment. Get better at taking a few risks.  We all have to.

And more government bailouts are not the answer either. How many gazillions pf dollars is Fortune 1000 sitting on overseas that is not being used productively? What our government needs to do is let some of that money come back home free of charge to fuel growth that emanates from the creative industries.

The creative not-for-profit industries have some remarkable people who with a little investment and a little education, and a ‘herd’ building mentality, could do a lot for our economic recovery while they change the world. It’s time America.

Written by Bruce Nussbaum appeared on Co.DESIGN

Designers are merging their ways of thinking with startup culture. The result, writes Bruce Nussbaum, is greater innovation and astounding VC success rates.

I recently walked into a packed hall of 200 Parsons students for an event called “Start Something–Why Creatives Need to Become Entrepreneurs,” organized by the NYCreative Interns group. Four women entrepreneurs, including Laurel Touby, the founder of Mediabistro, were up front, talking about their experiences of launching their respective businesses. The incredible energy in the room highlighted an emerging trend–the headlong crash of creativity into capitalism to forge a startup model for the future. In this new model, designers drive the force of American entrepreneurialism.

This business model is a cause for true optimism. It’s not the big business capitalism that no longer generates jobs or income or tax revenues. Nor is it the old, slow attempts by design and design thinking to reform big corporations to make their culture more innovative, with limited success. Rather, it’s the capitalism of Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic–the original, early form of entrepreneurial capitalism. It’s the promise of design fusing with startup culture to increase innovation by raising the success rate of venture capital from 10% to as high as 80%. This growing desire among designers to bring their user focus, strategic vision, iterative methodologies, and propositional thinking to the still-geeky, tech/engineering-centric world of startups promises to be transformative and explosive.

The pattern can be broken down into a series of dots. There’s the dot of students at Parsons, RISD, RCA, the Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship, and Aalto University, in Helsinki, beginning to embrace the world of startups. (Stanford has been there for a while, thanks to David Kelley.)

There’s a dot of small design/innovation consultancies, such as Ammunition, Fuse, and Smart Design, which are developing and selling more of their own products, independently and through corporate partnerships. (Yves Béhar has been an entrepreneur for a decade; his latest product, a great new urban bike called Local, is now in production.) In addition, we have IDEO now supporting incubators such as General Assembly, Excelerate, and TechStars, and helping to launch products such as the Yoomi self-warming baby bottle.

Perhaps the most important dot of all is the one of innovative startups started by entrepreneurs with design degrees or backgrounds–YouTube, Flickr, Slideshare, Tumblr, Airbnb, Slideshare, Vimeo, and Feedburner, and YCombinator. These successful examples have inspired countless design students who want to start their own companies. They see that it can be done.

Another dot is Idiom, India’s answer to IDEO. The cutting-edge design/innovation consultancy has successfully launched 80 companies, out of 100 attempts, over the past six years, with the average launch taking about nine months from concept to profitability. (Idiom calls its process Mind to Market.) By applying the approaches and tools of design to the traditional startup process, Idiom increased the success rate of VC from 10% to 80%.

Led by its cofounder Sonia Manchanda, whom I consider to be the intellectual heir to the great C.K. Prahalad, Idiom is pioneering an entirely new VC model called Dream:In. I was lucky enough to participate in it last year. It goes like this: Hundreds of students were trained to interview and tape thousands of people about their dreams–their aspirations, not their needs. The dreams were collected, categorized, and presented to business people, consultants, and folks like me to help draw up business plans to enable those dreams. Those plans are now in a portfolio, from which venture capitalists can choose by category, by individual concept, or by investing in the fund itself. Each year, students go out, dreams come in, business plans replenish the portfolio. When was the last time we even thought about a radical change in the VC model? This made-in-India idea does.

What does this new direction of design toward entrepreneurship and away from big business mean? For me, two things. The less important is epistemological. The Parsons event by NYCreative Interns says it all–“Why Creatives Need to Become Entrepreneurs.” Creativity is a more inclusive term than design. Creativity is more easily accepted by venture capitalists, engineers, business people (and maybe even design students) than design. In addition, as design goes social, it moves toward industries such as advertising, with a long tradition of having “creatives” as part of its culture. In the past, I’ve said we should forget nomenclature–design, design thinking, innovation–it’s all a banana. Now that banana for me is creativity. But if anyone is uncomfortable with the term, just use the D-word.

The more important change from big business to new business is conceptual. We need new conceptual categories to deal with the new turn toward entrepreneurship. Zuckerberg, Hurley, Fake, Chase, Stone, Jobs–why and how and where they innovate require entirely different categories of design thinking, if you will, than we’ve used before. We need to learn much more about leadership and the roles of charisma and calling, and the transformation of inspiration into execution. Entrepreneurs are a lot like religious prophets–they embody their following, they “know” their tacit dreams and longings, and they express them. It’s no accident that The Economist put Jobs on its cover with a halo around his head while he held the newly launched iPad as a “tablet.”

Another critical concept is framing. One key to entrepreneurs’ success is that they frame things differently, they connect existing dots in unique ways. The two guys who started Method, for example, frame-changed the market for sustainable cleaning products from a “suffering-is-good-for-you” space to a “cool-design-that’s-good-for-the-planet” space.

We also need to know a lot more about “meaning,” not just the data gathered by ethnography but knowledge that takes us much deeper into understanding culture. We need to know more about shared spectacle and why we crave it, and how honing craft and skill to near perfection can enable you to make and do the unique–which is what entrepreneurs do.

The encouraging news is that we are seeing a dynamic expansion of the scale, range, and power of traditional design. It promises to revive a broken VC model, capture the imagination and energy of a new generation of young designer/creators, and perhaps even regenerate Western capitalism (yes, no small thing). But perhaps most important of all, the creative turn to the entrepreneurial is hopeful. Optimism has always been at the heart of design. This takes it to a new level.

To read more about creative capitalism, go here.

About Bruce Nussbaum
Bruce Nussbaum blogs, tweets and writes on innovation, design thinking and creativity. The former assistant managing editor for Business Week is a Professor of Innovation and Design at Parsons The New School of Design. He is founder of the Innovation & Design online channel; founder of IN: Inside Innovation, a quarterly innovation supplement. More here…

Failing your way to success. Yup. That’s how it’s done. It takes a LOT of support and a pretty great attitude too. That’s hard to do on your own. Kind of like weight loss I think. Best done with a herding mentality. That’s why Weight Watchers has been so successful. They understood the power of a “herd” early on.

But since I began 6 years ago- reinventing myself from my spare bedroom blogging to an audience of none- to where I am now?  I have to say it has been littered with set backs and disappointments that I could have allowed to loom larger than life and stop me cold in my tracks. AFTER ALL THIS TIME  I really never thought that the IAE WOULD STILL NOT HAVE the funding resources we need to achieve the grand plan. Love is blind! Thank God for my clarinet customers who are supporting me. Every customer who buys an instrument from me is donating $50.00 bucks to my school. Last year Lisa’s Clarinet Shop donated $27,500 to the IAE and my husband and I and a few others donated again 2 times that sum.

Lisa’s Clarinet Shop is the little engine that could. My husband has been out of work- downsized from one of those big corporate jobs- for over a year and my clarinet customers just keep coming and coming to support IAE. It’s like a miracle. Really.

This is the power of small business. Of passionate purpose driven living. ANYTHING IS possible. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN if you know who you are and what you simply MUST express with your time on this earth. ANYTHING is possible but you have to have the ability and DESIRE to sustain your effort and to never EVER give up.

And I believe the future is bright. Not just because I am an optimistic person, but because so many people around me are increasingly excited to see what is happening with our students at the IAE.

Every rose began hidden under the mud before it revealed itself and BLOOMED. My dream to realize the IAE does not get to skip any of the steps to Bloomin’ Success. We are walking the walk just like our students and I am searching for another little steam engine to help me over the hill…

THE LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD
(Watty Piper)

A little steam engine had a long train of cars to pull.

She went along very well till she came to a steep hill. But then, no matter how hard she tried, she could not move the long train of cars.

She pulled and she pulled. She puffed and she puffed. She backed and started off again. Choo! Choo!

But no! the cars would not go up the hill.

At last she left the train and started up the track alone. Do you think she had stopped working? No, indeed! She was going for help.

“Surely I can find someone to help me,” she thought.

Over the hill and up the track went the little steam engine. Choo, choo! Choo, choo! Choo, choo! Choo!

Pretty soon she saw a big steam engine standing on a side track. He looked very big and strong. Running alongside, she looked up and said:

“Will you help me over the hill with my train of cars? It is so long and heavy I can’t get it over.”

The big steam engine looked down at the little steam engine. The he said:

“Don’t you see that I am through my day’s work? I have been rubbed and scoured ready for my next run. No, I cannot help you,”

The little steam engine was sorry, but she went on, Choo, choo! Choo, choo! Choo, choo! Choo, choo!

Soon she came to a second big steam engine standing on a side track. He was puffing and puffing, as if he were tired.

“That big steam engine may help me,” thought the little steam engine. She ran alongside and asked:

“Will you help me bring my train of cars over the hill? It is so long and so heavy that I can’t get it over.”

The second big steam engine answered:

“I have just come in from a long, long run. Don’t you see how tired I am? Can’t you get some other engine to help you this time?

“I’ll try,” said the little steam engine, and off she went. Choo, choo! Choo, choo! Choo, choo!

After a while she came to a little steam engine just like herself. She ran alongside and said:

“Will you help me over the hill with my train of cars? It is so long and so heavy that I can’t get it over.”

“Yes, indeed!” said this little steam engine. “I’ll be glad to help you, if I can.”

So the little steam engines started back to where the train of cars had been standing. Both little steam engines went to the head of the train, one behind the other.

Puff, puff! Chug, choo! Off they started!

Slowly the cars began to move. Slowly they climbed the steep hill. As they climbed, each little steam engine began to sing:

“I-think-I-can! I-think-I-can! I-think-I-can! I-think-I-can! I-think-I-can! I-think-I-can! I think I can – I think I can – I think I can I think I can–”

And they did! Very soon they were over the hill and going down the other side.

Now they were on the plain again; and the little steam engine could pull her train herself. So she thanked the little engine who had come to help her, and said good-by.

And she went merrily on her way, singing:

“I-thought-I-could! I-thought-I-could! I-thought-I-could! I-thought-I-could! I thought i could – I thought I could – I thought I could – I thought I could – I thought I could – I thought I could I thought I could –”

During the second half of the 19^th Century, rail transportation in the United States was a booming enterprise. Expanding to every corner of the land, this lucrative growth industry seemed unstoppable. Yet within 70 years of its heyday, rail companies tumbled. And today, their impact of is negligible (beyond Amtrak and lines of Thomas the Tank Engine toys).  What on Earth happened?

Well, the world changed. The advent of automobiles, trucks, buses, and airplanes simply made trains less necessary. Less relevant. So they faded away.

But what if these companies had maintained a broader vision? What if they hadn’t been here simply to support railway systems, but rather to solve transportation needs of all sorts? Had that been the case, these businesses might still be major players in air, land, and sea travel today.

The mistake of overspecialization has plagued virtually every industry, large or small. We’ve seen this sad tale play out time and time again.

In the arts, for example, consider record labels. So massive was their influence and power just 15 short years ago that the top handful of multi-billion dollar corporations were oft referred to as the “music industry.” But make no mistake. That’s not how they approached the game. Instead, they were the “sound-reproduced-on-physical-products-industry.” Which explains why the move from records to CDs worked so seamlessly. Yet when digital reproduction and distribution became reality, the consequences were devastating. Imagine how differently history might have been written had these companies truly seen themselves as the backbone of a comprehensive and ever evolving music business.

Or how about orchestras? These organizations boast a rich and glorious tradition. But even so, American orchestras today are declaring bankruptcy at an alarming rate. What business are they in? Serving as a cultural and creative hub? Transforming communities through music? Celebrating the unique artistic identity of a region?  Not even close. Instead it’s much more narrowly defined: “Large ensemble music featuring a combination of strings, winds, and percussion performing primarily Western classical music by dead Europeans.” Hmmm…During this tumultuous time of disruptive change, couldn’t these ensembles rescue themselves from extinction by thinking wider and re-imagining core purpose? 

What about your own career? Do you just do that one very specific thing (i.e. play classical oboe, choreograph ballet, paint landscape murals)?  Or is your mission open and flexible, ensuring that your work will remain necessary, valuable, and valued no matter how much the world evolves, in any direction?

True, you can’t be all things to all people. True, there are tremendous benefits to addressing a particular niche. Just be sure that the positioning you choose is broad enough to ensure there will always be demand for your art.

In this new RSAnimate, renowned psychiatrist and writer Iain McGilchrist explains how our ‘divided brain’ has profoundly altered human behaviour, culture and society. To view the full lecture, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUHxC4wiWk

Written by John M. Eger  appeared on Huffington Post, January 18th, 2012

The book by Walter Isaacson about Steve Jobs, former CEO and founder of Apple Computer, has now sold over one million copies.

After talking with many of Steve’s colleagues, Issacson discovered that to Steve, “You were either [a shithead or a hero], one or the other, sometimes on the same day.” Clearly he was not a guy everybody loved. Yet he did “revolutionize six industries: personal computers, animated movies, music, phones, tablet computing, and digital publishing. You might even add a seventh: retail stores, which Jobs did not quite revolutionize, but he did re-imagine.”

Isaacson also discovered that in all Apple’s products “technology would be married to great design, elegance, human touches, and even romance.” On a personal note, Isaacson added, “The creativity that can occur when a feel for both the humanities and the sciences combine in one strong personality was the topic that most interested me in my biographies of Franklin and Einstein, and I believe … will be a key to creating innovative economies in the twenty-first century.”

Maybe it takes the tragic death of an icon or another earth-shattering event to get our attention. Leonard Shlain, author of Art and Physics: Parallel Visions of Space, Time and Light (1993), early on noted the symbiotic relationship only now becoming commonplace. Maybe Jobs even read Shlain’s book.

There is now more talk, more awareness of the importance of art and design. And there is a greater recognition that our schools, our communities, our attitudes must change.

This new awareness, new recognition is vital. One might say understanding the challenge of the new global economy is even critical. It demands that we renew and reinvent ourselves to better understand and appreciate the arts (and of course the sciences) and importantly, the esthetic makeup of the places where we live and work. There is no alternative short of letting our cities and our communities atrophy and die, and with it, the great experiment in freedom and free enterprise we so highly value.

We created the pen-based computer, the silicon chip and the Internet itself, now the vehicle for every nation, every city, and every community worldwide to compete with every other. We can be proud of what we have accomplished, but we must be mindful that a new — truly global –economy has been unleashed.

This intersection of art and technology is the future for America. Creativity and innovation will be the hallmark of our greatest corporations, our workplace, and our most enterprising communities.

Does all creativity come from the arts and so-called creative communities? Of course not, but the chances of nurturing creativity through arts based training is a no brainier.

Today, as Sandra Rupert, President of Art Education Partnership observed,

Arts learning experiences play a vital role in developing students’ capacities for critical thinking, creativity, imagination, and innovation. These capacities are increasingly recognized as core skills and competencies all students need as part of a high-quality and complete 21st-century education.

This of course is why STEAM — the idea that the arts are as important as science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) — is so important. It is also why cities and regions must have creative people by nurturing its young people and, reinventing a system of education that engenders the new thinking skills to meet the challenges of the new economy.

Government has a vital role too. Promoting accessible broadband and encouraging land use policies that encourage development of creative economic clusters including art districts, public art and art and cultural institutions such as museums. Governments can also embrace green initiatives, which encourage private sector initiatives and foster the concept of sustainability. And they can use technology to improve productivity, foster new, more efficient delivery of government services and encourage business and the non-profit sector to use technology as well.

Involvement by the whole community will be needed to make meaningful changes and civic collaboration or engagement is critical. New and existing organizations responsible for planning and development and for weaving the fabric of the new community demand that all institutions and individuals become owners of the new agenda which must include: public art, art integration, graffiti parks, art districts, museums, regional collaboration, civic engagement and robust information infrastructures. All are important to the region of the future, to development of a creative community.

A truly creative community can nurture, attract and retain the talent we need to succeed let alone survive in the new economy.

About John M. Eger
John M. Eger, Van Deerlin Endowed Professor of Communications and Public Policy and Director of the Creative Economy Initiative at San Diego State University teaches in the School of Journalism and Media Studies, and the SDSU Honors Program.

He is an author and lecturer on the subjects of creativity and innovation, education and economic development, and also serves as President of The World Foundation for Smart Communities, a research and educational organization dedicated to helping local communities connect to the global economy. http://www.smartcommunities.org/

A former Adviser to two Presidents and Director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy he helped spearhead the restructuring of America’s telecom Industry and was Senior Vice President of CBS responsible for worldwide enterprises, which opened China to commercial television.

Social Entrepreneur, Social Enterprise and Social Innovation Sources of Funding

Here is a list of 210 social entrepreneur, social enterprise and social innovation funding sources (#socent) that a  group member in Impact Entrepreneur posted on Linkedin. This is the most comprehensive list anywhere as far as I know. If you see something missing, you can go to ned.com, join, and then be able to edit the page.

Venture philanthropy, seed stage investing for social entrepreneurs, early stage investing for social innovation

1. http://www.aavishkaar.in/ (India)
2. http://www.accessccf.com/ (Canada only)
3. http://www.acumenfund.org/
4. http://www.agorapartnerships.org /
5. http://www.aidg.org/ (under $50K USD Guatemala & Haiti)
6. http://www.bamboofinance.com/
7. http://www.bigissueinvest.com/
8. http://www.brfny.org/
9. http://www.bridgesventures.com/ (UK only)
10. http://www.calvertgroup.com/
11. http://www.cdvca.org/
12. http://www.ceiventures.com/
13. http://www.citizencapital.fr/
14. http://www.citylightcap.com/
15. http://www.creas.org.es
16. http://www.commonscapital.com/
17. http://www.cpfund.ca/ (Canada only, energy orgs)
18. http://www.draperrichards.org/
19. http://www.echoinggreen.org/
20. http://www.endeavor.org/
21. http://www.eq-cap.com/
22. http://www.expansioncapital.com/
23. http://www.fmo.nl/
24. http://www.franceactive.org/
25. http://www.fusionvp.com/
26. http://www.garrigue.net/
27. http://www.gbfund.org/
28. http://www.goldenmeancap.com/ (Africa Agriculture)
29. http://www.goodcap.net/
30. http://www.goodcompanyventures.o rg/
31. http://www.grandchallenges.org/ (Gates Foundation $100,000 challenge)
32. http://www.grayghostventures.com /
33. http://www.grayghostventures.com /firstlight.htm
34. http://www.graymatterscap.com/
35. http://www.guinness.com/en-row/a gf/social_entrepreneurship.html
36. http://www.humanityfund.com/
37. http://www.idpfoundation.org/
38. http://www.ifc.org/
39. http://www.ignia.com.mx/
40. http://www.investeddevelopment.c om/
41. http://www.investorscircle.net/
42. http://www.jasmine.org.nz/
43. http://www.keyfundyorks.org.uk/
44. http://www.lgt.com/en/private_ku nden/philanthropie/index.html
45. http://www.lundinforafrica.org/s /Home.asp
46. http://www.merismcapital.com/
47. http://www.mindfulinvestors.com/
48. http://www.missionmarkets.com/
49. http://www.murexinvests.com/
50. http://www.newcyclecapital.com/
51. http://www.newprofit.com/
52. http://www.new-ventures.org/
53. http://www.nextstreet.com/
54. http://www.omidyar.com/
55. http://www.pcvfund.com/
56. http://www.phitrust.com/
57. http://www.pipelinefund.com/ (women run socent)
58. http://www.presumedabundance.com /
59. http://www.redf.org/
60. http://www.rwandaventures.com (Rwanda)
61. http://www.seaf.com/
62. http://www.renewal2.ca/
63. http://www.renewalpartners.com/
64. http://www.responsability.com/
65. http://www.rootcapital.org/
66. http://www.rsfsocialfinance.org/
67. http://www.satori-capital.com/
68. http://www.schwabfound.org/
69. http://www.sedi.org/ (Canada only)
70. http://www.sevenfund.org/
71. http://www.shared-interest.com/
72. http://www.slowmoney.org/ (for Local Food Systems)
73. http://www.sjfventures.com/
74. http://www.socential.org/
75. http://www.socialenterprisefund. ca/
76. http://www.soulofhaiti.ie/
77. http://www.sustainvc.com/
78. http://www.svpi.org/
79. http://www.tandemfund.org/
80. http://www.tblcapital.com/
81. http://www.technoserve.org/
82. http://www.theehfoundation.org/
83. http://www.triodos.com/
84. http://www.underdogventures.com/
85. http://www.unltd.org.uk/
86. http://unltdadvantage.org.uk/
87. http://www.venturesome.org
88. http://www.venturewell.org/
89. http://www.vilcap.com/
90. http://www.virgance.com/
91. http://www.voxcapital.com.br/
92. http://www.vppartners.org/
93. http://www.youngfoundation.org/
94. http://www.zayedfutureenergypriz e.com/
95. http://www.zenzelecircle.com/
96. http://www.zerodivide.org/
97. http://www.ferd.no/lang/en/show. do?page=236;566 (Norway)

Crowdsourced Funding, Crowdfunding, and Peer-to-Peer Microfinance

1. http://www.bidnetwork.org/
2. http://www.clearlyso.com/
3. http://www.crowdfunding.co.za/
4. http://www.crowdrise.com/
5. http://www.globalgiving.org/
6. http://www.indiegogo.com/
7. http://www.inventurefund.org/
8. http://www.kickstarter.com/
9. http://www.kiva.org/
10. http://www.microplace.com/
11. http://www.myc4.com/ (Africa)
12. http://www.onepercentclub.com/
13. http://www.profounder.com/
14. http://www.razoo.com/
15. http://rockethub.com/
16. http://www.sasix.co.za/ (Africa)
17. http://www.startsomegood.com/
18. http://www.citizeneffect.org/
19. http://www.uend.org/dt/
20. http://www.unitedprosperity.org/
21. http://www.unreasonableinstitute .org/
22. http://www.urgentevoke.com/
23. http://www.vittana.org
24. http://www.wokai.org/ (China)
25. https://www.zafen.org/ (Haiti)

Social Entrepreneur & Innovation Friendly Foundations

1. http://www.ashoka.org/
2. http://www.brfny.org/
3. http://www.calvertfoundation.org /
4. http://www.casefoundation.org/
5. http://www.cbrf.org/
6. http://www.changemakers.com/
7. http://www.deshpandefoundation.o rg/
8. http://www.fordfound.org/
9. http://www.fullcirclefund.org/
10. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
11. http://www.knightfdn.org/
12. http://www.lemelson.org/
13. http://www.omidyar.com/
14. http://www.rockefellerfoundation .org/
15. http://www.skollfoundation.org/
16. http://www.scu.edu/sts/gsbi/
17. http://www.schwabfound.org/
18. http://www.startingbloc.org/
19. http://www.svn.org/
20. http://www.tidesfoundation.org/

Top SE College Programs

1. http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/
2. http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/berkley/ social.cfm?doc_id=1868
3. http://www.babson.edu/ESHIP/prog rams/socialeship.cfm
4. http://www.caseatduke.org/
5. http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/soci alenterprise/
6. http://www.hbs.edu/socialenterpr ise/
7. http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/ skoll/Pages/default.aspx
8. http://www2.johnson.cornell.edu/ sge/index.cfm

Social Entrepreneur & Innovation Prize/Awards

1. http://www.aecfafrica.org/
2. http://www.americasgivingchallen ge.com/
3. http://apps.facebook.com/chaseco mmunitygiving/
4. http://appsfordevelopment.challe ngepost.com/
5. http://www.avivacommunityfund.or g/
6. http://www.cgiu.org/applying_to_ cgiu/individual_application.asp
7. http://challenge.bfi.org/
8. http://change-connections.com/
9. http://www.cleantechopen.com/app .cgi/content/competition/busines s/index
10. http://www.cnnheroes.com
11. http://www.crownscholars.com/
12. http://ctb.ku.edu/en/out_of_the_ box.aspx
13. http://www.dellsocialinnovationc ompetition.com/
14. http://www.dosomething.org/progr ams/awards
15. http://www.encore.org/prize (over 60)
16. http://www.energychallenge.org/
17. http://events.venturebeat.com/gr eenbeat2010/innovation-competito n/
18. http://www.ey.com/GL/en/About-us /Entrepreneur-Of-The-Year/Entrep reneur-Of-The-Year—Social-Entr epreneurship
19. http://www.foster.washington.edu /centers/gbc/globalsocialentrepr eneurshipcompetition/Pages/GSEC. aspx
20. http://gewusa.org/
21. http://www.globalafc.org/
22. http://globalchallenge.mit.edu/c ompetition/how-to-enter
23. http://www.greenchallenge.info/
24. http://www.greeneducationfoundat ion.org/index.php?option=com_con tent&view=section&id=14& amp;Itemid=509
25. http://gumballcapital.org/challe nge/home/
26. http://www.imaginecup.us/
27. http://nciia.org/grants/eteam
28. http://www.incommons.org/collabo rationchallenge
29. http://www.innocentive.com/
30. http://innovationchallenge.asu.e du/
31. http://launchpad.encore.org/
32. http://marriottschool.byu.edu/so cialventure/
33. http://www.masschallenge.org/
34. http://www.membersproject.com/
35. http://www.mit100k.org/
36. http://mitpsc.mit.edu/globalchal lenge/
37. http://www.moversandchangers.com /
38. http://nestcentral.org/business- plan-competition/
39. http://www.nextbillion.net/nextb illion-2011-case-writing-competi tion
40. http://www.nyu.edu/reynolds/inde x.flash.html
41. http://www.project10tothe100.com /
42. http://www.sevenfund.org/breakth rough-innovation-grant-competiti on/
43. http://www.refresheverything.com /
44. http://www.socialimpactexchange. org/bpc_overview.cfm
45. http://www.tedxyse.com/
46. http://theatrefilm.asu.edu/initi atives/pave-apply.php
47. http://www.thestandrewsprize.com /
48. http://www.theworldchallenge.co. uk/
49. http://www.thinkimpact.org/innov ation-institute/application-proc ess
50. http://www.villgro.org/wantrapre neur/
51. http://web.mit.edu/idi/yunus_201 1.htm
52. http://www.xprize.org/

Search Tools for Grant Funding

1. http://www.foundationcenter.org/
2. http://www.funderfinder.org.uk
3. http://www.fundingcentral.org.uk
4. http://www.governmentfunding.org .uk
5. http://www.grantsnet.co.uk
6. http://www.grantsonline.org.uk
7. http://www.grantspace.org/
8. http://www.j4bgrants .co.uk
9. http://www.open4funding.info
10. http://www.supply2.gov.uk
11. http://www.terravivagrants.org/

Crowdsourced Funding for Musicians & Bands

1. http://www.artistshare.com/
2. http://www.bandstocks.com/
3. http://www.feedthemuse.net/
4. http://www.pledgemusic.com/
5. http://www.sellaband.com/
6. http://www.slicethepie.com/

I am sitting here with coffee in hand, writing to you all from the French Quarter in beautiful New Orleans. I am at the U.S Association for. Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference (USASBE). Today my colleague from University of Illinois, Joyce Thomas, and I present a paper on our learning model for The IAE.

One of the underpinnings of The Institute for Arts Entrepreneurship’s education model is how we use the Business Model Canvas. The Business Model Canvas is an analytical tool described in Business Model Generation. It is a visual template preformatted with the nine blocks of a business model, allowing users to diagram existing business models or conceive new ones. Check out the Canvas as it is used for organizations and for individuals.

In our model we have adapted the Canvas to be a Personal Canvas specifically designed to intuitively and emotionally address all 9 segments allowing creatives to understand business development from right to left. It is slightly different than the personal canvas that is about to be released in Business Model You.

If you are curious to know more, a 79-page, 9.3 MB preview of Business Model You is now available for download.

DOWNLOAD PREVIEW

New research finds we’re better able to identify genuinely creative ideas when they’ve emerged from the unconscious mind.

Written By Tom Jacobs

(Hemera/iStockphoto)

Truly creative ideas are both highly prized and, for most of us, maddeningly elusive. If our best efforts produce nothing brilliant, we’re often advised to put aside the issue at hand and give our unconscious minds a chance to work.

Newly published research suggests that is indeed a good idea — but not for the reason you might think.

A study from the Netherlands finds allowing ideas to incubate in the back of the mind is, in a narrow sense, overrated. People who let their unconscious minds take a crack at a problem were no more adept at coming up with innovative solutions than those who consciously deliberated over the dilemma.

But they did perform better on the vital second step of this process: determining which of their ideas was the most creative. That realization provides essential information; without it, how do you decide which solution you should actually try to implement?

Given the value of discerning truly fresh ideas, “we can conclude that the unconscious mind plays a vital role in creative performance,” a research team led by Simone Ritter of the Radboud University Behavioral Science Institute writes in the journal Thinking Skills and Creativity.

In the first of two experiments, 112 university students were given two minutes to come up with creative ideas to an everyday problem: how to make the time spent waiting in line at a cash register more bearable. Half the participants went at it immediately, while the others first spent two minutes performing a distracting task — clicking on circles that appeared on a computer screen. This allowed time for ideas to percolate outside their conscious awareness.

After writing down as many ideas as they could think of, they were asked to choose which of their notions was the most creative.  Participants were scored by the number of ideas they came up with, the creativity level of those ideas (as measured by trained raters), and whether their perception of their most innovative idea coincided with that of the raters.

The two groups scored evenly on both the number of ideas generated and the average creativity of those ideas. But those who had been distracted, and thus had ideas spring from their unconscious minds, were better at selecting their most creative concept.

The second experiment, which featured 68 students, was similarly structured. Participants were given a different assignment (“Come up with as many ideas as possible on how students can earn some extra money”); at the end, they were asked to identify both their most and least creative ideas.

The results replicated those of the first experiment. Those who had employed their unconscious minds were better at selecting both their most and least-innovative ideas.

The researchers aren’t sure how to explain their results; they suggest a “spontaneous tagging process” takes place when an idea is generated unconsciously, alerting us to its level of creativity. While admitting this theory is speculative, they note that — whatever its cause — this sort of discernment is “vitally important for everyday creativity.”

True enough. Knowing which ideas belong in the trash bin, and which deserve to be fleshed out further, is a real gift—one that, according to this research, your unconscious mind is poised to provide.

Appeared on Jumper on January 8, 2012. Written By Diane Ragsdale

Polly Carl has posted a new piece on HowlRound, A Virtual Theater Movement,  in which she remarks on a recent trend in arts philanthropy: increased direct support for artists. This philanthropic trend prompts me to ask, “What are funders hoping to achieve by providing direct subsidies to individual artists?” and to raise the ideas of a colleague from Erasmus, artist/economist Hans Abbing, who wrote a book in 2002 called Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts, an excellent summary of the chapters therein you can read here.

Abbing crafts a well structured rationale to which I cannot do justice in this post; however, I will mention a few key points. Abbing suggests that the poverty of artists is structural and relates this to a number of factors, including:

1. The social construction of ‘art’as something holy, a notion which is contradictory to the notion of commerce and monetary exchange. He writes: “Although the arts earn approximately half of their income in the market, the arts can only maintain their sacred status when people associate the arts with the values of the gift sphere rather than the market sphere.”
2. While artists do care about money, they tend to care more (than other professionals) about rewards such as personal satisfaction, recognition, and status. He says that most artists have been socialized to this preference and that it is ‘hardly a virtue’. As a manifestation of these preferences, he says that (for example) most artists will work their day jobs only long enough to earn sufficient income to go back to creating artistic work.
3. Given that artists tend to exchange money for rewards such as personal satisfaction, direct subsidies do not lead to higher incomes for artists. Instead, they may simply provide incentives to more people to become artists, thereby increasing competition, and making it more difficult for any to make a living. As Abbing writes, “Subsidization increases the number of poor artists per hundred thousand inhabitants and thus increases poverty.”

So, what is achieved through subsidies to artists? Here are my own reflections:

Direct grants to artists may make it possible for an artist, at a particular point in his or her career, to make (better or more ambitious) work (by removing the necessity to maintain a day job). Funds may be used to help an artist acquire a critical resource or asset that has longer term returns (a marketable artistic output, knowledge and skills, marketing and promotion, staff, representation, a piece of equipment, a studio, a car, etc.). And often direct grants (particularly if competitve or associated with awards) send a signal to other gatekeepers (funders, donors, producers, press, intermediaries, curators, etc.) that a particular artist is worthy of time and support and may result in more resources and attention flowing to that artist. (It may be worth noting, however, that this ‘signaling’ effect can contribute to the ‘winner-take-all’ phenomenon that sometimes exists in the arts and make it even more difficult for new entrants to emerge and find resources.)

However, it seems to me that direct grants to artists are unlikely to (1) solve the longer-term systemic issue (which Polly also points out in her post) that funding to arts organizations in the US seems to increase flows not to artists but rather to buildings and administrations; and (2) (if we agree with Abbing’s point about subsidies providing incentives more more people to become artists) improve the structural poverty of artists.

It seems that these two issues will require a re-thinking of some of the bedrock ideas of the arts and culture sector in the US, among them: (1) to be legitimate you need grants and to get grants you need nonprofit status and administrators; and (2) aesthetic value and market value are at odds. There are others …

And it perhaps goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) subsidies (grants, gifts, or other forms of support) may not only lead to an  increase in the number of people who want to be artists but also the number people who want to form arts organizations. We have incentivized the exponential growth of the arts and culture sector in the US and, despite significant resources (government and private) flowing into the sector on an annual basis, we now find that both artists and the large majority of organizations are poor. There’s a lesson there.

About Diane Ragsdale

Diane is currently attending Erasmus University in Rotterdam (in the Netherlands), where she is researching the impact of economic forces on US nonprofit regional theaters since the 80′s and working towards a PhD in cultural economics. [Read More …]

On Thursday January 26th The Institute for Arts Entrepreneurship (IAE) will be teaming up with WBEZ’s new project Front & Center to host a resource fair for the self employed, small businesses, start-ups, and freelancers.

Mini seminars and presentations will run through out the evening at the fabulous Catalyst Ranch located at 656 W Randolph St # 3W in the Polka Room.

Mini Seminar Topics Include: 

Entrepreneurship 101
Presented by Institute For Arts Entrepreneurship

Receiving small loans as an independent worker
Presented Accion Micro Lending

Doing your taxes as a freelancer, small business owner, or independent
Presented by Center for Economic Progress

Create. Innovate. Repeat: featuring 4 fabulous presenters, 7 slides and just 5 minutes each to pitch their most innovative business idea to you.
Presented by Institute for Arts Entrepreneurship.

Partial List of Participants Include:

Co-Lab Evanston providers of shared office spaces.

Northside Freelancers Network  who can help you connect to the growing Chicago self-employed community. Make sure to ask them about their weekly “freelancers soup” lunch.

Accion will be on hand to discuss how to get a  micro-loans to jump start your own business.

Northside Community Bank can help you find funding for your small, local project.

IndieMade is itself a small business. They create websites for independents, artist, small businesses, and start-up projects.

Rockstar CPA offers CPA services specifically geared towards the self-employed, with a specialty in creative projects.

The Law Project offer affordable legal resources for freelancers, independents, and small businesses, such as creating contracts, negotiating pay, etc.

Chicago! Come on out and celebrate self-employment with us! We hope to see you on January 26th.

Fair begins at 6pm @ Catalyst Ranch  656 W Randolph St # 3W, in the Polka Room

While 2011 was a big year for political unrest, another uprising was afoot in the world of content creators and artists. Everywhere you look, artists are taking more control over their own economic well being, in large part because the Internet has enabled them to do so. You see it in all forms of content, from books, to video to music.

A few examples from this year:

e-books: Probably the most active area in large part because there is huge shifts taking place in digital publishing. From former mid-list writers like Barry Eisler to superstars like JK Rowling, writers are increasingly making waves in digital publishing.

Video: The story of the year for artists-as-entrepreneur came at the tail-end, with Louis CK saying no thank you to corporate middlemen and putting his new concert video online for $5 a pop.

Radio/Music: All sorts of independent entrepreneurs are putting audio entertainment online, from the rise of podcast kings like Leo Laporte to a huge number of independents like Adam Carolla and Marc Maron. Music artists are being given freedom too, through new platforms to create and share their music like Soundcloud.

So what is driving this movement towards the artist-entrepreneur that will give it huge momentum in 2012?  Here are a few underlying trends:

The distribution chain is collapsing across content verticals

The middleman is under attack on all fronts, whether its in video, music/audio and e-books. As devices like TVs become connected, as books become e-readers and tablets, and music is now digital, the storefront is fast-becoming the entire distribution chain.  With e-books it’s Amazon or Apple, with radio it’s iTunes, with video it’s Google/YouTube, Netflix and other upstarts who are investing in original content, or simply direct-to-consumer efforts using web-payment platforms like Paypal.

Louis CK, who created his own site, paid for bandwidth, and used Paypal for payment, captured how many artists are beginning to think when he said in an interview with Bill Simmons that he “didn’t want to cut out the middleman, I just didn’t need one. There wasn’t any reason to have someone there. I just thought make this thing and put it up.”

Content production, distribution and monetization tools are becoming democratized through the web

In e-books, distribution and storefronts have already collapsed into one, but managing distribution across multiple channels is difficult since storefronts are still siloed (Amazon is separate from Apple iBooks, which is walled off from Barnes&Noble, etc). However, companies like Smashwords enable creation and distribution across multiple storefronts, while Vook, post-pivot, is working on SaaS tools to create e-books and manage their distribution, complete with reporting and management dashboards.

In music, artists are starting to embrace sites like Soundcloud to create music and share it, while others direct-to-fan sites like Topspin Media are enabling artists to create commerce sites to sell music in turnkey fashion. And it’s not just music sales, but actual concert tickets. The Pixies used Topspin to sell tickets for a recent concert, utilizing email campaigns and to notify fans and processed the tickets using an iOS app at the door.

With video, big middlemen still dominate, but that is changing as video creation and distribution costs come down in a world of connected devices. As Ryan Lawler wrote in a piece for GigaOM Pro:

“independent content creators stand to gain the most through massive reductions in the cost of recording equipment and editing software, as well as the greater availability of streaming video service on connected devices. They gain new distribution opportunities for their content and greater possibility for monetization. Consider any of the top YouTube video channels, which probably wouldn’t be able to survive in the pay-TV universe but have created thriving businesses due to the cost structure online.”

Generational shifts towards technology savvy-artists

As Matt Mullenweg put in in his New Year’s resolution on GigaOM:

“For a year now, I’ve said scripting is the new literacy. That’s something I strongly believe. In Douglas Rushkoff’s latest book, he talks about “program or be programmed.” That is, if you’re not in control of your inputs, you’re not really in control of your outputs either. You’re just a reactionary force.”

Matt is right, in that scripting is the new literacy, and a growing form of artistic expression. Tech-savvy artists are creating apps and developing sites to put their art into the world. Whether its Matt Inmann creating his work and coding his site at The Oatmeal or young app developers like Robert Nay, artists are becoming coders and vice versa, since, as Mullenweg states, scripting is “new literacy”.

No doubt, the vast majority of economic wealth is still distributed through large corporate media, but as new technologies enable artists to reach consumers directly through push-button creation and distribution, there is a movement afoot. Expect this movement to expand in 2012 as more artists take control of their own economic destinies and become part of the artist-entrepreneur generation.

Dear Colleagues:

I am writing to let you know about an exciting new initiative and to ask that you forward this information to your professional networks. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts (ISSN 2164-7747), the first ever peer-reviewed research journal in the field of arts entrepreneurship, will be published twice yearly beginning July 2012 in an online format.

The mission of Artivate is to disseminate new thinking and perspectives on arts entrepreneurship theory, practice, and pedagogy.  The editors, Linda Essig, director of Arizona State University’s p.a.v.e program in arts entrepreneurship, and Gary Beckman of North Carolina State University’s program in entrepreneurial studies in the arts, are committed to publishing research-based articles and case studies of interest to scholars, artists, and students in the areas of entrepreneurship theory as applied to the arts; arts entrepreneurship education; arts management; arts and creative industries; public policy and the arts; the arts in community and economic development; nonprofit leadership; social entrepreneurship in or using the arts; evaluation and assessment; and public practice in the arts.  Artivate’s diverse international editorial board includes Andrew Taylor (UW-Madison), Margaret Wyszomirski (OSU), Bill Gartner (Clemson), Lynn Book (Wake Forest), Christina Hong (Queensland University of Technology) , Ian David Moss (Fractured Atlas), Diane Ragsdale (Erasmus University), Paul van Zuilenberg (University of the Free State), Gordon Shockley (ASU) and others.

I paste below the call for submissions, due February 15.  You may also visit the journal site at http://www.artivate.org  Please forward this announcement to your professional networks, as appropriate.

Best wishes,

Professor Linda Essig
director, p.a.v.e program in arts entrepreneurship
Co-editor, Artivate.org
ASU School of Theatre and Film
PO Box 872002
Tempe AZ 85287
http://theatrefilm.asu.edu/initiatives/pave/

Call for Submissions

Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts is accepting submissions of articles for publication in its inaugural issue to be published July 2012.  The first journal to focus on the emergent field of arts entrepreneurship, Artivate seeks works of original scholarship in the following areas: entrepreneurship theory as applied to the arts; arts entrepreneurship education; arts management; arts and creative industries; public policy and the arts; the arts in community and economic development; nonprofit leadership; social entrepreneurship in or using the arts; evaluation and assessment in and of the field; public practice in the arts. The editors are particularly interested in articles that actively link theory with practice in ways that will be of interest and impact to the broad cross-section of Artivate’s readership. Self-reflective studies from arts entrepreneurs and empirical research from scholars are equally welcome.

Artivate is a peer-reviewed online publication for an academic and practitioner audience.  Editorial board members are affiliated with universities, foundations, and arts services organizations on three continents.  The co-editors are Linda Essig, director of the p.a.v.e. program in arts entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, and Gary Beckman, director of entrepreneurial studies in the arts at North Carolina State University.
The editors are interested in supporting the growth of our nascent discipline and are committed to publishing at least one debut article from an emerging scholar in each issue.  First-time authors are welcome to seek advice from the editors in advance of submission.

Submissions should be between 4,000 and 10,000 words in length.  Articles must be submitted in a word format (doc or docx) with any figures or illustrations submitted either within the word document or as separate jpg files.  Articles will be evaluated in a blind process so the articles themselves should include no identifying headers, footers, watermarks, or specific content (e.g. “at Jurassic University where I teach arts entrepreneurship”).

Submissions for consideration must be received via email no later than February 15, 2012.  Email submissions simultaneously to linda.essig@asu.edu and gdbeckma@ncsu.edu

Dear Reader,

This blog has been an incredible labor of love. My labor has come from my deep desire to see the world of the arts evolve and change so that artists have a new voice and can develop and be recognized for their entrepreneurial talents by contribute their gifts in new ways.

As we begin our 7th year, I look back and realize that I have persevered relentlessly over the past 6 years because I believe so much in the power of artistry to change the world as we know it.  I have invested a significant amount of my time and money into it, as a result, in hopes that the content here can develop shared language, create new meaning and be a useful resource for you to use in your entrepreneurial and creative development.  I hope I am achieving my goal.

I wish you all a wonderful 2012 filled with hope, promise and prosperity.

Lisa Canning

A friend of mine recently reminded me that there is no need for creative entrepreneurial types like us to apologize for being “egocentric” in saying that creativity and innovation is scarce, while status quo “inside of the box”  thinking is the great majority. It is a simple fact.

Unfortunately, “explaining” this to the “majority” is usually not possible or helpful because it requires experiential learning to truly develop ones creative abilities enough for anyone to really understand.  What rules the heart can rule the mind but it does not work the other way around. A fundamental shift in the mix of who we highly value learning from, and how we learn, needs to take place for this to occur. It is no wonder societies and humans evolve so slowly despite all the knowledge and tools available to us.

And yet, I believe man was put on this earth to help God make progress on earth. Which, to honor him, requires us to be ethical bound, to morally act and requires tremendous creativity to do. And this single belief has profoundly motivated me through out my life to deepen my intellect, my empathy and my creativity so that I can use my skills to be of service, to the best of my ability, to everyone I know.

As I have grown up, I have increasingly come to recognize that this belief is often isolating and a cause for great misunderstanding.  Developing my empathy, intellect and creativity has taught me how to see deeply and profoundly into others- which is not an easy thing, in this broken world, for others to accept as the gift you have to offer. And yet, as an artist, I have come to learn this is our profound gift to share with the world. It is not egocentric at all for me to say it is what artists have to offer and why God graced us all with the gift of life.

And yet, I find myself often in a space where I feel worried that my time on this earth will run out before I have realized this deep vision for the world I have- to occupy the hearts and minds of the majority with more creativity- to reach the tipping point of true change.  It is an honest to goodness daily fear of mine. And it has often pushed me to feel the need to try and prove my worth with anyone I encounter in the majority in the hope that they will give me the opportunity to open up a whole new world of meaning to them- one that transcends the empty hunger for power and greed and utilize it for real progress on earth and societal good. And by doing so, for true sustainable prosperity to flow. It is hard not to want this for the world when these principals have profoundly served the development of my own life and my businesses and created so much prosperity and good.

While I have never apologized for my work, in some ways by trying to “prove” to others what deep value as an artist I hold, I  think I have.  While the majority entertains my beliefs about the ethical values one develops from the flow of heartfelt creativity, like a muse in the moment, it is short lived and not invested into to deepen its impact and to create true sustainable values. Is this really the only role my work can have?

Two years ago I was offered the opportunity of being mentored by a quickly rising entrepreneurial star in Chicago. He had built an amazing company from nothing, was featured on INC’s fastest growing list of companies for several years and glowed in power and money. He also “appeared” to be “a creative”, like me, too.

As my relationship with this individual developed, what I found underneath the veil was far from what the exterior portrayed. He was in an “open marriage”; his life was spiraling out of control. He was also hiring broken-down-trodden individuals to do the heavy lifting inside his business because he could pay them less and work them to death. And in all he did in life, he placed appearances far higher on his list than true happiness and meaning despite all of his soul searching trips to meet spiritual gurus.

While he thought he was mentoring me, it was I who was mentoring him.

Through my mentorship, this individual came to to emotionally understand that true love and intimacy was more important to him than sex with multiple women. He also came to experience that a creative career and business was far more valuable to him than a past-its-sell-date sweat shop that gushed cash. However,  I was never given any credit for my work. The profound changes that I witnessed in him, during our professional relationship, were not rewarded with generosity for his newly found flow of heart centered creativity; which my mentorship reinvigorated the hunger within him to have.  It certainly also did not make him donate funds to The IAE, or even thank me. Instead he took it freely from me as if it had no intrinsic value or significant economic worth.

And if I had told him upfront the price tag to help him was a donation of $100,000 to my school, he would have laughed and walked away. Why would he pay when all of us artists continue to give our gifts away for free to those who don’t have the skills, but have the resources to pay for what we have to deliver?

Today this individual is happily, for the first time, married to one woman. And he sold his company too and is now working on something truly meaningful to him and which is helping him to build his creative capacity.

Artists can truly help restore the inner lives of the majority not to mention by doing so stop the Penn State’s, Bernie Madoff’s and Enron’s from ever happening. But it is going to require finding the minority of the majority- those financially able and brave enough to invest and act- to step up and give those of us with these gifts a chance to fully integrate our pure heart centered creativity into their world.

Please Lord hear my prayer. I am sure this is the work you put all of us artists on this earth to do. And, finally, I believe our time has come to do your work on your beloved earth. The world is awakening to the real need for promised words and actions to match. Intellectual understanding is not from where we are compelled to act. This is why I dutifully created The IAE- to help artists help others make progress on earth for you.

Please send me the minority who is willing to invest and act. Lord hear my prayer.

On behalf of everyone at The Institute For Arts Entrepreneurship – our faculty, our students, our supporters and our families
- we would like to wish each of you and your family
 a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year!

As many of you may already know, 2011 has proven to be an exceedingly eventful and rewarding year for the IAE.  After several years of dutiful planning and extremely hard work, we launched our pilot program this past September.

About IAE’s Progress

Our recently concluded Module I coursework focused on student development of emotional intelligence, leadership aptitude and communicative skills.  And within only a very few months, we have witnessed a blossoming of growth and excitement from 15 artists – from fashion, music, theater, visual arts, food, skin care and design- in our inaugural class ranging in age from 24 to 63!  For those of us on the IAE staff, bearing witness to our student’s desire to learn, develop and flourish has served as a profoundly breathtaking experience.

And many new faces are sprouting up to support our work. This past fall over 12 individuals donated their time to mentor our students. We also have received immeasurable help with our curriculum design and development from Joyce Thomas, Deana McDonagh and Director Nan Goggin- all from The School of Art + Design at the University of Illinois.

And the interest has not stopped there. In January the IAE was selected to deliver our first paper about our innovative learning model at the U.S. Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference in New Orleans. Founder Lisa Canning was also invited to attend The U.S. Dept of State and The Aspen Institute’s 2nd Entrepreneurship conference in Marrakech Morocco in January. Additionally, 2 schools in Amman Jordan and someone who serves on the Fulbright commission in Sweden have all reached out to us to inquire how we can bring the IAE to their communities.

The IAE Needs Your Help to Bloom

During the past twelve months, we have been working hard to ramp up our fund raising efforts designed to firmly establish the IAE as a long-term, going concern with the ability to make a real difference – not only in assisting artists to develop meaningful careers applying their artistic talents – but to utilize their creative abilities in new ways that also can benefit our communities and local businesses.  And while these efforts have not thus far been quite as successful as those in the classroom – our commitment to advancing the IAE’s mission remains as strong as ever.

Year End Giving

As we prepare for the New Year, we will continue to do our best to fund our pilot program. Unfortunately, without more support, we may not be able to realize our full vision to help artists change their lives and the world with their creativity. I wish you would come to our classroom to see just how big the impact is we have already made with our students. We have quickly become an invaluable resource; something our students do not wish to lose.

With this being a time to reflect on our values and beliefs, we would like to ask that you consider an offer of support for The Institute for Arts Entrepreneurship. Whatever you can give will show us you value our work and care about the future of our students.

A tax-deductible contribution to the IAE may be made through our secure giving site or by mailing a check to The Institute For Arts Entrepreneurship, 2257 N Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614.

To insure your tax benefits for 2011, online donations must be completed by 11:59 PM on December 31, 2011. Checks must be dated and postmarked by December 31, 2011. Please be sure to consult your tax adviser to confirm how charitable deduction rules may apply to your individual situation.

To each of you who generously support us, both today and over the past several years, please know we could never achieve our goals without you. Your kindness and generosity is so appreciated.

With blessings to you all for peace, love and prosperity in the New Year,

Lisa and Chuck Canning

The IAE has a new Facebook page. Click below and like us.

Please follow us on Twitter too!