James Undercofler continues his great pondering and prodding about the best role for ‘arts entrepreneurship’ training in higher education. When he was Dean of the Eastman School of Music, he initiated some fantastic career- and community-focused initiatives for music students. In his current position in the Arts Administration program at Drexel University, he’s exploring a wider range of need and impact among future creative professionals.
Now, he’s suggesting three levels of arts entrepreneurship efforts on college campuses. The first is essentially career counseling to help students be more competitive for identified positions. The second supports ‘creative adaptations and extensions’ of artistic expertise — how to create small business opportunities out of the things you know how to do, such as reed-making, art supplies, theatrical performance, and such.
The third level — or his ‘third dimension’ — is systemic redesign, helping students rethink and restructure the many ways artists, arts, audiences, and communities find and feed each other. Undercofler suggests that this level is essential not only for student success, but also for the future success of the arts system, saying that ”unless we encourage each other and our students to think in the third dimension, the arts will continue to bang up against societal walls and stagnate.”
The three levels suggested here remind me of the top three tiers of the five levels of mastery:
Applied UnderstandingThe learner can choose from a variety of rules and understands which rule is appropriate to solve specific problems. [ie, students can understand the rules of identified jobs, and position themselves according to those rules.]Real World DiscoveryThe learner discovers that previously understood concepts can be applied to new situations. [ie, students can adapt their artistic and technical skills to areas outside their traditional discipline.]Global IntegrationThe learner is able to formulate and/or rediscover concepts from observation or experiences, even if the memorized rule has been forgotten. The learner can apply global concepts between systems and create new products or processes. [ie, students can realign and rearrange complex elements of a system, and design new products or processes to suit that system.]
I completely agree with Jim that the top-most level needs to be our educational goal for all students who hope to make a career (and a difference) in the arts. And, in fact, this strikes me as an essential goal for any endeavor in higher education that seeks to develop successful citizens of the world. Let’s get started!
I believe there may be a fourth dimension — see todays post at http://creativeinfrastructure.wordpress.com
Level 3 check! Exactly why da capo institute exists.
This is important for many artists and those who want them to continue their work, but how does it work for a new and visionary artist? Thinking here of a Mark Rothko, for example. Without the financial support of a Duncan Phillips, who bought his work when almost no one else got it, Rothko might well be unknown today. The entrepreneureal model works in many cases, but I worry the leading edge thinker will always need a patron of some kind–public or private.
You pick up the Sage Publication, “Culture and Globalization: The Cultural Economy” I wrote a chapter on cultural entrepreneurship. Also, have a look at our work on Fast Forward New Mexico, at http://www.culturalentreprenuer.org I teach a class to professional economic development officers at Western New Mexico University once a year on, “Culture and Economic Development” which is all based on cultural entrepreneurs.
Tom
The IAE was created to support the fourth dimension Linda Essig referred to. We need to create more opportunities and learn how to find them on our own through entrepreneurship.