Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Research Article

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026): International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

Managing Creative Entrepreneurship in the Arts: A Dual-Path Conceptual Model for Traditional Crafts and Short-Video Ventures in University Incubators (China with Global Relevance)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.65231/ijmr.v2i2.145
Submitted
March 6, 2026
Published
2026-03-09

Abstract

University incubators increasingly support arts-based ventures, yet these entities are often treated as a monolithic category. This approach overlooks critical differences in production systems, intellectual property regimes, and distribution channels. This paper proposes a dual-path conceptual model to explain how artistic creativity transforms into sustainable entrepreneurial value. It distinguishes between craft-based ventures (e.g., lacquerware, metalwork), which rely on material authenticity and tacit skills, and platform-based digital ventures (e.g., short-video studios), which depend on algorithmic attention and rapid iteration. Drawing on exploration–exploitation theory and the resource-based view, the model identifies distinct development mechanisms for each path. The study argues that effective incubation requires differentiated support structures rather than a uniform startup toolkit. While grounded in the Chinese university context, the model offers relevant insights for arts incubation globally.

References

  1. Peltoniemi, M. (2015). Cultural industries: Product-market characteristics, management challenges and industry dynamics. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 41-68.
  2. Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275-4292.
  3. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Columbia University Press.
  5. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
  6. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
  7. Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2022). Platforms and cultural production. Polity Press.
  8. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
  9. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
  10. Bhargava, V. R. (2022). The creator economy: Managing the risks of platform dependence. Business Horizons, 65(5), 623-633.
  11. Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1003-1029.
  12. Duffy, B. E. (2020). Algorithmic precarity in the creator economy. Social Media + Society, 6(4), 205630512096387.
  13. Kuhn, K. M., & Galloway, T. L. (2015). With a little help from my competitors: Peer networking among artisan entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 571-600.
  14. Benjamin, W. (1935). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Schocken Books.
  15. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press.
  16. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of 'platforms'. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
  17. Cunningham, S., & Craig, D. (2019). Social media entertainment: The new intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. NYU Press.