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