|
Welcome to the March Creative Business Wrap. This month: entry fees for museums, the barriers holding back working-class creatives, the ongoing battle between human artistry and AI, and award-winning research on innovation.
But first… in my morning Instascroll, I came across a new creative practice: competitive indoor skydiving. I was only vaguely aware of indoor skydiving, in which people too scared to actually skydive simulate the experience in a tube with a big fan. I never thought it would become something akin to… well, if not dance, then at least synchronised swimming. Check it out here, and enjoy a pleasant, slightly mesmerising break from your day.
|
|
|
The End of Free Museum Entry?
For a quarter of a century, the UK has enjoyed universal free entry to its national museums, but severe financial pressures threaten this “golden era”. According to a report by Nadia Khomami in The Guardian, the National Gallery recently announced significant cuts, potentially reducing free exhibitions, scaling back international borrowing of artworks, and increasing ticket prices. This has sparked concerns that free access is becoming unsustainable, a fear compounded by a recent review recommending that international tourists be charged to access permanent collections. While some see ticketing as a tempting fix for chronic underinvestment, advocates warn it could damage the UK’s reputation, reduce footfall, and negatively impact secondary spending in cafes and shops.
The debate divides opinion among senior museum figures. While institutions like the Museums Association and the charity Art Fund defend free entry—arguing that museums need sustainable public funding to remain accessible to all—former directors of major institutions are calling for entrance fees, describing the current model as “regressive and inequitable”. Here in Australia, entry fees for special exhibitions are common, but charging for general entry is not. The Museum of Contemporary Art has introduced entry fees, but other, more niche institutions, such as the Australian National Maritime Museum, have long had them. With government funding staying static, building upkeep costs rising, and philanthropic funding reaching a ceiling for many institutions, perhaps charging for general entry is inevitable.
|
|
|
Smashing the Class Ceiling in the Arts
A groundbreaking new inquiry has exposed the profound barriers preventing working-class creatives from succeeding in the arts. As detailed by Joe Stafford for The University of Manchester, the “Class Ceiling” report—co-chaired by Nazir Afzal OBE and Avis Gilmore—reveals a system where talent is consistently blocked by class-based discrimination, low pay, lack of connections, and exploitative practices. The inquiry found that less than half of surveyed creatives earn enough to make a living, and over half have experienced bullying, harassment, or bias based on their social class. Only 18% of respondents said they saw their lived experiences widely represented in their art form.
The report proposes 21 radical recommendations to dismantle these barriers and establish a more equitable creative sector in Greater Manchester. These include treating class as a protected characteristic, appointing a Class Champion, and implementing measures to decasualise labour. I think the creative sector in Australia has generally led the way in addressing discrimination based on race, sexuality and physical ability – is it now time to turn our focus towards class discrimination as well?
|
|
|
Obligatory AI Article of the Month
The music industry is currently grappling with the existential threat of generative artificial intelligence, a conflict explored by Darius Van Arman in his op-ed for Music Business Worldwide. As AI models like Suno and Udio face lawsuits from major labels for allegedly stream-ripping massive amounts of copyrighted material, independent music companies are trying to find their footing. Van Arman notes that while major tech companies are incentivised to “move fast and break things” in pursuit of massive profits, these actions often neglect the preservation of human dignity, artistic craftsmanship, and artists’ economic rights. There is a genuine fear that society will enter an era of “algorithmic determinism,” where predictive models replace the meaningful human connection inherently found in music creation.
In response to this rising tide, Van Arman outlines a five-point manifesto for the independent music sector. He argues that human creativity is irreplaceable and advocates AI training licenses to prevent tech companies from invoking “fair use” to scrape human creations without consequence. He also insists that artists’ consent must be obtained before AI companies use their works or likenesses for training. While acknowledging the need for compromises, this piece serves as a rallying cry for the creative community to unite and ensure technologists do not unilaterally dictate the future of music and other art forms.
Incidentally, I went to an Institute of Community Directors (ICDA) roundtable this month on how AI is impacting the not-for-profit sector. There was a lot of diversity in views on how NFPs are adapting to and using AI tech, but as the sole creative rep there, I was struck by how little talk there was about copyright theft and job losses – issues impacting our sector right now. We might be ahead of a particularly steep curve. You can download ICDA’s reports on how NFPs can use generative AI here.
|
|
|
The Future of Arts, Culture, and Technology
The intersection of arts, culture, and technology was recently put under the microscope at ACMI’s fourth annual FACT Symposium, as reported by RMIT News for RMIT University. Over three days, global artists, technologists, and academics mapped the trajectory of digital culture in the second quarter of the 21st century. Key discussions explored the challenge of digital archiving—specifically, how creative practitioners can preserve a record of the present when the software and platforms they use are constantly changing. The symposium also examined global gaming cultures, noting that countries like China treat video games as living museums that preserve and widely share cultural cosmology.
The symposium also confronted the “polycrisis” of climate, culture, and technology, advocating for an “affirmative ethics” approach that actively shapes a posthuman framework rather than resigning to dystopian fears. s. RMIT’s Professor Naomi Stead warned that the sector must be “curious, excited, sceptical and wary in equal measure” regarding AI technology. She urged collective action to establish policy guardrails and guidelines that protect and expand the role of humans in the AI creativity loop.
|
|
|
Rewarding Entrepreneurial Innovation
Finally, one of my favourite topics: how to encourage entrepreneurship. Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it requires structures, mentorship, and a carefully cultivated institutional culture. This is the foundation of the research that earned Arizona State University’s Donald Siegel the 2026 Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research, as reported by Ayrel Clark-Proffitt for ASU News. Siegel, sharing the award with collaborator Albert Link, was recognised for his work examining how entrepreneurs connect with surrounding institutions and geographies. His research focuses heavily on the public policy implications of academic entrepreneurship and the role of policy in accelerating or stifling the commercialisation of new inventions.
For creative business professionals, Siegel’s findings highlight the critical importance of organisational and human resource management practices in speeding up technology transfer at universities and federal labs. His work demonstrates that transferring technology from the lab to the marketplace can significantly stimulate economic development, improve living standards, and drive job creation.
What would a funded creative entrepreneurship program look like here in Australia? This is a question I return to every so often. I’d like to think that an Australian funder or donor could offer small-scale seed investments to creative entrepreneurs, on the proviso that the original investment is returned. Interested in fleshing this idea out with me? You know where I am!
|
|
|
