This article argues that the current economic design of the US not-for-profit arts sector, specifically theatre, fails to support the long-term wellness of the cultural worker and the cultural commons. As a solution, we propose a global, commons-based alternative economy and complementary currency called Culture Coin that creates new wealth, abundance, and virtuous social behaviors by matching unmet needs with underutilized resources that our current economy fails to circulate. The current design of our arts economy results in generative artists being disproportionately poorer, unjust disparities in how resources are distributed, and social behaviors in the nonprofit sector that mimic for profit, commercial enterprises. The arts sector has an over-dependence on uncompensated or undercompensated “sweat equity” and volatile philanthropic funding. We detail the value and characteristics of a commons framework for entrepreneurial activity and describe internet-enabled peer production as a way to build cultural commons as well as the most effective way to collectively co-create and deploy the Culture Coin project.

In this essay, I investigate the relationship between local political context and entrepreneurship in the arts, specifically entrepreneurship by cultural institutions, which I refer to as “cultural entrepreneurship.” I look at cultural entrepreneurship as a discourse and discuss one locus in particular, the city of Utrecht in The Netherlands. The discourse on cultural entrepreneurship in the Dutch context is influenced by diminishing government responsibility for financial support of the arts. Entrepreneurship is seen in that context as finding new sources of income. Entrepreneurial values such as curiosity and experimentation are dominant in the routine relationship between cultural organizations and their subsidizing administrations but are not incorporated in the understanding of cultural entrepreneurship. After applying these considerations to the observation of the culture-political practice in the city of Utrecht, I suggest a framework that allows us to understand the discourse on the relationship between cultural entrepreneurship and political context along two axes. One axis moves between risk acceptance and aversion, and the other between the private and public interests.