As the twenty-first century approaches the end of its second decade, the word leadership seems ubiquitous. Perhaps because of geopolitical change, the coarsening of public speech, the rise of partisanship, or a combination of these factors, there appears to be increased focus not only on how presidents, prime ministers, legislators, governors, and mayors act, but on how they should act. The popularity of political historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s (2018) book Leadership: In Turbulent Times—number seven on The New York Times hardcover nonfiction best seller list in January 2019)—is one symptom of this fascination. In the arts as in politics, leadership is a term whose visibility is increasing in discussion of the work and training of those who guide the development and operation of cultural organizations. A count of the terms used in the titles, degrees, and credential offerings of 132 current members of the Association of Arts Administration Educators (AAAE) yields this result: Management: 51; Administration: 49; Leadership: 15; Entrepreneurship: 10; Policy: 8; Enterprise: 2; Other: 14. Perhaps the specific words were chosen to relate programs to others at their institutions. Perhaps they were chosen to avoid antagonizing other campus entities that would object to having their names usurped. Perhaps they were chosen because they were au courant at the time of the program’s founding. As a self-professed word nerd (the kind of person who believes that sex should be exclusively used as the “active noun” and gender as the passive), this reviewer has noted the use of Arts Leadership in the field and wondered how the programs that adopt it might differ from those with other names. The chart that follows, generated by Mark Nerenhausen, current CEO of Minnesota’s Hennepin Theater Trust and director of the Janklow Arts Leadership Program at Syracuse University during its life (2011–2016), graphs the appearance in published materials in English of the terms Arts Leadership, Arts Management, and Arts Administration between 1900 and 2008. It shows that, while the latter two terms continue to dominate, leadership began gaining traction between 2001 and 2008, where the searchable database currently ends. It is reasonable to assume that the Arts Leadership curve has continued its upward trend through 2018, when both Arts Leadership in Contemporary Contexts by Josephine Caust (2018) and Arts Leadership: Creating Sustainable Arts Organizations by Kenneth Foster (2018) were published. The two authors specifically embrace the phrase in their introductions:

中文翻译：

---

艺术领导力：融合变革

当二十一世纪接近第二个十年的末期时，领导一词似乎无处不在。也许是由于地缘政治的变化，公众言论的粗化，党派的兴起或这些因素的结合，似乎不仅人们越来越关注总统，总理，立法者，州长和市长的行为，而且越来越关注他们应该采取行动。政治历史学家多丽丝·凯恩斯·古德温（Doris Kearns Goodwin）（2018）的书《领导力：动荡的时代》（2019年1月在《纽约时报》精装非小说类畅销书榜上排名第七）的受欢迎程度是这种迷恋的一个征兆。在政治领域中，领导艺术是一个术语，在讨论文化组织的发展和运作的人员的工作和培训时，领导力的知名度在不断提高。标题中使用的术语数，学位，以及132位艺术管理教育家协​​会（AAAE）当前成员的证书课程，产生了以下结果：管理：51；行政：49；领导力：15；创业精神：10；政策：8；企业：2；其他：14.也许选择了特定的词来使计划与机构中的其他人联系起来。也许他们被选择为避免与其他反对篡夺其名字的校园实体抗衡。之所以选择他们，是因为他们在该计划成立之初就很无礼。作为一个自称的书呆子（那种认为性别应该专门用作“主动名词”，而性别则作为被动名词的人），这位审稿人注意到了艺术领导力在该领域的使用，并想知道该计划如何采用它的名称可能与其他名称有所不同。明尼苏达州亨内平剧院信托基金会现任首席执行官，锡拉丘兹大学Janklow艺术领导力计划主任（2011-2016年）马克·纳伦豪森（Mark Nerenhausen）绘制的下图绘制了艺术领导力一词在英语出版材料中的外观。 ，艺术管理和艺术行政管理之间的关系在1900年至2008年之间。它表明，尽管后两个术语继续占主导地位，但领导力在2001年至2008年之间开始受到关注，目前可搜索的数据库已经结束。可以合理地假设艺术领导力曲线在2018年之前一直保持上升趋势，当时约瑟芬·考斯特（Josephine Caust）的《当代环境中的艺术领导力》（2018）和肯尼思·福斯特（Kenneth Foster）的《艺术领导力：创造可持续的艺术组织》（2018）均已出版。