From Silos to Synergy: Redefining Collaboration in the Performing Arts and Museum Sectors

Abstract

The arts sector—museums, theaters, and orchestras—in the United States and Europe faces increasing financial and operational challenges, from declining attendance to reduced public and private funding. While these organizations have historically pursued their goals independently, their future may depend on fostering collaboration across these traditionally siloed institutions. By pooling resources, expertise, and, most importantly, audiences, cross-disciplinary partnerships can amplify the impact of cultural institutions while addressing shared challenges. For instance, museums and performing arts organizations could collaborate on immersive experiences that integrate visual and performing arts, attracting a broader and more diverse audience base. Similarly, joint programming and shared digital platforms could reduce overhead costs and expand outreach. These partnerships also enable the arts to present a unified case for public and philanthropic support, leading to greater collective societal impact. Drawing on successful examples of cross-sector collaboration, this paper explores practical strategies for fostering synergies among arts institutions. By working together, the arts can not only enhance their resilience in a challenging environment but also redefine how cultural experiences are created and consumed, ensuring their relevance and vibrancy for future generations.

1. Introduction

Arts organizations have historically operated in “silos,” focusing on individual missions and competing for resources (Kotler and Scheff 1997; Backer 2002; Ostrower 2003). However, contemporary challenges—from financial constraints on artists (Makridis 2023) and theaters (Makridis 2024a)—have intensified calls for synergistic collaboration as a strategy for survival and growth. As a result, there has been a growing “pressure to partner” in the nonprofit arts world even as organizations weigh when collaboration is truly beneficial. In urban cultural policy and arts management discourse, collaboration is increasingly seen as a method for optimizing resources, innovating programming, and broadening audience engagement (Backer 2002).

While the concept of strategic collaboration in the arts is not new—and was prominently argued by Scheff and Kotler (1996) in the Harvard Business Review article—multiple factors have made collaboration a growing imperative in the arts. Economically, arts organizations face persistent financial pressures. The classic economic dilemma of the performing arts—famously termed Baumol’s cost disease—means that productivity gains are hard to achieve, yet costs (especially labor costs) may continue to rise (Baumol and Bowen 1966). In other words, if a sector exhibiting lower productivity continues to absorb more labor and resources in an economy, it will drag down aggregate economic growth. Even large cultural institutions struggle with this structural challenge: wages and expenses climb even though arts outputs (a symphony performance, a ballet, a museum exhibition) cannot be easily scaled down in effort. That is true in at least the United States, where administrative costs, as a share of total costs, have doubled among theaters over the past decade, while ticket sales have declined (Makridis 2024a). And yet, that does not have to be the case: the arts have the potential to become more productive and impactful.

In an era of shrinking public funding and intense competition for private philanthropy, collaboration offers a way to achieve economies of scale and share resources, mitigating budgetary strain. For instance, joint ventures or mergers can eliminate organizations undertaking the same fixed costs (e.g., finances and human resources)—as seen when the Utah Symphony and Utah Opera merged in 2002 to form a consolidated organization, a “precedent-setting decision” aimed at increasing financial resilience through shared administration (Utah Symphony|Utah Opera 2018). Funders also encourage partnerships: foundations and government agencies often favor consortium grants and collaborative projects, believing that collective efforts yield broader and more sustainable impact. Similarly, in 2008, Balboa Park (San Diego), a local foundation’s strategic grantmaking explicitly sought to “enhance collaboration and cooperation” among the park’s 24 cultural institutions to achieve joint objectives and ensure relevance in a changing community (Cherry 2010). As a result, collaboration has thus become not just desirable, but in many cases necessary for arts organizations’ long-term viability.

Audience behaviors and technological advances are also increasing the ease and incentives for cross-sector collaboration. The digital age has changed how people access arts and culture, with audiences expecting content on demand, online, and across platforms. Few single institutions have the capacity to meet these expectations alone. Cross-institutional collaborations allow arts organizations to pool content, data, and expertise to reach wider audiences via digital means (Walmsley 2016). Moreover, urbanization and cultural policy trends have emphasized cultural ecosystems and networks over isolated entities (Currid 2010; Florida 2002).1 City cultural plans often promote partnerships among museums, theaters, and community organizations to foster inclusive cultural vitality (Duxbury and Jeannotte 2012). In fact, today’s cultural consumers are “experience seekers” who respond to integrated offerings and convenient access points (Brown and Ratzkin 2011). Collaboration enables unified programming and cross-promotion that cater to these patterns, turning competition into “co-opetition”—collaborative competition—that can enlarge the overall cultural audience pie rather than fight over the same slice (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1997). In sum, the confluence of financial, technological, and audience-based factors underlies the current momentum toward synergy in the arts sector.

Emerging success stories illustrate the transformative power of collaboration. For instance, Boston Baroque leveraged digital streaming technologies to expand its audience, creating new revenue streams while reducing its reliance on traditional funding sources. Moreover, such ideas and their execution are only possible with board members of arts organizations that have generalist and industry expertise (Dutta et al. 2025). Similarly, museums and performing arts organizations have begun experimenting with interdisciplinary programming, combining visual and performing arts to attract broader and more diverse audiences. These examples demonstrate that breaking down institutional silos is possible and can unlock synergies that benefit the entire cultural ecosystem.

This paper advances the discourse on arts sector collaboration by synthesizing emerging evidence, case studies, and conceptual frameworks into a novel integrative perspective. It combines classic insights on the structural constraints facing arts organizations with contemporary understandings of culture’s role in urban economic dynamics, using the lens of institutional theory. In doing so, the study extends prior scholarship—from Backer’s (2002) early work on nonprofit arts partnerships and Bryson et al.’s (2006) cross-sector collaboration frameworks to Cherry’s (2010) museum consortium case and Hale and Woronkowicz (2021) on new collaboration through artist in residence programs—by moving beyond their individual insights toward a more integrative and operationally grounded approach for overcoming institutional silos and enabling synergistic partnerships. Whereas earlier studies tended to focus on either high-level principles or isolated examples, this paper bridges those dimensions, offering a comprehensive yet practical framework and tangible recommendations that explicitly address the persistent barriers to cooperation in the museum and performing arts domains.

Moreover, by combining institutional theory with case-based evidence, the paper helps to bridge the gap between policy rhetoric and organizational reality in cultural management. Collaboration is often championed in cultural policy circles as a panacea for urban arts challenges, yet in practice it remains “hardly easy” and far from automatic. Acknowledging this disconnect, the analysis illustrates how normative institutional pressures can lock organizations into siloed behaviors and how these might be counteracted through deliberate partnering strategies. For example, DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) notion of isomorphic pressures is used to explain why museums and performing arts groups often mirror one another’s siloed structures, even as initiatives like the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership demonstrate the benefits of breaking out of those confines. By translating theoretical insights into pragmatic strategies, grounded in cases and economic constraints, the paper offers a decision-guidance framework for cultivating more effective partnerships. The framework is explicit about its orientation in the U.S. setting: improve economic efficiency, democratize access, and strengthen institutional resilience. This contribution enriches the arts management and urban cultural policy literature by providing both a conceptual roadmap and concrete examples for achieving cross-organizational synergy, thereby moving collaboration from aspirational rhetoric to tangible practice.

The paper concludes with a call for a paradigm shift in how arts and culture organizations approach their missions. Collaboration must move from the periphery to the core of strategic planning, becoming a primary tool for achieving financial stability, increasing audience engagement, and enhancing societal impact. The following sections explore barriers to collaboration, case studies of collaboration, and actionable strategies for fostering cross-sector partnerships.2 Special attention is given to how museums and performing arts organizations can (together) lead this movement, capitalizing on their shared goals and complementary strengths to thrive in a rapidly evolving cultural landscape.

2. Barriers and Challenges to Collaboration

Despite the evident benefits of collaboration, several systemic and operational barriers make it difficult for museums and performing arts organizations to achieve greater impact for their stakeholders and communities. These challenges stem from entrenched institutional silos, misaligned funding priorities, and logistical complexities.

2.1. Institutional Silos

Arts institutions often operate within distinct institutional silos, i.e., museums and performing arts organizations are embedded in separate professional networks, funding streams, and organizational cultures (Kotler and Scheff 1997; Backer 2002; Ostrower 2003). Each type of organization develops its own norms and routines—or “institutional logics”—that define success and appropriate behavior (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Over time this leads to path dependency: museums and theaters evolve along parallel tracks with little incentive to deviate or interact. For example, local cultural planning reports have observed that even in arts-rich regions, museums and performing arts venues frequently work “in silos” with minimal coordination. Path dependency can generate a suboptimal outcome for not only the system as a whole, but also each of the individual members, but the inertia to change can be high (David 1985).

Separate governing bodies and policy frameworks reinforce this divide; in many cities, historical museums fall under heritage agencies while performing arts are managed by arts councils, resulting in isolated decision-making. The lack of regular communication channels means that opportunities for joint programming or knowledge exchange are often missed. Silos can breed a “turf” mentality, where organizations guard their domains rather than collaborate. Past attempts at partnerships that failed may further entrench reluctance, creating a culture of institutional separation or even mistrust.

Despite these entrenched silos, there have been efforts to break them down. Some museums have restructured internally to encourage cross-department teamwork, implicitly modeling the silo-busting needed externally (Fogarty 2013). At the sector level, cultural policy initiatives have promoted cross-sector forums and joint conferences for museum and performing arts leaders to interact (Woronkowicz 2015). In practice, funder-led consortia can prompt silo bridging by requiring multi-disciplinary partners—for example, a city arts fund might co-fund a project only if a museum, theater, and community group all collaborate, thereby not only creating more dialogue, but also joint “skin-in-the-game.” While these strategies show promise, the broader challenge remains: institutional silos are rooted in longstanding structural and cultural separations. Overcoming them requires sustained leadership attention to relationship-building across organizations and aligning stakeholders around a shared vision (Bryson et al. 2006).

2.2. Misaligned Incentives

Even when cultural organizations acknowledge the value of partnership, misaligned incentives can stymie cooperation. Organizations are driven by their own missions, performance metrics, and stakeholder expectations, which may not naturally align across sectors. A museum’s success might be measured in exhibition attendance, educational outcomes, or donor contributions, whereas a theater company focuses on ticket sales, critical reviews, or season subscriber counts. If a collaborative project does not clearly advance each partner’s goals, commitment can waver.

Indeed, uneven commitment and conflicting goals are frequently cited as causes of partnership failure in the arts. For instance, a study of cross-sector arts alliances found that collaborations faltered when one or more partners failed to fulfill agreed roles or had “misaligned goals” from the outset (Weinstein and Cook 2011). In such cases, each organization may prioritize its own short-term interests—ticket revenue, membership retention, etc.—over the collective benefits of collaboration. This misalignment can lead to a perception of collaboration as a zero-sum game rather than a win-win, especially in environments where funding is scarce. Competition for audiences and funding often underpins these incentive problems. The literature on arts marketing notes that performing arts organizations, in particular, may fear that partnering with other institutions could cause them to “lose a patron to other art forms” if audience members divert attention or donations elsewhere (Kotler and Scheff 1997; Ostrower 2003).

A museum might similarly worry that a joint event at a theater will not count toward its attendance metrics (and thus not justify the effort). These fears reflect rational calculations in a climate of scarce resources. When survival is at stake, sharing credit or revenue can seem too risky because of prioritization on the short run or uncertainty about how future benefits would be shared by all the stakeholders. This incentive misalignment would be further reinforced by funders who often allocate grants to individual institutions rather than consortia, inadvertently rewarding competition over cooperation.

In response, some policy experiments have tried to realign incentives in favor of collaboration. For instance, matching grants from foundations sometimes require two or more organizations to jointly create a program (e.g., the National Endowment of the Arts’ Research Labs, ensuring each has skin in the game and a clear stake in success. Shared metric frameworks have also been piloted—e.g., tracking combined audience reach or community impact—so that all partners receive credit for collaborative outcomes rather than only their siloed achievements (Kramer et al. 2009; Kania and Kramer 2011). Additionally, Kotler and Scheff (1997) argue that the perceived risks of collaboration can be overcome by its benefits: their analysis of performing arts alliances found that while a joint promotion might cannibalize a few patrons, the “economies of scale” and broader exposure from partnership more than compensate. In practice, aligning incentives requires explicit negotiation up front—clarifying how costs, efforts, and rewards will be shared. When successful, such alignment can turn potential competitors into true collaborators, but without it, even well-intentioned partnership plans may collapse under conflicting priorities.

2.3. Logistical and Creative Challenges

The operational and creative complexities of cross-sector projects present another major barrier. Collaborations between a museum and a performing arts group often face mundane, but significant logistical hurdles—from coordinating schedules and staff, to managing space and technical requirements. These organizations operate on different production cycles: a museum might plan exhibitions years in advance, whereas a theater or dance company works season-to-season with tighter rehearsal and performance timelines. Aligning these schedules for a joint project can be difficult, requiring compromise and early planning. There are also physical and technical constraints. Museum spaces are designed for static exhibits and visitor flow, not for live performances with lighting, sound, and large audiences. Thus, hosting a play or dance in a gallery may raise concerns about crowd control, acoustics, or even artwork safety (e.g., vibrations or accidents).

In a 2016 cross-arts initiative at the Louvre Museum, staff had to conduct special rehearsals and acoustic tests in the galleries to ensure a student music and dance performance would not disrupt the art or visitors.3 They adjusted placement and timing to navigate noise in the museum’s halls, illustrating the extra coordination required to make such collaborations work. Not all institutions have the capacity or flexibility to undertake these accommodations. Bureaucratic procedures and insurance policies can further complicate matters. For example, a museum’s loan agreements might restrict after-hours events, or a performing arts union contract might mandate specific stage conditions that a museum cannot easily provide. These operational challenges require careful negotiation and often additional resources (time, staff, money), which organizations may be reluctant to invest without guaranteed returns. Beyond logistics, there are creative and cultural differences in how museums and performing arts organizations develop content.

Each field has its own artistic processes and decision-making norms, which can create friction and thus must be managed, e.g., what an orchestra’s artistic director envisions may clash with a curator’s interpretive goals. In a joint museum-theatre project, the theatre team might seek dramatic flair that the museum staff feels is historically or aesthetically inappropriate for the exhibit context. Disagreements can also arise over the balance of educational vs. entertainment value: a museum’s mandate for scholarship might conflict with a performance troupe’s focus on audience engagement and spectacle. These creative tensions, if not managed with open communication, can derail partnerships or result in a diluted final product that satisfies neither side. Managing collaborative projects thus demands not only logistical coordination, but also cultural brokerage—individuals who can translate between the languages of visual arts and performing arts (Upton 2012).

Some institutions have addressed this by appointing joint curators/producers for crossover programs or by conducting workshops to build mutual understanding among staff. A notable strategy is establishing clear communication channels and shared creative control agreements at the outset. For instance, the Tate Modern in London, which frequently integrates performance art into its exhibits, developed protocols for co-creating event content with external performers, outlining how artistic decisions are jointly made (Tate 2016). While no formula can eliminate all creative disagreements, these practices help preempt misunderstandings by creating transparency from the very beginning.

Ultimately, logistical and creative challenges are inherent to cross-form collaboration—combining different art forms is essentially a complex project management challenge. Successful examples (such as multi-arts festivals or museum “late-night” performance series) show that with sufficient planning, flexibility, and respect for each partner’s expertise, these hurdles can be overcome. However, the effort involved can be a deterrent, especially for smaller organizations, making this a barrier when the necessary coordination feels too daunting relative to the perceived payoff.

2.4. Economic Constraints

Economic constraints often underlie and exacerbate all the above barriers, making it harder to think long-term and collaboratively. Both museums and performing arts organizations typically operate under tight financial conditions, and collaboration can be seen as an expensive luxury. Economic theory points to structural challenges like Baumol’s cost disease, wherein labor-intensive arts activities (like live theater or maintaining museum galleries) face rising costs without equivalent productivity gains (Baumol and Bowen 1966).

This leads to perpetual budget pressure, making organizations cautious about diverting resources to new initiatives. In practice, many arts nonprofits struggle to cover their basic operating costs; their revenue is a patchwork of ticket sales (or admissions), memberships, donations, and grants, each often tied to specific programs. Cross-sector collaboration often lacks dedicated funding, meaning the extra staff time, marketing, and production expenses must be absorbed into already-strained budgets. When every dollar is allocated to keeping core programs afloat, leaders may feel they simply cannot afford to collaborate. Indeed, this financial squeeze can also sharpen competitive instincts.

In lean times, museums and performing companies may vie for the same donors or sponsors, viewing each other more as competitors than partners. This zero-sum mindset creates a major disincentive to collaborate—even if a joint project might yield community benefits, it might also mean splitting any funding or ticket income, which is hard to justify when each institution needs full coffers to sustain itself. Economic constraints also manifest in the lack of infrastructure for collaboration. It takes administrative capacity to manage a partnership—coordinating meetings, handling joint finances, negotiating contracts—which smaller arts organizations especially might not possess. Without external support, the transaction costs of collaboration can appear prohibitive.

Some funders and policymakers have experimented with incentive schemes to offset the economic burden. In the United States, for example, various foundation-led consortia have provided grants specifically for cross-institution projects, effectively underwriting the collaboration so that neither partner bears the full cost (ArtPlace America 2020). In the U.K., Arts Council England launched strategic funds encouraging larger established institutions to share resources with smaller arts groups, aiming to ease financial barriers.4 There are also models of arts organizations merging certain functions to achieve economies of scale—an illustrative case is the shared services partnership between the American Symphony Orchestra (New York) and the smaller Concordia Orchestra in 1994, where ASO’s administrative team also managed the smaller one’s operations.5 This collaboration cut administrative costs for the smaller orchestra by 40%, while providing the larger orchestra with an additional revenue stream for offering its services. Such arrangements show that economic collaboration can address cost constraints, though they require high trust and alignment. Ultimately, the economic hurdle is twofold: finding money to support collaboration, and reconciling the distribution of financial benefits.

If one partner shoulders more costs or if the return on investment is uncertain, collaborations may not get off the ground. Some partnerships have attempted creative solutions like revenue-sharing agreements, joint ticketing systems, or pooled marketing budgets to ensure that the gains (whether monetary or in-kind) are mutually felt. Public agencies have also looked at adjusting incentive structures—for instance, city arts grants that award a bonus for joint proposals, or introducing metrics that count collaborative audience engagement in performance evaluations of directors. These policy experiments are designed to mitigate the economic risk of partnering.

Still, economic realities remain a fundamental constraint: as long as museums and performing arts organizations face scarce funding and high fixed costs, they will be inclined to prioritize perceived short-run institutional stability over inter-organizational innovation. Overcoming this barrier often requires an external catalyst that provides sustained support to de-risk collaboration, as well as an internal strategic vision to view partnership not as a cost center but as an investment in longer-term impact and community value.6 Nevertheless, when the economic equation is balanced, meaningful cross-sector collaboration in the arts becomes much more attainable.

3. Cross-Sectoral Arts Collaborations

Collaborations in the arts take many forms. This section explores several models—shared infrastructure, digital platforms, co-productions, and audience development partnerships—in the context of museums and performing arts organizations. These examples demonstrate operational pragmatism and digital innovation in action, while avoiding ideologically driven narratives. Instead, they highlight practical outcomes like cost efficiency, expanded reach, and enhanced programming.

3.1. Shared Infrastructure and Management Commons

One fundamental collaborative model is to share infrastructure and administrative services among arts organizations. Instead of each small arts nonprofit maintaining its own full back-office (finance, HR, IT, etc.), groups of organizations can form “management commons” to handle these functions collectively (Squire 2024). This concept—a 21st-century evolution of fiscal sponsorship—suggests that sharing back-end management lowers costs and barriers while building solidarity, allowing artists and organizations to focus on creative work and achieve economies of scale. (Of course, there are also limitations to such an approach, including a higher volume of work and coordination frictions, especially if the organizational cultures differ.)

For example, ArtsPool in New York City (launched in December 2014) offers a cooperative infrastructure for multiple arts nonprofits, providing centralized financial management and compliance services for member organizations.7 By pooling expertise and technology, such shared platforms achieve professional administration that few small groups could afford individually, illustrating operational synergy. Museums have likewise pursued shared infrastructure. In Balboa Park, San Diego—home to 17 museums as well as theaters and gardens—the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership (BPCP) was formed in 2001 as a collaborative umbrella to coordinate services. Institutions joined forces in BPCP to undertake joint purchasing, collective marketing, environmental sustainability projects, and even a shared professional development institute for staff (Cherry 2010).

The Balboa Park Online Collaborative (BPOC) was launched in 2008 with a $3 million, three-year grant aimed at upgrading all member institutions’ technology capacity (Cherry 2010). BPOC created a common digital infrastructure so that every museum and venue in the park could engage a larger online audience with richer experiences. This included centralizing website development, digitization efforts, and a unified digital asset management system across museums. The economies of scale realized through BPCP and BPOC demonstrate how sharing infrastructure can modernize operations and amplify impact, especially when catalyzed by external funders and a neutral coordinating entity. Just like in other economic sectors, mergers or administrative consolidations in the performing arts have the potential to similarly reflect a pragmatic approach to shared infrastructure.

Before concluding this section, it is worth returning to the earlier discussion of the Utah Symphony & Opera merger, where a mid-sized orchestra and an opera company combined into one organization (USUO) to streamline costs and fundraising, while continuing to produce both symphonic and operatic programs under one banner (DeLong and Ager 2004). The merger allowed integrated marketing and development teams and eliminated duplicate administrative overhead. As the USUO fact sheet notes, it may be the only major U.S. instance of a full merger between an orchestra and opera, but it is often cited as a model for struggling performing arts organizations in the same market. Even without a full merger, some performing arts groups share key infrastructure: for instance, orchestras and opera companies sometimes share an orchestra or venue, and theater companies may co-own production facilities or costume shops. These arrangements underscore that in a resource-constrained environment, collaboration can replace redundant structures with shared ones, yielding efficiency and stability (Mulcahy 2016).

3.2. Digitally Forward Collaborations and Platforms

Digital innovation has opened a new frontier for collaboration in the arts. Many museums and performing arts organizations have embraced digital platforms jointly, recognizing that online audiences and technology investments can be dramatically scaled through partnership. One landmark example is the Google Arts & Culture project, a massive collaboration between Google and over 2000 cultural institutions worldwide. Launched in 2011 with 17 major museums, this platform now includes museums large and small, archives, and heritage sites from dozens of countries (Sood 2021). Institutions contribute high-resolution images of artworks and other digital content, which Google aggregates into an online repository and interactive exhibitions—essentially creating a shared digital museum that global audiences can access for free (Sood 2021).

For participating museums, the collaboration offers technology and visibility they could not achieve alone. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, for instance, saw the Google partnership to widely “share, curate and contextualize their treasures in a way that was unimaginable 10 years ago” (Sood 2021). The result was both a broader reach for the museums and a richer public resource: by 2021, millions of users had explored the collections online, benefiting from an expertly curated pool of content that transcends any single institution’s holdings. Google Arts & Culture illustrates how a digitally forward collaboration can democratize access to the arts through shared infrastructure and content.

Performing arts organizations have similarly teamed up to leverage digital distribution. OperaVision is an example of a consortium-based streaming platform in the performing arts. Organized by Opera Europa and co-funded by the EU’s Creative Europe program, OperaVision is a free streaming service that features productions from over 30 opera companies across 17 countries. Each partner opera house contributes high-quality video recordings of performances, which are streamed live and made available on demand to online audiences worldwide at no cost to viewers: a production in Helsinki or Madrid can now be seen by an enthusiast in rural America or Asia. Another related example comes from Boston Baroque, a historically in-person chamber orchestra that rapidly pivoted during the COVID-19 pandemic to embrace pay-per-view and subscription-based digital streaming. Enabled by its board’s willingness to embrace risk and experimentation, the organization leveraged past strengths in commercial recording to launch new distribution channels through platforms like Amazon and IDAGIO, supplemented by original film content that extended its artistic reach. Unlike many arts organizations that hesitated to reconfigure their model, Boston Baroque benefited from a highly diverse, cross-sector board composed largely of professionals from outside the arts, which played a critical role in guiding this transformation (Dutta et al. 2025).

The collective scale has attracted significant funding (through the EU) and built a global community of opera viewers, exemplifying how digital collaboration can enhance both sustainability and public value (European Commission 2016). A similar logic underpinned earlier projects like The Opera Platform, which in its first 18 months online garnered over 2 million video views—evidence of pent-up demand that a single opera house’s website could never meet. Another notable digital collaboration in the museum sector is the American Art Collaborative (AAC), a consortium of 14 art museums that united to implement linked open data for their collections. Backed by grants from the Mellon Foundation and the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services, the AAC aimed to make museum data interoperable and openly accessible for scholars and the public (SAAM 2016). Participating museums worked together on a shared technological framework to code collection information in linked data formats, developing open-source tools and publishing guidelines for others to follow (SAAM 2016). The Smithsonian American Art Museum led the collaboration, noting that many museums lacked resources to do this alone and would benefit from a common foundation (Broun, as quoted in SAAM 2016). By contributing data to a linked “cloud” and aligning standards, the consortium created “unprecedented access to digital information across museum collections,” enabling new research insights and public discovery of connections between artworks in different institutions (SAAM 2016). The AAC case shows how even behind-the-scenes digital infrastructure projects—which yield no immediate flashy exhibit—can be tackled collaboratively to advance the field.

A final demonstration is Living Opera’s digitally-forward international community of performing artists, evolving from an online educational initiative into a multimedia company producing original content (music projects, video podcast, albums) and collaborating with technologists to innovate within the genre. It leverages mainstream social media trends (even drawing inspiration from viral TikTok memes) alongside Web3 tools like blockchain (e.g., NFT art collections) to engage global audiences in opera, while simultaneously empowering artists through entrepreneurship training and novel funding models designed to support young talent. For example, its 2022 “Magic Mozart” NFT initiative aimed to expand classical music access and pilot decentralized artist funding via a blockchain-based arts initiative.8 The use of blockchain in the arts offers many potential benefits, particularly in reducing the number of intermediaries and increasing transparency around how donations are used. The key, however, is that blockchain applications are not pursued for their own sake; they are a mechanism for delivering services. The core of Living Opera, as must be with any organization in the arts, is the actual art. Living Opera is also taking a proactive approach to collaborating with genres outside of classical music, ranging from pop to country, and leveraging social media to reach more people.

3.3. Co-Productions and Programmatic Alliances

Collaboration in the arts often occurs at the programmatic level, through co-productions, joint programming, or content-sharing partnerships. Such collaborations allow organizations to achieve artistic goals that would be difficult to achieve independently, while also engaging broader audiences. In the performing arts, co-productions have become commonplace—theaters, opera companies, or dance companies partner to mount a single production together, splitting costs and touring the production to each partner’s venue. This not only shares expenses, but also extends the life of the artistic work to multiple communities. The National New Play Network’s Rolling World Premiere program is a formalized example of co-production collaboration in the theater world that launched in 2004.

In a Rolling World Premiere (RWP), a new play is produced by three or more different theaters in sequence, all within about an 18-month period. The theaters form a collaborative partnership with the playwright, coordinating on script development and sharing lessons from each production, while NNPN provides funding and facilitation. This model allows a new play to be seen in multiple regions (increasing its impact and exposure) and gives it a chance to refine the work between productions. Since 2004, over 100 new plays have received Rolling World Premieres (RWPs), supported by more than $1 million in grants—demonstrating the scalability of this approach.9

The RWP spreads the risk of producing an unknown work across several institutions, while the shared premiere branding generates buzz and audience interest that benefits all partners. It is a digitally modest but operationally pragmatic innovation—leveraging a network of theaters to champion new work in a cost-effective way (Zemans and Taylor 2017). Museums likewise engage in programmatic alliances, e.g., joint exhibitions or collection-sharing agreements. Museums might co-organize a traveling exhibition, each contributing some artworks and hosting the show sequentially, which shares both the costs of curation/insurance and the boon of increased attendance.

A high-profile example was Pacific Standard Time—a collaboration of over 60 Southern California cultural institutions (led by the Getty) that jointly presented exhibitions on Los Angeles art history across multiple venues in 2011–12 and again in 2017 (Getty Foundation 2011).10 While Pacific Standard Time had a unifying theme, in other cases, collaborations are driven by operational sense: for instance, smaller museums often collaborate with national museums to borrow exhibits they could not produce alone, effectively piggybacking on each other’s strengths (Camarero et al. 2015). Another innovative alliance was the partnership between the Musée du Louvre in Paris and the Louvre Abu Dhabi, in which a long-term intergovernmental agreement allowed the new Abu Dhabi museum to use the Louvre name, borrow hundreds of artworks from 13 French museums, and receive curatorial expertise, in exchange for significant funding that benefited the French museums (Riding 2007).11 This collaboration, albeit complex and diplomatically driven, showed how sharing a “brand” and collections can create a major cultural institution in a region that lacked one—a synergy of capital and content. While not every museum collaboration is on that grand of a scale, the Louvre example underscores that operational pragmatism (resource sharing) and audience development (reaching new and often overlooked demographics) often go hand in hand in successful collaborations.

The Louvre example also illustrates that collaborations can operate as instruments of cultural diplomacy rather than neutral exchanges among equals (MacKay 2022). In cross-border partnerships, states and brand-rich institutions may seek status and influence through culture, and benefits need not flow symmetrically. The Louvre–Abu Dhabi agreement combined long-term licensing of the Louvre name with curatorial services and loans in exchange for substantial payments, converting cultural capital into both fiscal and geopolitical returns for France while advancing nation-branding and soft-power objectives for the UAE. These dynamics have been analyzed as status-seeking within global art fields and as branding/legitimation strategies that can entrench power differentials. Appropriate governance can temper these risks: co-curation and local content commitments, transparent fee and loan terms, workforce and conservation standards, reciprocal programming, and independent evaluation of distributional benefits.

That said, these power relations intersect with restitution debates in France and elsewhere; long-horizon licensing and loan programs can complicate timelines for return or shared custody unless contracts name provenance, review processes, and exit ramps explicitly. Practical guardrails include: co-curation and local content minimums backed by shared decision rights; transparent fee, loan, and image-use terms with periodic renegotiation points; labor, human-rights, and conservation clauses tied to independent monitoring on capital projects; provenance and restitution schedules with joint advisory committees; reciprocal programming and staff development to build local capability; and public communications that clearly state legal structure to avoid “branch” misperception. These measures reduce agenda-setting imbalance and make the partnership more accountable to communities on both sides, reducing the probability of errors and misunderstandings.

3.4. Audience Development and Cross-Sector Partnerships

Often, arts organizations partner with entities outside the arts—media, education, or other community organizations—to expand their reach. These collaborations are pragmatic in targeting new audience segments or enhancing public access, rather than being driven by ideological missions. A telling case comes from the performing arts: Minnesota Opera’s partnership with a local talk-radio station and a host to attract new opera attendees. Facing an aging patron base, Minnesota Opera undertook an experiment (with support from the Wallace Foundation) to engage women aged 35–60 who were not typical opera-goers (Wallace Foundation 2014). The opera company collaborated with a popular radio personality on myTalk 107.1, a station with a large female audience, to demystify opera through on-air discussions, ticket giveaways, and special events. This “unlikely but effective partnership” succeeded in bringing many first-time attendees—specifically, women from the radio audience—to the opera, and notably some returned for additional performances (Wallace Foundation 2014). By leveraging the radio host’s credibility and personal connection with her listeners, the opera tapped into a new market that traditional arts marketing had not reached. The Wallace case study documenting this effort, titled Someone Who Speaks Their Language, emphasizes that the collaboration was instrumental in overcoming perceptual barriers and translating the opera experience to a different community (Harlow and Roman 2014). The success illustrates how cross-sector collaborations (arts + media in this case) can yield measurable gains in audience development, achieving a synergy where both partners benefit—the opera gains patrons and the radio content is enriched with arts—and deliver continued financial sustainability.

Museums, too, have pursued cross-sector partnerships for audience expansion. For example, the “Culture Pass” program in New York City was a collaboration between public libraries and dozens of museums/cultural institutions. Launched in 2018, Culture Pass allows library cardholders to reserve free admission to participating museums, effectively reducing the cost barrier and inviting new, diverse audiences into museums (Kenney 2018). This partnership involves shared infrastructure (an online reservation system) and joint outreach between libraries (trusted community hubs) and museums. By April 2019, Culture Pass had expanded to over 50 participating institutions and was seeing sustained usage. Museums responded to the high demand by increasing the number of free passes they offered; overall, the total monthly pass inventory grew by about 40% after launch. New cultural partners (such as the New Museum and the Asia Society) joined the program in its second year. According to an update in spring 2019, 54,463 Culture Passes had been reserved in the program’s first nine months, representing 133,857 individual museum visits enabled at no charge to the public. Crucially, Culture Pass was an audience development initiative, reaching underserved groups who historically have lower rates of museum visitation. In interviews, organizers noted that many Culture Pass users were individuals who might not have had easy access to museums before.12 Evidence from analogous access programs suggests that subsidized or free-admission initiatives do not depress membership (Cohn 2018). These findings are consistent with the view that lowering first-visit price and administrative frictions can widen the top of the funnel without eroding member value, but the first-time experience must be excellent to bring them back.

Participating institutions can mitigate risk and test for gains by: collecting emails at redemption; offering time-bound “join today” discounts and family-level upgrades; excluding premium exhibitions from pass coverage while inviting upgrades on site; and tracking pass-to-member conversion within 3, 6, and 12 months. Where feasible, museums should report: (i) share of pass users who are first-time visitors; (ii) pass-to-member conversion and average gift within 12 months; (iii) reattendance rates; and (iv) any displacement of paid visitation on peak days. Absent a dedicated Culture Pass evaluation, these institution-level metrics provide a transparent check on substitution, particularly when paired with modern program evaluation methods to assess impact (Makridis 2024b).

Such models rely on each partner’s strengths: libraries contribute their broad public reach and accessibility, while museums contribute the content-rich experiences. The collaborative approach here is operationally pragmatic (filling empty museum capacity with new visitors at marginal cost) and aligns with civic goals of equity and inclusion without being driven by any single ideological agenda. It demonstrates how arts organizations can collaborate with non-arts institutions to create gateways for new audiences, thus sustaining cultural participation in the long term.

4. Discussion

The case studies above underscore that breaking out of silos can produce significant operational and public benefits for arts organizations, as well as their communities. Several common themes emerge. First, effective collaborations often require an external catalyst or incentive, whether a funder, a government program, or a compelling mutual benefit. Many collaborations were jump-started by dedicated funding (e.g., Mellon Foundation grants for the American Art Collaborative, the Getty for Pacific Standard Time, the Wallace Foundation for Minnesota Opera’s initiative, EU funding for OperaVision). This aligns with arts management research suggesting that partnerships thrive when there are concrete resources at stake and clear value propositions for all players.

Second, governance and alignment are critical, and weak financial management can stifle an entire sector if costs continue to grow with stagnant revenue (Makridis 2024a). Successful collaborations typically have a clear structure or lead organization to coordinate efforts (as SAAM did for the AAC, or Opera Europa for OperaVision), and partners negotiate roles to balance influence and benefits. The literature cautions that not all partnerships are productive; poorly conceived collaborations can drain time and resources (Backer 2002). Thus, strategic alignment of mission and goals is essential at the outset. For instance, the Utah Symphony & Opera merger only succeeded after careful consideration that the two art forms’ communities could unite under one vision (Preece 2011).

Another key theme is the interplay between digital innovation and collaboration. Digital projects often inherently demand collaboration because of technical complexity and the network effects of shared content. No single midsize museum could realistically digitize thousands of artworks in ultra-high resolution and develop a globally accessible platform—but collectively, as seen with Google Arts & Culture or Living Opera’s social media campaigns, it becomes feasible. Collaboration, thus, is a pathway for arts organizations to enter the digital realm more powerfully than they could alone, bringing along staff upskilling and infrastructural improvements as side benefits.

Moreover, collaborations build knowledge networks and social capital among institutions. Museum consortia and theater networks could allow peer learning and the diffusion of best practices that accrue through heterogeneous exposure, strengthening the sector’s resilience. When the American Art Collaborative published its case studies and tools, it explicitly aimed to benefit the broader museum community, not just the initial 14 participants. This kind of openness illustrates a cultural shift from proprietary thinking to a more commons-based approach in the arts—a recognition that sharing and collective action can amplify impact in ways competitive siloed behavior cannot.

Finally, collaborations demonstrate a balance of pragmatism and vision by addressing practical needs (e.g., funding shortfalls, technological gaps, audience stagnation) with innovative solutions that also carried out the larger mission. A collaborative cultural ecosystem aligns with urban theory that sees cities as composed of interconnected networks rather than isolated institutions (Florida 2002; de Bernard et al. 2021; UNESCO 2022). That is, part of what drives productivity in a city is the agglomeration externalities that accrue from each organization, and the associated individuals, working with and learning from each other. By redefining collaboration not as a loss of autonomy, but as a strategy for creative synergy, arts organizations can maintain their individual identities while contributing to collective platforms, shared audiences, and joint ventures that reinforce their value and sustainability. The challenge lies in measuring and managing these partnerships effectively—something future research and policy can support by developing evaluation frameworks for collaborative initiatives (Vakharia and Frye 2018).

That said, collaboration is no substitute for following best practices associated with quantitative metrics of return on investment and impact. For example, Makridis (2024b) discusses statistical approaches from economics applied to the arts for quantifying impact, and Makridis (2025) applies such methods to answer the broader question of “how much do consumers value arts and culture amenities in the United States?”, finding that a 10% rise in arts establishments is linked with a 0.17–0.48% rise in local house prices. He also finds that local cultural district designations is associated with local house price appreciation. These results show that consumers are willing to pay for artistic amenities, but they must be managed. Assuming these best practices around management and impact assessment are followed, then we can take stock of several strategies to follow for collaboration.

1.

Unite when possible

Cultural institutions should pursue intentional collaboration across domains—particularly between performing arts organizations and museums—where complementary strengths can enhance programming and broaden audiences. Shared physical spaces, co-productions, and joint marketing can help stretch limited resources while delivering more integrated cultural experiences. The success of initiatives like Balboa Park and Pacific Standard Time suggests that well-structured partnerships can generate both economic and artistic returns.

2.

Leverage technology

Digital platforms offer a cost-effective way to extend reach, share infrastructure, and democratize access to the arts. Examples such as Google Arts & Culture, OperaVision, and Living Opera illustrate how shared digital strategies—whether through streaming, linked data, or social media—can amplify impact and foster cross-border communities. Institutions should invest in scalable technologies that enable co-creation, distribution, and engagement across organizational boundaries.

3.

Develop a clear vision

Successful collaborations are anchored in a shared vision, negotiated early, and revisited often. Alignment on goals, expectations, and success metrics is crucial to overcoming siloed structures and avoiding mission drift. As research by Bryson et al. (2006) and others shows, collaborative ventures are most effective when partners are unified by purpose and supported by clear governance.

4.

Experiment with innovative models

Pilots, co-productions, and small-scale joint programs can serve as low-risk entry points for broader partnerships. Initiatives like the Rolling World Premiere model or the American Art Collaborative’s linked data pilot demonstrate that experimentation can yield scalable frameworks. These efforts also build organizational trust and capability over time, which are critical for sustaining collaboration in resource-constrained settings.

5.

Advocate for policy reform

Collaboration requires not only internal coordination but also external support from funders and policymakers. Arts leaders should advocate for funding structures, evaluation criteria, and regulatory frameworks that reward collective impact rather than individual metrics. Policy mechanisms such as consortium grants, shared performance benchmarks, or incentives for resource-sharing can help shift the system toward sustainable cooperation. In particular, cities should think about opening these opportunities to individuals, rather than just institutions. Even $10,000 can go a long way for an individual, but for an institution, it is much less significant. In an era where a YouTube Short or Instagram Reel can go viral in an instant, individuals have potentially even greater influence, and cities should not discount engaging directly with artists and multimedia influencers.

5. Conclusions

This paper argues that collaboration across traditionally siloed arts institutions—particularly between museums and performing arts organizations—is no longer a luxury but a necessity in a climate of rising costs, shifting audience behaviors, and evolving digital norms. While prior research in arts management and cultural policy has highlighted the benefits of cross-sector partnerships, this study offers a more operationally grounded perspective, drawing on both institutional theory and recent case studies to identify the persistent barriers and strategic opportunities that shape collaborative practice. The examples presented—ranging from joint infrastructure initiatives to digital platforms and co-productions—demonstrate that when designed intentionally, collaboration can produce not only administrative efficiencies but also more dynamic, inclusive, and future-ready cultural offerings that help set the stage for the future of multimedia and the arts.

And yet, collaboration remains challenging. Institutional silos, misaligned incentives, and economic constraints continue to limit the sector’s ability to act collectively. Moreover, across the United States and Europe, public funding for the arts has declined, requiring organizations to identify new ways to generate revenue and reduce costs. This paper has shown that overcoming these obstacles requires more than goodwill: it depends on governance models that support shared decision-making, funders who reward collective outcomes, and leaders willing to invest in trust-building across organizational boundaries. The digital turn has created new tools for collaboration, but it also demands new capabilities—technological fluency, audience analytics, and a willingness to co-create with the public. As illustrated by Living Opera and other digitally forward arts initiatives like Boston Baroque, there is real potential to reimagine how arts institutions connect with audiences and support artists through decentralized and participatory models.

Looking ahead, the future of collaboration in the arts depends not only on institutional action but also on enabling environments—policies, funding systems, and evaluation frameworks that reflect the realities of collective cultural production. Researchers and practitioners alike have a role to play in documenting what works, refining cross-sector models, and articulating the public value of collaborative arts ecosystems. In the process of articulating such a vision and demonstrating impact, there will also be more opportunities to partner with the public sector and rebuild public trust and transparency. As cities and cultural organizations grapple with post-pandemic recovery and long-term sustainability, collaboration should move from the margins to the center of strategic planning, particularly in the arts, as they attract and retain people in cities as a non-market amenity (Makridis 2025). Done well, it can strengthen individual institutions, expand access, and ensure the arts remain vital in the social, economic, and civic life of communities.