Dear Philippe and Jürgen,
Thanks for your thoughts. I have puzzled on this
for many years. It's clear that this phenomenon
describes the actual behavior of artists. What is
less clear to me is that this should be so. I'm
not asking "why" this is so. I know why it is so.
I am asking, rather, whether it is necessarily
so. I do not believe that this kind of behavior
is necessarily an aspect of creativity or
artistry.
One of the interesting research streams for a
group such as AACORN involves asking what kinds
of systems can function as robust artistic
networks. So far, I have managed to identify more
questions than answers.
This is an important issue for artists who hope
to generate social change, to influence
organizations, or to function in expanded frames
of art that transcends the boundaries of a
specific physical work. It is also significant
for artists who hope to develop or work in
organizations -- nonprofit organizations and art
organizations as well as businesses. This applies
to most artists who do not inherit wealth or have
a generous and undemanding patron.
I was wrestling with the issue again in a chapter
for a recent book from MIT Press titled _At A
Distance: Precursors to Internet Art and
Activism_. For that chapter, I borrowed a line
from Adam Smith to write about "The wealth and
poverty of networks."
It seems to me that refusing commitment as a
conditioned reaction does not demonstrate
personal independence or artistic freedom. As a
conditioned reaction, refusing to accept any
commitment simply because one is requested to
make a commitment is a pathological symptom. I'm
leaving for Taiwan in a couple of hours, so I
will have to think on this for a while before
posting again. My intuition, however, is to say
that there must be some form of healthy
commitment that involves the right balance of
social cohesion and personal freedom.
Think about some of the great liberation
movements of the 20th century -- Hind Swaraj and
satyagraha in India, the American civil rights
movement, the anti-war movement that finally
ended the Viet Nam War, the Velvet Revolution in
Czechoslovakia, Solidarity in Poland, the
anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. They
worked because human beings asked for commitment
and other human beings responded by committing
themselves.
These movements involved social artistry and
social creativity, not entirely in the direction
that we think of when we speak of "art," but very
much in the direction we hope for when artists
move toward similar kinds of goals. Consider, for
example, Joseph Beuys's movement for direct
democracy or the Free International University.
The directions were similar, but these artistic
networks functioned without commitment, and
failed, therefore, to achieve their stated goals.
As social sculpture, I'd have a hard time arguing
that the movement for direct democracy was more
successful than Solidarity in Poland or SNCC (the
Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) in
Alabama. In contrast, I have observed
significantly higher levels of organizational
pathology in art organizations than in creative
social organizations.
The evidence of organizational learning suggests
that commitment, empathy, and trust have a great
deal to do with creativity. If this is so, it
follows that refusing commitment is not a
necessary condition of artistic creativity, but a
factor that inhibits creativity in some
circumstances and defeats the possibility of
artistic achievement in others.
Much to think about here.
Yours,
Ken
Philippe Mairesse wrote:
Ken,
It works!
and I must say that receiving, as a test, such a beautiful thing as this
catalogue-artwork of yours... is great!
I loved your comments about the strength-weakness of networks...it
reactivated my thoughts about commitment and volunteering, as seen in art
activities: my observation is that artists commit themselves only when they
are totally free of any commitment...it could explain the no-feed back you
got : since people were ASKED to return the books... they precisely
didn't...The difficulty is : how to get what you want without asking for it.
This seems to be a necessary condition for collaborative working in
art...and maybe everywhere else (love)
(breeding)(teaching)(caring)(living)(dying?)
--
Jürgen Bergmann wrote:
Hi Philippe,
you got it!
This is exactly the reason
why it is so difficult
to realise real artwork
within the business context.
The result is in general
nothing else as follows:
" Le projet sera d'un caractère unique à travers
un projet d'art exceptionnel que réaliseront des
artistes de renommé. En collaboration étroite
avec les architectes, les paysagistes et les
maîtres d'ouvrage l'aménagement prendra un aspect
sans pareil."
This kind of artistic commitment
is not soustainable
and dilutes conscience
in commercial opportunism.
The lack of futur
now
is the decadence
of a value system
without values.
|