Hi Ken,
thanks for that answer!
I completly agree with you,
and especially with your thougt:
"It seems to me that refusing commitment as a
conditioned reaction does not demonstrate
personal independence or artistic freedom."
What I meant was freedom of commitment.
Jürgen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
An: <[log in to unmask]>
Gesendet: Montag, 31. Oktober 2005 07:55
Betreff: Commitment and social creativity
> 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.
>
>
|