|
George and all others,
I agree with your concern, as it is my concern too. But it is not that
artists are forced into an exploitation situation. They choose to or not to
engage in projects according to interest. And initiate their own projects
too with companies etc.
The issue of compromising is constantly present. Even with curators in the
international biennale world - many artists react to the power relations
there as well.
The business - artist collaborations make up only a fraction of all
artistic work. And remember many projects are done on pure will.
Just read that the Absolut art interpreations of the bottle was in fact
initiated by an offer from Andy Warhol to a manager of the US company that
imported Absolut, to interpret their bottle. And not the other way around.
At least according to the official story... And this is not to say anything
of the quality of that campaign.
But I think there is always reson to ask questions of why we use art in
various contexts, and, as important, which art.
Best,
Katja
At 09:03 16/02/2007 +0000, Cairns, George M wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>In addition to its rather instrumental and manipulative role of
>incorporation into the capitalist organisation project as a 'new tool' for
>'leveraging' efficiency and effectiveness, art must be nurtured in its
>form as opposition to and critique of the excesses of capitalism.
>
>Essex University has just hosted a magnificent exhibition by South African
>artist William Kentridge, whose work not only engages with the problems of
>that country's political and social history, but also with the capitalist
>excesses which flourished under it and which have denuded swaths of its
>landscape.
>
>Kentridge himself spoke very eloquently about his work. However, in
>another session, a professor of art theory quoted from his writing, that
>political art should 'keep optimism in check and nihilism at bay'.
>
>Let political art thrive.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>George
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pierre Guillet de Monthoux
>Sent: 16 February 2007 07:57
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Artists
>
>Dear Deborah,
> first;
> i think the question of if artists want to enter the world of
> organizations or not it slightly theoretical. to be an artist making work
> that engage others imply by definition to organize. to me poeple doing
> things only by themselves and for themselves; like managment professors
> doing knitting at home or playing the piano to their dog are either
> romantics or autists; have in any case little in common with artists today.
> secondly:
> to organize does not mean to work to order. in real artistry there
> is, as in any geniune business creation, rather an element of speculation
> paired with aesthetic risktaking. But to take such risks you have not
> only to be courageous, you need knowledge and socio-economic
> intelligence´to build your own self-empowerment as an artist. When asked
> what he thought about all projects that he failed to realize Christo once
> answered; "we were not intelligent enough! "
> thirdly;
> get hold of e.g. the catalogue book from the Berlin show 2005 ;
> Product Vision, edited by Mari Brellochs and Henrik Schrat at Kadmos
> Kulturverlag Berlin. This is a good sample of the kind of refelctions you
> are asking for and that becomes really frequent; in the art world too.
> But artists dont do this to make us at business schools feel good. Nor to
> make firms increase productivity. They usually do that to tackle what
> they feel imporant issues of power or try to contribute to the many
> problems they also feel comes out of bad organization, aesthetically mute
> systems and clympsy dominating often WASPy corporations. All this with
> the backdrop of shrinking public funding, an imperative to develop
> culture by PPP et c.
> fourth
> in addition go to a guy like Nicolas Bourriaud who is not really a
> brilliant new thinker but rather a powerful curator and attentive
> journalist-critic sensing what sort of organizational interests drives
> contemporary artists tackling issues of organizing. take any of his
> little pamphlets ( see Amazon of course) and you see what he means by
> organizing and what many young artists agree with
> fifth
> finally dear Deborah, let me add a little website about our nomadic
> university whrer we ( group of young executives, managment rersearchers
> and artists) tour around sites where all this seems to be going on. our
> aim is to find out what it is and how it is connected to socio-economics.
> we just ended our second oasis at Biella where Michelangelo Pistoletto (
> ex buddy of Warhol, inventor or Art Povera, a legend of minimalist art
> and performance) runs a foundation doing work of the sort you seem
> interrested in ( check his site
> <http://www.cittadellarte.it>www.cittadellarte.it ). he does not call it
> "organizational art" but "socially responsible art" emphasizing the
> passage from aesthetics to ethics.
>our next stop will be Kassel for the Documenta Xll , then Solwenia,
>Istanbul....so just check out
> <http://www.nurope.eu>www.nurope.eu
>and if you need more
>we ( a rerearchteam in Sweden called Fields of Flow) done a video called
>Masters of Business Art you could find i you ask
>yours faithfully
>
>pierre
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>Deborah Jones
>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:48 AM
>Subject: Re: Artists
>
>
>
>Hello again aacorners
>
>I posed both questions (below) out of a curiosity I have about the images
>of the artist which can appear in interdisciplinary encounters. Not so
>much to invite answers, but to find out if management people working with
>art and artists care to ask them.
>
>In some of the aacorn discussions I see representations of the artist as a
>phenomena that's minutely examined, then simultaneously raised up on a
>pedestal ('I want to be one') and appropriated as an instrument for other
>peoples' needs.
>
>There are vast quantities of text explaining motivations and justifying
>the collaboration from an organisational position, and yet there's very
>little exploration of why the artist may choose to enter this other
>world. That just seems weird.
>
>Perhaps my assumption about a collaborative intent is the flaw?
>
>There'll be as many differing motivations as there are artists. I'm not
>convinced it's covered by hoping to influence the organisations or seeking
>the resources/opportunity to make new work and engage with a new audience
>- though these will definitely feature. I would say there are other
>intentions and ideas behind the move - Jurgen's gradual, complicated and
>ambivalent journey is an example. I'm wondering if it would be dynamic
>and fruitful to consider how the artist's desires and interests interact
>with those of the organisation they enter into a relationship
>with. Probably in terms of specific instances - I can't currently imagine
>doing this in a general or abstract way.
>
>My question about goodness came out of the pedestal scenario. I get
>sceptical and confused when an image of 'the artist' seems unduly revered.
>(there's a perfectly acceptable mix of good and bad person in me)
>
>
>
>With best wishes,
>Deborah
>
>(ta, Steve. Ditto!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Apart from the financial incentives, why do you think artists choose to
>work with business, organisations and 'leadership'?
>
>...and if someone's an artist, is she a good person?
>
>
>
><http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=76903&partner=spamblockerutility>54a765.jpg
>
|
