JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for AACORN Archives


AACORN Archives

AACORN Archives


AACORN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AACORN Home

AACORN Home

AACORN  February 2007

AACORN February 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Without distinction...-entwurf

From:

"Pedro D. Perez" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Pedro D. Perez

Date:

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:03:50 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (377 lines)

Dear all,
Just received my copy of the "New Yorker" magazine for this week, and it
includes an extensive article on the $200 million gift of a Lily Pharma
heiress to "Poetry" magazine... Which is open for reading at their Website
http://www.newyorker.com/...
I do not doubt that art can and will survive management, but I very much
doubt that art can subsume/integrate/bring within itself management (with
apologies to Rosalie Tung's commentary on Nancy's article...) "Management"
is shorthand for a totalitarian view of the world and it seems that poetry
(well, at least the journal "Poetry") can be subsumed into the totality...
I agree with Jurgen's point... but worry that the sanity (or the divine
madness) of the individual artists will not be enough to break managerial
totalitarianism...
Then, maybe I am just shortsighted... Prescriptions, anyone?
Thanks for a great thread!
Pedro

Pedro David Perez
Lecturer
Applied Economics and Management
Cornell University

> Dear Katrin,
> for me it's very simple: artists behaving like managers are not artists.
> And managers behaving like artists are not managers.
> There is no behaving like. Wether your are or your are not artist/manager.
> I don't think that artists feel offended by "logo-offers". In the
> contrary: The difference of perception is necessary, because it manifests
> that the artistic work works.
> Therefore I wrote that I hope that this difference will never be
> abolished.
> As Peter stated some mails ago, I'm manager too, of my own organisation.
> But really, if I would not clearly differenciate who I am in which
> situation, I would loose my capacity of organising or creating. And I'm
> only manager for my own organisation. (Hope that there will be one time
> someone who runs my organisation so that I'm not obliged anymore to do it
> myself!) When I'm working on a project, even if there is much organisation
> to do, I'm artist. The perception is quite different. And how could it be
> possible to deliver my artistic work for my own organisation? This is
> phenomenologically impossible! That's the reason why a manager employed by
> a company is a manager and not an artist, even if he realises artworks in
> his leasure time or for other companys. Maybe he is more open and
> innovative in the company where he is employed, maybe he can easier decide
> within a risky context, and so on, but his determination is fixed by his
> managerial perception of "objective" results. And that is good so! This is
> his responsability for his company and for the society in general. If he
> would not act within the perception of that responsability he would
> transgress his ethical integrity and became unscrupulous. There are
> examples enaugh.
> A manager who confounds himself with an artist or an artist who confounds
> himself with a manager will always be in the dilmma described by Pierre:
> banality or totalitarism.
> Especially an artist working within the context of responsability for
> management, companies or business in general, must be an artist, must have
> a steely forged artisitc identity to oppose his perception of "absolute"
> values to "objective" results. He must be perceived as artist, if not, he
> will transgress his ethical integrity as the manager who believes himself
> an artist.
> Unfortunately there are already lots of artists confounding themselfs with
> managers and acting within the context of managerial responsability. They
> act as managers but not with their responsablities. Their passage leaves a
> mass of infertile bullshit behind them which is a costly legacy because
> hostile to "absolute" values.
> Jürgen
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Katrin Kolo
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 15:15
> Betreff: AW: Without distinction...-entwurf
>
>
> Dear Jürgen and all others,
>
>
>
> I very often made similar experiences as yours, but I also came across
> artists behaving less like an artist (rather like a foolish manager),
> while managers behaved more like visionary artists.
>
> That's why in my believe this distinction is more within the individual
> than between "artists" and "managers" in general. That's why I proposed to
> make the distinction -if at all - between behaving, playing the role or
> wearing the ,hat' of an "artist" or "manager" rather than speaking of
> artists and managers as seperate classes of persons.
>
>
>
> In your example with the Reichstag or the Bowl, I would also say, that
> from beginning on "managers" must have seen a difference in the Reichstag
> with the Logo or without (otherwise, they could have given Christo the
> money also without the Logo ;-)) and also in the Bowl with or without the
> Logo (otherwise, they wouldn't have to discuss so long about it). ;-)
>
>
>
> Another question arises here for me: (Why) do or should people wearing the
> "artists hat" feel offended by those "Logo"-offers? Isn't it the normal
> right to ask for one party and equally to refuse for the other no matter
> for what reasons?
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Von: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Juergen Bergmann
> Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 14:29
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: Without distinction...
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I organised a smal seminaire in the house of the german industries in
> Berlin when Berlin was still under the influence of Christos great work on
> the Reichstag.
>
> The audience were managers, artists and politics involved in cultural
> work.
>
> You know that one of the biggest german automobil companys had asked
> Christo, if he would accept to put their logo on the wrapped Reichstag?
> They would have paid him a very hugh amount of money (some millions I had
> heard).
>
> Surely he refused.
>
> The question which raised up during the seminaire was: What would have
> been lost if Christo would have accepted the offer? And I assure you that
> most of the present managers dit not perceive what would have been lost.
> They only saw what Christo dit loose by refusing the offer!
>
> I had the same experience during a project contracted with a big chemical
> company. The central action of that project was an perspex bowl which
> passed from hand to hand during two years through the whole company
> arround the world. The crucial and decisive impact of the project in the
> company was not the realisation of the project itself, but the process of
> decision during its conception which came to a crisis (the to be or not to
> of the project) concerning only one point: Why is it absolutely necessary
> for the success of the project that the logo of the company is not
> represented on the perspex bowl. It took me serveral month to convince the
> top-executives. The amplitutde or proportion of that process of decision -
> the bowl symbolised the new philosophy of the company - took such an
> extent that one of the members of the management board left the company
> and a section of the company with three thousands employees was sold.
>
> I dit not forsaw that effect. But I'm convinced that this by the end
> positive consequences for all were only possible because of the
> confrontation of two quite different perceptions. The artistic one, which
> deals with "absolute" symbols and the oeconomic one, which deals with
> "objective" results.
>
> The eminent point was, as during the seminaire in Berlin, that the
> managers in the beginning dit even not perceive that there is a difference
> between the bowl with the logo or without the logo!
>
> And that makes the difference (for me) between an artist and a manager.
>
> And I hope - have a look to Pierres Dual Dilemma of Totality and Banality
> in his book the Art Firm - that this difference will never be abolished.
>
> Jürgen
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>
> Von: Katrin Kolo
>
> An: [log in to unmask]
>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 11:02
>
> Betreff: AW: Without distinction...
>
>
>
> Hello Guys,
>
>
>
> sorry, I just wrote something concerning the "distinction" theme in
> another mail with the topic "artists".
>
> I don't want to repeat myself here, but have a new suggestion for
> distinction:
>
>
>
> In Management people talk about the "hat" they are wearing in a certain
> situation or fulfilling a task. E.g. wearing the hat of the leader or the
> researcher or. meaning playing a special role.
>
> So I want to suggest, that there is not necessarily a distinction between
> beeing an artist or manager (unless we need it to confuse people ;-))
> rather than between acting/playing the role of artist or manager.
>
>
>
> So, what would be the description of these two "hats" one person could
> wear and the distinction between them? J
>
>
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Von: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Pierre Guillet de Monthoux
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2007 20:42
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: Without distinction...
>
>
>
> sorry the guys name was Fourier not Fournier...i think... or maybe it was
> Furieux... or perhaps Funnier or....
>
> but who cares anyway
>
> i am just too confused
>
> p
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>
>   From: Pierre Guillet de Monthoux
>
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:19 PM
>
>   Subject: Re: Without distinction...
>
>
>
>   No No Hans
>
>   that is really the ulitimate solution. Recall the cranky utopian called
> Charles Fournier? He constructed an extremely complicated model of
> reality with a huge number of distinctions and categories. And all on
> purpose; for Fourier was convinced that complex models would make people
> dizzy and perplex. They would then end up so terribly confused that they
> were for ever unable to apply any distinctions at all.
> ...Hepp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>   So you and Fourier are on the right path, both of you are simply
> geniuses, or... so to speak... ARTISTS!
>
>   p
>
>
>
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     From: Hansen, Hans
>
>     To: [log in to unmask]
>
>     Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:36 PM
>
>     Subject: Without distinction...
>
>
>
>
>
>     If we didn't have distinction between manager and ARTIST, what would
> fret about getting over?  We first must make the distinction in order
> to call for its elimination.
>
>
>
>     I am also afraid these distinctions might be intractably conflated
> with notions of identity. If we lost the distinction, how would we
> define ourselves?  As soon as we started to make sense of anything,
> from any perspective, we would slip into distinction-making.  "I see
> things THIS way, but need to see them THAT way." implies distinct
> positions.
>
>
>
>     It is hard to construct lines of action, to act, without constructing
> an identity of some sort that for us, explains to us, "who is taking
> action?"  I also must also separate myself from other objects in order
> to act ON/TOWARDS those objects.
>
>
>
>     So I might find myself saying that we cannot act without creating some
> distinct identity IN WHICH we are acting.  We are lazy and use a
> priori categories like manager and artist.
>
>
>
>     "As a _________, I take the action of calling for the removal of the
> boundary between manager and artist."  You cannot call for the removal
> of a boundary without constructing another. ( I suspect I am way off
> here, but say it just to see what it evokes. ).
>
>
>
>     If we cannot act in absence of an identity and distinction is a
> natural by-product of identity, how will boundaries ever be removed?
> Well, maybe a PARTICULAR boundary such as manager/ARTIST can be
> removed, but for the new entity to take action, it will need an
> identity.
>
>
>
>     So maybe we're stuck?  Maybe the work is all about bridging between
> MANAGER/artist?  To take the perspective of the OTHER, we need them to
> remain an OTHER.
>
>
>
>     Is it crazy to suggest that instead of eliminating boundaries, we look
> to create even MORE boundaries so that we can learn through synthesis
> of a greater number of combinations?
>
>
>
>     Hans
>
>
>
>     p.s. this is somehow too simplistic and I am missing something big
> that doesn't occur to me at the moment. but you gotta hit 'send'
> sometime or you'll die holding a mouse.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
December 2023
November 2023
September 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
July 2004


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager