Dear Garrick (and others),
Before responding to the questions that you asked of me last Thursday, I decided to sit back and observe the array of other responses that your query generated. Perhaps within a rich social context such as this, I am alleviated of responsibility to respond myself?
What I was attempting to convey last August – when I wrote the note that you responded to – was only that indigenous perspectives on art seem qualitatively different from those that are Western European. A likely reason is that they derive from different metaphysics, which creates different epistemologies and aesthetics. For indigenous cultures, such as Lakota, Navajo, and Maori, for example, art is integral to humanity – not something exercised by only a certain few and ideally not something engaged only now and then. They seem to understand in general (although there are always exceptions), that truth, beauty and goodness are genuine cornerstones to being human. Joseph Marshall III, born Lakota and possessing Lakota as his first language, explains the pattern of difference in this manner: “To the Lakota, virtues ... carry a different weight and substance than they do in western culture. For us these qualities are not so much elusive goals as they are essential parts of everyday life. ... I knew growing up that at some point I was supposed to BE the things I learned. ... I knew this because the storytellers lived the lessons they imparted ... they practiced what they preached” (The Lakota Way, Viking, 2001).
With respect to art, my experience suggests the same – that indigenous people pay more attention to BEING rather than just to knowing or doing. Education that derives from this foundation emphasizes becoming the SOURCE of one’s values. More accurately, perhaps, there become few if any separations between doing, knowing, and being. In this understanding of reality, people are genuine “artists” or “leaders” only to the extent that they EMBODY and PROJECT requisite values consistently, i.e., in all that they do. That is at least the objective or the "possibility." Art becomes a WAY OF BEING in the world that stands side by side truth and morality. A life well lived is a consistent source of each and all.
This perspective is reasonably comparable to Miyamoto Musashi’s treatise on the “WAY of a warrior” and to Chogyam Trungpa’s and Ramana Maharshi’s treatises on the “WAY of enlightenment.” All lead to embodiment – “ways of being in the world” not just doing stuff or knowing stuff. In indigenous philosophy, “what one does derives from who one IS. Thich Nhat Hanh’s describes this as “interbeing” – “this is like this because that is like that.” Thus, both he and the Dalai Lama suggest, for example, that if you want a peaceful world your responsibility is to BE a peaceful person. True artists (or warriors or enlightened people) have no particularly favorite forms of expression -- Musashi advises against having “favorite weapons” but instead to learn the principles of weaponry (thus he frowned upon schools – dojos – that taught particular skill sets. From this perspective, art would manifest outwardly through all that one does because it exists inwardly in who one is.
Regarding associations of “beauty and goodness” to art, each philosophical foundation likely leads to different conclusions. All I can say about (my understanding of) an indigenous perspective is that beauty is not the same as surface appearance (e.g., prettiness). It doesn’t depend upon what art “looks like.” Similarly, for art to leave “goodness” in its wake does not mean that it provides immediate gratification or that it provides goodness for all. What I might conclude is that beauty and goodness depend upon the impact that they have on someone’s way of being in the world.
Mindfully, David C.
David A. Cowan, Professor
Management Department
School of Business
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-3689...office
(513) 529-6992...fax
[log in to unmask]
>>> Garrick Jones <[log in to unmask]> 02/01/07 4:34 AM >>>
Dear David,
I read with interest your response on the "art of leadership" which
threw up a number of questions for me. The definition of "Art" is
used in the broadest of categories and while welcome, leaves me
pondering the differences between the idea of "creativity" and the
idea of "art" per se. Claire Bishop used this distinction very
usefully in her article in Frieze "The Social Turn: Collaboration and
its discontents", n0 96, February 2006. While I completely agree that
the Artist is in the world in a way that is somehow different, and
adopts a vantage point, or exists in relationship to the world in a
particular way, I have to query whether its only about beauty and
goodness. Adorno and Benjamin have written extensively on the gaze,
or the eye of the artist, and of the impact of an alternative
perspective. While I agree that creativity exists at the core of what
it means to be human - is this "art" and is this "art leadership"?
If we extend the idea of artists beyond that of sculptors and
painters (which as a musician and composer I welcome), and into the
realm of literature and playwriting how then might you classify the
"art leadership" of perhaps, say, Jean Genet, who unquestionably
"led" as an artist in the 1950's and 1960's, but who's metier was not
about leaving beauty and goodness in the people it touched.
best wishes
Garrick Jones
On 28 Aug 2006, at 20:22, DAVID Cowan wrote:
> Dear Katja, Stefan, Steve, Daved, Claus, and all other artful friends,
>
> My own take on the "art of leadership" is fairly indigenous. From
> this perspective, artistic leadership is more a "way of being in
> the world" than it is a particular artistic expression. It
> manifests physically, mentally, emotionally, and/or spiritually in
> accordance with relevant contexts. This compares to the less
> indigenous notion of locating art more specifically, for example,
> within frames, on stages, or in particular kinds of writing.
> Indigenously, artful leadership is a way of walking upon the earth
> that leaves beauty and goodness in the people it touches. [If
> interested, I explain more about this in the article that I
> mentioned in a previous message, "Artistic Undertones of Humanistic
> Leadership Education" (Journal of Management Education, out this
> Fall) -- which will also have many references. In it, I borrow
> insight from Sandelands and Buckner's "art at work
> characteristics."] For your pleasure, I share a quote from Henri
> cited in Sandelands and Buckner: "Art, when really understood, is
> the province of every human being. . . . When the artist is alive
> in people, whatever their kind of work may be, they become
> inventitve, searching, daring, self-expressing creatures. . . .
> They do not have to be painters or sculptors to be artists. They
> can work in any medium."
>
> Mindfully, David
>
>>>> stefan meisiek <[log in to unmask]> >>>
> Dear Katja and all,
>
> We have been tossing ideas around for a think piece on the “fine
> art of
> leadership” for a while. We asked ourselves what it would mean if a
> leader was thought to apply fine art thinking, and if there are
> leaders
> already whom could be said to do that. The art notion as in “the art
> of…” usually has a strong crafts connotation, a list of rules and
> principles like in Fayol’s work, or like Sun-Tsu’s writing on war
> (actually the Chinese title suggests only principles and no art
> of…). If
> we leave the craft aside for a minute, what could the conceptual art
> part tell us about leadership? What’s the leadership equivalent of
> Duchamp’s toilet? As a fine artist, the leader becomes more thinker
> and
> less ‘doer’ (not to mention dour). With this, it’s not enough for a
> leader to bracket a problem—she has to represent it in a catchy,
> upending, and reflective w From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Claus Springborg
> Sent: segunda-feira, 28 de Agosto de 2006 13:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: leader as artist literature
>
>
>
> Dear Katja
>
>
>
> Mythology, leaders/managers and artists. This is not directly
> references
> to literature that uses an artist metaphor to describe leadership,
> but I
> personaly find it a very interesting indirect link between artists and
> leaders. Maybe you can use it?
>
>
>
> The mythology of the journey of the hero is sometimes used to describe
> both the journey of the leader/manager and the journey of the artist.
>
>
>
>
>
> In Synchronicity – the inner path of leadership by Jaworski (p.
> 18-119),
> leadership (and Joseph Jaworskis own journey) is compared to “the
> journey of the hero” as it’s described in Joseph Campbells The hero
> with
> a thousand faces.
>
>
>
> In Dialogue – the art of thinking together by William Isaacs (p.
> 286-87), there are also references to Joseph Campbells journey of the
> hero. He writes about the difficulties of returning with new
> insight to
> the “ordinary” world.
>
>
>
> In Artful Creation by Lotte Darsø there is a chapter on the work of
> Miha
> Pogacnik (p.93-98). Here the journey of the hero is mentioned as the
> journey of a leader. I think the part called the art of listening,
> describes the essential link between hero, artist and leader.
> Namely the
> ability to clear a mental space of ones own thoughts and ideas and
> through that empty space get the ability to receive – to listen. In
> Dialogue a similar idea is called suspention – a term that
> comativity by David Bohm there is a chapter called On the
> relationship of art and science. Here art is linked to the ability to
> perceive, and in that way it becomes essential to science – the more
> subtle the theories of the world, the greater the need for subtle
> perception to keep the theories in tune with what’s actually going on.
>
> The chapter is interesting if one think of leadership as the
> activity of
> developing theories of how best to manage a business. If the leader
> can
> learn to “listen” like the artist, then his ability to perceive the
> consequences of his actions is expanded – he can get more subtle
> feedback than before, and thus develop more in tuned theories.
>
>
>
> I have also seen the journey of the hero used in books on how to
> develop
> creativity in artists. I don’t remember any titles though. Maybe The
> artist way by Julia Cameron could have a useful reference or two.
> Maybe
> another Aacorner can help us out here?
>
>
>
> I also find it interesting to compare the journey of the hero with the
> process of double loop learning (Argyris (1992): On organizational
> learing). I haven’t seen this anywhere – but if anyone have, I’d
> love to
> get a hint.
>
>
>
> Hope this is useful.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers Claus Springborg
>
>
>
> p.s. I have made a first draft in order to map the literature on Arts
> and Business into some categories. I will send it to the Aacorn net
> shortly in order to get feedback. That might be helpful to you as
> well.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Katja Lindqvist <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:16 PM
>
> Subject: leader as artist literature
>
>
>
> Dear Acorners,
>
>
>
> does anyone have any suggestions for literature on the myth of
> leaders/managers as artists?
>
>
>
> I'm going into this question in writing, and mostly have literature on
> the aesthetics of organisation and managment, but don't really have
> the
> full picture of the frequency of this metaphor in business research
> and
> literature.
>
>
>
> I'd be great to hear from the ACORN network what you've come across
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Katja
> Visiting scholar at Dipartimento di Scienze Aziendali, University of
> Bologna
>
> [log in to unmask]
|