Cannot resist jumping in on Daved's point about the scinentification (chortling required here) of Aacorn. Lusting after publication leads right back to our jumping off point for Aacorn, ie wanting to do something else, something aesthetic or artistic. How do we resist this pressure? Is there a way to satisfy the constraints of jounal publication AND be creative? Isn't this what many of our artist members have told us makes art great, that creative responses to constraint can be the most liberativing act we can perform? Maybe we should focus on not giving up our aspirations. One way of course is through starting our own journals, but that almost feels like quitting to me. How can we invade the territory that threatens to redefine us and redefine it instead? We are starting to get sessions on a variety of rosters in the divisions of AoM and we are making even greater headway at other conferences. I know it did not look too good when AoM kicked us out. But maybe that was only a warm up for the real fight. Sorry to be using so much aggressive imagery here. Seems to be all I can come up with at the moment. Jean's article, which I finally got around to reading this week, enraged me. Another idea would be to use our own theory and envision a future in which the Academy is aetheticized. What would it look like? Who would we be in that world? And how would business have had to change to support our legitimacy? Perhaps that could lay the ground for avoiding what almost sounds inevitable when framed in the way Daved just described. At least let's not go there so soon! We are just getting started.
Jo Hatch
________________________________
From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network on behalf of Daved Barry
Sent: Sat 4/7/2007 7:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Art's place in organization studies
Beautifully said Steve. A very eloquent summary and a nice addition to Nancy Adler's points on why the fine arts are so valuable to organizations, despite that organizational instrumentality often blinds out what you're saying. I think what goes especially under-recognized is this 'reminder/wake up' quality (makes sense, if what you want to do is keep on sleeping). In a different conversation, Henrik Schrat was noting that art's value is in reminding us of our unique abilities to create, and create/see in unusual ways (seeing what goes unnoticed)-and that this has always been a feature of so-called great art-which is why it's worth revisiting, even if we might not use those techniques or approaches anymore. In this, I suppose it's really more than a reminder. Or it's a reminder that has a certain lifefulness and undecidability (unlike post-it reminders).
Your comments also got me to think about where our area is heading. And I'm starting to think that it may indeed take its place alongside science-based org. studies-much more than I'd first considered. If you think about it, all the science-based org. studies have looked to the harder sciences for tips on quality, rigour, methods, etc. Despite that, we have always acknowledged that org. studies is a messy business-that organization life could never be controlled or modelled as well as in a lab and that generalizations from lab studies would always be a so-so, incomplete endeavor.
As our gaze has shifted toward the arts, I see the same kind of relationship developing. That is, we are looking to the standards set by the professional fine arts, while at the same time realizing that they are probably quite unattainable in organizational circles. Just like the hard sciences were used to 'keep org. studies honest', we're more and more using fine arts to set the standard for how we should form and judge organizational art efforts-whether from an arts and/or a craft perspective. Your quote of one of your artist-manager colleagues ("as an artist I had certain aesthetic standards which in the business world had to be so compromised to economic perspectives and lack of aesthetic sensitivity that I continually felt quite depressed.") catches this very nicely. D
________________________________
From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Carroll
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 7:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about art in international development
Because of illness issues I was unable to read until recently the answers to the query from Stefan about how the study of artists from the fine arts (sculpture,painting) might be applicable and useful in the education of manager-leaders. I did summarize these for my own purposes and then discussed this issue then with the three artists in my family and also with several of my business school colleagues. I was surprised at the considerable skepticism I encountered unlike the responses of most (but not all) the AACORN respondents.
One said "as an artist I could focus on one project and invest all my attention there but as a manager I had to split my time over a vast array of projects, problems, and goals".
The jobs are quite different. Another said "as an artist I had certain aesthetic standards which in the business world had to be so compromised to economic perspectives and lack of aesthetic sensitivity that I continually felt quite depressed. All of my academic colleagues said that the fine arts were for enjoyment in an aesthetic sense only and not useful for managers. However they concurred that some of the arts (films and some literature) did have value in management education and were in fact long used for that. They also tended to say that contemplating completed art objects added nothing of educational value but conceeded when asked that studying the artistic process could have somerelevance with what manager-leaders do at some times.
Yesterday I visited the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and just looking at paintings and sculpture I could see lots of educational value in contemplating fine art. The art also was created with a view to reminding observers of important stories and myths in particular cultures which underly fundamental values and beliefs of that culture and which help bond individuals together. These stories like all of literature obviously help us to transcend vicariously our limited experiences due to age, era. geography, genderm ethnicity, etc. As several AACORN respondents indicated art teaches us to see what we usually do not notice- it tells us this is important! "The skill of the painter lies in the eye not the hand" Even if we do notice it helps us to see more clearly (as someone once said the beauty behind ugliness and the ugliness behind beauty). Art reminds us of the many exemplar heroes in our past which we obviously need to remember in coping with great difficulties and trials. It tells us that others who are different than us can be just as beautiful and wise as we are. Looking at art can temper our arrogance (of plentiful supply in management) and can help us to remember what sages of all nations have said are the most critical human values (compassion, wisdom, etc. ) even if they so often overlooked. Of course art can help provide us with hope and positive emotions in such a trying world that all too often breeds synicism and bitterness. It provides an escape from tension ans stress. If we go behind the creation of individual objects to the artist we can obviously learn lessons from the process used to create it and perhaps to the lessons from the artist creators themselves.
I suppose all of this is obvious but why do so many- perhaps most- ignore it to their detriment? Of course I'm preaching to the choir here.
Steve
Stephen (Steve) Carroll
Maryland Business School
301/405-2239
[log in to unmask]
=
|
