hi Vincent, hi Teike, hi all

Yes, one have to put the question as Vincent does: What is the  
requirements for "quality assured" art production in the 'art system'?
And I agree with Vincent: There's is no 'rules'; Or: The only 'rule'  
is the 'non-rule'; Art production is sanctioned via social processes  
made up by the agents of the very art system (artists, critics,  
curators, etc.). This 'social condition of art' is the very point  
made by Danto, right?

How this 'social game' works is part of the knowledge of producing  
art - when adding the knowledge about the tradition(s), the  
contemporary critique(s) and development(s) of the production of the  
specific art form and genre. So, when using the term "art" when eg.  
evaluating art production the requirement for a "quality assured"  
text is the texts ability to demonstrate a knowledge about  
contemporary  art production. If not demonstrating such knowledge the  
very text/article can not/should not be be "quality assured" in the  
art system.


The question of criteria or  "quality assurance" regarding topics of  
the Aacorn Network e.g. "art in an organisational context", "manager  
as artist", etc - can then be be put in this way: If ‘something’ -  
that we initially term "art" - generates other results than e.g.  
‘traditional’ methods on e.g. the marked for eg. organisational  
consultancy and/or management – does this 'something then 'work'  
because it functions 'as art'? Knowing that "functioning 'as art'"  
first of all means meeting the requirements of the 'art system'.

Despite “If someone calls it art, it’s art” (paraphrasing Don Judd,  
in Duve: Kant after Duchamp), “Every human is an artist” (Beuys), or  
the fact that maybe everyone already has become an artist (due to  
Duchamps (articulation of) ‘readymade’; not as a consequence of  
‘readymade’, but as a condition), you may first of all insist that,  
when "organisational art project"-makers and -evaluators in their  
terminology wants to activate the term "art", then such  
"organisational art projects" need to be evaluated 'as art’ -  a  
specific project evaluation need to be valid as an art critique.

Hence -  in the field of "art & organisation" - projects need to be  
criticised on the backdrop of the criteria that exist in a specific  
contemporary culture relating to this or that type art production  
which a project (may) articulate; just as such "organisational art  
project" should be criticised on the backdrop of the criteria for e- 
g. ‘(project)management’, ‘organising’, 'work place psychology', etc.

Said in another way:  If the 'something' that is initially is called  
"art" is not evaluated 'as art' - then the term "art" has no  
theoretical bearing in the evaluation of, or writing about, such  
specific "art production" in an organisational context. And why would  
you call it "art" in the first place? Drop the term "art" in the  
evaluations of so called "organisational art projects" if the project  
is not eventuated 'as art' anyway! In practice the specific project  
will 'work' as fine without the (pure rhetoric) 'art brand', I guess.


all the best!
kent


NB
note, that the Anglo-Saxian "art" is a bit broader than the term  
Germanic "kunst", and being a Dane I'm probably overlapping the two;  
art = kunst, I'm leaning towards "kunst".
and generally I'm addressing contemporary visuals fine art after the  
mid sixties.

Den Dec 3, 2008 kl. 1:05 PM skrev Teike Asselbergs:

> Dear Vincent,
>
> When asked as an academic to give ones list of publications, there is
> the question whether publications are "quality assured" or
> "non-quality assured. When a paper/article is published by a
> recognized 'publisher' that also reviews the text submitted, as far as
> I understand one can speak of a 'quality assured' publication. An art
> magazine can be non-academic for instance, but quasi-academic and with
> an editorial board: that magazine can be considered 'quality assured'.
> I need to write a list about which quality assured texts I have
> published, and it is not clear for me for instance whether images can
> also be quality assured following 'art as research' rules?
>
> The international art world is a heterogeneous milieu consisting of
> several actors, such as: artists, art critics, art organizations,
> financing institutions and governmental bodies. There exist different
> definitions of 'art world' but it goes a bit far to discuss all of
> them here. The contemporary view on this as also that there is no 'one
> art world' but that there exist 'art worlds' (many smaller 'art world'
> milieus) even within the fields of diverse art forms, like theater,
> fine art, contemporary art etc. The art worlds as social systems share
> unwritten rules/'name of the game rules' that can not be used in the
> 'quality assured' sense, but in the art world certainly have 'ranking
> effects'. Following this I think that the question: Who edicts and
> enacts the "rules of art world"? is partly answered by Mikael
> Scherdin, who has written a PhD on how his innovative art organization
> was given 'the invisible foot' by the Swedish art world.
>
>> For "those of us not directly practicing in the art world"
>
> But many AACORN members write about art in one way or another.
> Why would you want to use the word 'art' if just some general form of
> creativity is intended?
> I assume that AACORN members writing about art would also study the
> social system in the art world they write about, or not?
> As an artist that focuses on organization I read and try to get to the
> details of organizational studies, even to the extend I am writing a
> PhD about it, so why would AACORN academics not do the same with art?
> Isn't it so that in order that, within the framework of 'art,
> aesthetics and creativity in organizational research, the 'art' has
> any significance; the rules/'name of the game' in the professional
> cultural field also need to be addressed?
>
> Regards,
> Teike Asselbergs