|
Stephen and Michael, I like your idea very much and would choose to
participate in such a forum.
For those interested in Rochelle Mucha's book, AESTHETIC INTELLIGENCE, but
perhaps having difficulty obtaining a copy in the UK or elsewhere, I
responded to her original request for reviewers, read the manuscript and
wrote the following review.
Best to all,
John
Aesthetic Intelligence: Reclaim the Power of Your Senses
Rochelle Mucha writes insightfully, generously and exceedingly well about a
subject invisible to many, but nonetheless vital to our health as
individuals and as a society, namely the centrality of our senses in
learning, leadership, creativity and daily life. She introduces her very
attractive concept of Aesthetic Intelligence with three rich underpinning
capacities: presence, authenticity and synthesis, and then sets to work
bringing each to life in refreshing, often profound, and ultimately elegant
terms. "Listening", she says, "is not the work of one sense, but of all the
senses." And it is listening at this deeper, more fully integrated level,
which powers our capacity for presence and fuels Aesthetic Intelligence. She
draws her concept of authenticity at a similar level of integration as a
capacity which embraces the many roles we play in the course of a day or a
lifetime with the same level of self-knowledge and steady fluency of being
we witness in a first class actor. This too, fuels Aesthetic Intelligence.
Whether you are a leader interested in sharpening your already keen sense of
judgment, or an educator or consultant seeking new skills for the 21st
century, Rochelle Mucha's book Aesthetic Intelligence: Reclaim the Power of
Your Senses is bound to be an eye-opener, an ear opener, a mind opener and
more. It will make you wonder why on earth you haven't come to your senses
sooner!
John J. Cimino, Jr.
President & Founder, Creative Leaps International and The Learning Arts,
composer, scientist, educational consultant, creator of the "Concert Of
Ideas"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gold" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Not so tricky
This is a great idea- like authors giving a reading at a local
bookstore.
That way content would be the issue- not posturing.
Good idea, Stephen.
Michael Gold, Ph.D.
Jazz Impact
612 3777221
www.jazz-impact.com
On Oct 11, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Stephen Linstead wrote:
> The book does not appear to be available in the UK, even on Amazon only
> as an expensive import, which could limit discussion/
> appreciation/critique for a while to the US -espeically given the current
> UK postal dispute!.
>
> In the interests of dialogue more generally regarding pulbications - this
> is a highly productive group after all - I wondered whether AACORN could
> provide a facility for authors to discuss their work in a scheduled
> on-line conference chat form via the wiki (I'm thinking text-based but of
> course there could be other options). Authors could then announce their
> event on the list well in advance and those interested could go to the
> wiki for details of how to obtain the book and how to prepare for the
> dialogue. Such dialogues could be chaired or unchaired, with discussant
> comments or not, some questions if complex could be submitted in advance,
> and if text- based a text record would be available.
>
> Would anyone else be interested?
>
> Steve
>
> On Oct 11 2009, Ralph Kerle wrote:
>
>> Yep, I'm reading it now!
>> Ralph
>>
>> _____
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Gold
>> Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2009 11:19 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Not so tricky
>>
>>
>> I agree with you Michael.
>> But I still have to ask- Has anyone read THE BOOK???
>>
>>
>> Michael Gold
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I find this all rather strange.
>> A simple question, sensitively articulated, has been asked as to the
>> proprieties for the use of the forum. By way of response there have been
>> cries of 'shame', accusations of "denigrating and pillorying" another
>> member, and talk of AACORN as not being a 'safe place' in which to voice
>> an opinion. It seems to me that the only person being unjustly pilloried
>> here is the one who asked the question in the first place, and possibly
>> those who had similar thoughts. If the forum has difficulty in
>> tolerating such an honest enquiry, perhaps someone could explain the
>> purpose of AACORN and how this latest outpouring relates to its premise
>> of encouraging open and frank opinion…
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>> Michael Spencer
>> Tel: +44 (0) 7976 432348
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Web: www.creative-arts.net <http://www.creative-arts.net/>
>>
>>
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Garrick Jones
>> Sent: 10 October 2009 00:13
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: unsubscribe
>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:01, John Cimino wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> It wasn't so long ago that I nominated Rochelle Mucha into our
>> community. I did so with enthusiasm because I know Rochelle to be bright
>> and generous in her thinking and sure to be a great conrtributor to our
>> on-line dialogues. I was also ever so hopeful of stimulating our
>> collective intelligence with the content of Rochelle's new book. What
>> better forum to engage around ideas newly formulated and so central to
>> our concerns? A discussion of substance, readings and multiple
>> perspectives -- that's AACORN at its best. As a practitioner, rather
>> than a member of the academy, I know something of the dance we all do
>> adjusting to the lingos, values and perspectives of our respective
>> orientations. Most often, I'm happy to say, we are fairly graceful in
>> negotiating our two- steps. But something has gone very wrong in this
>> instance. We're stepping on one another toes and raising one another's
>> hackles. Most importantly to me, we've done injury to a new member who
>> joined us with good will and high hopes. And if, per chance, one felt at
>> odds with what appeared to be self-promotion, surely there are kinder
>> ways and more appropriate channels to take this under consideration.
>>
>> I hope that we have not lost Rochelle from our community. She is
>> championing her ideas as we all must by one means or another. In sharing
>> them with us, she has invited our professional review. Let us be
>> colleagues who debate substance and contribute to one another's growth
>> as scholars and pracitioners. Surely that is still possible.
>>
>> John Cimino
>> Creative Leaps International
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ralph <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Kerle
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: tricky
>>
>> It is a real shame that someone who contributes voluntarily to an
>> on-line
>> community in whatever fashion can be so denigrated and pilloried by
>> members
>> of a community that considers itself intelligent, for simply providing
>> information!! It is also a very poor reflection of some members
>> understanding of on-line behaviours.
>>
>> For a moment, I thought I might have sent the message promoting an event
>> of
>> mine through AACORN that facilitated this email exchange. I experienced
>> guilt, stress, shame, concern and mystification as to why I might have
>> caused such a reaction.
>>
>> Goodness knows how Rochelle felt!!
>>
>> So let me do some loud advertising!!!
>>
>> I am currently reading Rochelle Mucha's book "Aesthetic Intelligence -
>> Re-Claim the Power of Your Senses" and am finding it a fine contribution
>> to
>> the body of work entitled "Organisational Aesthetics", the type of work
>> and
>> contribution AACORN welcomes or at least I thought it did..
>> Now I am not so sure.
>>
>> This status driven exchange with its subsequent alienation of Rochelle
>> from
>> this community is a reflection of an on-line culture of aesthetic
>> exclusion
>> and snobbery rather than inclusion and relevancy.
>>
>> Shame, AACORN, shame!!!
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Gold
>> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2009 1:29 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: tricky
>>
>> This is an interesting discussion on the purpose/philosophy of AACORN
>> and
>> its standing relative to the emergence of social networking on the web.
>>
>> But I am really disturbed its the rhetorical nature
>> We're so quick to take offense when someone's intentions are perceived
>> to be self promotional.
>>
>> How many of those objecting have to reinvent their realities every day
>> when
>> they awaken?
>>
>> Isn't it really is a matter of degree?
>>
>> The object of objection here is a wonderfully well written book that is
>> filled with stimulating ideas, experiences and resources.
>>
>> Why aren't we talking about that?
>>
>>
>> Michael Gold
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Arlene Goldbard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you all for an interesting discussion that helps me understand
>> more
>> clearly the boundaries within which Aacorn was conceived and evolved.
>> I've
>> been puzzled a bit at the lack of a larger social dimension.
>> Some of my work is with specific organizations, nonprofit and for-
>> profit. But recently, questions of public discourse and policy have
>> impinged, in some sense overshadowing the rest. Here in the US, we are
>> experiencing a renewed wave of anti-art sentiment, in which right-wing
>> TV personalities and bloggers are once again denouncing artists and
>> organizations concerned with art and social change. It's become a
>> commonplace here that the arts are now a "toxic amenity," in that so
>> much negative material has been attached to the whole enterprise, in
>> political discourse (and especially in the narrower arena of electoral
>> politics), few are brave enough to speak out for the essential role of
>> free expression in cultural recovery, nor for the intrinsic importance
>> of creative expression in human and social development, nor for arts'
>> public purpose in mending social fabric, connecting people, creating
>> arenas for dialogue, etc.
>>
>> I can't help but think this meta-organizational landscape (in the sense
>> that the society as a whole is the container for all other
>> organizations) is deeply relevant to any arts practice with a social or
>> organizational dimension. It may be that the few postings I've offered
>> in past are too far outside the Aacorn sphere, or lacking in some other
>> way that discourages response. But so far, until today's dialogue on the
>> group's purpose and boundaries, I have noticed that people engage almost
>> exclusively with questions that touch on the business sector (including
>> the type of self- promotion discussed in the recent exchange). I assumed
>> that I had been mistaken in understanding Aacorn's brief as wider, and
>> stopped posting.
>>
>> That may be correct if Aacorn's purview is understood as a stream of
>> "management scholarship" as opposed to say, "art and social
>> organization"
>> scholarship, in which case my presence is a category error. But in case
>> others are interested in how the social meaning of art is once again
>> being
>> contested in the US, here's a link <http://arlenegoldbard.com/> to a
>> piece
>> about it that may interest you. I will continue to lurk a bit and see
>> what
>> evolves.
>> all best,
>>
>> Arlene
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Daved Barry wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a little more history about Aacorn (which I think has some
>> relevance for this exchange). For the first couple of years, before it
>> was put on the UK Jiscmail platform, Aacorn was just Acorn (where the
>> "A" variously referred to Art or Aesthetics). It was a group only for
>> academics...and we had lots of long winded but uplifting discussions. We
>> had to nominate rather than invite people in, and at least one "second"
>> was needed. The whole intention was to connect people working on a
>> scholarly approach to arts and organization, and to help this field
>> become more coherent--to turn it into one that could hold its own with
>> other mgmt. scholarship streams (e.g., strategy, critical mgmt. studies,
>> org. culture, positivist traditions, etc.).
>>
>> At some point, the idea came up of inviting practicing artists into the
>> group, especially those working in art and economics. As I recall (and
>> keep
>> in mind that my memory is pretty mediocre) that idea was debated a fair
>> amount, and then a consensus was reached whereby the doors were opened
>> not
>> only to artists, but to artful practitioners in organizations, and
>> arts-based consultants...and based on Heather Hopfl's arguments, we
>> dropped
>> the nomination process in favor of an invitational one. We've also
>> experimented extensively with other forums--the website, the wiki, and a
>> couple of others, but (sort of sadly) none of these have ever garnered
>> sustained commitment. But regardless of the format, the ground rules
>> have
>> remained the same--it's still a forum for scholarly thinking, sharing,
>> and
>> debate.
>>
>> Rather against the odds (and rather hearteningly), the interest area of
>> art & organization seems to have become a field. What was in the mid
>> 1990's just a scattering of a few individuals interested in arts and
>> organization has now turned into a recognizable and active field of
>> inquiry, with contributors from all over the globe. Aacorn is widely
>> cited/referenced as a kind of lighthouse for the field, as is the Art of
>> Management Conference, and now, after quite a few years, we're seeing
>> arts & organization/business making regular inroads into the formal
>> academies (e.g. Academy of Mgmt., EGOS, Euram), as well as seeing many
>> more books and articles in the area. For my own part, I feel the general
>> level of scholarship has come up a lot since things started 15 years ago
>> (or much more if you count Vincent Degot's pioneering efforts!)...the
>> various research programs that are going on now are certainly more
>> comensurate with what is happening in other org. studies areas, and the
>> whole doe-eyed approach of "oh art in business--isn't it wonderful" has
>> been supplanted by much more hard-headed, credible, yet still enjoyable
>> thinking and practice. D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Spencer
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:41 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: tricky
>>
>> A pleasure...and thank you.
>>
>> I wonder if clarity and brevity should be should be considered the
>> province
>> of the business world alone.
>>
>> Must run.
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>>
>> Michael Spencer
>> Tel: +44 (0) 7976 432348
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Web: www.creative-arts.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 08 October 2009
>> 10:18
>> To: Michael Spencer
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: tricky
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>>
>> Clearly and briefly:
>>
>>
>> It's not a business context. It's a discussion list.
>>
>> The address is .ac.uk not .com
>>
>> If I were writing a business email, I'd write differently.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 8 2009, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If I had the time to read it I might think so too. I know of no
>> business context where such a response would be accepted, or perhaps
>> even understood. Perhaps as a general rule we should consider applying
>> the same elements of clarity and brevity that are expected by our
>> clients.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jurgen and Kristin.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Spencer
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 7976 432348
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Web: www.creative-arts.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Atkinson
>>
>> Sent: 08 October 2009 08:57
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Subject: Re: tricky
>>
>>
>>
>> Now that's what I call a response to the issue! We should consider
>> Steve's response as a general posting guideline!
>>
>> Best to all
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David M Atkinson
>>
>>
>>
>> Direct (local rate) t: 08443 570 598 / m: 07979 851560
>>
>>
>>
>> P Stop! More printing - less trees...
>> ...good for ink suppliers but poor for the environment!
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Linstead
>>
>> Sent: 08 October 2009 08:49
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Subject: Re: tricky
>>
>>
>>
>> Jurgen, Kristin and AACORNers
>>
>>
>>
>> J and K thanks for opening this up. I agree that it's generally tricky,
>> but in some cases it isn't. AACORN is about intellectual engagement
>> with practice, and that means that some people use their art to make a
>> living, some use the art of others to make a living, some talk about
>> the work and art of others to make a living. It has an important role
>> of mutual support, information and knowledge sharing, and providing
>> some sense of intellectual community for professional scholars,
>> professional artists and business professionals with common interests
>> but
>>
>> often very different needs.
>>
>>
>> Knowledge exchange and corporate PR can become blurred in the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the needs the intellectuals in the community have is for
>> informed critique and debate. There is not much of that on here.
>> AACORN is SO appreciative, and SO polite. In some ways this is a
>> refreshing change from the bloodbaths that can occupy the bandwidth of
>> some scholarly lists (and why I've wirhdrawn from one or two) but
>> oddly, the scholars engaged in these often hair-raising rituals tend
>> to remain friends and colleagues, with well-understood and passionately
>>
>> held differences.
>>
>>
>> Despite AACORN's avowed obsession with passion, there's no passionate
>> debate on the site. It's actually very bland mousse, with a foamy
>> layer of nitrous wide-eyed appreciation on top.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are some brilliant and incisive scholars on this list, artists
>> who know how treacherous and ambiguous the spaces between truth and
>> beauty, pain and ecstasy can be, and just how much shit the world can
>> throw at us in a pretty package. Authenticity for some is an
>> intractable ontological puzzle, not one step you can choose to take in
>>
>> n-steps to the good life.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, if you hold a concept like "aesthetic intelligence" to be
>> meaningful, this should be the site to bring it to get have your
>> assumptions tested to the limit, where you can properly assess the
>> merits and demerits of analytical support and articulate critique,
>> rather than brandish your trade-mark. It should be a damn good place
>> to prepare a piece for submission to a quality peer-reviewed journal,
>> to prepare for an oral exam, or get your head in the right place in
>> preparation for creative output of whatever sort. It shouldn't be a
>> place where we find self-promotion that doesn't offer to enrich our
>> discussions, or a recycling of kitsch. I'm not saying that we should
>> not be supportive, but how can support be meaningful if we don't give
>> ourselves genuine licence to disagree, and place some limits on how the
>>
>> list is used, or exploited?
>>
>>
>> Supportive critique adds dimensionality to appreciation. And where
>> better to discover the flaws in your work or its execution than among
>> a community of common interest before exposing it to others - be they
>> peer reviewers, deans, students, clients, performers or the general
>>
>> public?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> When you post, think about how you are using the list, and how you are
>> contributing to our conversation. What do you need, what is your gift
>> what demands are you placing on others, what response to you expect
>> and what negativity can you tolerate? Are you blurring the boundaries
>> between art, scholarship and commerce a bit too much? Are you imposing
>> on our generosity of spirit? And when you receive mail, don't ignore
>> what really irritates you - stop being so tolerant. Even if it's
>> tricky, it's better to have it in the open, rather than the list
>> becoming mordant with silent withdrawals.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't have a nice day (TM) ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 8 2009, Kristin Newton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jürgen.
>>
>> I have also noticed that tendency and have been rather disappointed,
>> as Aacorn isn't what I expected so far.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kristin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Jürgen Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I know it's a very tricky remark,
>>
>> but I'm afraid that the aacorn-list
>>
>> becomes an advertising platform
>>
>> for individual business interests.
>>
>> This would be a shame, less I'm
>>
>> on the wrong track, because it's
>>
>> difficult to perceive the limit,
>>
>> especially form an artistic point of view.
>>
>> What do you think about?
>>
>> Jürgen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be
>> changed until it is faced."
>> James Baldwin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Arlene Goldbard* <http://arlenegoldbard.com/>
>> www.arlenegoldbard.com*415-690-9992
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> m. + 44 (0) 78 1116 9499
>> f. + 44 (0) 20 7691 7983
>> e. [log in to unmask]
>> w. www.ludicgroup.com
>>
>>
>> Confidentiality and Disclaimer: This email and its attachments are
>> intended
>> for the addressee only and may be confidential or the subject of legal
>> privilege. If this email and its attachments have come to you in error
>> you
>> must take no action based on them, nor must you copy them, distribute
>> them
>> or show them to anyone.Please contact the sender to notify them of the
>> error. This email and any attached files have been scanned for the
>> presence
>> of computer viruses. However, you are advised that you open any
>> attachments
>> at your own risk.
>>
>>
>>
|
