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.
>>
>>
>>
|
