I don't suggests that "Rules are the basic of
aesthetics"!
I suggested an aesthetic discussion
about "Aesthetic research". (The
reentry)
So it would be possible for the interessted
participants to fix up some criterias of what is aesthetic and what is not. In
other words, to develop RULES. Not universal rules, but rules about a common
doing. Rules which are in their form accepted by all who wish to
participate.
If not, ...
What are the rules of that discussion? That discussion about "Aesthetic
research"? Is that discussion aesthetic? What is the motivation? Is it
true?
Is it possible to describe something aesthetic with something
non-aesthetic?
In my perception, this discussion is not aesthetic.
Why?
Oh now, I found my mistake!
It's my fault!
I should not have participated at all!
Excuse me.
I will be more carefully in the future.
Jürgen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Oktober 2004
15:58
Betreff: Re: Definitions
Jürgen Bergmann suggests that "Rules are the basics of
aesthetics." I beg to disagree. Maybe rules are the basics for those who wish
to impose aesthetic judgements on others (and imply, if not universalism, then
at least standardization). But what they then deem to be aesthetic is itself
subject to so much social, cultural and historical arbitrariness, negotiation
and change that it would appear impossible to develop hard-and-fast rules that
would be valid for anyone outside a particular, limited aesthetic/art
world.
Which statement, in itself, is the first
rule.
Brian
Jürgen Bergmann wrote:
Luhmann would say this discussion about "Aesthetic research" is a
reentry. Therefor I suggest an aesthetic discussion about "Aesthetic
research". So it would be possible for the interessted participants to fix
up some criterias of what is aesthetic and what is not. In other words, to
develop RULES. Rules are the basics of aesthetics.
Jürgen
-----Ursprüngliche
Nachricht-----
Gesendet:
Freitag, 29. Oktober 2004 10:05
Betreff:
Re: Definitions
I am slightly reluctant to enter this discussion, because I
have a feeling that, as a social anthropologist, I may be way off beam
when it comes to comments on management and aesthetics. However, the fact
that it is still more or less dark here in Denmark encourages me to have a
stab...
"Aesthetic research" in itself makes rather little sense,
although Steve Taylor distinguished between "using aesthetic methods" and
"engaging (with) aesthetic content". However, given an earlier comment on
the apparent arbitrariness of aesthetic appreciation, to talk of
"aesthetic methods" would seem almost oxymoronic. The phrase
appears as vague as "aesthetic research".
Now, I realise that many
(most?) of you are interested in using "aesthetics" to understand,
analyse, even guide, management/organization practices. I myself, however,
have for an awful lot of years now, been immersed in "engaging with
aesthetic content" and showing how that content tends to reflect other,
non-aesthetic, socio-cultural ideals (au Bourdieu). There is an
argument in the sociology of art, as you probably know, about whether
there is, or is not, any "aesthetic specificity" in an object/product
deemed to be "art". Some (like Janet Wolff and, I think, Jacques Maquet)
would say "yes"; others (like Bourdieu, Becker and myself) would say "no".
This argument is a little like conversion to the Catholic Church: one
needs, as G.K. Chesterton once put it, "a leap of faith."
I do not
"believe" that studying aesthetic content is any different from studying a
kinship system, gift giving practices or community rituals (to keep the
list short) on the social science side. Nor does it differ from the study
of religion or philosophy (which often focuses on aesthetics) on the
humanities side. I am, therefore, not convinced that there is a
difference between the social scientific and humanities approaches, as
Violina Rindova (following Hirsch) suggested, provided that one maintains
as objective a stance as possible. This does not mean that "the pursuit of
truth" should be essentialised, though. There are many truths, all
partial.
"Using aesthetic methods," then, is problematic. There is
no guarantee that what the researcher regards as "aesthetic" is considered
"aesthetic" by those s/he studies. From the start, therefore, negotiation
has to take place between researcher and informants to sketch out an
agreed "aesthetic map" on which they may then plot their course(s). Such
aesthetic maps are going to differ almost every time a researcher starts
using aesthetics to study a managed organization -- because of age,
gender, education, class, race, profession, and so on and so forth --
differences which themselves often exist within a single
organization, as well as between organizations located in the same and
different countries. The very adoption of the word "aesthetic" by Western
academics may be attributed to cultural subjectivism, if the example of
"creative" industries is anything to go by. In Japan, for example, they
are simply called "content" industries, and notions of creativity and its
accompanying associations with individualism, genius, originality
and so on are denied (for reasons, some might argue, that may be
attributed to a [non-proven] Japanese emphasis on "groupness" [whatever
that may mean]).
So you will note a hint of scepticism here. And,
since I don't really understand this "aesthetics and management" trend,
such scepticism is probably misplaced. I would be grateful, therefore, if
you could put me right where I've gone wrong and, in the meantime, wish
you a gloomy Danish good morning!
Best wishes,
Brian
Moeran
Steve Taylor wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">It’s certainly not an easy
question, but I’ll take a crack at it.
I see aesthetic research
as research that
- Use aesthetic
methods, either as:
comes
from a stance that is based in aesthetic
philosophy
part
of the data collection / research process – such as asking people to
draw
uses
aesthetic forms of representation (poetry, drawings,
etc)
And/or
2, Engages aesthetic content, such
as:
artistic forms
within organizations (stories, theater,
etc)
the aesthetic
aspects of organizations (such as sensory knowing, how the place feels,
smells, etc.)
Of course, that’s just off the top of my head, but
it gives somewhat of an idea of what I’m thinking about. I suspect
others have different ideas of what aesthetic research
is.
Cheers,
Steve
On 10/28/04 11:52 AM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Could
someone clarify the meaning of "aesthetic research"?
Harvey Seifter
Executive & Artistic
Director
Flushing Council on Culture and the Arts
Flushing Town
Hall
718/463.7700 x225
Steven S.
Taylor,
PhD
Assistant Professor
Worcester Polytechnic
Institute
Department of Management
100 Institute Rd
Worcester,
MA 01609
USA
+1 508-831-5557
[log in to unmask]
--
Brian Moeran
Professor of Culture and Communication
Department of Intercultural Communication and Management
Copenhagen Business School
Dalgas Have 15
DK 2000 Frederiksberg
Denmark
Tel: +45 38 15 31 82 (direct line)
Fax: + 45 38 15 38 40
--
Brian Moeran
Professor of Culture and Communication
Department of Intercultural Communication and Management
Copenhagen Business School
Dalgas Have 15
DK 2000 Frederiksberg
Denmark
Tel: +45 38 15 31 82 (direct line)
Fax: + 45 38 15 38 40
