 |
 |
Dear Lucy,
Thank you for your questions. I have been following this conversation and, although I am familiar with some of the art and management ideas, I felt somehow uncomfortable with the lack of context given when the word 'art(ist)' is involved. Thank you for writing the request for more clarity.
I have a question too: Is it academically sound to compare or use a modern art (like Jazz) as an example/illustration of post-modern management ideas?
Likewise: how do academics, looking from a management theory point of view, regard the depiction of early modern ideas of 'the manager' in contemporary (after post-modernism in visual arts) art projects.
I am not a fan of the borders between art and management when they are drawn on top of wandering tribes (like ours) that defy the straight black line. On the other hand I feel it is risky and unnecessary to reduce the differences be claming they don't exist. In Aacorn I see a chance to maybe view other lines through the landscape, which does not mean a highway 66 to any Academy, but more the paths of the past use of the landscapes of art and management and where they meet or can be connected or could be walked on in the future.
The perceptions of someone that has to cope with the borders of the field of management (like the students in previous examples) can be compared to the perceptions of artists that function in art world systems with equally unforgiving borders. Maybe it is telling for you to know that as a teacher in art academies, I met many first year art students that wanted to know from me what they should do to pass the studio exams. When I was a student myself I learned from helpfull insiders that, to pass the intital interview to the academy, I should avoid the words Dali or Picasso at all costs. When I became an examiner myself I had to battle several times with senior professors that would disqulify a potential student based on their appreciation of the 'usual suspects' mentioned before.
Greetings,
Teike Asselbergs