 |
 |
Dear all, Just received my copy of the "New Yorker" magazine for this week, and it includes an extensive article on the $200 million gift of a Lily Pharma heiress to "Poetry" magazine... Which is open for reading at their Website http://www.newyorker.com/... I do not doubt that art can and will survive management, but I very much doubt that art can subsume/integrate/bring within itself management (with apologies to Rosalie Tung's commentary on Nancy's article...) "Management" is shorthand for a totalitarian view of the world and it seems that poetry (well, at least the journal "Poetry") can be subsumed into the totality... I agree with Jurgen's point... but worry that the sanity (or the divine madness) of the individual artists will not be enough to break managerial totalitarianism... Then, maybe I am just shortsighted... Prescriptions, anyone? Thanks for a great thread! Pedro Pedro David Perez Lecturer Applied Economics and Management Cornell University > Dear Katrin, > for me it's very simple: artists behaving like managers are not artists. > And managers behaving like artists are not managers. > There is no behaving like. Wether your are or your are not artist/manager. > I don't think that artists feel offended by "logo-offers". In the > contrary: The difference of perception is necessary, because it manifests > that the artistic work works. > Therefore I wrote that I hope that this difference will never be > abolished. > As Peter stated some mails ago, I'm manager too, of my own organisation. > But really, if I would not clearly differenciate who I am in which > situation, I would loose my capacity of organising or creating. And I'm > only manager for my own organisation. (Hope that there will be one time > someone who runs my organisation so that I'm not obliged anymore to do it > myself!) When I'm working on a project, even if there is much organisation > to do, I'm artist. The perception is quite different. And how could it be > possible to deliver my artistic work for my own organisation? This is > phenomenologically impossible! That's the reason why a manager employed by > a company is a manager and not an artist, even if he realises artworks in > his leasure time or for other companys. Maybe he is more open and > innovative in the company where he is employed, maybe he can easier decide > within a risky context, and so on, but his determination is fixed by his > managerial perception of "objective" results. And that is good so! This is > his responsability for his company and for the society in general. If he > would not act within the perception of that responsability he would > transgress his ethical integrity and became unscrupulous. There are > examples enaugh. > A manager who confounds himself with an artist or an artist who confounds > himself with a manager will always be in the dilmma described by Pierre: > banality or totalitarism. > Especially an artist working within the context of responsability for > management, companies or business in general, must be an artist, must have > a steely forged artisitc identity to oppose his perception of "absolute" > values to "objective" results. He must be perceived as artist, if not, he > will transgress his ethical integrity as the manager who believes himself > an artist. > Unfortunately there are already lots of artists confounding themselfs with > managers and acting within the context of managerial responsability. They > act as managers but not with their responsablities. Their passage leaves a > mass of infertile bullshit behind them which is a costly legacy because > hostile to "absolute" values. > Jürgen > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Katrin Kolo > An: [log in to unmask] > Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 15:15 > Betreff: AW: Without distinction...-entwurf > > > Dear Jürgen and all others, > > > > I very often made similar experiences as yours, but I also came across > artists behaving less like an artist (rather like a foolish manager), > while managers behaved more like visionary artists. > > That's why in my believe this distinction is more within the individual > than between "artists" and "managers" in general. That's why I proposed to > make the distinction -if at all - between behaving, playing the role or > wearing the ,hat' of an "artist" or "manager" rather than speaking of > artists and managers as seperate classes of persons. > > > > In your example with the Reichstag or the Bowl, I would also say, that > from beginning on "managers" must have seen a difference in the Reichstag > with the Logo or without (otherwise, they could have given Christo the > money also without the Logo ;-)) and also in the Bowl with or without the > Logo (otherwise, they wouldn't have to discuss so long about it). ;-) > > > > Another question arises here for me: (Why) do or should people wearing the > "artists hat" feel offended by those "Logo"-offers? Isn't it the normal > right to ask for one party and equally to refuse for the other no matter > for what reasons? > > > > All the best > > Katrin > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Von: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Juergen Bergmann > Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 14:29 > An: [log in to unmask] > Betreff: Re: Without distinction... > > > > Hi All, > > I organised a smal seminaire in the house of the german industries in > Berlin when Berlin was still under the influence of Christos great work on > the Reichstag. > > The audience were managers, artists and politics involved in cultural > work. > > You know that one of the biggest german automobil companys had asked > Christo, if he would accept to put their logo on the wrapped Reichstag? > They would have paid him a very hugh amount of money (some millions I had > heard). > > Surely he refused. > > The question which raised up during the seminaire was: What would have > been lost if Christo would have accepted the offer? And I assure you that > most of the present managers dit not perceive what would have been lost. > They only saw what Christo dit loose by refusing the offer! > > I had the same experience during a project contracted with a big chemical > company. The central action of that project was an perspex bowl which > passed from hand to hand during two years through the whole company > arround the world. The crucial and decisive impact of the project in the > company was not the realisation of the project itself, but the process of > decision during its conception which came to a crisis (the to be or not to > of the project) concerning only one point: Why is it absolutely necessary > for the success of the project that the logo of the company is not > represented on the perspex bowl. It took me serveral month to convince the > top-executives. The amplitutde or proportion of that process of decision - > the bowl symbolised the new philosophy of the company - took such an > extent that one of the members of the management board left the company > and a section of the company with three thousands employees was sold. > > I dit not forsaw that effect. But I'm convinced that this by the end > positive consequences for all were only possible because of the > confrontation of two quite different perceptions. The artistic one, which > deals with "absolute" symbols and the oeconomic one, which deals with > "objective" results. > > The eminent point was, as during the seminaire in Berlin, that the > managers in the beginning dit even not perceive that there is a difference > between the bowl with the logo or without the logo! > > And that makes the difference (for me) between an artist and a manager. > > And I hope - have a look to Pierres Dual Dilemma of Totality and Banality > in his book the Art Firm - that this difference will never be abolished. > > Jürgen > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Katrin Kolo > > An: [log in to unmask] > > Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 11:02 > > Betreff: AW: Without distinction... > > > > Hello Guys, > > > > sorry, I just wrote something concerning the "distinction" theme in > another mail with the topic "artists". > > I don't want to repeat myself here, but have a new suggestion for > distinction: > > > > In Management people talk about the "hat" they are wearing in a certain > situation or fulfilling a task. E.g. wearing the hat of the leader or the > researcher or. meaning playing a special role. > > So I want to suggest, that there is not necessarily a distinction between > beeing an artist or manager (unless we need it to confuse people ;-)) > rather than between acting/playing the role of artist or manager. > > > > So, what would be the description of these two "hats" one person could > wear and the distinction between them? J > > > > Katrin > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Von: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Pierre Guillet de Monthoux > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2007 20:42 > An: [log in to unmask] > Betreff: Re: Without distinction... > > > > sorry the guys name was Fourier not Fournier...i think... or maybe it was > Furieux... or perhaps Funnier or.... > > but who cares anyway > > i am just too confused > > p > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Pierre Guillet de Monthoux > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:19 PM > > Subject: Re: Without distinction... > > > > No No Hans > > that is really the ulitimate solution. Recall the cranky utopian called > Charles Fournier? He constructed an extremely complicated model of > reality with a huge number of distinctions and categories. And all on > purpose; for Fourier was convinced that complex models would make people > dizzy and perplex. They would then end up so terribly confused that they > were for ever unable to apply any distinctions at all. > ...Hepp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > So you and Fourier are on the right path, both of you are simply > geniuses, or... so to speak... ARTISTS! > > p > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hansen, Hans > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:36 PM > > Subject: Without distinction... > > > > > > If we didn't have distinction between manager and ARTIST, what would > fret about getting over? We first must make the distinction in order > to call for its elimination. > > > > I am also afraid these distinctions might be intractably conflated > with notions of identity. If we lost the distinction, how would we > define ourselves? As soon as we started to make sense of anything, > from any perspective, we would slip into distinction-making. "I see > things THIS way, but need to see them THAT way." implies distinct > positions. > > > > It is hard to construct lines of action, to act, without constructing > an identity of some sort that for us, explains to us, "who is taking > action?" I also must also separate myself from other objects in order > to act ON/TOWARDS those objects. > > > > So I might find myself saying that we cannot act without creating some > distinct identity IN WHICH we are acting. We are lazy and use a > priori categories like manager and artist. > > > > "As a _________, I take the action of calling for the removal of the > boundary between manager and artist." You cannot call for the removal > of a boundary without constructing another. ( I suspect I am way off > here, but say it just to see what it evokes. ). > > > > If we cannot act in absence of an identity and distinction is a > natural by-product of identity, how will boundaries ever be removed? > Well, maybe a PARTICULAR boundary such as manager/ARTIST can be > removed, but for the new entity to take action, it will need an > identity. > > > > So maybe we're stuck? Maybe the work is all about bridging between > MANAGER/artist? To take the perspective of the OTHER, we need them to > remain an OTHER. > > > > Is it crazy to suggest that instead of eliminating boundaries, we look > to create even MORE boundaries so that we can learn through synthesis > of a greater number of combinations? > > > > Hans > > > > p.s. this is somehow too simplistic and I am missing something big > that doesn't occur to me at the moment. but you gotta hit 'send' > sometime or you'll die holding a mouse. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > >