 |
 |
I hope the snow is beautiful, Steve.
The triple bottom line is a warm thought for a cold day. But why should
we have to leap over a higher bar than anyone else? If the standard applies, it
should apply to all. On the other hand, maybe it already does. Could the
problem be that those in power positions (editors of A journals, for example)
have a different aesthetic than the one(s) we fancy? Or to put it another way,
do we only get published when an editor's aesthetics resonates with our own? Do
we need to confront the problem of some editors applying aesthetic judgments
(what other kind is there) that render our work 'ugly' and inadmissible but only
acknowledge their use of aesthetic criteria when they want to hoist us on our
own petard? If this is the case, then we share a challenge that artists have faced
for ions, changing the criteria for what is beautiful. Does anything change if
we frame the matter in this way?
Maybe what I wish for is a future when everyone declares what they find
to be beautiful. That way at least we can begin to sense what sort of aesthetics
inspire the editors of our journals and know better what we must overcome to
get published. When I was a doctoral candidate we used to feed off the piles of
papers the faculty “suggested” we read. I think that established my
first academic aesthetic, of course it was strictly in terms that were
acceptable at my school, but never prevented me from taking off in my own
direction as soon as I learned to use the library. Still, having this sense of
what was valued as beautiful helped me craft a dissertation that passed muster
and gave me access to others’ realities in way that helped me create my
own. I truly wonder whether, if editors posted their list of most beautiful
examples of scholarship, it might improve more than the ability of researchers
to find proper outlets for their work.
Mary Jo Hatch
C. Coleman McGehee Eminent Scholars Research Professor of Banking and
Commerce
Monroe Hall
Charlottesville VA 22904-7074
tel. 434-924-1096, fax 434-924-7074
E-mail [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Taylor
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Art's place in organization studies
I recently had the experience of a reviewer (for Organization Science)
telling me that my writing should be more beautiful. The reviewer
was
suggesting that if I was serious about aesthetics than the reviewers
should
be judging the writing on beauty. I tend to agree.
Unfortunately for me
that didn't mean they weren't also applying more traditional criteria,
so it
translates into the bar being that much higher. But I have to say
that I am
okay with this because it does open the door for including artistic
criteria
in the assessment.
Personally, when I hear Daved's question, I find myself more interested
in
what would businesses that have taken seriously the idea of management
as an
art look like? I have dreams of leaders and managers caring as
much about
whether their actions are beautiful (or comic or sublime or whatever
aesthetic category they aspire to) as they care about whether they will
produce profit and are doing the right thing. For me that would
be a really
interesting triple bottom line - artistic, moral, and aesthetic
results.
Just waiting for today's snow storm,
Steve
On 4/9/07 1:38 PM, "Daved Barry" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I'm not sure what other things might change. I'd really welcome
more of
> these 'what would/could a
> the rest of you--it's a good exercise I think. And maybe it will
help whisk
> things on their way. Teike, Philippe, Henrik, Claus (and others of
you who
> are professionally trained artists getting MOS PhDs) . . . you're
in a good
> position to say something about this! Lucy? Deborah? Vicki? Brad?
Eric? Some
> of you other SCOS denizens as well ;-)--Steve Linstead, Heather? D
>
Steven S. Taylor, PhD
Assistant Professor
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Department of Management
+1 508-831-5557