 |
 |
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 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*www.arlenegoldbard.com*415-690-9992 > > > > > >