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