 |
 |
I
have been absorbing the conversation that I seemed to have triggered with my
recent post with both disappointment and amazement. I was not going to even
‘reply’ or ‘explain’, but feel now that I must at least
thank Michael Gold for braving his comments.
On
one hand…it feels rather good to be such a catalyst for conversation and
debate. It certainly has illuminated the disparity of viewpoints of what AACORN
is, and how AACORN should operate, etc. I think Daved Barry’s synopsis of
AACORN’s history offers the revelation that although AACORN opened its
doors, it may not have really considered the impact of moving beyond academics
and academic culture.
Last
night I had the extreme pleasure of meeting with and attending a lecture by Dr.
Alan Lightman, a well known scientist(currently at MIT) and
novelist(Einstein’s Dreams), a man who straddles both science and art masterfully.
We spent some time talking about intersections, the emergence that they can
evoke, and the ‘resistance’ of dissimilar groups to really engage
with each other. I share this briefly because herein lies my disappointment
this recent AACORN stream of conversation, which I think in so many ways
illuminates the divide between academics and practitioners.
My
goal was not self promotion. My goal was to share a reference, a resource. I
know that I have sourced other AACORN member’s postings as they were of
interest or relevant. If someone posted an article or text or conference, I
searched it to see how it jived with my work, how I could use it to strengthen
my work. I assumed others did the same. And I assumed that sharing at that
level was an objective of AACORN.
In
the world of consulting, we actually have to go fetch our work, and engage with
pragmatism on a daily basis that does not exist in academia. For those of us
seeking to engage business leaders and members to enter the intersection of
Business and the Performing Arts, it is helpful to know and reference what
others are doing, where they are being published, how their work is evolving.
This was my intention, and clearly not received in that way, or welcomed.
So
for now…perhaps AACORN is in flux. But I assure you I am done posting.
AACORN does not ‘feel’ like a safe place for me, to be me.
From: Aesthetics,
Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Daved Barry
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: tricky
Interesting! Toxic amenity? In Europe, I think it’s going
the other way—as times are getting tougher, the arts as a means towards
organizational distinction and innovation seem to be on the upswing (at least
if the EU grants are any indication, as well as my own local experience here in
Lisbon). Granted, there’s a whole conflation with creativity going on as
well, but it hasn’t reached toxic proportions yet. Arlene, I’m
sorry if you thought that Aacorn was slanted towards business…it’s
not meant to be. It clearly originated around a concern for art and organization,
with organization meaning all kinds of things at all kinds of levels
(micro-macro, including societal organization). So, no need to lurk…the
water’s fine (if also turbulent—think jacuzzi). D
From: Aesthetics,
Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Arlene Goldbard
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: tricky
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.
