I find this all rather strange. 

A simple question, sensitively articulated, has been asked as to the proprieties for the use of the forum.  By way of response there have been cries of ‘shame’,  accusations of “denigrating and pillorying” another member, and talk of AACORN as not being a ‘safe place’ in which to voice an opinion.   It seems to me that the only person being unjustly pilloried here is the one who asked the question in the first place, and possibly those who had similar thoughts.   If the forum has difficulty in tolerating such an honest enquiry, perhaps someone could explain the purpose of AACORN and how this latest outpouring relates to its premise of encouraging open and frank opinion…

Michael.

 Michael Spencer

 Tel: +44 (0) 7976 432348

 Email: [log in to unmask]

 Web: www.creative-arts.net

From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Garrick Jones
Sent: 10 October 2009 00:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: unsubscribe

On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:01, John Cimino wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

It wasn't so long ago that I nominated Rochelle Mucha into our community.  I did so with enthusiasm because I know Rochelle to be bright and generous in her thinking and sure to be a great conrtributor to our on-line dialogues.  I was also ever so hopeful of stimulating our collective intelligence with the content of Rochelle's new book.  What better forum to engage around ideas newly formulated and so central to our concerns?  A discussion of substance, readings and multiple perspectives -- that's AACORN at its best.  As a practitioner, rather than a member of the academy, I know something of the dance we all do adjusting to the lingos, values and perspectives of our respective orientations.  Most often, I'm happy to say, we are fairly graceful in negotiating our two-steps.  But something has gone very wrong in this instance.  We're stepping on one another toes and raising one another's hackles.  Most importantly to me, we've done injury to a new member who joined us with good will and high hopes.  And if, per chance, one felt at odds with what appeared to be self-promotion, surely there are kinder ways and more appropriate channels to take this under consideration.

I hope that we have not lost Rochelle from our community.  She is championing her ideas as we all must by one means or another.  In sharing them with us, she has invited our professional review.  Let us be colleagues who debate substance and contribute to one another's growth as scholars and pracitioners.  Surely that is still possible.

John Cimino

Creative Leaps International

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask]">Ralph Kerle

To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:59 PM

Subject: Re: tricky

It is a real shame that someone who contributes voluntarily to an on-line community in whatever fashion can be so denigrated and pilloried by members of a community that considers itself intelligent, for simply providing information!! It is also a very poor reflection of some members understanding of on-line behaviours.

For a moment, I thought I might have sent the message promoting an event of mine through AACORN that facilitated this email exchange. I experienced guilt, stress, shame, concern and mystification as to why I might have caused such a reaction.

Goodness knows how Rochelle felt!!

So let me do some loud advertising!!!

I am currently reading Rochelle Mucha's book "Aesthetic Intelligence - Re-Claim the Power of Your Senses" and am finding it a fine contribution to the body of work entitled "Organisational Aesthetics", the type of work and contribution AACORN welcomes or at least I thought it did..  

Now I am not so sure.

This status driven exchange with its subsequent alienation of Rochelle from this community is a reflection of an on-line culture of aesthetic exclusion and snobbery rather than inclusion and relevancy.

Shame, AACORN, shame!!!

Ralph

---

From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Gold
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2009 1:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: tricky

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

m. + 44 (0) 78 1116 9499

f.   + 44 (0) 20 7691 7983

e.  [log in to unmask]

w.  www.ludicgroup.com

Confidentiality and Disclaimer: This email and its attachments are intended

for the addressee only and may be confidential or the subject of legal

privilege. If this email and its attachments have come to you in error you

must take no action based on them, nor must you copy them, distribute them

or show them to anyone.Please contact the sender to notify them of the

error. This email and any attached files have been scanned for the presence

of computer viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments

at your own risk.