 |
 |
Hi Steve, Thanks. I believe your question is a critical one and see the question of judgment of the works naturally arising with answers always being conditional. However putting the tangible art work aside for the moment and considering the intrinsic process of its making. I offer the quality of all outcomes are commensurate with the quality of engagement and its that that can be limited by the quality of the artwork available or being made. Engagement comes first in my world and I consider this on two levels- the second person observer of art and the first person maker of art. Placing an emphasis on the later is emphasising the process of being involved as the maker producing the outcome; an emphasis on embodied learning. The first is maybe a necessary introduction to making for some people but is an arms length involvement where learning is inclined to be more cognitive in its realisation, and music is not an exception here. When people in either situation are ‘pushed into' or better ‘pushed by' the process the outcomes have more significance. (more learning, different learning, new ideas). Being extended means often there is a phase of frustration and confusion as newbies to art based ideas/practises shift their perceptions. A difficult stage to work through but mostly a sure sign of change. So I advocate when ‘observing' art it must be of a high standard so the observer wont easily find limits to their engagement. If the work is good an experienced facilitator can point out (teach) what might be implicitly understood but not conscious therefore extending the engagement. On the other hand when people create art it is emphasising an embodied learning that is mostly limited by their skills in the chosen art form. The focus of successfully facilitating these experiences falls back on design. Summarising. In my experience once people become intrinsically engaged in the process the medium becomes secondary. Focusing on the quality of each individuals engagement becomes the quality of the overall learning and its outcomes, be they skills or art works. best David Creativepathways Sent from my iPhone > On 10/06/2016, at 12:15 AM, Taylor, Steven S <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi, everyone > > Last week at EURAM, Philippe Mairesse spoke about his work with accounting students and talked about how he pushed the students to do work that was better art. I am also struck that Jane Hilberry also spoke about how she pushes students to write better poetry (http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/oa/vol1/iss1/6/). This has gotten me thinking about the question of quality of the art (product/outcome) when using arts-based methods for leadership/managerial development – in short does it matter if the art is good if we’re not doing it to produce good art? I don’t think anyone would claim that the LEGO sculptures created in a Serious Play process are good art, or even that the facilitators try to get people to create better (rather worse) art as part of the process. > > My first take on this is that pushing for better quality art also pushes farther into deeply embodied and often mysterious knowing and away from just representing our cognitive processes in visual (or poetic or whatever) forms. It pushes us into more ambiguous and more interesting forms that also allow to go to new places (Barry & Meisiek’s departures) than something more straight forward and cognitive does. Thus the push for better art also has a very useful purpose. > > So, what do you think? How does concern for the quality of the art product/outcome fit into your own practice of arts-based methods in organizations (if you have one and it does)? How would you think about this? What questions does this raise for you? > > Regards, > > Steve Taylor > > Steven S. Taylor, PhD > [cid:4FEA4C90-AEE4-4F3C-99DF-657EB4452699]