Hu ,
what a ...commitment to this "commitiment and social creativity" 
discussion!!
The fire image that Steve uses takes me back to a recent message from 
David Barry commenting this paper on Aesthetic...David was suggesting 
that differents kinds of fires drives us and can illustrate different 
innovations processes...

My thoughts after this were about the firework side . It reminded me 
of other studies about aethetics of resistance (of hackers for 
example, seen by Peter Case). When David described his youth as a 
firework fan, excited by the mess he triggered among the neighborhood, 
I couldn4t help thinking that this beuty of explosions he refers to is 
linked to defining yourself against others. As explosions and bursting 
are also the fasciniuting parts of fires in fireplaces, I wonder about 
the dimension of "resistance" in any "fire/passionm" motivation : then 
any commitment to an intrisic motivation shoud be partly one of 
opposing to others...Defining which others and what fire would be the 
essence of commitment...and of social creativity?

> As I understand it, Amabilie argues that extrinsic motivation drives 
out
> intrinsic motivation (at least in part).  So if intrinsic motivation 
is the
> fire/passion that drives the artist and extrinsic motivation is the 
money
> your are paid, the desire for the money starts to drive out or get 
in the
> way of the fire/passion.  The idea is that you start to care about 
and be
> motivated by the money rather than your passion and thus you lose 
contact
> with the passion which is the source of artistic creativity.  I think
> constraints are a completely different issue.  If you can stay 
tapped into
> the fire/passion then the constraints provide some form/structure 
that guide
> the fire/passion.  Without constraints you just burn aimlessly.  (I 
note
> that when I play with idea of constraints with students we always 
find a u
> shaped curve where some constraints help, but eventually too many
> constraints undermine creativity.)
> 
> I think Harvey is saying pretty much the same thing when he talks 
about
> enabling an artist's passion with the commission.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> 
> On 10/31/05 12:47 PM, "Robert Austin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > This discussion is veering close to something that I think might be
> > an anomaly in psychology research. Let me see if I can connect with
> > what Mary Jo is asking and raise a related question.
> > 
> > There's a pretty robust finding in social psychology of creativity
> > that suggests that when artists work under extrinsic motivation
> > schemes they produce outcomes that are judged less creative than 
when
> > motivation is intrinsic (at least on "non-algorithmic" tasks). For
> > example, Teresa Amabilie, who's done a lot of this research, has a
> > very interesting study that seems to show that artists working on
> > commission produce less creative outcomes than when they are not
> > working on commission. Amabile argues for granting this robust
> > finding the status of a principle (the "intrinsic motivation
> > principle" -- "intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity, but
> > extrinsic motivation is detrimental" Amabile, 1996). One is 
tempted,
> > within the current discussion context, to apply the principle 
broadly
> > to conclude that external intrusions into the work of artists might
> > be generally unwelcome and thus resisted, whether they are
> > commitments someone else chooses, or socialization pressures, or 
some
> > sort of incentive payment.
> > 
> > On the other hand, many artists work within very rigorous, 
externally
> > composed constraints. Opening night for a theatre company, for
> > example. Or the budget, or limitations of materials. These too are
> > intrusions into the work of external origin.  But some artists I've
> > interviewed argue that these kinds of constraints can be triggers
> > that break them through to entirely new kinds of creation.
> > 
> > Which brings me to a question: What's the difference between the
> > external intrusions detrimental to artful creation and those that 
act
> > as triggers to even greater creative breakthroughs?
> > 
> > Rob
> > 
> > On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Hatch, Mary Jo wrote:
> > 
> >> He everyone, I wanted to weigh in on this discussion with a
> >> question -- should we be considering the need to refuse heavy
> >> socialization here? Let me explain. What I am thinking about is
> >> that the artists I have known well (not that many, but a few) have
> >> all struck me as remarkably free of the need to conform to 
cultural
> >> expectations, almost a need to work against these in order to see
> >> beyond the expected to create art. If this is true of lots of
> >> artists than perhaps what you are discussing as freedom from
> >> commitment to groups is simply necessistated by avoidance of
> >> socialization pressures.
> >> 
> >> Does that lead anywhere?
> >> 
> >> Jo
> >> 
> >> Mary Jo Hatch
> >> 
> >> ________________________________
> >> 
> >> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network 
on
> >> behalf of Jürgen Bergmann
> >> Sent: Mon 10/31/2005 12:38 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Commitment and social creativity
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hi Ken,
> >> thanks for that answer!
> >> I completly agree with you,
> >> and especially with your thougt:
> >> "It seems to me that refusing commitment as a
> >>  conditioned reaction does not demonstrate
> >>  personal independence or artistic freedom."
> >> What I meant was freedom of commitment.
> >> Jürgen
> >> 
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> An: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 31. Oktober 2005 07:55
> >> Betreff: Commitment and social creativity
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Dear Philippe and Jürgen,
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks for your thoughts. I have puzzled on this
> >>> for many years. It's clear that this phenomenon
> >>> describes the actual behavior of artists. What is
> >>> less clear to me is that this should be so. I'm
> >>> not asking "why" this is so. I know why it is so.
> >>> I am asking, rather, whether it is necessarily
> >>> so. I do not believe that this kind of behavior
> >>> is necessarily an aspect of creativity or
> >>> artistry.
> >>> 
> >>> One of the interesting research streams for a
> >>> group such as AACORN involves asking what kinds
> >>> of systems can function as robust artistic
> >>> networks. So far, I have managed to identify more
> >>> questions than answers.
> >>> 
> >>> This is an important issue for artists who hope
> >>> to generate social change, to influence
> >>> organizations, or to function in expanded frames
> >>> of art that transcends the boundaries of a
> >>> specific physical work. It is also significant
> >>> for artists who hope to develop or work in
> >>> organizations -- nonprofit organizations and art
> >>> organizations as well as businesses. This applies
> >>> to most artists who do not inherit wealth or have
> >>> a generous and undemanding patron.
> >>> 
> >>> I was wrestling with the issue again in a chapter
> >>> for a recent book from MIT Press titled _At A
> >>> Distance: Precursors to Internet Art and
> >>> Activism_. For that chapter, I borrowed a line
> >>> from Adam Smith to write about "The wealth and
> >>> poverty of networks."
> >>> 
> >>> It seems to me that refusing commitment as a
> >>> conditioned reaction does not demonstrate
> >>> personal independence or artistic freedom. As a
> >>> conditioned reaction, refusing to accept any
> >>> commitment simply because one is requested to
> >>> make a commitment is a pathological symptom. I'm
> >>> leaving for Taiwan in a couple of hours, so I
> >>> will have to think on this for a while before
> >>> posting again. My intuition, however, is to say
> >>> that there must be some form of healthy
> >>> commitment that involves the right balance of
> >>> social cohesion and personal freedom.
> >>> 
> >>> Think about some of the great liberation
> >>> movements of the 20th century -- Hind Swaraj and
> >>> satyagraha in India, the American civil rights
> >>> movement, the anti-war movement that finally
> >>> ended the Viet Nam War, the Velvet Revolution in
> >>> Czechoslovakia, Solidarity in Poland, the
> >>> anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. They
> >>> worked because human beings asked for commitment
> >>> and other human beings responded by committing
> >>> themselves.
> >>> 
> >>> These movements involved social artistry and
> >>> social creativity, not entirely in the direction
> >>> that we think of when we speak of "art," but very
> >>> much in the direction we hope for when artists
> >>> move toward similar kinds of goals. Consider, for
> >>> example, Joseph Beuys's movement for direct
> >>> democracy or the Free International University.
> >>> The directions were similar, but these artistic
> >>> networks functioned without commitment, and
> >>> failed, therefore, to achieve their stated goals.
> >>> 
> >>> As social sculpture, I'd have a hard time arguing
> >>> that the movement for direct democracy was more
> >>> successful than Solidarity in Poland or SNCC (the
> >>> Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) in
> >>> Alabama. In contrast, I have observed
> >>> significantly higher levels of organizational
> >>> pathology in art organizations than in creative
> >>> social organizations.
> >>> 
> >>> The evidence of organizational learning suggests
> >>> that commitment, empathy, and trust have a great
> >>> deal to do with creativity. If this is so, it
> >>> follows that refusing commitment is not a
> >>> necessary condition of artistic creativity, but a
> >>> factor that inhibits creativity in some
> >>> circumstances and defeats the possibility of
> >>> artistic achievement in others.
> >>> 
> >>> Much to think about here.
> >>> 
> >>> Yours,
> >>> 
> >>> Ken
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Philippe Mairesse wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Ken,
> >>> It works!
> >>> and I must say that receiving, as a test, such a beautiful thing
> >>> as this
> >>> catalogue-artwork of yours... is great!
> >>> 
> >>> I loved your comments about the strength-weakness of 
networks...it
> >>> reactivated my thoughts about commitment and volunteering, as 
seen
> >>> in art
> >>> activities: my observation is that artists commit themselves only
> >>> when
> >>> 
> >> they
> >> 
> >>> are totally free of any commitment...it could explain the no-feed
> >>> back you
> >>> got : since people were ASKED to return the books... they 
precisely
> >>> didn't...The difficulty is : how to get what you want without
> >>> asking for
> >>> 
> >> it.
> >> 
> >>> This seems to be a necessary condition for collaborative working 
in
> >>> art...and maybe everywhere else (love)
> >>> (breeding)(teaching)(caring)(living)(dying?)
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> 
> >>> Jürgen Bergmann wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Philippe,
> >>> you got it!
> >>> This is exactly the reason
> >>> why it is so difficult
> >>> to realise real artwork
> >>> within the business context.
> >>> 
> >>> The result is in general
> >>> nothing else as follows:
> >>> 
> >>> " Le projet sera d'un caractère unique à travers
> >>> un projet d'art exceptionnel que réaliseront des
> >>> artistes de renommé. En collaboration étroite
> >>> avec les architectes, les paysagistes et les
> >>> maîtres d'ouvrage l'aménagement prendra un aspect
> >>> sans pareil."
> >>> 
> >>> This kind of artistic commitment
> >>> is not soustainable
> >>> and dilutes conscience
> >>> in commercial opportunism.
> >>> 
> >>> The lack of futur
> >>> now
> >>> is the decadence
> >>> of a value system
> >>> without values.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > Robert Austin
> > Technology and Operations Management
> > Harvard Business School
> > [log in to unmask]
> 
> -- 
> Steven S. Taylor, PhD
> Assistant Professor
> Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> Department of Management
> 100 Institute Rd
> Worcester, MA 01609
> USA
> 
> 

--