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
>>
>>
>>
>
|
