Thank you Pedro, for this studied, rational presentation.  We should not lose the practitioners' perspective.  We CANNOT lose the practitioners' perspective.  As a practitioner and academic, I need theory to practice, and practice for theory.  I know that is not often thought of by pure theorists, and you have your place too, but...for practice I need theory, and for theory, I need practice.  To me, they are interdependent - not mutually exclusive.

And hey, what's wrong with self promotion?  Is someone jealous?  Is the "tall poppy" syndrome at work here?  (A New Zealand cultural notion that if one of the poppies grows taller than another, it gets cut down).  As a working artist as well, I have to self promote to get work.  So do org practitioners.  If you don't like what's being said, delete it.  Done.

Leslie

________________________________
From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pedro D. Perez [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Not so tricky

Hi all,
Let me first say that I owe much to AACORN, in terms of intellectual stimulation, of whatever scholarly and action-oriented stances I can reach, of professional and personal support, and (not the least) in terms of having gotten to know, appreciate and befriend very many superb hombres y mujeres. Thus, I care.
This tricky tread has many interesting and accurate observations interspersed within it. I am thus dismayed that the tone of exchange has become testy and irritable.
My thanks to Paul Levy for offering the concept of “sharing practice.” It decoded for me Rochelle’s ongoing contribution. While I will admit that relevance can easily get “lost in translation” as I try to experience, vicariously, the practitioner experience from my undergraduate student overload; I also will say that I find the ongoing sharing warm, and brave, and illuminating. Henrik, I wish my hierarchical superiors would expect me to show up unshaven, late, with cojones and a bottle of Rioja!  Michael (Gold), Ralph, I fully sympathize, and readily acknowledge that the bodily experience of the artist/consultant/entrepreneur is not my everyday assemblage point.
How many of us have read “Aesthetic Intelligence”? I have not. But I have had it on the shelf for a while, companionably sitting between Pierre’s “The Art Firm” and Piers Ibbotson’s “The Illusion of Leadership.” I did enjoy the first few pages, while at the same time making the (maybe facile) assumption that I should read it in the context of the audience it is directed towards. And, as Stephen pinpoints with complete accuracy, our exchange has lost, what? Masala? Just the right amount of getting out there and getting exposed? Rochelle gave a lot of advance notice (including her blog) and then the book came along. Did we offer to read? To criticize (constructively)? Her work has sat there, uncommented and unacknowledged…
(How much work sits out there such? Daved, thank you so so very much for the AMR piece with Violina… I will be using that table in class for a long time to come).
So, are we going to lose the practitioner perspective? That would be tragic, and there must be solutions. I know AACORN has had a hard time going beyond JISCMAIL. But maybe we need two JISCMAILs? An “scholarly” one and a “practitioner” one? (I would subscribe to both.)
The sharings of artists, academics, and practitioners are going to be, by necessity, written, expressed, and felt in different languages. Shouldn’t it be, however, a stated objective of AACORN to try to be polyglot? And if we do not understand, maybe ask for translation?
Michael (Spencer), apologies for a long and rambly one. But there is much to say, and if I try to streamline it it will not be sent.
Rochelle, I have meant to read and react to the book for a while. I travel this weekend, planes and airports sound like great places to do so. I look forward to it.

Pedro

Pedro David Pérez
(Almost) Senior Lecturer
Undergraduate Business Management Program, Applied Economics and Management
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
203 Warren Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-7901
607 255-4697
[log in to unmask]

At 08:41 PM 10/8/2009, Ralph Kerle wrote:
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 Rochelle Mucha
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2009 7:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Not so tricky

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.



Rochelle
[cid:6.2.5.6.2.20091008230111.020356c8@cornell.edu.2]

[cid:6.2.5.6.2.20091008230111.020356c8@cornell.edu.3]

Available at Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Intelligence-Reclaim-Power-Senses/dp/1439238499/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249401981&sr=1-2C:\Users\Rochelle\Documents\Business%20Contact%20Manager>.

Rochelle T. Mucha Ph.D.
o.770.649.8203
f.770.649.9898
m.770.367.1779
[log in to unmask]
http://www.businessasperformanceart.com<http://www.businessasperformanceart.com/>

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<http://arlenegoldbard.com/> 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 Web: www.creative-arts.net<http://www.creative-arts.net>




-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [ mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 October 2009 10:18
To: Michael Spencer
Cc: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Web: www.creative-arts.net<http://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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://arlenegoldbard.com/> *415-690-9992