I wonder if there isn't something to be said for "special moments that go beyond craft" rather than art or transformation. A little story: working on a creativity workshop with MBA students, I had them in groups playing out well-known stories - the first landing on the moon, the nativity etc - with the restrictions that there could be no dialogue, they had to be the scenery and props themselves and there had to be a continuous soundtrack of some kind. You know the sort of thing - all with the purpose of exploring what helps and hinders people being creative. One group, who were playing out the story of the Titanic, enacted a tiny scene in which they hugged their knees while lying on their backs and rocked back and forth alternately to make the motion of a great engine's pistons whilst making engine noises. And the rest of the students were riveted. Was it craft? No, not really - it certainly wasn't deliberate or polished. Was it art? No idea but probably not. But was it magic? Absolutely. The rest of their story fell to pieces, I think because they all realised they had inadvertently done something special. And I can still vividly remember it, some ten years later.

And a note on context and purpose: my background is in Youth Theatre and Young People's Theatre and Theatre in Education and I now do lots of Forum Theatre with corporate clients. So lots of theatre for a purpose. That's never stopped us trying to produce the best theatre we possibly can within the constraints of budget, time, etc etc. And I like to apply the same principle towards any participants on courses that I run - try to do the best that you can. It doesn't matter if you think you can't sing/act/draw - just sing/act/draw the best that you can.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Weir
Sent: 12 June 2016 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quality of art products in arts-based methods in organizations

I agree with Steve. Focussing on craft gives a semi-objective frame of reference and some comparative possibility. On the whole  I fear  (like  Piers), notions  of " psycho/spiritual transformation"  which do worry me. How do we know? over what timeframes? by what criteria are "transformations" measured.  In terms of encouraging competent leadership it is mastery of the transactional that encourages the capability of the transformational. Likewise with "epiphanies". What gives us teachers the right to create transformations and produce epiphanies?. What we are doing is transmitting knowledge, encouraging discussion, permitting insight, enlarging frameworks, improving craft, nurturing confidence...

David.
David Weir

Hadleigh House

Main Street

Skirpenbeck

York

YO 41 1HF

01759371949

07833366773

[log in to unmask]


On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:37:25 +0000, "Taylor, Steven S" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Focusing on craft helps my thinking a bit on this. It raises the 
> question for me, what does insisting on high(er) standards of 
> craftsmanship do for the person who is engaging in the artistic 
> process? Especially, in an environment where the purpose is not to 
> create art? My guess is that insisting on standards of craftsmanship 
> does a variety of things, such as pushing the person to stay with 
> their senses (which I think is one of the deep lessons of artistic 
> practice (see http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/oa/vol1/iss1/15/ for 
> Claus’ explanation)). I would also think that there is something 
> valuable in a craft orientation (see 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-014-2116-9#/page-1
> for more) and it might help people learn this craft orientation.
> 
> And I suspect it may often trigger anxiety in people, the “I’m not an 
> artist” feeling, “I’m not a writer”, etc. I sometimes ask my students 
> to use crayons and I tell them, “no one ever created a great work of 
> art with crayons,” just to reduce the anxiety of asking MBA students to draw.
> 
> 
> And I suspect it triggers anxiety in facilitators. I know that I don’t 
> have the craft skill in drawing to help people to a higher level of 
> craftsmanship in their drawing, so I don’t try to. In short, insisting 
> on craftsmanship requires some mastery of that craft. So, I have no 
> problem in insisting on craftsmanship when I ask students to write and 
> perform stories because I have some craft skills (developed over many 
> years of
> practice) there. I know how to help them raise their level of 
> craftsmanship and I think something useful happens when I do that.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/12/16, 6:03 AM, "Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations 
> Research Network on behalf of Piers Ibbotson" <[log in to unmask] 
> on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> >How about this: "Art is a matter of opinion". Craftsmanship maybe not.
> >What this conversation has opened up for me is some useful questions 
> >about the purpose of arts based activities in areas that are not 
> >about training or developing artists. In my practise I have only been 
> >interested in the processes and their effects. Respect for the 
> >processes and discipline when engaging in them are the craft 
> >constraints I emphasise. I have always been wary of attempts or 
> >claims to bring about psycho/spiritual transformation. Partly because 
> >I am not sure that's what I should be doing and also because I am not 
> >convinced that engagement with artistic PRACTICE necessarily achieves it.
> >Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Weir <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sender: "Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network"
> >	<[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 08:34:25
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: David Weir <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: FW: Quality of art products in arts-based methods in 
> >organizations
> >
> >What is "high standard"? Who judges this?
> >Whose will prevails in matters of artistic standards?
> >
> >David
> >
> >David Weir
> >
> >Hadleigh House
> >
> >Main Street
> >
> >Skirpenbeck
> >
> >York
> >
> >YO 41 1HF
> >
> >01759371949
> >
> >07833366773
> >
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:58:32 +0000, "Taylor, Steven S" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Forwarding this response from Piers - I concur that Jane Hilberry¹s 
> >>point  is about insistence on good craftsmanship and I wonder if 
> >>that gets us to  a different conversation than talking about quality 
> >>in art products?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 6/9/16, 1:25 PM, "[log in to unmask]"
> >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Hmmm. Muddle here about craft and art I think. Well crafted can be 
> >> >unoriginal. Profound can be, on the face of it rough, but never 
> >> >poorly crafted. Peter Brook useful here? Poor theatre vs deadly theatre.
> >>Artists
> >> >very rarely produce good art let alone people in a workshop. An 
> >> >insistence on good craftsmanship is a very useful constraint when
> >>trying
> >> >to bring about insight in a group (Jane Hilberry's point I think).
> >> >Artists don't make "Art" remember, they make books or plays or 
> >> >films or paintings and if they are making a living at it, what 
> >> >they make will be well crafted.
> >> >Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: "Taylor, Steven S" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Sender: "Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network"
> >> >	<[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:15:47
> >> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Reply-To: "Taylor, Steven S" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Subject: Quality of art products in arts-based methods in 
> >> >organizations
> >> >
> >> >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 we¹re not doing it to produce 
> >> >good art? I don¹t 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 & 
> >> >Meisiek¹s
> >>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]
> >> >


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus