Since the beginning of
management studies issues and techniques of other disciplines such
as mathematics, engineering, psychology, sociology and biology have
become part of general management studies and methods. Management scientists
also studied the arts, however artistic thinking and production did
not really become part of economic discourse – only the phenomenon
of “creativity” was given more attention.
Since only recently,
management scientists are beginning to look again behind the curtain
of the arts and are becoming increasingly interested in how they produce.
This growing interest can be seen in the rising number of publications
of the last few years, where a transfer of Know-how from the arts into
the field of economy has been carried out. Eikhof & Haunschild
(2004) have been studying the operation of production in theatres in
terms of innovation, mobility, project competence and networking and
have discovered that in theatres future economic working structures
are established. Seifter and Economy (2001) try to develop, by using
the example of an orchestra without a conductor, a new working model
for „intelligent companies”. Also Tröndle (2005) focuses
on the organisation of the orchestra, using the methodical perspective
of recent system theory and synergetics: What can be learnt by these
organisations, which perform at an incredible level of coordination
and perfection in making their product? How can such an organisation
be built? What kind of culture does it need and how does it learn?
Focussing less on the organisational models but on “creative-aesthetic
competence” John and Heid are trying to discover new ways of
how to use the potential of artistic creativity and methods in the
business sector. The curators Brellochs & Schrat have reflected
the role of organizational learning in an exhibition platform entitled „Produkt
und Vision“ – focusing on the possibilities of artistic
manoeuvring and working as critical-aesthetic consultants in companies.
Tschacher & Tröndle (2005) have performed an analysis of the
arts and its internal system logic, in order to determine the necessary
conditions for the arts to operate as a creative source? Might the
organisation of the art system be used to organise a company, which
must also survive within highly innovative and dynamic markets?
This
humble inventory shows a rising interest on the interface of art and
economy. The focus, as such, has shifted away from the art object (e.g.
a picture) and art history, towards the processes of and behind the
production of art. The following article picks up this line and focuses
on a topic which is rarely discussed: the aesthetic construction of
values, or in other words: an economy of meaning. Ever since the devaluation
of art as pure craftsmanship (ready mades, conceptual art, interventions,
performances etc.) it is becoming increasingly more relevant to reflect
upon a process orientated perspective, of how artists manage to raise
the symbolic value of something. The development of art in the 20th
century clearly shows that art is able to transgress its own boundaries,
yet all the while remains within the frame of “art” so
it is not to be confused e.g. as philosophy, housework or mental disease
(Luhmann 1999). Even items that are mass-produced, temporary or “non-authorised” can
be charged with value and become unique items, with a high aesthetic
and economic value. The artist is not just creative in “making“ the
art piece but furthermore in situating it as an art piece. This is,
nowadays, a true cultural innovation: producing values by establishing
a specific economy of meaning.
Firstly, the article will analyse different
kinds of visual art works and artists of the 20th century. The predominant
issue of concern will be to show the different strategies at hand in
the production of aesthetic value. Secondly, the article will then
lay down a theoretical foundation for the insemination of value within
the arts field. Thirdly, the article will address how these variable
strategies can be crossbred in the field of economics.
The general
methodological framework used will be system theory (with slight differences
also known self-organization, synergetics or cybernetics II). An artist
or an artist group could be described as a system, which tries to survive
in its environment - the core concept of newer system theory. The benefits
of viewing art strategies from a system theoretical perspective are
that it can be easily linked to, as well as profit from, other sciences
where system theoretical approaches have been introduced, such as psychology
(gestalt, Arnheim), philosophy/sociology (Luhmann's self-referential
systems), communication theory (von Foerster, Watzlawik), the natural
sciences (Haken, Varela, Maturana) and management (Weick, Parson, Ulrich,
Baecker).
What is the use of describing art under this process orientated
systems theoretical perspective? The production of novelty and innovation
are nowadays in a grey zone, shifting from the technical towards the “non-technical” (the
official EU-term). Markets are conquered and lost, less by costs but
more by meaning and lifestyle. The value of something is the value
it has to someone, especially in satisfied markets. Economists could
gain valuable knowledge from the arts, because they have learnt how
to survive in an environment of overproduction and therefore have developed
strategies of commodity building.
Presented on: Conference of the European Sociological Association(ESA)
Research Network for the Sociology of the Arts
Lüneburg and Hamburg
(Germany), March 28- April 1, 2007
http://new-arts-frontiers.eu
Links
http://performative-science.net/2007/07/05/epidemisch-systemisches-kunst-denken/print/ |
 |
|
