Ive been an artist and designer all my life dabbling in drawing, paint, sculpture, animation, interaction, music, etc.., more recently turning to more traditional opposites of art, but have always found it interesting that I haven't run into many other artists or designers who are really well read or care too much about complexity science or anything of the sort... normally the space tends to be filled with "scientists" and "engineers" of many sorts.
I think the idea of what art is, and what it means to be an artist may have something to do with this, so I found some good pages on Wikipedia covering some of these. I think it may come down to a simple notion that an artist (painter, sculptor, musician, actor, storyteller etc...) must become chaos and complexity while at the same time respecting and honoring complication and order, while scientists and engineers and managers I don't think I have ever really heard them use language that they feel they must become the change, in order to no longer experience change... but moreso focus on employing principles from complexity or even art at a distance to achieve, to accomplish, to get somewhere, etc... But I may be a little too biased and over exaggerating or generalizing.
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
Point being that art comes from an individuals mind, and of an individuals mind, in an attempt to externalize some expression using sign patterns hoping to affect another individuals mind in a grand attempt to "bring them to movement". While all along, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder..." (self-signification).
A little more subjective, but focused on what makes a "fine" art piece, which I may collapse down to simply whether it brought someone to movement, whether it moves people... even the artist himself.
The "Elements of Art":
Texture, form, line, shape, value, color, etc... are what makes up a work of art. It is how they are patterned by an artist that create a piece which may bring others to movement upon viewing it and experiencing it.
The "Principles of Art":
Unity, variety, balance, contrast, proportion, pattern, rhythm, etc... are the methods employed by the artist while arranging the elements in a particular fashion. These I believe would be most relevant to similar notions found in complexity science, particularly self-signification and pattern and rhythm.
So found throughout the ideas of art, there is an appreciation for the past and the future, as reflected in the work of art produced by any said artist, but there is a focus on bringing people to movement upon experience and reflection... a focus on instilling a desire, a passion, from the inside out... so that what may have previously seemed so chaotic or complex due to unshared states of mind, may now be reconciled and rallied into organization... like sending an electric current through the individuals, an energy, which works to align them... but not from the outside in but from the unknowable inside out.
"Sense-making" becomes less about trying to make sense of the outside world in any objective manner, and moreso about instilling a state of mind so that particular outside worlds can emerge in certian ways as perceived by yourself and others. Group sense-making becomes more about shared states of mind, rather than shared knowledge of a system... because when there is a shared state of mind, the necessary and relevant elements of a system will emerge allowing the group to move in unison... not because of external initiatives being employed, but because of an intrinsic shared state of signification.
How does this relate to companies, or data models, or countries, or simple friendships and other relationships?
We have spent so much time trying to externalize what the company is in the form of rules and policies and contracts and communication packages and roles and titles and such, that there isn't much left inside of the individuals... under the assumption that this leads to greater security and such... but there needs to be a reclamation on the part of the individuals... looking to startup companies, and cultures that do not have a written language and cannot read or write may aid us in this process.
Constructs should work like art. They should bring us to movement... and then we should accept its demise down the top 40 charts as we have moved on, and so has it.
The minute you feel something needs to be clarified or written down or agreed upon, you should already be aware you are entering dangerous waters... where more energy will be spent on maintenance and support of structure, thinking that it is the structure that gives you significance rather than your providing the structure with significance.
We need to be creating works of art, movements.
Comments (2)
Hello Mark,
I wonder whether you are selling management short, and not giving it its due. A few good people I have known are wonderful managers. I have a suspicion that a couple of them might consider management as an art form.
It could well be so, if we consider that there is some other, different set of symbolic elements being formed in good management. Of course, it must be done quite carefully and delicately, as poor art in this field has terrible consequences. The consequences are easily evidenced by the hierarchical, overtly bureaucratic and ineffective organizational structures that are common.
The branch of philosophy leading to ethics might be pertinent to this viewpoint. Constructs like emotional intelligence and methods like appreciative inquiry have, I feel, been promoted by artists of this special form.
It is a difficult area where skills are hard to attain. The management arts have constructs that include at least what we recognize as leadership. The proportion, patterns and rhythms of management art that are beautiful are readily apparent in organizations that work. I suspect that good art and good management are much alike, although I am not well versed in either to provide much help in distinguishing the characteristics that they may or may not share.
Regards, tony
Posted by tony joyce | August 28, 2010 2:20 AM
Posted on August 28, 2010 02:20
I would wonder whether those few good people you have known are actually "managing" though...? Because I would agree with you there are certainly people who occupy this space in a company that do great things, so it may be the word "manager" that I have more of a problem with.
What I mean by that is that I would consider those who "manage" try to bring people to movement from the outside in, using external motivational methods, and I would say this is because this type of manager is more concerned with the ideal future state, so it becomes about rallying people in the present to move towards that future.
But I would suspect that what some great people are doing isn't really management, and shouldn't be called management, which is presenting a work of art reflecting their inner passion, but honoring and respecting what it instills in others, in regards to how it brings them to movement... allowing the present to progress in a way towards an unknowable future but one that can be honored and respected by the interactants.
So I wouldn't really call this type management, because there isn't anything there to manage... once something arises that people can look at and say "this needs to be managed" and "we need to find someone to manage this" then it becomes about supporting, and maintaining a structure, and it is at this point that I believe more energy becomes spent on this maintenance, because they are attempting to hold on to something for too long... But all the while this is what allows something like a "Microsoft" to stick around.
Leadership I think is more about instill something in people that you HOPE is in line with your passion, and that what you instilled in them will serendipitously bring them to movement in the same direction... because otherwise you are just pulling or pushing them along.
Posted by Mark Spivey | August 28, 2010 4:32 PM
Posted on August 28, 2010 16:32