ART LEADERSHIP: what leadership is needed for art to occur?
The art firm model of Pierre Guillet de Monthoux (2004) summarizes his systemic vision of ‘the art firm’ (artist, critic, audience, technician) The ‘art firm’ is the organization that makes art happen in our society. It does not refer to a ‘firm’ in the traditional sense (of a corporation or limited) but to all the relationships that make up the possibility of art occurring. De Monthoux makes it clear that the art system and the art work are intimately inter-related. Art is an aesthetic social construction wherein the ‘schwung’ of art (creativity, appreciation, emotion, affect, involvement, energy) plays a key role. The ‘art system’ is socially constructed. But, as it is a social construction, it can dissolve, become ineffective, need repair, maintenance. The relatedness that is needed for art to occur – i.e. be made, appreciated, collected, shared, discussed, etcetera – requires many parties, diverse roles and complex cooperation. All of this needs leadership. Art does not just happen all of itself. It requires vision, strategy, training, publicity, guidance, funding, creativity, marketing, appreciation, etcetera. Art works, standing alone, are not art. Paintings and sculptures locked up somewhere in a warehouse are not in this sense ‘art’, but are neglected (and even forgotten) objects.
TECHNICIAN ARTIST
AUDIENCE CRITIC
Thus my concern: What leadership is needed for art to occur?
My thesis is based on two key-assumptions:
- Art is a complex social construction in need of leadership (de Monthoux); and
- Art (systems) need socially constructed and shared leadership (Hosking).
Hosking (in Shamir et al., 2006) argues that leadership requires local-cultural-historical processes in which relational realities are constructed. Leaders are not a force from ‘outside’ (the art) system; but ‘insiders’ who: (a) work with local leadership constructions; (b) involve all participants – not just formally appointed leaders; (c) generate and support multiple local constructions, and so doing; (d) construct and legitimate the principle of open, multi-logical collaborative ways of relating. People and context, art and experience involve relationship(s) of mutual creation. Leaders are skilled at co-creation or mutual (self & artifact) construction. The key is to be able to contribute to the construction and maintenance of ‘cultures of productivity’.
Art is organizing and organizing is about relations and commitments and how commitments are co-created, mobilized, maintained and changed.
To be part of such an Art-firm and to study just such a way of organizing, I joined (was invited to join) Yellow Fellow, a loosely organized network of scholars and professionals, who meet, dialogue and co-create (make and remake) different kind of aesthetic, ethic and/or artistic realities. Yellow Fellow is a think tank, a multidisciplinary artistic network, and a project group trying to get a body of art works displayed and related to the public. It is idealistic and philosophical, voluntary and hierarchical. It is grounded in aesthetics and in business principles. In this thesis I will describe Yellow Fellow: its loosely coupled attempt to achieve a successful art-system (as described above); its attempts at leadership; its successes and failures, its meaningfulness and explorations.
And in all of this I will illustrate, examine and question my two key assumptions.
Personal motives for my research theme
Yellow Fellow has invited me to participate in her think-tank, because I am working as a programme director and trainer at the Baak, a Dutch Leadership Centre. Yellow Fellow felt the need to connect with an educational leadership centre where – besides the regular programmes and the connection with Dutch leaders and managers – events with ‘art and leadership’ are possible. As a professional trainer, but also a sculptor, I could be the linking pin between art, leadership, education and – the idealistic mission of – Yellow Fellow.
At work, when possible, I use art as a metaphor or as an illustration: e.g. I make aesthetic slides by combining text with a picture (of art, artistic photo). Sometimes it is possible to take the participant(s) to a museum, to work with ‘real’ art and be in a more aesthetically physical context. For me, art as a copy or an illustration does not have the same impact as real art. But real art also does not always have real impact on the participants. I realize that the way I organize the relations with art in an educational setting (con-text) can have different impacts on the involved: sometimes one construction has a deeper impact then the other. One of the reasons for me to join Yellow Fellow was to learn more about abstract art and different ways to work with art, in order to become more successful in my work using aesthetic educational constructs.
Yellow Fellow has been founded to be able to dis-play her unique collection of abstract art (over 500 pieces) to society, education and business in a play-full way. Her idealistic mission is to develop/explore ways to develop new (abstract) thinking by using (abstract) art as a transformative instrument, with a reference to Winnicott’s transitional space, object and experience.
The think-tank Yellow Fellow is a loosely organized network of multidisciplinary professionals and scholars: art, philosophy, science, education, business. They meet up with each other once a month on a voluntarily and optional base and with no explicit agenda. The meetings have been developed around three themes: the development of a physical museum (context), the development of experiments (connections) and the development of ideas (content). And about the questions: what is Yellow Fellow, who are we, what is our collective dream and how do we get there? So far, the think tank has been doing what a think tank does best: thinking and debating.
I have experienced most sessions as a unique way of learning how to debate and have dialogues about aesthetical – ethical topics. Also, to be part of the writing processes of a book ‘Zoeken naar wijsgerige perspectieven; Abstracte kunst, filosofie, wetenschap, bestuur en samenleving’ by Prof. Dr Errit van der Velde (member of the think-tank), soon to be published as a Yellow Fellow Edition.
At the same time, I am critical because we become more and more an exclusive network (intellectual ‘gentlemen’s club’), with just a few events and little or no opening to critics, (critical) audience ort part of a public discourse. Also, ‘art’ sometimes becomes a kind of ‘illustration’ in the think tank conversations, in such a way (‘too abstract’ or vague) that it loses her precious impact. In the words of Martin Buber (1923): the relation towards arts seems to change from Ich-Du towards Ich-Das. Also the issue of continuation is at hand: what will happen when the (over-80 year old) art collector is not able to participate anymore? So the question is: How is Yellow Fellow able to organize herself and her art, in order to make art happen in our society? What kind of participation and leadership is needed to make art happen, to ‘come out’ and become visible to society and business and part of a public discourse?
De Monthoux (2004) argues that art needs a system, a social construct, a complex art-system with different players to become successful part of a social and public discourse. The art system needs critics, audience, technicians and artists beside displayed art (and not art in stock!) in order to do what art can do: challenge, comfort, irritate, transform etc. Unfortunately, the biggest part of the collection of Yellow Fellow is in a warehouse, so all these objects are not able to become and be art (fortunately, some are in my place).
My participation with Yellow Fellow is meaningful for me, and hopefully for the other participants. I believe that Yellow has the potential to develop as an ‘De Monthoux’-artfirm, with her unique collection of abstract art (still growing), a network of modern artists that want to be connected with Yellow Fellow (still growing), an unique network of scholars who wants to invest in the development and writing of ideas, a ‘powerful’ network (board) of captains of industries and political engaged persons. It lacks money, but that seems to be secondary. And it lacks action. I hope this research will stimulate in some way the learning, leading and ‘coming out’ processes of Yellow Fellow.
Goal of my research
De Monthoux argues: ‘Art is a way to come closer to creativity in organizations and aesthetics is the philosophical approach best suited to articulate how it works!’ De Monthoux, Strati, Linstead, Höpfl, Letiche, Hansen, Oosterling, Dohmen and others have made it clear that art and aesthetics are in the foundations of our life, our society, politics and economics, in all cultures and timeframes. Even the rational scientific style of management seem to be based on aesthetic principles such as smooth order and symmetrical structures (rust, reinheid, regelmaat).
My goal is to develop insights in the elements of social constructs and the kind of leadership that is needed for an art-firm to successfully connect her art with society and business. To create the possibility (social constructs) to have a public discourse with art, artist, critic and audience.
I will explore the con-text of art-leadership and her social (local-cultural-historical) processes in which relational realities are constructed. I will explore literature on art-leadership, artistic and aesthetic leadership and the relation (and possible dilemma’s) with participative or collaborative leadership from the perspective of Social Constructionism: A) Art-Leadership (De Monthoux, 2004): ‘…by focusing on passion, playfulness, improvisation, intuitive judgment, beauty, and sensuality beyond deadlocking dualisms this new type of leadership opens up a third aesthetic way contributing quality, meaning and value to projects and enterprises’; B) Aesthetic Leadership (Hansen and others, 2007): an aesthetic approach to leadership, leaders and followers sensory and felt meanings constructed in subjective processes that rely on aesthetic knowledge; C) Participative leadership (Hosking, 2006): requires leaders who are not a force from ‘outside’ (the art) system but ‘insiders’ who work with local leadership constructions, involve all participants, generate and support multiple local constructions, and so doing construct and legitimate the principle of open, multi-logical collaborative ways of relating.
I will explore one art firm as a case study (Yellow Fellow): within the social processes of Yellow Fellow the role and impact of leadership and her successes and failures, the (possible) tension between her ‘loosely organized’ network approach of meetings and relations (open, multi-logical collaborative ways of relating) versus a more ‘capitalistic’ – hierarchic style of leadership (‘he who owns the capital – art – has the first and last words’), linked to a tension between the wish for postmodern schwung and play and the need for control.
The ‘art firm’ makes art happen in our society, wants art to occur. That does not refer to a ‘firm’ in the traditional sense (of a corporation or limited) but to all the relationships that make up the possibility of art occurring. De Monthoux makes it clear that the art system and the art work are intimately inter-related. Art is an aesthetic social construction wherein the ‘schwung’ of art plays a key role. Aesthetic ‘schwung’ is like a pendulum movement between form and substance, the ideal and the real; schwung is about creativity, appreciation, emotion, affect, involvement etc, inspired by Schiller’s ‘On the aesthetic education of man’. The art system ‘cornerstones’ are the artist, the critic, the audience and the technician. De Monthoux portrays artists as technicians of ‘Schwung’, practical businesspeople and entrepreneurs who desire high performance. These 4 players are integrated in the ‘art system’, a social construction. But it can dissolve, become ineffective, and need repair and maintenance. The relatedness that is needed for art to occur – i.e. be made, appreciated, collected, shared, discussed, criticized – requires many parties, diverse roles, complex cooperation and organisation and leadership based on creativity and artistic genius.
Monthoux speaks about an ideal art-firm as a ‘Business of Being’, beyond subjectism and objectivism, between totality and banality of artwork. He calls his ideal art-firm ‘Dionysus inc’, that provides a ‘third’ position, beyond the bipolarity of either the finance-managerial or media-cultural dimensions, with socially responsive and responsible art, as a model for helping to generate aesthetic energy (‘alter-native’).
Earlier (2002) De Monthoux and Strati argued the importance of aesthetics and art for society: ‘the social construction of reality is an art like creation and its power over us seems increasingly difficult to fathom without a grasp of aesthetics. Society is taken for real, not as an artefact but as art. Truth and beauty is a blur consumed and appreciated in what aesthetics only can grasp! Reality is no longer a social construction it is an aesthetic phenomenon, a work of art!’ (Notice the exclamation marks!)
De Monthoux and Strati hold a plea for social aesthetics: ‘There is a recognition that the dynamic of business economics are to be found in aesthetics, which is why businesses are not only supporting aesthetic development but begin to look at their firms as works of art operating on an aesthetic space in which the managers are the artists managing the development. If business is art, then leadership is aesthetic’. They see two rejections: a) exclusive strategy: art and aesthetics are an exclusive outsourced luxury; it may be freely exploited as a natural cause at little costs; b) Inclusivity strategy: design management, transforms the artist into a ‘canvasser of normality’, art transformed to functional design. De Monthoux and Strati look for an in-between, hybridic, perspective on aesthetic leadership in society, inspired by Simmel’s Social Aesthetics, situated in-between form and matter (Schiller), between science and logic, a ‘grey vague terrain, vaguely situated in the no-mans land, the third realm called aesthetics.’
Essential for leading an art-firm, according to De Monthoux, is the role of aesthetic play to create the needed energetic ‘schwung’: free and weightless playfulness. To Schiller, according to De Monthoux (2004; 20) “educating individuals aesthetically meant exposing them to aesthetic play, and this was best accomplished by exposing them to art. The individual would then be ready to explore, map, and cultivate the vastness between form and substance, as the home of the beautiful and sublime, the broad aesthetic field in which mankind can ‘take on step back’ in order to exchange passivity for autonomy and a passive determination for an active one. Man must therefore be momentarily free of all determination whatsoever and pass trough a state of pure determinability. De Monthoux’s main question is: how art could be made to ‘swung’, especially for leaders?
Hansen a.o. (2007) introduces aesthetic leadership as a ‘promising approach in leadership studies’ and discerns two dimensions: a) inclusion of followers in leadership models (that links to participative leadership of Hosking); and b) exploration of subjective leadership qualities. He explicitly makes a difference between ‘art of leadership’ and ‘aesthetic leadership’, where aesthetics (aisthetis) refers to ‘sensory knowledge and felt meaning of objects and experiences’, as a source for knowledge and a generator for meanings leaders (and followers) rely and act on. Also he makes a difference between beauty and aesthetics: aesthetics involves also judgment and (Strati,1992) there is also the aesthetically ugly, sublime, comic or grotesque. According to Hansen transformational, visionary, charismatic and authentic leadership have ‘some connections to aesthetics’. Aesthetic meaning arise and emerge out of ‘symbolic interaction and processes of social construction’. Here lies the potential of aesthetic leadership. Hansen e.a. suggests some new aesthetic leadership research questions, f.i. what role do the aesthetics of the context play in leadership interactions? Which aesthetics are guiding leaders as they make decisions? Do aesthetically crafted visions result in higher levels of motivation in followers? Etcetera.
How does Yellow Fellow relate to this social aesthetics and hybridic perspective? Does Yellow Fellow have this energetic, playful swung? How about her aesthetic leadership in order to let her (art) occur in society? How about her focus on audience, critic, technician and artists in a systemic way? What is her aesthetically crafted vision and how does it affect the audience? What is the role of the abstract art in her leadership? My focus will be on the main question: What kind of art-leadership is needed in a complex social ‘art-firm’ construction?
‘Modern man ought to become an ‘enlightened citizen‘ or the ‘Homo Noumenon’ of humanity. To Kant aesthetics was necessary for enlightenment’. (Monthoux quoting Kant, 2004; 26).
Aesthetics (and ethics) are fundamentally shaped by their social, political and historical context, in theory and in experience. Our ideas of what is beautiful, good and true are bound by time and place and can serve political and ideological functions. They are closely linked to issues of identity constructions and humanistic issues, like diversity, cultural positioning, and social control. This research is about art and aesthetics, about how to make art happen in society, to open the ‘power of art’ to the public, to open a possibility to become ‘enlighted’ (Homo Noumenon).