[-empyre-] Risk Management and Opportunity Management

[Daniela Alina Plewe]

Dear all,



enjoyed very much following the discussion. Good to share some of the
questions, we may ask often only ourselves.

Why is there all this struggle? Is there a lack of relevance, what is the
work anyways, what is the actual contribution? I suppose we all have
answers to these questions...



Living in Singapore, a pragmatic, materialistic environment for more than 7
years, media art is considered a catalyst for innovation. Not much else.
However, a Phd here from a considered good university can actually improve
life. (In terms of social, economic, perhaps symbolic and of course
cultural capital.) Not as an artist per se, but mostly in terms of social
standing. Inside and outside the discourse of art.

An artist never stops to be an artistic mind, I believe.



It does not matter how we are labelled from outside or how we label
ourselves. Artist, Lecturer, Phd, who cares? Society cares.

One reason why labels are used, is (according to institution economics) to
reduce the risks of interactions between individuals and institutions  in a
society governed by the principle of division of labor. Having a degree
from a top ranked educational institution is supposedly decreasing the risk
of default and increasing the probability of quality delivery, therefore
more valued than one from a lower ranked institution. This is the promise
behind the academic rankings, key performance indicators and other forms of
societal approaches to quality control.



Certification (getting a PhD) with its rituals and constraints is just a
product of risk management in societal terms. One may not like it.
Especially the phenomena of standardization are probably raising strong and
immediate objections by any free thinker. Probably we do not need to change
these mechanisms, just not overemphasize them. They allow for fast
relatively safe interactions between strangers. In the art-context, rather
insecure audiences enjoy relying on these kinds of assurances.

However, we could try to face the challenge: since
artists/academicians/practitioners/"we" tend not to like these mechanisms,
we could try to think of alternatives...anybody has an idea of how to
tackle the problem of risk management from systemic perspective.. - I
think, this could actually add to our relevance. We could become creative
deal-makers, actually opportunity managers...(e.g. in the sense of
transactional-arts) and enjoying the vanities of being "visionaries"..-
Very difficult ;-).



As artists we are somehow beyond certifications anyways. Art as realm of
freedom, I still fully subscribe. To some extend, our business is
risk-management  and we are good at it. A concept taken from the discourse
of banking; but we may have core competencies in this field as well.

Perhaps more important and more exciting is that we are constructing
things..art, theories, whatever. in that sense we may are "opportunity
managers."



Should we want to be avantgarde again? Let's try out a leadership argument

According to Ronald Heifetz (Leadership without Easy Answers) the artist is
a leader without authority. He can initiate a discourse, but may lack the
power to "orchestrate" it. Doing a Phd as an artist is shifting from very
little authority and lots of autonomy into more authority and
less autonomy. The status of a Phd may possibly allow "influencing the
system from inside", as Frankfurter School would have said. Phd as a
trojan? A tool, a device for whatever goals the individual may have decided
to pursue. Whatever form of "creative leadership", to combine some
zeitgeist concepts. Ambition and values count. Impact a bit, perhaps. The
rest is just a matter of choice, taste, perceived necessities, and a
function of the phase of life.... ?



What do you think..?


Best,

Daniela





--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130122/c855d340/attachment.htm>