Managerial Aesthetics, or Documenta Fifteen

Author of the piece here. One reader wondered what it was that make these aesthetics managerial. Think, perhaps, here about how Baroque artwork glorified emerging absolutist monarchy -- through aesthetically pleasing representation of both absolutist figures (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Marie_de%27_Medici_cycle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Marie_de%27_Medici_cycle</a>) but also through aesthetic pleasing representations of absolutist power -- for instance, consider the way that Las Meninas demonstrates the power of the almost unseen Philip IV. Even though the King is only a tiny figure in the painting, everything in in space of the painting looks towards him.<p>By analogy, managerial aesthetics produces aesthetically pleasing representations of the &quot;subjects&quot; of managerial power, who are, in this case, nonprofit figureheads, and also aestheticizes managerial power itself. Contemporary art turns everything into material for contemporary art in a similar way that managerialism turns everything into something to be managed.

These books might be of interest.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;g.co&#x2F;kgs&#x2F;9Ksdpv" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;g.co&#x2F;kgs&#x2F;9Ksdpv</a> Austin, Rob, Lee Devin, Artful Making, What Managers Need to Know about how Artists Work, Upper Saddle River 2003.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;g.co&#x2F;kgs&#x2F;TYaoQs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;g.co&#x2F;kgs&#x2F;TYaoQs</a> Bilton, Chris, Managment and Creativity. From Creative Industries to Creative Management, Malden u. a. 20006

Interesting to see this sort of reflection happening again 80 years after Burnham published The Managerial Revolution. (Something waking people up. What could it be?) Burnham outlined a lot of the same points about the new ruling class and their ideologies, which were extremely prescient but, it turns out, decades too early. WWII interrupted the trends he was observing in ways he did not forsee in 1941. But today the managerial revolution seems to be completed, without many people even noticing. We talk about a capitalist society when we live under managerialism. (Annoyingly, Burnham is wordy and fussily precise in that book, repeatedly referring to capitalism, socialism, and...managerial society. I&#x27;m glad the author corrected that to simply &quot;managerialism&quot;.)

The first few paragraphs here are astoundingly dense. It assumes that all managers are negative power social structures that rule by processes and improving processes? They can be negative, but the best managers I’ve had actually improved my work life by removing issues, finding alternatives, or by improving inefficient processes that wasted my time. The author seems to ignore any positive aspect

Interesting but i wish there was more depth to it. From the article: &gt;there remains a vital commercial subsphere in the artworld The above is offered in opposition to the para-academic side of the art world. However, that sentence does a lot of heavy lifting. There are well known issues with money laundering in the art world, tax evasion, speculation etc... Given that the commercial side of art may notbe a proper market, i am not sure that it is vital in the sense of bringing vitality to the art world.

&quot;Certain oppressive systems - capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, ecocide&quot;<p>Feels like category error to start with, at least to me. Putting racism and capitalism together is pretty strong and not as self evident as claimed. I always struggle with articles - whether thousand years old Plato or modern blogs - with sentences that start &quot;we can all agree that...&quot; on something I at least need a WHOLE lot of proof before I grant the premise.<p>---<p>In all the critiques of managerialism though, I wonder how manager is defined. Seemingly inherently evil. So what&#x27;s the alternative? The purest abstract form of anarcho communism with no process, no hierarchy, no rules, and no leadership? It feels... Academically naive. An interesting thought experiment of the &quot;imagine perfect mass-less sphere in perfect vacuum alone in universe&quot; sort. It&#x27;s <i>fun</i> to ponder, but completely impractical.<p>If I go to Escape room with 8 of my friends, as I did last night, relationships and processes will develop before 60minutes expire. Is that managerialism and inherently evil? If not where&#x27;s that massive red line that makes all managers everywhere evil?

Another note from the author: it is interesting to me that so many of the commentators seem to think that I believe management to be evil. There are relatively obvious reasons for why readers might come to this conclusion: the start of the piece compares it to other &quot;oppressive systems&quot; (capitalism, racism.) Most people tend to think of oppression as evil or bad because they inhabit a slave morality - that is, a form of ethics designed to undermine the power of rulers and boost the power of the oppressed. It is very difficult not to inhabit some kind of slave morality: it&#x27;s in our language.<p>Like all social systems, Managerialism has victims. But unlike many other social systems, we don&#x27;t have a word for these victims, or the experience of being victimized. For many, only a faint memory of life outside of Managerworld remains.