I think two things.
 
1. That there is valuable work that comes from within and is not subject to the typical hired hand hourly pay scale that neo-liberal economics relies on.   This work is project oriented and requires that it have a beginning, development, fulfillment and renewal process order.   A work that comes from this area that is simply finished by the clock is usually mediocre and trash.   This work includes arts and culture, medicine, education and the serious practice of the law.
 
2. That there is valuable work that is humdrum and paid by the hour that exists within the efficiency model of a lump of labor formula.    Such work has a wide parameter in its quality and can be executed in great numbers within that parameter without losing its basic value.   
 
In Science, the O rings on the Challenger Spacecraft or the Hubbell mirror would be the first while a piece of furniture, a video tape or even an automobile would be the latter.   A piano for a musician would be different than a piano for a non-musician and an operation by a surgeon would have the same issues based upon the age and fitness requirements of the patient.    
 
Agile projects are used as a kind of cross over from factories to number one.   That is done to save money but I believe will be ultimately be a failure because of the difference in intent.  Pattern number 2 is not a useful process for movies for example because movies require such a high degree of expertise from their personnel that the lump of labor process is not applicable. 
 
Got to go to rehearsal,
 
What do you think?
 
REH  
----- Original Message -----
From: G. Stewart
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:25 PM
Subject: Self-defined work

In the engaging "less is less" thread, Ray wrote:.
 
>  The external motivation of utilitarian thought is an anathema to the
meaning of the study of human expression through practice i.e. art.  
 
Does this then not argue for moving toward self-defined work, as we have discussed on this list many times?
 
Is it time to begin a serious exploration of the possibility -- its concepts, processes, supportive infrastructures?
 
Regards,
 
Gail
 
Gail Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to