I once read a paper early in my career about aesthetics as a means of heuristics in the field of organizations. This was a boon for me because it pushed me in a direction that I may have overlooked at that time.
Today I want to visit some of those concepts and maybe you too can see the benefits of aesthetic heuristics.
Before we continue it would be pertinent to look at the topic of aesthetic organizational research, the organization represents a contact resulting from the human ability to utilize all senses to produce knowledge.
When we follow this approach, the area in which knowledge is generated is further developed in languages and in processes that cannot be verbalized or are very difficult to verbalize, such as gestural languages or intuitive processes. The ability to produce knowledge thus begins not only with communication, but already with the ability to sense and perceive.
Moreover, this approach is not systematic, but emphasizes the heuristics with which organizational life takes place, and does not follow the myth of rationality.
Unlike rational and intellectual knowledge, aesthetic ability is heavily dependent on heuristic mechanisms, which is not logically detectable, but nevertheless binds the organization to a reality that is at least as powerful as behavior certainties.
The aesthetics do not follow rationality so much as obey forms such as hieroglyphs, gestures, myths and metaphors.
As a result, the rational analysis has shifted the discussion away from the claim that such a claim is capable of recognizing facts in the most appropriate way in the best possible way, but rather an aesthetic view is required that interprets, since only in this way is the system really relevant and can be examined and, above all, can reach the right and targeted conclusions. The aesthetic knowledge corresponds to the post-modern understanding of organizations, since this is also partial, fragmentary and modest and has far more to do with the postmodern consumer and customer than the generalizable, universal and objective Knowledge of rational analyses.
Passive perception, that is, attention, is therefore not synonymous with aesthetics, since aesthetics are a tool of contemplation and observation, and actively and not only passively interferes in the processes of perception. But aesthetics are also not synonymous with artistic understanding, since there is no processing of materials here, but only a consideration. Moreover, aesthetics are not an emotion caused in particular by a sense, but a heuristics that arises from several experiential impressions, i.e. a mesh, and should be used for this purpose. Thus, the approach calls for far more than the analytical approach, since here the observer also integrates into the observation process viewer. Wanting to rely solely on analysis does not engage at the very moment without aesthetics, when the observer must reach conclusions without support, and this is exactly what happens with every analysis when data is used.
So there will always be a moment when the observer has to intervene in what is happening. Aesthetics in the field of organizations therefore always, not only with expirations of language, but already to include processes and unverbalized gestures and mimics in order to arrive at a synthesis rather than just an analysis.
In conclusion you can see how important aesthetics are as a tool for organization when the aesthetic nature of the subject are taken into account. When this happens full potential is achievable with less direct involvement; that is through indirect means, i.e. engagement through passive perception through aesthetic heuristics.