Archive for 20 April 2007
Communication Channels, Asset Specificity, and Some Humor
| Chihmao Hsieh |
First off, I’d like to thank Nicolai and Peter for adding me on as a guest blogger at O&M. I have admired it from afar. Hopefully I can introduce other provocative topics universal to the esteemed readership, but also practice my more text-oriented sense of humor. Ergo, this opening post…
Last week I gave a lecture to my undergrad class that included remarks about the differential ability of communication channels in handling messages of varied complexity or “equivocality.”
The research cited (Lengel and Daft, 1988) during the lecture categorizes communication channels into 3 groups: email, fax, voice mail; telephone and video conferencing; and face-to-face interaction. I independently argued that these 3 categories distinctly varied in terms of their relation to asset specificity: excepting underdeveloped countries, email, fax, and voice mail each involve investments low in asset specificity (no need for shared location, no need for shared timing); (more…)
Introducing Guest Blogger Chihmao Hsieh
| Peter Klein |
It is a pleasure to welcome Chihmao Hsieh as our newest guest blogger. Chihmao is an assistant professor in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Missouri-Rolla. He received his PhD in strategy from Washington University, St. Louis, where he worked with O&M favorites Jackson Nickerson and Todd Zenger. (A sample of their joint work is here.) Chihmao’s research applies entrepreneurship to R&D, organizational economics, cognitive psychology and instructional science, and informetrics. He has been a regular participant in the comment threads at O&M and we’re pleased to add him to the line-up.
The Division of Labor in Artistic Production
| Peter Klein |
Delegation, agency, team production, monitoring, group entrepreneurship — these issues and more suffuse David Galenson’s new paper on the division of labor in artistic production, “Painting By Proxy: The Conceptual Artist as Manufacturer.”
In 1958, the French philosopher Etienne Gilson observed that painters are related to manual laborers by a deep-rooted affinity that nothing can eliminate, because painting was the one art in which the person who conceives the work is also necessarily the person who executes it. Conceptual innovators promptly proved Gilson wrong, however, by eliminating the touch of the artist from their paintings: in 1960 the French artist Yves Klein began using living brushes — nude models covered with paint — to execute his paintings, and in 1963 Andy Warhol began having his assistant Gerard Malanga silkscreen his canvases. Today many leading artists do not touch their own paintings, and some never see them. This paper traces the innovations that allowed a complete separation between the conception and execution of paintings. The foundation of this separation was laid long before the 20th century, by conceptual Old Masters including Raphael and Rubens, who employed teams of assistants to produce their paintings, but artists began exploring its logical limits during the conceptual revolution of the 1960s and beyond. Thus by the end of the twentieth century Jeff Koons explained that he did not participate in the work of painting his canvases because he believed it would interfere with his growth as an artist, and Damien Hirst defended his practice of having his paintings made by assistants on the grounds that their paintings were better than his. Eliminating the touch of the artist from painting is yet another way in which conceptual innovators transformed art in the twentieth century.
The paper is gated for NBER subscribers here.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments