The aestheticization of organizational space is a growing phenomenon with organizations carefully designing the aesthetic engagement in space to invoke specific values and behavior. Simultaneously, however, the traditional workspace is disappearing as work is performed increasingly in multiply-located, hybrid spaces combining corporate, domestic and public spaces. This paper seeks to understand the aestheticization of hybrid spaces by theoretically drawing on the notion of atmosphere as proposed by the philosopher Gernot Boehme. By ethnographically exploring how an urban film festival creates its unique atmosphere, we identify three intertwined aesthetic practices that underpin the aestheticization of hybrid space: the interrelation of different aesthetic codes and expressions, the processual guidance of the aesthetic experience, and the provision of a centre of experience. We discuss how ambiguities, multiplicities and diversities may become a resource when aestheticizing hybrid space, reminding us to be critical even when atmospheres emerge beyond the careful aesthetic design of space.
AlexanderssonA.KalonaityteV. (2018). Playing to dissent: The aesthetics and politics of playful office design. Organization Studies, 39, 297–317.
2.
AndersonB. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society, 2, 77–81.
3.
BenjaminW. (1927). The Arcades project (Ed. 1999.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BennettA.TaylorJ.WoodwardI. (2014). The festivalization of culture. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
5.
BeyesT. (2016). Art, aesthetics and organization. In A research agenda for management and organization studies (pp. 115–125). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
6.
Biehl-MissalB.SarenM. (2012). Atmospheres of seduction: A critique of aesthetic marketing practices. Journal of Macromarketing, 32, 168–180.
7.
BilleM.BjerregaardP.SørensenT. F. (2015). Staging atmospheres: Materiality, culture, and the texture of the in-between. Emotion, Space and Society, 15, 1–8.
8.
BöhmeG. (1993). Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis Eleven, 36, 113–126.
9.
BöhmeG. (2016). The aesthetics of atmospheres. London: Routledge.
CourpassonD.DanyF.DelbridgeR. (2017). Politics of place: The meaningfulness of resisting places. Human Relations, 70, 237–259.
12.
DaleK.BurrellG. (2010). All together, altogether better: The ideal of “community” in the spatial reorganization of the workplace. In van MarrewijkA.YanowD. (Eds.), Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world (pp. 19–40). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
13.
De VaujanyF.-X.DandoyA.GrandazziA.FaureS. (2019). Experiencing a new place as an atmosphere: A focus on tours of collaborative spaces. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35, 101030.
14.
DoveyK. (1999). Framing places: Mediating power in built form. London: Routledge.
15.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
16.
FelsteadA.JewsonN.WaltersS. (2005). Changing places of work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
GagliardiP. (1999). Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In CleggS.HardyC. (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory & method (pp. 701–724). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
18.
HalfordS. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 19–33.
19.
JulmiC. (2017). The concept of atmosphere in management and organization studies. Organizational Aesthetics, 6, 4–30.
20.
KantI. (1790). The critique of judgement (Ed. 1952). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
KüpersW. (2002). Phenomenology of aesthetic organising: Ways towards aesthetically responsive organizations. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 5, 21–46.
22.
KusenbachM. (2003). Street phenomenology the go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4, 455–485.
23.
MichelsC.SteyaertC. (2017). By accident and by design: Composing affective atmospheres in an urban art intervention. Organization, 24, 79–104.
24.
OttensmeyerE. (1996). Too strong to stop, too sweet to lose: Aesthetics as a way to know organizations. Organization, 3, 189–194.
25.
Philippopoulos-MihalopoulosA. (2016). Withdrawing from atmosphere: An ontology of air partitioning and affective engineering. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34, 150–167.
26.
QuinnB. (2003). Symbols, practices and myth-making: Cultural perspectives on the Wexford Festival Opera. Tourism Geographies, 5, 329–349.
27.
RaunigG. (2013). Factories of knowledge, industries of creativity. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
RyanA. W.WollanG. (2013). Festivals, landscapes, and aesthetic engagement: A phenomenological approach to four Norwegian festivals. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 67, 99–112.
32.
SeyfertR. (2012). Beyond personal feelings and collective emotions: Towards a theory of social affect. Theory, Culture and Society, 29, 27–46.
van MarrewijkA. (2011). Aesthetic experiences of designed organisational space. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 4, 61–77.
37.
van MarrewijkA.BroosM. (2012). Retail stores as brands: Performances, theatre and space. Consumption Markets and Culture, 15, 374–391.
38.
WarrenS. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 29, 559–580.
39.
WassermanV. (2011). To be (alike) or not to be (at all): Aesthetic isomorphism in organisational spaces. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 4, 22.
40.
WassermanV. (2012). Open spaces, closed boundaries: Transparent workspaces as clerical female ghettos. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 5, 6–25.
41.
WassermanV.FrenkelM. (2011). Organizational aesthetics: Caught between identity regulation and culture jamming. Organization Science, 22, 503–521.
42.
YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (2014). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
