i'm sure art is infectious, but what am i spreading?

all the possibilities for innuendo aside, i'm in a bit of a quandry about a little project/programme that i want to get started and i think i need the collective wisdom (or out-and-out sledging) of the blogosphere for guidance. [and who said religion was dead!].

in securing the spinach artist-in-residence-of-sorts, i realised that i am really into the idea of introducing the active process of creating as a stimulant and revitalising agent into the workplace. i know that when i've got artists (writers, actors, musicians, etc) around my productivity goes up. i feel energised, hepped up, inspired to do things, make a difference or get hip with it man. but, i'm an artist. that's the kind of environment i thrive in.

but if i worked in telecommunications, insurance, investment banking, would i feel also feel inspired by an artist? i'm doing some scouting about at the moment, working on ways that i might be able to introduce an aritst-in-residence-of-sorts into other workplaces. ones which aren't as obviously creative (or are perhaps are as dead as doornails) and which would really benefit from having an inspired presence or energy in the place - a sort of vaccination for the organisation's immune system.*

however, i was born creative. i've always inhaled anything that is remotely inspiring and interesting and so i am probably slightly biased in my outlook. is art and the process of creativity actually something worthwhile to have about the place, or do i have my head in the clouds? would it really be inspiring to have an artist at the end of the hall, constantly creating cool pieces that you could have on your desk in your little cubicle, or would it be the equivalent of that toner recycling box or motorised pencil sharpener: something which should probably make a difference, but in reality, is much easier to ignore.

is creative action as infectious as i believe it is?

*thanks to john griffiths for the analogy