Coming
off of the fragmentation projects it was interesting to see how students
tackled this one. Some went straight to things like random number generators to
create random pieces, others fragmented images or objects, and still others
created their own random system. We saw grids, framing devices, cuts, reliance
on technology, reliance on others to make decisions, etc. One of the main
questions that arose from this discussion was how small do the pieces need to
be in order not to recognize the original object. Images and sounds, of course,
seemed to work differently. So – the original images could be obliterated with
fairly sizable pieces, but sound would come down to micro-cuts that were still
recognizable. Bob’s point about sensing the DNA of the original was a great
point.
We also discussed if certain mediums lent themselves to
fragmentation better than others. Students that worked with text ended up
moving toward individual words or phrases, since the next step was just letters
– which are designed to be rearranged all the time. What was really interesting
to see is that just about everyone held on to some element of control in
executing these pieces – either the control of chat type of chance to use, or
of the final product – which completely fits with Cage’s point about not giving
his choices up to chance, but choosing how to use it. Part of what we wrestled
with was if we saw intention as part of the project – so do elements rearranged
randomly reflect any kind of perceivable order. We found that they largely did.
As a follow up to all of this we felt it time to revisit the
terms and ideas developed so far. I always find this process interesting in
that it seems like we have only developed a few and then they sort of landslide
into many. We seemed to have picked up a number with the last few projects. So
– we split the students up in to groups and gave each group three terms to
define and come up with an example. We wanted to make it extra hard so – one
example had to be based in sound, one in movement, and one in image. The first
class took significantly longer to develop and share these projects than we
thought. They were great to see, but they kind of spun out into complex
performance pieces. We minimized this in the second class by only passing out
two terms to each group – sound and image as the resulting examples. This
periodic review is quite useful, and allows students to build vocabulary as
well as tools.
After that we presented a slide show and videos with some
examples of Destructive Art pieces as a way to follow up the Destructive Art
project assignment. This gave way to the next class where I discussed and
showed examples of Glitch and Circuit Bending as a way to develop some more
contemporary destructive examples. Some good discussion and questions – my
favorite being – why would you do that to a CD?
The following class was another kind of review class in
which we gave the students the SSC material and Present Moment material from
the first class and then discussed how it tied into this class. We started with
groups again and had students make connections between the SSC list of ideas
and the Gen Art list of ideas – either evolution, affront, or something else.
The conversation after that point was largely focused on the common P2P
question – what has changed and what has stayed the same across this year of
study.
Ah – that brings us to the Destructive Art projects. Always
a bit unnerving since we have no idea what direction this will go. But all in
all I would have to say that most of the projects were delightful – some
challenging, others less so, some contemplative, some performative, many
engaging. A number of the ideas we discussed surrounded how the spectator was
implied – willingly or no – into the process – as voyeur, as witness, as accomplish.
It’s an interesting position to help kill a plant or watch someone stuff food
in themselves and either do or not do anything. This level of provocation was
quite interesting. Totally shatters the white cube idea of the museum and
begins to cross over into life. Real things in real time were happening – some
pleasant and other not.
Once again, we notice a profound difference between classes.
The first section is a bit more contemplative, focused more on objects and
processes, whereas the second section leaned much more heavily toward the
performative. Both engaging, but in different ways. But one other factor stands
out. The first section seems much more engaged in developing a conversation
about the work, where as the second section seems to burn up that energy in
performance. With each class there are a few outlier students that cross the
opposite direction. We wondered what would have happened if we had identified
them early and swapped sections.
We discussed a number of ideas at work in these pieces –
starting with what type of materials were involved (lots of water as a solvent,
and ice melting, and gravity), but also the implication of the spectator and
implied or enacted violence – which played out in a number of ways – physical,
psychological, political, passive. Many of the pieces built on a sense of
anticipation – a “what will happen next” or “when will this thing finally
happen” vibe. True to form – the sections diverged in the presentation – one we
moved station to station to see the pieces, the second seemed more like a set
of sideshow acts presented simultaneously. May have something to do with the
object VS performative nature of the two sections.
The last piece we tried to get the students to focus on was
how these pieces functioned conceptually. So – after assessing what elements
were involved – what ideas were animated, what kind of impact dis that make. We
have decided to focus more specifically on that for the final project –
designed by the students – but needing to be focused on a specific concept or
idea. Some students have been doing that since the first class, but for others
that may be a greater leap. How all of this leads us to today is always in the
back somewhere – running noticed and unnoticed. Should be fun to see where this
takes us.
