Decompressing from the first projects we basically leave a
day open to reflect on the experience. This was a wonderful conversation – lots
of good ideas and connection emerged from the discussion. Bob and I had mapped
out any number of approaches but what seemed to work best was to review the
ideas we had already developed. Since the projects tend to produce new insights
and ideas we added to our growing list of terms and techniques, leaning heavily
on the idea of a phase change or phase shift and moving between the intentional
and the accidental. This gave way to part two of the conversation the built on
the two systems readings – Jack Burnham and Buckminster Fuller. To start the
conversation we had students go outside and gather and assemble a structure
right on the verge of collapse. This lead to a good discussion of liminality.
Part of our questions revolved around what they learned from making the
structures and what they might do differently and how they might aestheticize
them more fully. These are the two basic questions we will return to again and
again. We also discussed the notion of a paradigm shift in the sense that the
triangular relationship between space, work, and viewer can be completely upended
by changing all three elements.
It was here were we explored the continuum between life and
art, the intentional and accidental, aesthetic and non-aesthetic, and product
and process. I have been drawing these polarities for years with the intent of cracking
open the binaries to suggest that there was a bit more room between them. One
of the students pointed out that these ideas were presented in a purely linear
way when the conversation has been about the non-linear. She was absolutely
correct. My hope is that when we get to chaos theory we can reflect back on
this and suggest a fractal mapping of these ideas rather than a continuum. The
interesting thing here is that she asked about these two dimensional maps
because she had been thinking about the subject in three (or more) dimensions.
Much to think on with this.
The next class introduced the students to some basic Fluxus
ideas – a conversation around event scores and the work of La Monte Young.
Young’s various compositions 1960 and his dismissal of discussing “good” works
of art lays a nice foundation for these ideas. We had the students interpret
his Composition 1960 #9 (the straight
line) as if it were a score for sound, movement, text and image. Some great
results. We also had select students perform some of the Fluxus events. The
intention behind this is to give them guidance to create their own Fluxus
pieces to be performed the next class. Rather than make this one of the big
projects, as we have done in the past, the cards and instruction were
distributed on Tuesday with an intended performance on Thursday.
Fluxus day never fails to please. It generally takes some
time for each class to find a vibe, but when they do the results are great. As
in the past we collected and shuffled the cards and students performed the
results. the rule is they have to perform first and then read the card after.
It creates an interesting dynamic for the watching – not knowing what the
instructions are or who’s card is being performed. As anticipated, the first
section was a bit more playful in their explorations – with some of the cards
casting out of the space via phone call or a visit to the downstairs
classrooms. the second section tends to be a bit more introspective, but
developed some really interesting pieces. Key to this were about a dozen lemons
brought in by one student. Used and reused, they became a central image in
quite a few of the performances. I love that these can go from loud and brash
and in-your-face to quiet and contemplative within a heartbeat. As this was the
last class before spring break I’m glad we ended on a high note with students
bonding over bizarre performance material.
At this point in the term Bob and I have surveyed the
students by asking questions about engagement and intrinsic motivation. It was
no surprise that the numbers on the two sections would be different. Section 1
seems a bit more motivated to play where as section two digging in a bit deeper
into the ideas. It was at this point we also had the students turn in their
first major writing assignment. This gives us a good picture of where we are at
this point in the term. Thankfully no one seems completely lost. As expected,
some students used the essay as an opportunity to work out a few percolating
ideas whereas others simply summarized where we are at this point. We are
basically right where we want to be in the term with student development. They
seem right on the edge of kicking this all up a notch and doing some remarkable
work. A few more in-class pieces to explore and then we see what they can do
with the fragmentation and reassembly process driven by an indeterminate
system. Then Bob and I add a few more pieces, pose a few more questions and
kind of fade away.
