Day Four: First Projects part deux:

Two weeks into the class. Hard to believe. I don’t feel like we have covered much yet, and yet, we have tons of material we can draw on. As we explained to the students the first day, their answers to the project prompts provide content for the course. I’m not sure they recognize what that means at this point. Connecting the projects and discussion to the set of reading for next week students already understand a number of key ideas without realizing it. Some of the ideas about juxtaposition were generally clear going into the projects, but now we have a host of ideas to discuss. Allowing the students to generate the list of concerns or ideas in the project discussions will begin to provide the framework on techniques so useful as they continue to generate work. The goal with this is that by the end of the class they have a kind of generative art tool kit – with ideas and techniques useful in a variety of ways. We do need to pair this with the historical material and so moving from these first projects through dada and John Cage will help ground the ideas in time. Bob and I have discussed the second project question – which continues to morph as we see opportunities to nudge the conversation one way or another.

The differences in section is always quite interesting. Section one seems much more contemplative, quieter, more focused on the discussion. Their projects had less of a performative feel as opposed to the other section. Section two seems much louder, more easily distracted, more active. This may have something to do with the earlier VS later class times. Both lend themselves to the material quite well, but means the sections will be drifting away from each other a bit over the next few weeks. As with Tuesday – lots of great projects to discuss. We have a ton of material to weave into the conversation on Tuesday.

Day Three: First Projects:

I find that a day or so before the first projects are due I become a bit anxious. So much doubt, so many questions. Was the project prompt set up to generate interesting responses? Did I provide too much information up front? Not enough?  Will we have enough time to discuss them all? Or, what happens if we have nothing to talk about? Will the students take the project seriously? Will they create provocative and interesting pieces? Unlike a traditional class where the teacher may control the content of a particular lesson, these classes are wide open. It is both terrifying and exciting. And, as has so often in the past, the students never fail to amaze me. So many interesting projects, so much to discuss. In taking a cue from Lois Hetland’s process we started the discussion just by looking at the pieces in front of us, just noticing the basic elements of each piece. The trick is to try and hold off judgment or conclusions until we have talked about what is in front of us. It is hard not to jump right to meaning, but if we can hold off on this for a bit we tend to see deeper into the projects.

As these were about juxtaposition, the whole point was to spin out on how we as a group were reading the elements. Often I find once we get started that students see a great deal more than intended. Occasionally less, but then that is typically because we don’t recognize all of the pieces – personal or otherwise. Some great tensions created with the pieces today – some funny, some, frightening, some just odd. It is always interesting which ones stick – which ones I come back to again and again – may be the simplest, may be the most complex. The projects then become the content of the course – ideas and techniques we can point back to as the class develops. Not only juxtaposition, but how the tensions were created, personal meanings, interpretation, etc.

It is with the first projects that the two sections begin to pull away from each other in terms of tone and ideas. The first section was a bit more somber, more contemplative, quieter pieces in intent and presentation – far few media driven pieces than section two. In addition section two had a few more performative aspects. Having to watch and then discuss always takes more time than looking and talking. I did apologize to Bob for hijacking the critique role, but it was mainly to try and get through all the presentations – which we did in section one but were two short in section two. We have enough time if we need to spill over beyond Thursday – but not by too many presentations. This is where we get into a time crunch based on the number of students in the class – 25 and 28 – probably 10 more than the subject can hold comfortably. So – this may affect how we structure the next few projects – more focused, limited by time constraints. Looking forward to Thursday – this is the first time I have broken the project classes into two different groups. Bob and I both wonder what impact this will have on those who present second.

Day Two

So we asked the students to talk about things they felt were well designed or well structured. The point of the talk was two-fold, to get everyone up, on their feet and in front of everyone else, and to generate a list of terms and ideas connected to the notion of structure. It never fails to amaze me that I can’t predict what students will bring in to class. My expectation was a sequence of artworks either directly or tangentially connected to what each student is studying. To my surprise, the first class largely talked about objects and experiences that were only occasionally grounded in a discussion of aesthetics. So, the list of ideas we came up with to tie all of these presentations together revolved around interaction, usability, and the relation to the body or the individual. A great starting point for the course. The second class, however, largely moved into the realm of aesthetics, focusing more on compositional devices and the interaction of individual pieces with the whole. What becomes increasingly interesting about this class is that Bob and I can the use this material to generate a discussion, weaving the unique ideas brought in by each section.

The structural conversation gave way to a discussion of the white cube essay assigned for class today. Bob contextualized the essay with an overview of how the avant-garde challenged systems – specifically the modernist system of control both physical and social – which gave way to more contemporary ideas. The key term in this discussion were “context” and “frame,” specifically about how artworks are framed by space or psychology. For me the key idea in the essay is how museums are designed to block out the outside world – something that can be extended to theatres, concert halls, and interestingly, shopping malls. That sets up the idea of control of how a work is viewed, but also received and interpreted. I suspect we will return to both of these ideas when we discuss the first project on juxtaposition – due on Tuesday. So far, a great start to the course – lost of ideas we can mine as it develops.

Day One

One of the things I forgot about team teaching is the luxury of stepping back on observing the class. The give and take between two different teachers with different ideas of the subject is a valuable asset for both students and teachers. Bob and I had mapped out the basic structure of the class – go over syllabus and projects and requirements. Hit on big ideas connected with the subject. Play an improve game with an unusual object to get the students up on their feet and their brains in gear. The on to the SSC material. A nice list of ideas emerged – although interesting to see the differences between the sections. Bob followed this up by asking about today’s concerns –which generated another wonderful list of ideas. This gives us – right up front – a kind of snapshot of where we are coming from and where we are headed. The content of the class is then the connective tissue that gets us from one list to the other. It is a great way to approach this class, one I undoubtedly will use in the future. Aside from the general day one intro stuff both classes seemed to respond to the material well – although we did loose a few from the 8:30 class that did not seem interested in this particular journey, but that did open up some space for interested students we initially had to turn away. So, all in all a good start to the term.

Bob has already seen much more potential for tweaking these assignments in a new direction.

Wow – the last post was seven years ago. In that time Bob and I taught another project-based course (Virtual Worlds in 2011) and I taught six other project-based courses (Aesthetics of Dissonance – twice, Chaos Theory and the Arts, Postmodernity, Symbolism and the Theatre of the Absurd, and Postdramatic Literature). I have found a fairly stable rhythm with the project classes and the intent on revisiting this class with Bob is, in large part, disrupt that rhythm to more closely study how best to approach this style of class. It is hard to overestimate how impactful that first Gen Art class was on my development as a teacher. The flexibility of both the subject and the syllabus allowed us to guide the class depending upon where it was headed. While the same was true, to an extent, with the other project courses, the past few years I have been working to strike a balance between flexibility and structure. Bringing Bob back into the mix allows that dynamic to be a bit more fluid. It has also helped shift me out of the habit of using project prompts over and over. While there are a few “tried and true” ones built into this class, Bob has already seen much more potential for tweaking these assignments in a new direction.

Our approaches to the subject have also evolved over the past few years. Having two instructors who don’t necessarily see the subject the same way has great potential for dialogue. If I had to define those directions I believe Bob has more of a focus on systems, whereas I am more interested in the improvisational or “generative” aspect of the work. Similar approaches, but with some fundamental differences. I am looking forward to the intersection between the two. While I may have some apprehension about sharing the space this term, I do know that sharing often leads too much more of a focus on pedagogy. Specific to that is to focus on leading students through in-depth critiques of the projects – my weakest area as an individual teacher. We have mapped out the term fairly well, but I realize that even the first projects may send us off on a completely different course.

I find teaching is a profession where the more successful you are the less necessary you become

I have held off posting for a bit as the class moved into the final project. I must say – some really great work! As I mentioned in class today, part of my excitement with this class was that I had less and less of an idea what to expect for each project as the term went on. Eno suggests that what Generative Art provides is a new metaphor to explore art and the world. This notion of not knowing the outcome – which was often the case for both viewer and artist – reminds me of something Aldous Huxley talks about in The Doors of Perception. “Under the influence” he states “I was seeing what Adam has seen on the morning of his creation – the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence.” While this may be a tall order for an 8:30 am class, the notion of watching as a process unfolds in which the outcome is not predetermined forces a kind of phenomenological clarity.

I liked that this entire class was a process. As I suggested – the parameters of the projects may have changed up until the moment Bob and I entered classroom. Beyond this, I liked that as the process developed the role that Bob and I played as facilitator became less and less important. I imagine that teaching is one of those few professions where you are successful the less necessary you become. This is kind of what I was getting at with the Kung-Fu blog entry earlier in the term. There are many times where classes sort of plateau and simply coast to the end. Most of the major points have been made and most of major elements digested well before the final exam. This class did not seem to work that way. Rather, the last few meetings, including the final, were as engaging if not more so than previous classes, to the point where Bob and I were able to move into a peripheral role.

From the beginning we discussed the class as a laboratory. Our hope was that we could set something in motion and then step back and watch, comment, ask questions. We encouraged this for the third project, but with limited success. It did happen after we broke up into groups for the final project. Pockets of wonderful discussion, experiments, etc – some dedicated to the final project, some not, filled the space – reminiscent of the mash-up day. Bob and I were able to stand back and watch. The same was true for the final projects. Our presence merely seemed to be to reflect back these pieces via whatever methods of documentation we were using. The projects themselves had a life of their own. I am not sure anyone could have predicted that we would surround a resonating piano filled with chitttering cell phones or that we would all move counter clockwise.

I remember seeing this wonderful film called The Mozart Brothers in which an avant-garde director creates a very unique interpretation of Mozart’s Don Giovanni. I may be miss-remembering, but essentially he struggles to get the company on board with his ideas. As the production begins to take on a life of its own and opens to raves the director is seen slowly exiting the back door of the theatre. I think of this in terms of teaching. I am not suggesting that this class was a struggle (in fact it was much less so than I had anticipated – which probably had a great deal to do with the students) But, it was gratifying to hear today that many students thought that there should be a part II to this class – or that they wanted to continue to play with these ideas.

At that point it is up to Bob and I to slowly exit. Our job is done and the students don’t need us to give any more “assignments.” I can appreciate that “taking a class” provides a kind of shelter (it certainly helps when the campus police get involved), but also provides an excuse as to why you would spend your time on activities like this. To do odd an intriguing machine-like projects on your own time may just seem a bit strange. But isn’t that what artists do? Isn’t part of being an artist chasing down interests, asking questions, exploring possibilities even if they don’t fit into some pre-ordained plan?

The question, of course, is what to do with this generative stuff in the context of more traditional art forms. I do think it is difficult to think of a one to one match – how one makes generative theatre, film, dance, and music. But, if the final projects are any indication – it is possible. What might be more useful, however, is not to think of this process as hermetically sealed, but one that can generate material to be shaped in a more familiar medium. Using a sound collage generated by a series of phone calls in which the content was left up to each individual caller provided the basis for each of the four final projects. It is hard to imagine them without this as a starting point.

So, like Bob’s comment about Michelangelo staring at water stains, the result of generative work can always be used as inspiration, raw material, direction, or even a way of opening up possibilities beyond individual tastes and training.
While Bob and I may have entered this process in the position of authority – it is our class, we are the instructors, we made decisions on how we would proceed, at some point we moved from guides to observers. Just watching these final pieces was marvelously inspiring – clearly I have much to learn from these students. So – like the Jasper Johns quote Bob posted in the hallway, I fully intend to take the final pieces and do something with them. In doing so, I turn my back on the prescribed roles of “student” and “teacher.” I suggest you do the same.

That said, I want to thank all of the students and Bob for a very inspiring and exciting term.