I must say that I do like starting class by stretching and getting our blood flowing, but I execute it with a kind self-consciousness. I wonder if that will dissipate or remain for the whole term. The word games/brain teaser stuff I enjoy also but do less self-consciously. What I like about these exercises is the communal aspect – well that and getting students up out of their chairs first thing. It is so easy just to tune out and be disengaged. I don’t assume that starting this way automatically engages, but it at least provides a different rhythm from a more traditional academic class.
Delightful conversation today. One of those days where I get fascinated by the comments and questions raised by the students and wrestle with staying on the track I had pre-planned. Clearly we could talk about art and beauty – well – forever – but the objective was to use this conversation as a way to swing back to the first projects on time. The aesthetic issues we will return to again and again over the course of the entire term, but I wanted to raise certain questions about the first projects. The hope is that these questions usher us into the discussion of Bergson and the Futurists. On the surface the projects are an answer to a question – there was no presumption that students would bring in works of art, and certainly no presumption that they would be beautiful or polished or complete works of art, and yet many of them were. I wondered if this would be the case had I assigned this project to a group of chemistry majors or history majors or English majors. Do the works “become” art (or are viewed as art) simply because they were created by art students in a class taught at an art school. Or do we apply other criteria to them?
I find this an interesting question not just because it raises the issue of intent, but also of reception. It implies the spectator in the work as much as the artist. This is something we will deal with more specifically when we get to the Gen Art section, but it will probably also inform our discussion of Dada and Futurism. A number of students raised the question of meaning – is it in the work of art or suspended between art-work and audience? A wonderful philosophical question that we will tackle throughout the term, but perhaps engaged by the Situationists in the most visible manner.
While we did not get to the discussion of “good” art and “bad” art – the criteria based on aesthetic study, tradition, habit, etc - we did wander close to the topic. I had wanted to raise the question of aesthetics in relation to the first projects. Not only if they can be considered works of art, but can they be considered “good’ works of art. The whole reason, of course, to employ the strawman issue of “good” and “bad” is to attempt to get beyond the two exclusive categories and move toward the idea of the continuum. There is certainly time for this conversation and I do not expect that as we move from project to project that they will inevitably be lost to time. The linkages and comparisons and contrasts between each project should yield some interesting discussion points.
The blogs are such a useful tool, primarily for students that took the time to document their process. Once we have seen the work this fills in many of the questions we may have about them, about certain choices or end results. The process itself stands out, connected to, but also independent of the final project. If part of the assumption of this approach to teaching is to start with what the students know, then asking questions about their intent or process and then making links to the ideas and concepts is a much simpler task than leaping directly to the abstract. Having executed the projects each student has a concrete understanding of having to express time in a number of different ways. I am curious to see what connections can be made between the projects and Bergson’s ideas on duration. The next step then is to make the connection to the Futurists. Which has already begun. (I am debating whether to include student names in this blog – but for now I will just use letters to abbreviate). In discussing the complacency of the audience SH made a great connection to the Futurist intent to get a rise out of the audience – to provoke them in some way to have a response that was not pre-programmed. I am anxious to get to the discussion of this process next Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment