Clearly I need to get my shit together and blog about this
class more often. Another four days have gone by. In that time we have
discussed the time projects, Bergson, Jarry, The Futurists, authority, and are
at the doorstep of dada. Far too much to encapsulate in such a tiny frame.
The follow up to the time projects was largely driven by a
discussion of both time and aesthetics. The day started with an exercise to
create “something” that would last one minute – the three categories were
something to be listened to, looked at, and watched. Groups were not supposed
to share which one they were working on. The project was designed to show how
fluid these categories, or how any aesthetic categories, can be. This gave way
to a discussion of aesthetic categories and how they may have their own
specific criteria. Inevitably, with the Tolstoy article, we get into how
traditional aesthetic criteria tend to value what a specific class or element
of society values. Yea – kind of Marxist, but kind of right.
Bergson and Jarry proved to be strange but amenable
bedfellows. The Bergson article gave us a good way to begin to talk about time
as an element of life and art. Duration, simultaneity, dynamism are three ideas
Bergson deals with that connect incredibly well with the Futurists. The day
begin with an exercise called “one minute late” in which the prompt suggest
that: “
awoke this morning one second later than usual. Because of the time gap the
following five events occurred.” It is always interesting how dark this gets.
Cataclysmic events, death, destruction. Although the occasional bright of humorous
story gets told.
Jarry and ‘Pataphysics proved to be both useful and
baffling. Wrapping your head around the seriousness or necessity of nonsense
seems like an odd path to tread. Particularly because the bulk of western
education denigrates this idea or brushes it off as – well – nonsense. But
there is power in Jarry’s loopy logic – one that I hope will pay off when we
talk about Tzara and Ball and dada.
The Futurists! Ahh – the first legitimate group of the term.
The class started with an Oulipo game Homoconsonantism
in which the sequence of consonants
in a source text is kept while all its vowels are replaced. It is always
interesting to see what sentences students come up with. So this gave way to a
discussion of manifestos in general and the specifics of the Futurists ideas.
It seemed to be a more general overview than I have done in the past, but we
did pick up on a couple of key ideas. The point is to link them to Bergson, but
also to changes in technology and the world around these artists. The class
concluded with a discussion of Russolo’s “art of noise.” Thinking about how our
understanding of sound has changed over time is fascinating. What once was
considered noise is now woven into music. The pay off for all of this comes
later in the term when we cycle back to generative music and such.
A great example of simulteneity and dynamism:
And – today. As a lead in to dada students read Bakunin’s
ideas on authority and Arthur Danto’s notions on the intractable avant-garde.
The last time I taught this I think I made it too complicated – assigned seats,
students who talked needed to hold a specific object – sort of like Lord of the
Flies, and those that didn’t talk needed to remove a shoe every twenty minutes
or so. Arbitrary authority, but somewhat silly. This time I boxed students into
a “classroom” and assigned them seats in rows. A typical educational structure,
but not one we have employed yet in the term .I made certain to arrive a few
minutes late.
Immediately in the first class it was apparent that most
students were comfortable doing what they were told, but two were not. The two
students that decided to sit outside the proscribed area did so openly. We
asked to sit with the others they refused. When demanded to sit with the others
they asked why. I queried the class. What are my options at this point? Kick
them out of class or let them continue to undermine my authority. I could not
have scripted it better. One of the things I need to remember about these
classes is if I invite students to play
I need to accept what form that play takes. It was a great segue into a
discussion of Bakunin, authority, power, natural and artificial laws.
The second class took a different approach, but with similar
results. I arrived to find all the chairs turned around and the students facing
the wrong direction. I barked at them to restore the classroom and sit in their
assigned seats. Oddly, and without griping, they did. This allowed me to ask
why? Given the rebellion why were they so quick to right it once an authority
entered the room? Again, this led us into a great discussion of Bakunin’s
ideas.
The Bakunin material gave way to a discussion of the Danto
article about dada rejecting western conventions as a way of rejecting society.
In opposition to order and logic, chaos and nonsense become the weapons of
choice. This part felt a bit more like a stretch, but the hope is laying the foundation
with the Bakunin material that once we get to discuss dada it will all begin to
fit together some. I am leaning fairly heavily on the RoseLee Goldberg book to
provide narrative and biographical information on these groups. Next we head
into dada territory and since I had to cancel dadaday we will most likely look
at sound poems, chance, dada poetry next class.
I don’t quite have a read on the class yet. Both sections
have totally different vibes, but in each there are students willing to just
dive into the material. Right now I feel like I am explaining too much, talking
too much, and need to find ways of passing that off to the students.
