Clearly the theme of this blog is how many classes can I
cram together in one post. But, due to loss of class time it has also been
about how we can get all of the material in in less time. So – that said –
students presented their surrealistic projects and we discussed them all in one
class, with a bit spilling over into the next class. The projects we fantastic –
some wonderful pieces built out of the prompt – put two or more contrasting
things together. The difference this time round is that I tried to employ the
method of discussing that Lois Hetland used at the faculty/staff workshop on
Studio Thinking. Looking at each object we start with ten observable things –
not judgments – but observations. This is a much slower process than I am used
to, but I have often felt that our discussions about the projects is the weakest
element of these classes. By starting just with observables we are able to
begin to dissect how the piece is constructed – what elements are at work and
how they fit together. After observations we begin to discuss meaning. What are
people getting out of this piece – what do they see in it? This allows for a conversation
about intent, but also interpretation. Finally the student can then talk about
how or why they put the piece together. Doing this with each project takes a
long long time, since some pieces could be discussed for quite awhile. The
danger is running out of time. With only an hour and 20 minutes to cover 17-18
projects – we barely made it in the first class (largely because two people
were absent) and did not finish in the second class. I prefer to do this all at
once so we have all of the pieces in the space, but it may be necessary to think
about splitting into to presentation days.
We started the next class reviewing the pieces that students
were able to bring back – some of which had decayed in a beautiful way after a
week off for spring break. Then on to a discussion of intent. Did any of our observations
go beyond the intent of the artist? Did we miss anything? What I find
interesting about this process is how well we rationalize meaning. Random
pieces together must have an intention, there must be an underlying reason –
and so we look for it or construct it. This adds an interesting layer to how we
discuss works of art. Next was to tie this to Brenton’s surrealistic manifesto.
Why, for example, would an artist try to create as many short circuits to the
brain as possible? What happens in these moments. Were there any pieces that
could not be rationalized, where the logic could not be figured out? What does
this do to how the piece is viewed?
The next step was to create a list of terms, ideas,
technique we have discussed. We came up with this list:
The next step was to discuss John Cage. Bit of background,
but mainly his work as a composer using chance and indeterminacy – so students
listened to the Williams Mix and watched a video on how to prepare a piano. I
love the fact that Cage was incredibly specific about how the piano was to be
prepared – what object, how far along the string to place it, what strings the
object to interact with – except not specifics on the objects – so each time
the piece is performed is sounds a bit different. One of the really interesting
things to develop in the second section was a bit of a argument surrounding 4’33”.
In a way, the reaction was to this wry game Cage seemed to be playing – baiting
the listener – and how that might deviate from a more traditional artistic form
of expression. But, that is exactly the point. Pushing out beyond what is known
into the unknown, or unpredictable. Cage’s notion of non-intention – while
still showing a great intention – is an interesting approach – but it does seem
to contradict itself. We do need to cycle back to these questions after the
Fluxus stuff and delve into how this material relates to the Self, Society, and
Cosmos stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment