Week Two into three:

Well we lost Tuesday to the snow and ice storm that was way worse than expected. Even digging out by Wednesday was tough. So, projects were pushed to Thursday. One of the things I will remind the students is that they need to trust the process. It may seem like we are just fucking around or aimlessly wandering in ideas, but it will begin to cohere as the term progresses. I need to remind myself that also. I went into the first project day apprehensive – with all the standard worries – will the projects be interesting, will we have enough to discuss, will they establish ideas that we can work with during the term. And, of course, the work was wonderful. Although we only got through 2/3rd of the projects we could see variety of presentation mode, and, perhaps more importantly, so many wonderful different ways to think about time. This will give us quite a bit to work with – but already I can see ideas like: compressed time, layered time, elongated time, personal relations to time, progression, degeneration, frame or ground, implied spectator, anticipation (of evolution), the cyclical nature of time, intentional VS random composition, Bergson’s notion of duration, time capsule – projection into future/relation to past, where pieces begin and end, palimpsest, useful time, waisted time, the everyday or mundane, is “present” really present?, do. We see or create meaning?, perpetual evolution, erosion, how we use time, actions shaping action in time. Ans, we still have about 5 presentations in each section. The second round of projects were as engaging as the first. Really good work – and lots to think about. In discussing them I tried to make connections between the pieces with the above list – which I think may have set a tone I need to shift. I’m not sure why I am spending more time explaining and projecting ahead in the term than focusing on the present and asking questions. I seem to be doing the same thing in my MWF classes (which is compounded by not yet finding the rhythm of teaching 50 minute classes after not teaching them for 15 years). When I do pose questions the energy level seems quite low – so I need to start each class with some project or exercise to wake folks up. I also need to remind myself to be more patient to wait for answers – both Joe and Bob are way better at that than I. We have good information to work with so far, but I need to find a way to have the conversations gel better. Ais this always how these classes are in the first few weeks? Maybe.

First week – Day one and day two:

It is really fantastic to be back in the WW5 gym for this class – where I taught it last in 2015 (7 years ago?) Some things about the space have changed, but it’s great to have an open room to work in. The first class was largely dedicated to going over the syllabus, requirements, etc – and with this class trying to sort out those that want to play with this material and those that don’t. I’m trying to avoid any surprises about the structure. The icebreaker game this time round was based on the surrealist idea of question and answer – where the two don’t have to match. My initial intent was to have students writs down a question and an answer on separate index cards and then shuffle and distribute them, but in covid-times that didn’t seem like a great idea. I hope we can resolve this before Fluxus day. Students wrote them down and we circled the room posing questions with indeterminate answers. Then on to the Self, Society, and Cosmos ideas – good list of what students remembered from this class with the 8:30 section being a bit more awake than the 10 – which always seems to happen. This is why last time we started with stretching and whatnot – I may lean back into that as the term progresses. Then I assigned the first project due next week – I love this project which has students presenting three different types of time. Always interesting to see what they come up with. I’ve reminded them that the question is deliberately vague since I am not looking for any specific answers, just how they respond to the prompt. Day two was about discussing traditional aesthetics and so we started with each person showing/discussing something they find “beautiful.” It was interesting to see the difference in the sections with 8:30 leaning a bit more into process – complexity, layers, catharsis, formal elements and 10:00 a bit more on effect – mood, environment, impact. I always feel like benefit from this conversation in ways the students don’t so shared a bit of the 8:30 with the 10 and will do the inverse on Tuesday. The rest of the class was about discussing aesthetics, rules, patterns, cultural ideas, etc with regards to art-making and art-viewing. The examples students provided offer great detail for this conversation. I’ve tried to give them a glimpse of where we are headed – mainly as an extension of figuring out who wants to play with these ideas and who doesn’t. The first week can never really be more than exposition, but we’ve already played a game and students presented ideas – so we are in good shape. I’m looking forward to the first projects on Tuesday.

Aesthetics of Dissonance 2022

Coming soon - ramblings and thoughts on teaching two sections of a revamped Aesthetics of Dissonance in the age of COVID and American fragmentation. Should be fun.