Bergson and Marinetti and Jarry, oh my!

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MbJi0xtnEA

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.

2015 - new class - the first three days

What a lazy start to the term – here we are three class meetings in and this is my first post. It actually kind of works well since the first three classes fit together well as the “intro.” Like all project-based classes day one is a taste of how the class will be structured. Normal syllabus stuff and then we get into the warm-up and game before discussion. Changing up the “what could be inside’ game I substituted a can with the label pealed off. Unlike where people shake the box to hear what is inside this one yielded some interesting results. The instructions were to try and pitch selling this unmarked item – some good riffing on what might or might not be inside. Like the last time I taught this class we moved on to the Self, Society, and Cosmos ideas. This time around “existential vacuum” took the prize for the most visible ideas. Good list of terms and ideas dealing with authority as well as the absence of authority. I suspect we will cycle back to these ideas from time to time – particularly with the Futurists and Dadaists.

The second-class day was focused on aesthetics – so I asked students to bring in something they found beautiful and tell us why. A similar pattern from the last time this was taught in that most students articulated a personal connection to the object or idea. Some even went so far as to point out that while the object may not be aesthetically pleasing they still found it beautiful. A nice distinction I need to push on a bit more when we return to discuss the aesthetics articles. We spent the remainder of the class talking about beauty and how we understand it, learn it, accept it, and address it. Like the SSC ideas – they pay off on this is down the line when we look more closely at what some of the artists we will discuss develop.

The fact the Golden Mean came up in both classes I find interesting – clearly this is being taught either in Liberal Arts or – I suspect – in the art schools. It is a really wonderful idea – particularly because it is drawn from nature and suggests a kind of natural beauty and proportion. This, to me, always links to Chaos Theory – which I suspect we will discuss more than I anticipated.

Day three – first project day. Like the Gen Art class I do feel it is important to get the first project out there as soon as possible. It sets a bar and also allows me to get a read on who wants to play and who doesn’t. The hard part with this is it is not about polish or expertise of ideas, but who is willing to push on their comfort zone – as well as the class’s comfort zone. The project was on time – specifically three different types of time represented in the container of “one minute.” I wasn’t quite strict with the one minute – some played within this frame others did not. Lots of good thoughtful projects – some which could have benefitted from more thought, but the challenge is there to work within a particular level. Some really beautiful work – particularly on an emotional level. Between the two classes there were at least two students who used this piece to concentrate on loss. The sense of capturing something or someone and then moving on. This is what struck me most about these pieces compared to the last time. Memory and how we use technological means to capture that memory seemed to be the prevalent idea. It does raise questions about what we use these things for and how we use mechanical or digital time to segment our day and control our activities. A couple of pieces did the same thing with sound or movement. More performative pieces then last time – which is fine – but does tend to deal with time differently than objects do.

The notion of analogue and digital came up in both classes – both as ideas but also woven into the fabric of some of the projects. This is an interesting space to move within. Headed toward glitch it does begin a process of exploring the differences as well as the cross over points. They both have very different structures and outcomes – it is possible that I will need to specify developing a project with in an analogue world as opposed to digital – if for no other reason that the control factor is completely different. It is interesting that we have seen a handful of projects that could have been presented at any point this term. A good place to start – both classes seem to be a mix of the introspective, the adventurous, the contained, and the methodical. I will see where this takes us in the next few weeks.

Dissonance Day Day Day: Things Fall Apart

Typically I set courses up to drive to the end of the term with (hopefully) all of the pieces coming together in the last few weeks. This one was set up differently. It was set up to sort of fall apart. I am fascinated by that gesture – used in Blazing Saddles, and The Holy Grail, and most of Caryl Churchill’s work, some Velvet Underground, some of Brecht’s stuff, some of Shaw’s stuff, Situationists, Metzger, and a handful of other examples.  The gesture is about dissemination as opposed to containment, dispersal as opposed to consensus. The main point is that – sure – I could summarize everything we have discussed and wrap it up in a nice neat little study guide – but why? If most of the artistic activity that we have looked at circles around the idea of floating authority, challenging the rules of the past, and imagining a different future what good is my summery? So – we listened to music and the students looked at books, or slept, or talked. They worked on their projects, or slept, or talked – and in this case about some interesting things. I’m anxious to see what the final projects are like. As with most of the assignments this term – I really have no idea what to expect.

Dissonance Day Twenty-six: In which we sit around and listen to records:

The last time I taught this class when we got to the post-punk/glitch section I really wanted to follow the impulse to just play records and listen. My initial idea was to try and recreate some sort of late 70s rec room in the gym, but lacking the necessary drive and supplies I settled on a kind of fort or nest – which was little more than a few blankets laid out on the floor.  I dragged over some furniture and an old mattress that was there and then tossed out a bunch of books on things like punk, post-punk, no wave, and glitch. Kind of like a reading nook at some library somewhere – probably the Pacific North-West.

I really wanted to keep my mouth shut and just listen, but I really can’t. I projected Wikipedia overviews of the artists, bands, and albums but interjected every so often. I knew once we got to glitch I would talk and talk. I am fascinated by this subject and having just finished writing a paper on it I have more info that I really know what to do with. I felt it was important to ground the contemporary dubstep stuff in its history – which I see at Yasunao Tone and Oval. But also the gesture to aestheticize the type of stuttering sounds Tone was making. So – I started by making some with a sharpied CD on portable player. Like Tone – I love the fact that I can’t predict what sounds will come out when I hit the machine or where the laser will hang up. Rather than use the go to “supatrigga” I really need to start recording stuff onto disk and then actually glitch it rather than the glitch-a-like stuff. Maybe I will work on that next week when the students are working on their projects.

I did have sort of a mild revelation about this kind of space though. It had an unintentional Montessori vibe to it. From what I understand, the Montessori classroom is filled with objects and activities that the students gravitate toward. The teacher’s job then is to work with each student on these activities while also helping them develop more complex activities. Wandering around I had a number of interesting conversations with students that had gravitated to one book or another (sadly I didn't get to have a conversation with each student). I wonder if this is a way to approach this type of subject. Lay out a variety of options and then work with students on developing there interest. There are of course always students that will take this as an opportunity to tune out, look at email or text messages, sleep, have a conversation with their friends, etc (although it is possible that these students were tuned in - doing what I was doing and finding info about the bands or songs online).

But I wonder what the attention span for something like that is. If class is set up in such a way where students that show interest in a particular idea are given attention and supplied with more ideas and materials whereas those tuned out are ignored how long would it last? Would ignored students eventually take interest or simply remain detached? In this scenario the teacher’s efforts are directed toward students who want those efforts and not squandered on those that are indifferent. I know this sounds elitist – but that is not the intent - it does how ever change the dynamic from dwelling on students uninterested in the material to focus on those who are. I am genuinely interested in the question “what makes you curious?” If rhizomatic teaching develops out of engaging each student with their interests and their knowledge base would this be an appropriate way of approaching this. I just don’t know. But it does provide something to think about. Perhaps as we move into the final week of the class I can tinker with these ideas and see what happens.

I do have to say that as much as I like these individual conversations I do miss the group warm up and group exercises. Don’t know if anyone else does too.

Dissonance Day Twenty-five: Hey you kids, get off my lawn!

So – basically a continuation of the previous rant or post or whatever it was/is. I know given the impulse to set something in motion or raise questions or doubts last class (whether successfully or not) I needed to remove myself from the class. This can, of course, be accomplished in a number of different ways. If I simply don’t show up the fear is that students will assume class is canceled and go home or get coffee of whatever. If I completely structure a project for them – some kind of happening that sends them across the campus on a scavenger hunt for people, places, or notes I am still in charge and I may as well just teach the damn class. So – the solution for today was to destroy my notes. I placed them in nine envelopes with a note that basically had variations on the following:

“Congratulations – you had the initiative to open the envelope! You may ask any questions you like about Metzger’s essay, auto-destructive art, or the auto-destructive projects. If you are interested in using my question you will need to piece them together. I suspect you may need to consult other envelopes.”

I thought about having the envelops on the floor when the students entered the space, but that almost seemed too subtle and that gesture raises the same fear as students assuming that class is canceled. So – at the start of class I wandered in and placed them on the floor in a deliberate cross pattern and wandered out. I have no idea how long it took the students to realize that I was not coming back. I have no idea if they opened the envelopes. All I know is that after about 15 minutes they all came out of the building and sat in front of my office. Not sure if it is all of them – they may have split into different groups or some may have left. Sitting on the lawn in front of my office seems like a challenge – which is nice – a way of saying “look, we are doing what you want” – or something to that affect. It is an obvious gesture of visibility, but one that I appreciate – they could have all just left or sat in the classroom and talked. There does seem to be a lot of laughing, and at least one peer into the window. I figure I will just sit here and blog about my take on this.

What I have to say is that it is killing me not to go join them. I keep coming up with excuses to go outside and at least acknowledge their presence. My first thought was the iconic “hey you kids, get off my lawn” statement. But that seemed too desperate. I thought about following the peer into the window with a comment, but again, that somehow seems too needy. Then I started to gather books that might be useful or interesting to look at – a few on Metzger, Stewart Home’s Assault on Culture, and this wonderful book called Under Destruction from an exhibit at Museum Tinguely. Then I decided not to interrupt the conversation with my crap (although for some reason I do feel the need to post the links here). Part of walking away is that I have to be prepared to walk away. One thing I can say is that walking away from a class is much harder than actually teaching it. Especially this class.

I’m not sure why but it feels “new,” the way classes feel when you first start teaching somewhere. You don’t know the students, they don’t know you but over the course of the term you get to know each other. I have to say that I have been delighted by the level of work this term. By the questions, by the conversations, by the dynamic that is created by this mixture of students with this material. That is what is so hard to walk away from. I really am hooked on the conversation. But as long as I am asking the questions it can’t really evolve beyond my own obsessions and fascinations.  I find that I do get frustrated from time to time with students I think can work harder, push themselves farther, develop ideas more fully, but then I think back on all of the great work that has been done this term and the frustration dissipates. Bob and I had always talked about deliberately creating an obsolescence for ourselves with both the Gen Art class and the Virtual Worlds class. That has been the trajectory here. The hard part is that without Bob I’ve no one left to talk to. Well – that may not be entirely true since the students just popped into my office (complete with the phrase “don’t know if you saw us out here”) and tossed a bunch of papers – presumably the envelop material, and left a piece of notebook paper with – well who knows what. I’ll wait for the class to be “officially” over before I look at it.

I have found that in the past after classes like this students do want to talk about it. That may or may not be the case here. So, I figure the next class we listen to some music. I am happy to talk or not talk about today’s class. The impulse to do so will not come from me. I suppose I should just set up the material and leave, but there is no way in hell I am leaving my records alone in the gym. Way too valuable to me. Plus we do need to discuss what happens the last week of class. In retrospect before I removed myself from the class I should have covered all of that. OK – well – there is always next time.

OK - P.S. time. Glad I went up to the gym. I love the fact that no matter how a day like this is framed at some point tables and chairs are turned over. One of these days I want to teach in a classroom where they are always turned over.  Having picked through the detritus left by the class, including the faggot on the porch (in the most traditional sense) and the remains of what looks like a fire, I finally sat down to look over the scraps of paper. I must admit I am touched. Partly because I did see walking away as a sort of betrayal, but also partly because it is clear that at least some of the students understood why. The comment "you missed a great class" also comes with the acknowledgment that had I remained it would have not been so. Students sitting around talking about art - at an art school - go figure. I know that this gesture could only come at this point in the term - any earlier and too many would have walked away. To those who stayed. Thank you. Hopefully when I return to the conversation it can be as a participant and not a leader.

Dissonance Day Twenty-four – God! I am such a fucking wuss!

Part of my approach to this material is that I should no longer be needed. To create an atmosphere where experimentation can happen, where failure or success don’t matter, where I no longer need to ask the questions and conduct the sessions. If a large part of moving to the present involves flagrantly fluting the rules (of aesthetics, politics, social structures) I am baffled by lemmings. Perhaps it is the deadening of the American educational system. Perhaps it is 8:30 in the morning. In any case, I am frustrated by the fact that about half of the students are ready to take these ideas and make them their own while the other half still feel compelled to ask me what I want them to do.

Yes – I was pissy when class started today – for a few reasons. We have started every class for the past 13 weeks with some sort of exercise – physical or mental. And yet students still need to be told to get up out of the fucking chairs and move to the open space. I give quick instructions on the mental exercises and students still worry about what I am asking for. I am not sure how else to convey that what “I” am asking for doesn’t matter. The instructions are deliberately vague because I am more interested in what the students – alone or in groups - do with the exercises. It has been that way since the beginning. My frustration comes out of two different impulses – 1) I am tired of hand-holding and 2) where did I screw up that created such a dependent situation?

Typically I get the impulse to “blow up” a class at least once a term. It is probably hard to explain what I mean by that, but it largely has to do with limiting my agency or control or completely withdrawing from the process. It often takes the form of a Happening in which I am not present. These are useful projects in that students are forced into leadership roles – open boxes, read notes, ask questions. But then generally order is restored when I return the following class. I think because I have been interested in the projects and in the conversation this term I have not felt this impulse until now. Today I needed to plant the bomb and then light the fuse next class. I really only went half way. I started edgy and agitated and pissed off but that gave way into being drawn into the translation exercise and then the conversation about punk.

Punk segues to Situationism which segues into Deconstruction and I could talk about that shit all day. I addressed the notion of Larvatus prodeo (I advance masked) in the sense that someone like Debord makes a final gesture of releasing his film contracts as if to say – “Look – I am anti-capital but made a lot of money here – even I am full of shit.” It is a brilliant gesture. It helps destroy binaries and at the same time forces the viewer/reader to think for themselves. I do often attempt to take this approach to teaching in that I have ideas and opinions – but they need not be yours. Part of that gesture has to be destroying the teacher/student binary – of removing the “leader” from the group. Today it needed a stronger action than simply suggesting I set the class up based on projects because I was too lazy to fill this time or to grade essays. It was a very feeble attempt. In all the years I have been working on this type of gesture only one student has directly understood. When asked to provide an example of deconstruction he cited the class and my approach. He was dead on.

But like Johnny Rotten’s idea of “no future” designed to be a call to arms but interpreted as nihilism shows that the message sent isn’t always the one received. I realize that this gesture involves combating years (generations?) of educational systems that asked questions that had ready-made answers and ranked students on how quickly and how accurately they could dredge this information up. But the role of the artist (at least as it is defined in our culture) doesn’t always have answers – some only have more and more questions. So – do we need to train artists to say “how high” when we ask them to jump or do we have to place them into positions where they need to figure out if they want to jump at all and then how they would go about approaching that gesture? I’m rambling, but I don’t think training artists is about conformity or correct answers, I think it is about problem solving.

So now I have a choice. Do I show up at the next class and continue the same process of leading the students through exercises and questions or do I make them do it? Do I stay and watch or leave? Do I provide questions or just say “go”? All of those alternatives suggest control and a hierarchy. Do I push the hierarchy to a breaking point – a point beyond which they will not go – force the hand of rebellion? Part of me feels that we have built up some very good connections this term and I am unwilling to destroy those for this gesture. There has to be an approach that takes me out of the “teacher” or “leader” role and still allows a conversation to develop. Do I let them form groups based on interest – knowing at least one of the groups will not be interested in talking about any of this shit.

I know that this is at least a three part deal – set the bomb today – which I kind of sort of did, light the fuse, and then process the aftermath. The aftermath is designed to lead into the last few days of the term, which are left open for the students to create their own projects and ideas. Some are ready for this – have been ready for this for some time – some will simply give up their agency to another student.  I wonder if a semester is just too long to sustain this kind of energy. Perhaps in the future I should cut them loose after about 10 weeks and then uses the final weeks to go back and process everything they did.  This seemed to work better in a team teaching situation. As Bob pointed out – the students don’t have to worry about the teacher since they a friend along to keep them company. Perhaps that is part of what is going in with this dynamic is that I am doing it alone. In any case, I do know that part of the aftermath will just be a listening party (a kind of “difficult listening hour” built on post punk and glitch) – but I don’t know what the ignition looks like yet. Well I have a weekend to figure it out. 

Dissonance Day Twenty-three – Auto-Destruction Projects:

This was the project I was looking forward to all term – mainly because I know it was a complicated one, but also built on the other projects. Bob and I gave the Gen Art class a similar project in that the students had to create a system of motion that could sustain itself for at least an hour – that was the assignment that infamously used the “bags of meat.”  The Dissonance project had a minimum of a half an hour with no maximum. What I like about this assignment is that it is designed to work in opposition to traditional aesthetic training. At this point I can only speak for my own background, but my training as a performer and designer rested on building toward a specific goal. While there may be some simplification or stripping away in the process, the end result is something that has been “created” rather than pulled apart. I do think the rhetoric of “creation” and “destruction” is often far too exclusionary. One does not necessarily exclude the other. An act of destruction can be an act of creation and vise versa. Of course what I love about this kind of thinking is that it allows me to discuss deconstruction.

I have been thinking about where to pull this in for a while. We need to loop back to the Situationists – who also moved between creation and destruction – to deal more specifically with the fall out from May of 1968. Having happened largely in the universities of France it had a huge impact on the thinking of the next generation – which included Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard. An embracing of both/and as opposed to either/or is certainly the legacy that these students have grown up with. The fact that so many of them have explored juxtapositions suggests that it is ingrained in their thinking. I may need to devise a deconstructivist exercise for us to do in the first ten minutes of class.

So – the projects. I must admit that some just knocked me out. Very clever solutions to the problem. The most successful were the ones that included the thought process – the writing about why the piece ended up the way it did. In the next incarnation of the class I need to make this more a part of the assignments. My hope was that by leaving it flexible that students would express these ideas in the blogs – that has not happened with most of the class. Since some had lost of cleanup to do we didn’t really get too far into the discussion. I am interested in how they approached it, what questions arose, what ideas did they discard, were any risks taken, what did they think of the other solutions? I really do feel like I am done at this point – not the class or the students – but my contribution. We basically have three days left – one on the auto-destruction projects, one on Metzger, and one on post-punk and glitch – which is really more of a listening party. The final week is turned over to the students to see what they can come up with on their own.