8749/ Some.....One

LTC 8749 #4

June 6, 2013
Class: The Social Life of Art
10:00am - 12:45pm · Lecture

read Chapter 5 Freedman
Chapter 5 Eisner
A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change:

A summary with mind farts. (AKA... Thoughts, wonderings and such)

I am being deliberate in the lack of emphasis on digital, and really looking at the underlying principles, which can and should be considered whether a school/educational system values the digital world or not.

Brown and Thomas open their book immediately  hitting this idea: Cultivating citizenship.  With in the world (and the world of art) appropriation and remixing idea, imagery and sound are more or less a constant.  It is a reflection of the constant change, (which is already ever present and has been for all of time... But now at an extraordinary pace.)  As an educator (not isolated to art) we need to help students understand the differences between “copying” or as Sam talks about, remixing.   Isn't remixing really a concentrated version of evolution?  Haven not humans and mother nature been remixing for billions of years?

    Although I am not a big fan of gaming (in education for a litany of other reasons  I will not address right now), the examples about learning here are great. The example of the professor teaching a”in a virtual world, Star Wars Galaxies” class is wonderful.  Students have as much or more to teach each other (talk about ping!).  As educators, again, we need to step back and OUT OF OUR SAFE BOXES.  Allow room for the class dictate the pace and the place.  When students are afforded the room to explore an idea with out judgement,... They will.  As teachers we need to reframe what is failure, and look at it through the lens of curiosity.  EVERYTHING is a learning opportunity.  This new technology and interconnected resources makes a space for all idea.  As Brown and Thomas put it “ The new culture of learning gives us the freedom to make the general personal and then share our personal experience in a way that, in turn, adds to the general.” (pg. 31)  

   In chapter two, Brown and Thomas begin by comparing A mechanistic view to that of learning environments.  I would agree with their views that the environment sets the stage. “the context in which learning happens, the boundaries that define it, and the students, teachers, and information within it all coexist and shape each other in a mutually reinforcing way.,  Now, these fellows seem to stress continually that the digital world will be one of the major keys which transform learning environments into this magic new age.  While I agree that the digital age has its strengths, I will continue to say unless the environment is ALREADY a place which echoes the quote above, technology will NOT fix it.  

   The culture of course defines the environment.  The authors create an analogy between a culture which is established and slowly evolves over time to that of a “culture” in a petri dish.  This culture is allowed to organically emerge with out interference because it is interesting.  This I feel is a good analogy.  If schools could pair this idea with the quote above, schools might just have a chance.  This. However, requires the “adults” who oversee the said culture, to adapt to a totally new way of operating within that culture.  It requires them to give up control.  To surrender to the idea they just might not know, and maybe the students do.... Students and teachers need to work together to functionally create. Everyone and everything grows together. Everyone learning in real time, about real things, that have direct impact on the individuals involved.

Chapter 3:

“ The belief that most of what we know will remain relatively unchanged for a long enough period of time to be worth the effort of transferring it.” (pg.40)  Seriously....  How many if us remain unchanged?  How many of us value the toy we had in second grade compared to what ever it is that has out attention right now? (That toy probably isn't even made anymore if you're my age) NOTHING remains relatively unchanged other than perhaps basic skills like changing a tire or how to put carpet in... (Im sure there are others but you get my point)  A good deal of current education is an antiquated system.  We used to work on a 32 rpm record player (and that worked then)and now its GB to the max... It went from slow to VERY FAST ... Well, VERY FAST.  Its a challenge to keep up and adapt.  But is it?  Think about how quickly the growing human changes and adapts from birth to 18.  How the heck do they go through such profound fundamental change with out going insane?  Play, imagination, flexibility,  curiosity.  These qualities are key to making sense of the experiences they encounter.  If educators make room for play in there own teaching, it sets the grounds for the same response from students....

Chapter 4: Collective learning.  Yes, the internet is a fantastic example of this, but I will say again, unless there is a strong pre-existing community of real people in real time who actually functionally relate on a day to day basis, then the virtual collective will only draw out of an individual what that individual encounters.

Chapter 5: Begins by addressing really, the ideas and concerns around social media.  The authors point out the concerns about lives (and Id add relationships) becoming too transparent.  While I do agree and see this, what concerns me more is the inability to relate and communicate on a deeper level.  In my opinion, social media is suffocating our ability to empathize. When we loose that, narcissism rears its ugly ego domineering head.  

     The authors do point out the advantages of “educational sites” or places where people can explore interests.   Meshing with the collective.  “meshing, when it occurs, is likely to transform both the individual and the collective he or she is interacting with” (pg. 58)... Hmmmm not sure I agree.  I agree IF the people the person is interacting with is a REAL person.  That they bring back the information from their investigations and integrate it into the real time community.  There are of course variations in both directions, this is not meant to bask the internet and the learning opportunities there.  I am not sure how the authors are connecting this to play and admit I will have to step out my box and consider this further. Follow your passion and interest .

The thoughts of collective vs. Personal will take me ten pages to elaborate on..

Chapter 6

Explicit knowledge... An (assumed) correct answer to a question... Facts. Our educational system seems to be heavily rooted in explicit knowledge. “The twenty-first century, however belongs to the tacit.  In the digital world, we learn by doing, watching and experiencing” (pg.76).  OK.  While that is true of the digital world, is also true of every child from the beginning of time.  The digital world does not have property rights to this idea.  The issue is that the digital world is forcing the structure of acquired knowledge to shift in the methods of gathering. Dewey understood a long time ago that learning through doing was rooted in experience.  The problem is, adults have forgotten how to play.  “The problem is that almost every technique and practice we have for understanding how we learn has been about the explicit-in a stable world” True enough, but is it not THRILLING to be able to let that go and create in the moment? Utilize ALL the senses?  Relate, exchange,  share, combine ... Soak it in.  Are we willing to let go of all the thoughts we’ve inherited to live and create within the learning environment (which is loosely defined as LIFE)?  I love the statement “Different people, when presented with exactly the same information in exactly the same way, will learn different things.” (pg. 79) yes. Again.... A mirror to life.  Three children in one family presented with the same lesson, expectation etc.... ALL THREE will make it their own and translate it in a way that makes sense to them in that moment. What if all education happened that way?  (This freaks out people who love assessment). What if the question mattered more than the answer? What if discovery was more values that mastery, what if kids could connect lessons to their lives and what matters to them?

Chapter 7

Knowing:  Fact, provable (although I might argue that a little since what we have decided is a fact was at one point based in a belief...which we then worked through based on some curiosity or wonder... We probably had to make some stuff to prove our idea so it could become something we KNOW) Therefore we need to be careful about all that belief vs. Knowing stuff... What came first, the chicken or the egg.  Still, yea, I know, we’ve all acceptable this knowing to be true.  It defines things for us and provides a sense of stability.

Making: Implies a certain degree of linking ideas together to create something.Introduces concrete context. Context in past education was a source of stability.  Something fixed in time.  However, if we jump to real time now, we go back the chapter ones issues around remixing, it takes what was stable and static in terms of context and destabilizes it, thought the “collective” process. We alter meaning and context.

Playing.  “Play creates culture” (pg.97)  First off, I think we need to step out of the box in regards to our ideas about “play”  The idea that it is not serious, that it is frivolous, is absurd. Play is one of the only serious worthwhile  learning endeavors. When we play, challenge is embraced, mysteries are devoured, fear is released, we become explorer’s, turning corners where we saw none,.  We color outside the lines, heck, we get rid of them!  I love the the way the authors state “in play we may best express the sense of becoming.” (pg.99)

Chapter 8:

Hanging Out:  Although hanging out does indeed acquaint  kids with digital tools, I disagree that it  provides “meaningful social interaction” (pg.101) The extensions alluded too, become obsessions, with no thought to time or situation.  Texts beeping at all hours of the night because the need to know NOW is so intense, that anxiety results if the text is not sent or responded too. Sorry, not seeing this as a healthy relationship wit digital media, not this part of it anyway. The social experience really could use some guidance from the adult world (pre-digital OR healthy digital adults)  

Messing around: In understanding their definition, it seems to be that moment when a person goes beyond the egocentric social aspect of connecting in the virtual world to putting their two in the water (or foot or leg) to see just what all this stuff can really do. This connects to play in that it they must venture out, take a risk, charter new territory.

Geeking Out: There were two aspects which were poignant to this but “Geeking out involves learning to navigate esoteric domains of knowledge and practice and participating in communities  that traffic in these forms of expertise”  (pg. 104) This speaks to the power of collaboration, but I cant help but wonder if the “geeker” has an awareness of this as a collaboration.  DO the students who “geek out”  have the tools to check their information?  DO they know what is valid information and what is not, does the internet world render the difference irrelevant if we are indeed redefining what is known and what is tacit?  Who gets to say what information is worth while and isn't.  Are we reinvention reality?

Chapter 9:

Maybe we also need to redefine the ideas behind digital learning, interface, collective etc.  DO these concepts require technology to manifest in a group of learners?  The world of digital games may be one possible venue for this BUT it can and should be created FIRST in real time in relationship in school communities. Re-define the environment like this book states but do not make it dependent on technology, make it student centered,m relationship centered, collectively centered, and use technology as one of MANY tools to engage the learning process.

LTC 8749 #3

Man of Steel:

First of all, I found myself a little irritated there were not any pictures... but then, I thought to myself, ok, as I read, I shall do my best to imagine these forms.  Of course, what I imagine is sprinkled with the perceptions of the author, but that idea intrigued me.  If I were not sitting in the back of my car at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park, Id probably try and draw what the author conveys and then later look up the actual pieces and compare and contrast.  Just a fun experiment.

Reading through this article though, several poignant statements stood out for me.  The idea that Serra's work is described as having "complexity, requiring constant attention" is a pretty big statement. As a teacher, I want my own students to be able to achieve some of this.  But how?  Is it about the problems we present to them? The Opportunities to ponder a concept from a different point of view? Materials? Freedom vs step by step constraints?  As a teacher, if the project my students are working though is complex, requiring layers of thought, then the attention that goes into the process, will likely be present in the product.  I think Serra's work is a good example to use because his work is not about making something pretty or visually appealing. It goes beyond that to something else.  Having that option for a student frees them from the pressure of creating "something they think the teacher wants" or "something its supposed to be". 

I also am intrigued with his list of simple tasks, to fold, to twist, to fold and so on. This echoes for me a little bit what I do with some of my students.  To take a fundamental idea or principle and interpret it based on your experiences and perception.  Serra's work seems more purist than what I do with kids as Serra's does not seem imbued with his own story other than the subtle layer of the choice he made in performing the task, but still, an interesting task.

"Rough simplicity is its genius"  The steel behemoth, the idea that something so simple could illicit so much curious reaction, force movement (be it one of engagement or one of retreat) is powerful in a quiet and subtle way. What a different perspective to process with kids when considering art.  It certainly emphasizes the relationship first between the artist and the process of the piece, which then takes on a new relationship when the viewer enters the field and has her own encounter.  Art is not static.  It is a continuous exchange.

Freedman: So, how do we as teachers know what meaning our students are making and or understanding from art (or all texts if we examine this from the semiotics perspective).  I like the idea of transmediation, "taking understandings from one system and moving them into another sign system.  

In my opinion, it is critical we raise the awareness of what screams for our students attention and arm them with techniques for processing this bombardment and also communicating effectively with it.  To "use multiple literacies to compose videos, graphs, collages, role-play scenarios, interactive games, music and the like". In our classrooms this means we have to expand our own understandings.  We need to "undefine" our ideas of what story telling is, what representation is, what teaching is, what matters. We need to be fearless (and even more so ... vulnerable) and set the example if we want our students to follow, or better yet, join. We need to look at what we teach and ask ourselves does this serve the kids we teach with what is happening right now for them.

"An emphasis on these multiple forms of representation continues to be seen as innovation"  Why? Seriously?  If we look at life there is not a separation between multi-modal events, all of life is a multimodal event.  Shouldn't education echo real life and visa-versa? 

.

LTC 8740 #2

Assignment: read Chapters 3-4 Eisner
Chapter 2 Freedman
Terry Barrett:
1. Principles for Interpreting Art www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3193496?origin=api
2. About Art Interpretation for Art Education www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1320749?origin=api3.Images, Power, and Politics
If you haven’t read it: Barrett’s Interpreting Visual Culture www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3194015?origin=api

*Tomorrow :Bring in 2 objects, one that you consider art and one that you believe is not art!

Art. What is art.  As a society do we have an agreed upon parameter that defines (and there within limits) what art is?  All things are created, whether by molecular arrangement by some random or non random event, or by specific arrangement done with what we call consciousness (although ego is more true).  But does specific trump random?  And then, doesn't perception have something to do with this?  After all, we are the ones deciding,  add ego to perception and you have a recipe for complete subjectivity.  SO what is Art then?

A word.  A word interpreted a million different ways with many of those ways intersecting but not a single one the same.  Is it the word “art” what were talking about?, not the object which represents the word. 

art 1 |ärt|

noun

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.

• works produced by such skill and imagination: his collection of modern art | an exhibition of Mexican art | [ as modifier ] : an art critic.

• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture: she's good at art.

If we go by Webster's definition, then the involvement of human intention seems to be the principle defining difference.  BUT, isn’t perception an expression?  Therefore, the perception that a pattern in a rock  is natures art, can that be art?  Does the intention behind the aesthetic, change the value of the art?  For instance, the images produced as a part of visual culture compared to Museum pieces?  Where is the line? (and is the line art?)

I could not find an object in my house that after a moment of contemplation, did not meet some criteria of art (for me personally) because my personal definition is probably too broad. It goes back to relationship as well.  My relationship with everything is about creativity... Art, even as defined above, falls under that umbrella.  Therefore, for me, all objects qualify as art.  That said, if I were to apply the Webster’s definition more rigidly, then the line would likely be different with in the context of human interaction and what each individual who is responding to the object, imagines whats behind it.  A common TEXT book, for most would not be considered art, although created by humans.  If we look at it purely from the intention for its creation, MOST publishers are not about creating a heart felt beautiful or emotional connecting experience... But that is only one level... Perhaps some love the feel of the paper, of the sound the pages make when flipped through... So does the EXPERIENCE of the object redefine it as art, because a relationship forms between object and person...

Readings, ponderings (which are also connected to the above but hence separated for some attempt at clarity):

    Eisner in Chapter 3 examines all the various ingredients (obvious and less obvious) which make teaching strong. Curriculum, the space, timing, organization, all of that.  What I find to be the most significant though is the ideas the teacher also teachers herself.  This is a powerful concept to consider and all educators should spend a fair amount of time reflecting on what this means for them. 

   This goes hand in hand with the idea of secondary ignorance.  (I love this idea) Not knowing what we  know. ... When we acknowledge that first, there is lots we don't know, and second, there is even more we don't know, it CAN completely open the door to curiosity.  I believe having that awareness, that there are infinite mysteries about EVERYTHING, makes life a constant treasure box.

   So, when we are aware that there is lots we are unaware of, it may change our attention.  As teachers, if we are actively attending to the unknown, then we model for our students that this is of  value.  Eisner mentions that “Attention to the particular qualities of, say, a rock is not a customary mode of perception, yet there is more beauty in a rock than any of us is likely to discover in a life time” (pg. 85)... Hence, my point above about what is art.... Are humans the only beings allowed to “create something beautiful’? Whose to say the earth is not conscious...

     Now, historical roots.  Freedman speaks to history as being told from a particular point of view.  There are of course variations and progressions, but each of us came through the educational gauntlet rooted in some historical perspective recorded and defined by various competent scholars and so forth.  We inherited these beliefs as they created the roots of our EXPERIENCE ( going back to Eisner’s references earlier) which in turn shape our perceptions.  

Our perceptions (known or not) shape our teaching, our relationships with our students and our beliefs about art.

Fortunately (depending on your perspective) art history and and curricular history is now expanding to include a greater context.  “ Contexts of production and viewing play a large part in determinations of whether particular forms, images, and objects of visual culture are considered worthy academic subject material. “ (page 49, Freedman) By expanding even a little bit, perception and experience can be radically altered. Our ideas about art, communication, relationship and so on.

          I truly believe contemporary perceptions and ideas about “art” need to be challenged.  Our world is evolving and progressing at an exponential rate difficult to keep up with, if our perceptions and and willingness to consider art and creation do not expand, we will be left behind. Teaching is in the same boat.

The only constant in this world is change.  

LTC 8740 Curriculum in Art Blog #1

6/3

Assignment: read Chapters. 1&2 Eisner
Chapter 1 Freedman
Imagination First
Choose one of the 21 Imagination sparks and demonstrate/describe how you would use it in an art class to promote imaginative thinking that leads to creative production, responding or presenting artwork.

A narrative distillation of Eisner and Freedman with a whole lot of pondering:

Eisner, asserts ours senses and presence with in a given culture define who we are and how we move through our reality. One experience directly shapes another.  Eisner compares humans and our ability to grow within a culture with that of chimps, their apparent static existence with that of ours progressing.  But this makes me wonder.  Chimps live in unison with their environment, taking what they need, surviving or not, living and dyeing in response to the natural world, doing no deliberate harm to it.  We on the other hand are indeed leaving a legacy.  One of pillage and exploitation of the natural world while simultaneously evolving technologically at mind numbing speeds.  I wonder IF the native cultures, Native Americans, Aborigines, etc had been left alone  IF they would have grown as rapidly as the we have. These humans who lived more in sync with nature.... I wonder.  On the other hand, it is Chalmers view that art (which I associate directly with imagination and possibility) is defined by social context. Were Native cultural norms so set and strong that it did not allow for deviation, did these cultures limit imagination? On the other hand, was art segmented and something separated from the culture or completely integrated..... 

Imagine possibility and creation. It is realized of course (culturally, outwardly) as Eisner's states, though Arts and Sciences, but if we ponder this a moment, isn't that what happens with each breath, each step?  Every single activity can be traced to this, we must imagine it for it to happen, right?  When we first start walking, our brain must imagine this to be inspired to take that risk, and then go for it. As children we do that relatively fearlessly.  So in that process, we realize bodily what we imagined and so on and so forth and then some of this becomes habit so we don't have to imagine it anymore and we imagine yet another thing and work to bring that into reality, a manifestation of sorts of what we thought.  So is ALL of what we do a manifestation of thought and if thats true, are ALL things possible? Are we aware of what we are manifesting or do we take it for granted. Does society thus impose limits on our imagination to keep chaos from erupting?  As a result of this, does art get put in a box? Art is a safe place for the imagination because society has also imposed norms and expectations there.

“representation stabilizes the idea or image in a material and makes possible a dialog with it”( pg 6 Eisner)  Hmmm.  Does an object imply static meaning?  Is something "what" it is, prior to dialog, and then doesn't that something change when a dialog ensues because the dialoguer imposes a meaning or interpretation, thus removing the stability of the objects definition?  Editing erupts from perception shaped from our imaginations, whether we realize it or not. Further, like it or not, we are bombarded with visual stimuli. From objects to signs to film. This is particularly true in society where every manipulated, humanly created image has intention behind it to shape our perception, the aesthetics have different intentions.

“People tend to seek, what they are able to represent.”  Boom. The analogy of using black and white film so we seek shadows etc is a great metaphor.  BUT tools (what we see) are defined by culture. (And culture is defined by the people who create the texts which shape our perceptions and beliefs about who we are and what were supposed to value, it all gets very sticky!) Fundamentally, an object does not need a definition to exist as an object. It is. All things are defined through our experience which circles around to the idea of visual culture which provides the experience which will shape us. 

So why do we need permission through ART to experience imagination?  How did things get defined this way, should imagination not permeate every cell, every breath of every moment? On the other hand, thank heavens culture has made room for imagination someplace.... Although to survive without becoming completely overwhelmed, Eisner speaks to distillation, seeing differences for the sake of classifying etc... All important as long as that process does not lock out that initial space for possibility beyond the definition.

Eisner states it beautifully at the end of chapter one when he says “education is a process of learning how to become the architect of your own experience, and therefore learning how to create yourself.” (pg 24)

When examining the Versions of arts education, to me it is an odd event that we would define ONE WAY to engage in creative endeavors. I suppose the need to define helps explain and its a bit like the map reference in chapter one, it represents something greater than it actually is for the sake of illustrating something.  Still, it seems to me the strongest experiences are grounded not in defining a specific path but exploring many paths and through that experience selecting the one (or combination of one) which is truest to the heart of the walker, so approaching a classroom with the knowledge and openness to apply all six versions as a response to the needs of the group is the way to go. 

Ultimately, the goal from where Im standing is I want to provide experiences for my students which enable open minded, open hearted thinking feeling expressing of life experience.  Develop relationships  (realtime)where thoughts are seeds and with in each seed is infinite potential which through sharing, integration and visioning can grow. 

Imagination First:

Spotlight Off, Lantern On:  

As an introduction to the idea of “seeing” and “perception”  It might be fun to do a simple drawing experiment.  The first phase would be to do a drawing from memory (a common place in the school)  They could draw it anyway they wanted, but I would ask them to draw it with as much detail as possible.  Upon completion, we would then go to this space (be it another classroom, or the library or the playground...what ever.) and have them spend some time looking/investigating.  As they are looking, I would ask them to make a note of what they missed in their drawing.   List everything they now see that they didn’t draw.  Then discuss... Possibly go investigate one more time...(Probably...yea, for sure)  

Similarly, Go outside and do a color observation drawing of the woods.  Bring back in and discuss colors selected. (do a compare and contrast of what people saw color wise)  Then pull out color aid paper (or in my case, paint samples from Lowe's)  Select some random colors, from ones obviously there to less obvious (neon orange, etc)  Give each student 20-30 paint samples (all different from each others) and have them go explore the site they drew, investigating for the full range of color. Take along a journal or paper or what have you to document what was found, draw it and tape the color swatch next to it. They will find them. 

These may seem simple but can have profound effects on how they participate in “seeing” the world they encounter each day.  Subtle shifts in attention over time broaden the awareness.

Concentration 4, nearly done.

Concentration #4

It is breathing..... new marks... wildness...