Day Day Day

I think this is fairly typical of these blogs on courses – fairly steady – a bit inconsistent by midterm and then falls apart at the end. To catch up – We discussed the Wooster Group using the terms we have developed over the semester. This is the first time I have done this – leave the ever-growing list on the board and come back to them again and again. Notably we had a project at the beginning of class near spring break as a kind of review in which each group defined and gave examples of the terms. In discussing the Wooster Group we did the same thing, only now focused specifically on this “text.” The result is a much deeper sense of analysis of a single text than a surface reading of many. The same type of use of these ideas comes back on the final exam where students define 10 of a list of 23 terms complete with examples from our discussion and then go into detail using three of the terms to look at a project by another student. The hope is to make them both more observant as well as use the terminology and ideas.

The final projects were generally open ended. I broke them up into 3 groups of six (one group of 7 in the first section) and gave them Heiner Muller’s “Explosion of a Memory” to work with. The frame is that they can do anything they want as long as they start with this text. I see these final projects as a cap to the course – using the ideas in a more fleshed out way. Unlike an “objective” final in which I can look at “right” and “wrong” answers, this is more of a sharing of ideas. The hard part is to try and remove the focus on doing the projects for a grade. My hope is by now the students realize that I am not judging the projects in this way – that is what the take home exam questions are for. But they serve the same purpose – they pose the question “tell me what you learned in this course.”

Section 1 presented their projects on Monday. This is the early morning section so I am not really sure I ever saw all of the students fully awake. For the 1:00 pm exam time they were. I described the three projects like a bomb had gone off. Lots of sound, color, paint, violent images, garbled text, noise, etc. The first piece was a collage of a painted body, music, noise and text. Fascinating to watch and while it had a central image to focus on – the dancer who becomes ever more covered with paint, the result was much more chaotic. Sung text, feedback, movement – more of an assault on the senses than a direct appeal to sense. The second project had a similar paint derived vibe, but the paint was directed at a blank canvas (save the title of the piece) onto which paint was flung, smeared, shot from guns and dumped all while the text was being read at breakneck speed. The third piece took place behind a curtain while we were left to watch on the video screen. Like the first piece it offered a chaotic take with a central figure onto which abuse was hurled – slaps and slips of paper dumped on him rather than paint, but the result was similar. The “kidnapped” feeling to this one was odd to watch at a distance – whereas the first piece seemed empowering this one seemed disenfranchising.

The projects from the second section – offered on Tuesday – could not have been more different. More measured, contemplative, performative and less like an explosion. The first group showed a video intercut with textual elements, sounds, and images while the class wrote stream of consciousness. They then read out the new texts as we sat with out eyes closed and listened to the sound of the video. The second group brought us down to the chapel and set up a more formal arrangement as we watched them efface a projection of an Adam and Eve drawing with paint. The text was partly audible and partly garbled run through computer effects – at times taking on a demonic growl. Perfect for a space with the words “holy, holy, holy” inscribed on the beams above. They incorporated rewind sounds that affected their movement as well as Warner Brothers type sounds. The third group created an exercise in which people drew pictures of short phrases of text while not being able to see their hands or the paper. Someone sat across from them and wrote a sentence based on the drawing. All the while music played and a voice read out colors. A strange kind of telephone game. The end result was posted on the wall with the original sentences. The result was a new text with resonances of the old.

The tone between the two classes could not have been more dissimilar. Section one bursting with sound and images, section two far more introspective and language focused. They were both given the same exercises and the same course material but the end results were very different. This certainly says something about the make up of each class. This was a unique experience to have two different sections since all the other times I have taught this way it was one section only. It caused me to reflect quite a bit more in the second section about pedagogy and what worked and didn’t work.

In one respect I could easily see a more traditional teacher dismissing the chaos of the final projects as nonsense or unfocused or unstructured. In approaching the subject of postmodernism why would final projects be anything else? I could see examples of everything we discussed the whole term in these projects. The flip side of this is working to create a structure that can be chaotic, so students can try something out and see what the result is. Since chance and indeterminacy were part of what we discussed I had no problem with courting these ideas in the final projects. Beyond this, the point I tried to make to the students is that my job is to provide a framework – and open space for play – if the class is interesting it is interesting because they filled that frame with interesting things. I find this aspect so critical for the development of artists. It is the same idea that Tim Miller has worked on with our students – discovering one’s own voice. Does this happen in a week-long workshop or 15 week class – perhaps, but if not it at least suggests that it is a possibility.

I had the same feeling about the final project that I had with the final Gen Art projects – that we should have done this two weeks before the end of school and then shaped the pieces into something more polished.  This is something I wrestle with because I love the spontaneity of the projects the way that they are, but in all cases I could see how refining the ideas would make the pieces stronger. I may plan on something for this the next time I teach this way. It may be a matter of asking – what worked, what didn’t, what stayed with you? The revision part I really have not been good at. So – I’ll think about that for next time.