....thinking for no reason
Making the Geologic Now: Responses to Material Conditions of Contemporary Life
Check out Making the Geologic Now: Responses to Material Conditions of Contemporary Life, a collection of essays and art that I co-edited with Jamie Kruse, published by Punctum Books. It exists both as an interactive, image-rich website, and as a print edition.
In Fall 2013, I'll be teaching:
Media Design and Use: Engaging Problems
(production course)
The design and use of media projects are embedded in ever-evolving historical predicaments and complex social contexts of meaning production. Creative and practical questions of how to design a media project, and social-economic-political dilemmas of staging media-based environments and events, are never settled once and for all. As a result, key concepts in the field of Media Studies have remained active sites of creative engagement, contention, invention, and revision across decades. These concepts include: “audience,” fiction/nonfiction, the role of aesthetic experience in media design and use, the “agency” of media in human affairs and social change, media and “reality,” media ethics. We will use a production-based approach to trace the historical trajectories and staying power of these issues. Students will choose one of these issues and use it to (re)consider an existing or new production project and/or theoretical interests in media studies. They will produce experimental iterations and test sites that directly engage and address their chosen issue, and explore its power to shape and strengthen their project—and the power of their project to set the issue in motion once again.
Hybrid Media Practices
Hybrid Media Practices considers “hybrid media” and “media practice” from a very particular perspective. We examine how and why individuals and groups are inventing hybrid media practices in response to the emergence of new social realities. We consider how current scales, speeds, and complexities of social change are encouraging and rewarding hybrid media practices.
For our purposes, “hybrid media practices” refers to approaches to media production and use that cut across research, design, art, communication, science, participatory citizenship, speculation and action. We track what practicing media producers actually make of “hybridity,” and how. We question what hybrid media practices make thinkable and possible for media forms, styles, modes of address, and uses. We focus on hybrid media practices involved in knowledge production, documentary, information dissemination, and interpretation of contemporary conditions of daily life.
The readings and conceptual framework of the course draw from theories of “hybridity,” “assemblage,” and “translation” and we use that framework to inform field- and case studies of media producers who actively invent and employ hybridized media practices.
Students contribute written responses to weekly readings and/or case-studies. They also produce a final project in the form of a prototype, field study or “test site” that tries out a hybrid media practice in order to identify both potentials and limitations that it holds for a particular media studies project. This final project will be built step by step and iteratively throughout the semester, through the short weekly readings responses and the four “semester project assignments.”
The Wicked Problem of Pedagogy
on the eve of the fall 2012 semester, some thoughts on pedagogy's productive impossibilities
from: “The Wicked Problem of Pedagogy, An Afterword,” in Learning Through Digital Media: Experiments in Technology and Pedagogy, edited by R. Trebor Scholz, 2011,available as PDF.
from: “The Wicked Problem of Pedagogy, An Afterword,” in Learning Through Digital Media: Experiments in Technology and Pedagogy, edited by R. Trebor Scholz, 2011,available as PDF.
The Wicked Problem of Pedagogy, An
Afterword
Elizabeth Ellsworth
In the end, education isn’t a question of
appropriate, acceptable, or productive formats. Even after all is said and done in a classroom or in a
collection of essays about “Learning through Digital Media,” the question of
pedagogy continues. Pedagogy is
what needs to be worked out again and again.
This is because pedagogy is not a system and
cannot be systematized. Pedagogical set=ups function only in theory. What is set up in a pedagogical design
and what students and teachers actually take up are neither scripted nor
linear. To think pedagogically is to think in terms of, and in the midst of,
situations and the highly particular.
Pedagogy “disciplines” through the passion for learning, not through
rules or systems. It disciplines
through curiosity and exchange, not through predetermined objectives and
goals. Pedagogy does not follow
rules, nor does it rule—but it is also NOT antagonistic or chaotic. Pedagogy is a living form.
Pedagogical designs need to be worked out again
and again.
The institutionalization of learning has to do
with the possibilities for change—with learning’s need to be different each
time. The job of an institution of
education is to administer for, with, and to pedagogy’s need to be worked out
again and again. This is also the
job oa any digital learning platform or environment. Including this book—which places in productive tension its
diverse accounts of efforts to create pedagogical set-ups that are as alive and
unprecedented as are the situations and students they address.
Pedagogy, in other words, is a wicked problem—not
a strategy.
Wicked problems are problems that can’t or
haven’t been fully defined.
Questions about them can always be asked and reformulated. There is no explicit end to a wicked
problem because solutions can always be developed further. Differing formulations imply differing
solutions—which are never either correct or incorrect, but for which plausible
alternatives, other pathways and approaches, are always possible.
Education is wickedly in and of the world. It’s not a response to the crisis (from
somewhere else). It is a contributor
to and a participant in the world’s ongoing complexities—in its continuation
(Irit Rogoff, 2007, p. 39).
Complex contemporary problems (technical,
social, global, economic, ethical) are now leading new social collectivities to
experiment with aspects of learning not often recognized (and sometimes
devalued) in higher education:
emotional dimensions, affective connection, embodied and emplaced learning,
activating capacities for risk-taking and uncertainty, collaborative thinking,
“thinking with” objects and media, making as thinking, abductive participation
and thinking, speculative knowledge production.
These all are efforts to grapple with an urgent
question: What modes of thinking-sensing
might be of most use within contemporary conditions? Some responses to that question are provoking shifts in
valuation: from valuing codified knowledge above all to evaluating emergent
knowledge not even fully articulated or “understood,” and from valuing
structure as basis, starting point and perspective to valuing process/motion/change as basis, starting point
and perspective.
For some, preoccupations with cognition are
giving way to curiosity about how we might design and facilitate learning
environments that activate complex human relational dynamics: mind-brain-body + material situation +
human interdependence.
It is as if Western and Westernized humans are
rediscovering the force of the “brute materiality” of embodied life on planet
earth. Increasingly, it seems that
contemporary lived experiences are throwing into sharp relief the fact that
what is “most real” are not forms, essences, themes, or objects, but
rather: forces, intensities,
densities, movement, change.
For those who eagerly engage with wicked
problems, the attractive force of knowledge as a thing made is giving way to
the attractive force of “knowledge in-the-making.” This shift is happening at the hands of hybrid
artists-teachers-researchers-communicators-activists—those provocative testers
who design and make doubt-filled gestures, equivocal objects, tentative
projections, hopeful anticipations, physical encounters. The attractive force of questions that
strive for cognitive command and control—for definition, categorization, and
certainty—is giving way to the attractive force of questions framed as “wicked
problems.”
In Reinventing
Knowledge: from Alexandria to the
Internet, Ian McNeely has declared that a shift in cultural habits is
taking place. There is an
impatience for new ideas and means. He charts how this shift is redirecting institutions of learning
and knowledge production from:
monastery to university to laboratory to social platform; codifier of
knowledge to knowledge producers; curriculum to conversation; and
teacher-to-student transfer of knowledge to self organizing research and
activities. cloister to à social platform
codifiers of knowledge
The life of the mind, which is the whole basis
for previous models of education, McNeely says, is undergoing a structural transformation
(McNeely, 2008, p. xxi).
It appears that it is impossible to either escape
from or master education as a wicked problem. So, what if we use pedagogy to explore precarity’s potential? What if we use pedagogy to pursue
wobbly balancing acts and moments of fleeting equilibrium, and to gracefully
parry the forces that act upon us?
According to McNeely, the next knowledge
institution will be a hybrid of experimental knowledge production +
disciplinary knowledge. It will
apply learning in experimental settings to engage with public needs, most
likely in response to environmental urgencies. The next knowledge institution will connect the production
of knowledge with the production of consequences.
Because it is processual, learning is
unrepresentable: its means and
ends emerge in the flow of activity.
And this means there is no basis or regularity on which education’s effects
and affects can be staked.
Schmitz writes that the stake of education resides
in the “unscripted conjunctions and confusions between what is setup and what
is produced or what can be done . . . what is triggered in the process matters
to education but is never part of its original set-up.” This brings Schmitz to the
question: what is it about
education that is actually worth charting—or, as they say, assessing? The pedagogical setup is a teaser, a
guess, a speculation. It’s a
summoning of best guesses. It’s speculation
that attempts to suture and suspend what is a crucial amount of slippage
between the external architecture of a pedagogical set-up and whatever may play
out inside the undisclosed, internal take-ups performed by by student bodies.
The “results” of a pedagogical set-up don’t respond to given questions or
problems or solutions. They
generate problematics instead. (Schmitz, 2007, pp. 141-143.)
What gets made of pedagogy is—the way we assess
it. That is why “learning”
requires wicked forms of “assessment.”
The experience of learning is an experience of thinking-sensing
differently. Pedagogy’s dream and
desire is to spring lived events of thinking-sensing-becoming different. When learning is non-compliant, it opens
the future to difference. Non-compliant
learning is what learning can sometimes become when we aren’t channeling it
into "training,” or when we entice it to inaugurate something new and
previously unthought. In non-compliant learning, the pedagogical event is a
strange becoming. Here, learning
is not something that happens to us. Nor is it something in us. We are in learning whenever we learn.
In the midst of a non-compliant learning
experience, knowledge is no longer a thing made. It undergoes a phase shift to become a thing in-the-making.
The space and time of this shift is precisely where
and when pedagogy’s power becomes apparent and actualized. As the event of this shift, pedagogy
opens the future to difference.
After all, as a thing made, knowledge already
arrived at is merely half-living. But
its inadequacy for life is exactly what makes it useful and valuable. Its failure as permanent answer,
absolute truth, or complete solution becomes a potent provocation to action.
Pedagogy that desires noncompliant learning honors received knowledge for the
way it can be made to function as a "promise, as that which, in the
future, in retrospect, yields a destination or effect, another thing”—another
knowing (Grosz, 2001, p 169).
Knowledge as a thing made is honored by noncompliant learning—but only
to the extent that it gives itself up to being remade to suit the here and now.
This means that the work of pedagogy is to tear
teachers and students away from curriculum's static objects of mourning, out of
their loyalties to knowledges that were created elsewhere and at another
time. Allegiance to theories or
knowledge already arrived at runs the risk, Winnicott warns us, of
"becoming a compliant act, of pre-empting the personal and the
unexpected.” (Phillips, 1988, p. 54)
Pedagogy takes place at the turbulent point of
matter crossing into mind, experience into knowledge, stability into
potential. This the risk filled
time and space of pedagogy.
And this is why pedagogical designs must
address us to and from pedagogy’s own limits. A pedagogical design must present us with the irritation of
the limits of our—and education’s—knowledge.
Paraphrasing Schmitz on What to do:
Enhance, engage, trigger, increase slippage to
a point of productive tension—not to destabilize, but to set free effects
produced under and beyond the radar of systemic conditions (this is the se-tup).
Work for ever-expanding vocabularies and
repertoires of pedagogical effects rather than “tuned sets” of strategies.
Design pedagogical set-ups for the day after
tomorrow rather than for permanent projections of an ideal future.
Foster and allow for constellations of
pedagogical set-ups and take-ups that can be inhabited outside the payoff of a
programmed for or pre-accounted for education.
Work with the fact that something doesn’t seem
to fit.
Work with a confused awareness that this misfit
may be productive by causing concerns and problems.
Talk about formats and effects in such a way
that they don’t cohere into a program because it’s not a question of
appropriate or acceptable or productive formats.
Keep
asking: what formats are worth inhabiting under
which terms and how might that inhabitation possibly play out?
(Schmitz, 2007, p. 144-147.)
Schmitz argues that there is potential
evolutionary advantage to taking actions such as these. They set us up to deeply inhabit the
complexities and potentialities of pedagogy. They set pedagogy up to become a more sophisticated
conceptual machinery for analysis and diagnosis of the present (Schmitz, 2007,
p. 146).
They also afford a more effective grasp of the
fact that what is most real is the brute materiality of an external world that
cannot be mastered. And such
actions engender a parkour-like ability to navigate within, across, against, and
in-accord-with a world that will always breech what we think we know.
Perhaps this gives us a way to grasp the
pedagogical value of learning through digital media at this particular
moment. As emergent phenomena,
digital media have outrun the grasp of all sorts of
already-arrived-at-knowledge.
Digital media present us with the irritation of the limits of our
own—and education’s—knowing. We don’t quite know what to make
of digital media as teachers. And
that is their power and potential for us as educators.
Digital media are making something (else) of us
as much—if not more—than we are making of them. The challenge is not to make digital media learning
products. The challenge is to make
digital media learning products pedagogically (Aguirre, 2007, p. 185). And this
is a challenge to make visible and palpable where a pedagogical project hits
our current limits of thinking and knowing.
As a condition of contemporary life, digital
media bring us to the limits of what we think we know. And that is a perfect place to site
projects of pedagogical design.
REFERENCES:
Aguirre, P. (2007)
“Education with Innovations:
Beyond Art-Pedagogical Projects.” In P. O’Neill and M. Wilson, (Eds.), Curating and the Educational Turn. London: Open Editions.
Grosz, E. A., &
Eisenman, P. (2001). Architecture from
the outside: Essays on virtual and
real space. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
McNeely, I. with Lisa
Wolverton. (2008). Reinventing Knowledge: from Alexandria to the Internet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
O’Neill, P. & Wilson,
M., eds. (2007). Curating
and the Educational Turn. London: Open Editions.
Rogoff, I. (2007). “Turning.“ In P. O’Neill and M. Wilson,
(Eds.), Curating and the Educational
Turn. London: Open Editions.
Schmitz, E. (2007). “Some Turn and Some Don’t (On
Setups).“ In P. O’Neill and M. Wilson, (Eds.), Curating and the Educational Turn. London:
Open Editions.
in Fall 2013, i'll be teaching:
You can find a description of the course I'm teaching this fall under "courses".
In the Fall, I'll be teaching:
In the Fall, I'll be teaching:
(production
course)
The design and use of media projects are embedded in ever-evolving
historical predicaments and complex social contexts of meaning production.
Creative and practical questions of how to design a media project, and
social-economic-political dilemmas of staging media-based environments and
events, are never settled once and for all. As a result, key concepts in the
field of Media Studies have remained active sites of creative engagement,
contention, invention, and revision across decades. These concepts include: “audience,” fiction/nonfiction, the
role of aesthetic experience in media design and use, the “agency” of media in
human affairs and social change, media and “reality,” media ethics. We will use
a production-based approach to trace the historical trajectories and staying
power of these issues. Students
will choose one of these issues and use it to (re)consider an existing or new production
project and/or theoretical interests in media studies. They will produce
experimental iterations and test sites that directly engage and address their
chosen issue, and explore its power to shape and strengthen their project—and
the power of their project to set the issue in motion once again.
Hybrid Media Practices
Hybrid Media Practices
considers “hybrid media” and “media practice” from a very particular
perspective. We examine how and why
individuals and groups are inventing hybrid media practices in response to the
emergence of new social realities. We consider how current scales, speeds, and
complexities of social change are encouraging and rewarding hybrid media
practices.
For our purposes, “hybrid
media practices” refers to approaches to media production and use that cut
across research, design, art, communication, science, participatory
citizenship, speculation and action. We
track what practicing media producers actually make of “hybridity,” and
how. We question what hybrid media
practices make thinkable and possible for media forms, styles, modes of
address, and uses. We focus on hybrid
media practices involved in knowledge production, documentary, information
dissemination, and interpretation of contemporary conditions of daily life.
The readings and conceptual
framework of the course draw from theories of “hybridity,” “assemblage,” and
“translation” and we use that framework to inform field- and case studies of
media producers who actively invent and employ hybridized media practices.
Students contribute written
responses to weekly readings and/or case-studies. They also produce a final
project in the form of a prototype, field study or “test site” that tries out a
hybrid media practice in order to identify both potentials and limitations that
it holds for a particular media studies project. This final project will be built step by step
and iteratively throughout the semester, through the short weekly readings
responses and the four “semester project assignments.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)