Day Eight: Internal and external logic

I love the days after projects. Having that big open space that can be filled by anything. I know that it may sound odd, but until the projects are presented I generally have no idea what we will focus on for those open days. This allows me to shape the conversation around what emerged from the projects. Its not as if I have no idea why I asked the project question, but increasingly I am interested I where the questions will take us. Since for this class the subject is chaos theory I am content to sort of wander around in projects based on “systems,” “balance,” “space,” and a list of randomly generated items. So – I ask the questions for a reason, but leave them open enough so that my reason need not be the student’s reason for completing them. As I told the students today – how they answer each of the project prompts determines how the next set of questions will be framed.

I was struck by the fact that the first projects gave us a chance to talk about natural laws or rules – things like gravity and friction. The second projects were presented as interesting little logic problems. Weaving together the five disparate items the students had to wrestle with – at some point – how they all fit together. That each answer presented a dynamical system more driven by the whole rather than the individual parts was quite amazing. Each of the projects tried to forge a connection between all the items. In some cases this was an image, in others an action.

Since this emerged from the projects it was an opportunity to discuss the notion of internal and external logic (or structure). What I mean by that is there are certain structures visible on the outside of a system. The well-made play format, for example. The arc of exposition to climax to dénouement is graphable independent of the details of the individual story. Pieces that work this way have an external logic or an external structure that are independent of the pieces that comprise the whole. There was really only one of the projects that I felt had this kind of structure.

The rest were driven by an internal structure – one that was hard to see from the outside. What I mean by this is that each of the items was bound together by a logic specific to that student. They each had reactions to or ideas about all of the five pieces. In discussing the process some talked about what choices they made or how they conceived of the images as a whole. So – to them – the work had a kind of coherence a kind of logic. But it is a logic that we can only really see by exploring the interrelation of the parts adding up to the whole. With the external structure the parts add up to a whole, but a whole that is predetermined before the interaction of the parts. Internal logic works exactly the opposite.

So, in order to bring this idea to the surface for our conversation about the second projects I had the students do an exercise based on rules. Using the card game Mao (Eleusis) I had them develop one rule that was not too simple or too complex to direct an action. The rest of the class watched the group execute the action according to the rule and then figure out what the rule is. Like Mao it is built on inductive reasoning. Since we don’t know the rule at the outset we can only figure out what it is as the parts interact according to the rule. By watching the activity eventually, in most cases, we could figure out the rule. We then made the leap to the internal logic of the second projects.

I have mentioned that I am still trying to find a rhythm with this class and I think I finally figured out why. Although this course has the same framework as the other courses, the subject matter suggested a different pattern. For this class we seem to be moving from the abstract toward the specific, whereas in the other courses it was the other way around. Although we really haven’t gotten too deeply into the course material yet I feel that the students already have a good idea about a lot of the terms we will come to simply by executing the first tow abstract projects.

Day Seven: Somewhat ironically I find that I am in the same position as the students

I honestly don’t think I have found a rhythm with this class yet. I realize that some of the construction of course is designed to prevent a too regular rhythm from establishing – but I still feel like I am struggling to figure this particular class out. In the past when I taught Chaos it was fairly straight forward in that it was a one to one understanding – we read articles and talked about the ideas. Here with the projects taking the lead it is looking for chaotic ideas that have been established by the projects that are then woven back into the readings. I did feel that the first project offered quite a bit to discuss – but I only really saw this as we got deeper into the readings. My hope is that the same thing happens with the second projects.

In a way the structure of this piece reminds me of a project that we did in the Symbolist/Absurd class where we generated a list of “truths” and then had to fashion a culture out of them. It produced some interesting projects, but I wondered if there was a better way to frame the question. I am wrestling with that a bit on the second chaos projects. We generated a list of five terms or ideas to be used in creating a project that exists in “space.”  I resisted the urge to contain the project more specifically since in looking for a rhythm for the class I didn’t want to push it too far in one direction or another. I found the results to be along the same lines as the Symbol/Absurd project in that I wonder if there was a better way to frame the question.

Somewhat ironically I find that I am in the same position as the students were in answering this prompt – I have a bunch of disparate pieces I need to weave together into a whole. The part/whole dynamic has become much more of an issue that it was in other chaos classes. We saw it in the first project and certainly saw it again in the second project. It really was quite amazing how much variety there was in these presentations, and yet how bounded they were by the five items. One of the questions I want to explore is the similarities and differences in the approaches. To me, this is the key to these projects – 25 or so different combinations.

Two things that caught me off guard in the presentations were 1) how many of the solutions were performance based. I wonder if this was due to the list – had “tomato sauce” not come up would the solutions have taken a different approach. 2) the internal logic of the pieces. This is another question we need to return to and develop more fully. We will see this idea again and again in that chaotic systems often appear to have no logic from the outside, but underneath there is an internal logic driving the system. So – we will pick up on this next class and discuss how this logic was created. We may need to focus the warm up exercise on this idea.

I found it interesting that of all of the project very few had an external logic – what I mean by that is a logic we could predict or see in advance. The idea of knowing where something is headed or a predictable outcome. The one piece that was built this way had the quality of an acting exercise in which all of the pieces are synthesized into a logical whole. This may be another issue to address – logical wholes and seemingly illogical wholes. Reflecting on these projects I am finding that there are any number of ideas we can develop that will fit nicely into the chaos discussion. I need to remember that we are really just in the first part of the class and that unlike other project courses that a built to reach this kind of chaotic presentation by mid term or the end of the term this is where we are starting. Perhaps the trajectory should be from chaos to order rather than my more typical implosion metaphor where I tear the class apart three quarters of the way through. Hmmm. I never really saw that as the structure – but that seems to be what is emerging.

One of the things that I forget with these project driven courses is how much of the direction of the course relies on the work of the students. Even with two sections of the same class in the same term the outcomes could be widely different. The material covered is the same, but the pieces that are offered to discuss that material vary. I am interested to see where this class will take us. The end result doesn’t seem to be producing work, but analysis – using these pieces as a way of tearing apart other works and discussing structure that appears random or chaotic.

Day Five and Six: Now we await project #2

What I always find interesting is how useful the projects are for discussion. We centered in on the idea of part Vs whole. In order to get the students in this mindset I had them do exquisite corpse so we could start the discussion there. My point with all this is the Newtonian sense of the world is about breaking things down into the smallest parts. Chaos suggests that the dynamic interaction of parts is the more important aspect. As I have done with this class in the past I feel like we are sort of creeping up on chaos. These questions also let us discuss cause and effect.

 

Since we hadn’t quite finished the conversation we moved back into talking about Flatland. This book offers a wonderful metaphor for discussing a changing vision of the world. Higher dimensions reveal more detail in the same way that looking at things that appear random and finding order does.

I wrestled with how to frame the next project. I knew I wanted it to be focused on the notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, but I didn’t want to limit where the projects went from there. So – we generated a list of five items  - “wet face,” “ distortion,” “tomato sauce,” the image of a triangle and “graphite” with the instruction to create something that exists in space. We then talked about space as object oriented – as opposed to temporal – but with the end product not being limited to a static or silent object.

The next class period we picked up on the part/whole conversation by addressing the idea of possibilities and probabilities. So I started by asking questions about Schrödinger's poor alive/dead cat. Possibilities ended up being discussed as things that could happen and probabilities as things that might happen. I passed around a sealed tin and asked for what could possibly be inside – 25 very interesting answers.

The point of today’s class was to really deal directly with the idea of Chaos drawing on the Nova video as well as the Crutchfield etc article. Not sure why I hadn’t done this before, but what we did was compare the trajectory or a baseball (well – crumpled up piece of paper) and a balloon as it lets air out. One very predictable, the other not at all. In talking about the balloon the number of variables – amount of air in the balloon, elasticity of the balloon, release point, air currents in the room, dust on the balloon, etc – was somewhat staggering. Clearly a dynamic system at work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUsePzlOmxw

We broached the subject of phase space and attractors a bit. Here we discussed synchronic and diachronic. I am fairly certain that this was very confusing. But – we have plenty more to talk about when we get to that section of the term. So I showed the students the bit about water and turbulence in the Nova video and then we looked at the double pendulum app. Some of the point of all of this is to just start to get some of these chaos ideas into their heads. The next step is to compare them with stories, films, music dealing with the ideas analytically. Finally to talk about them as tools for structuring creative work.

I find it interesting that as I approach this class this term I feel somewhat burned out on the project class mode. Not that I don’t see this as a really useful process, but that it is a form of teaching that requires a great deal more energy than a more traditional model. Mainly I think this is because it is a matter of constantly developing exercises and projects designed to illuminate the main ideas of the course. At one point I thought I might be able to develop a general list of these, but it seems that each subject demands its own list. The hard part is developing these projects open ended enough and yet controlled enough to get the point across but give students flexibility to engage in the questions on their own terms. I was pleased with the results of the first project – now we await project 2.

Day Four: The Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back

I know I say this every time, but I love project days. I have a sense of anticipation since I really have no idea what students are going to bring in. The difficult part with 26 students is to make sure we have enough time to explore all of the projects. As much as I want to ask questions about each one after they are presented the reality of an hour and 20 minute class is that we would inevitably run out of time. Plus I do like to leave a bit of room at the end to discuss the pieces as a lead in to the following class.

The range of solutions and of material were great. Some objects, some human movement, some computer or media based, some performative, some sound oriented, some fluid. With 26 people from all disciplines on campus we are bound to get variety. The hard part as we move though the term is how to keep that variety moving and not settle into habitual approaches. As part of the exposition of the class we saw a lot of material that can be used for later discussion. I know that we will return again and again to the idea of a system – so this is a good place to start the term. What I always find interesting is connections between the projects – where they overlap or seem similar and when they pull away and seem unique.

The projects are interesting mainly because I see them as a means to an end and not an end in themselves. It is important to execute the project to engage with the thought process. I did mention that I think projects that are actually executed rather than hypothetical or ones that are created by the students and not a solution brought in from another source tend to offer a greater return for the student. So my interest in discussing the projects is to talk a bit about how the problem was solved. What choices were made, how did one solution compare to another, how did they differ. Beyond that having solved the problem the student then has a better grasp of these ideas in dealing with the readings.

For this particular project I was interested in the notion of balance somehow disrupted. One of the great comments made as we talked about them is how the projects “produced” something, went through a process of change that yielded another result. Some results were messy or chaotic or broken or changed, but they all moved through time (and space). This was a great discussion point because it sets up a discussion of change, or process, of result, but not in a linear driven way. The “results” were in some cases unintended or uncontrolled. Yet they still happened. The hard part in this is not to simply dismiss these results as an after effect of the process, but a process in and of itself. When we get to the gen art stuff that link should make more sense.

So – I was – as I often am – delighted by the projects mainly because they give us tons to talk about. It will also be interesting to see which pieces we return to and which pieces fade. This is also part of the after effect of the projects.

Day Three: We didn’t get too far into the readings

Today we discussed the first set of readings – Demastes on Newton, Alan Lightman and parts of Flatland. These were all chosen to set up certain questions that we can address as the term develops. In order to counter the linearity of the project on the first day I asked students to come up with a scenario of 5 events and then a process by which to change the order to non-linear. Some were random, some had number or letter systems, some simply rearranged pieces. In retrospect I should have put more focus on the process and less on the events and had them all work with the same 5 pieces.

What I like about the warm up and then exercise is the transition nature of them. It leaves us already thinking about the ideas we will discuss that day. Good discussion on the Lightman and Demastes articles. I know that it may seem tedious – or in some cases a bit uncomfortable – to have students discuss one element they got from the readings – but it really does leave a lot of room for the conversation. I like that students come up with things that I missed in the readings or ideas I may not have chosen to focus on. This is part of the collective mind approach and always yields interesting results. We didn’t get too far into the readings – which is fine since I really want to swing back around to them after the first projects. Strange start to the term missing that second day – have yet to find a rhythm.

Days One and Two: I have been lax in posting on this class

I have been lax in posting on this class. Here we are day four and I have yet to discuss my intent or the process of the class. It has been a number of years since I taught this course and I am anxious to get back to it for a number of reasons. First, I find the subject fascinating. It really does build off of the ideas discussed in the postmodernism class. So in that sense it is like a part two for me and perhaps a handful of students. Another reason is perhaps a bit more personal in that I have had this paper about chaos and dramatic structure in my head for ages and I have just not written it yet. I am hoping this class will push the ideas along. Since I restructured the class as a project based course I want to see how these ideas play out in that format.

One of the things that struck me before the term even began is that I have 10 out of 26 students that have already take a project based course with me in one form or another. Typically the number is more like 1 or 2. That means that the conversation already starts at a certain level. The element of surprise is lost, but at the same time what is gained is that we can perhaps move a bit farther along in addressing the projects. The other concern about this is that as I discuss things like pedagogy many of the students already get what I am after. Again – the element of surprise or discover is lost, but what I think can be gained by this is how to continue to develop this type of work independent of the education structure. What I mean by that is I feel that in order to remain moving forward as a creative individual or artist finding way to challenge yourself is a necessity. The class offers a paradigm of how to do this – a process of asking questions. My hope is that students that have returned to this type of class can begin to see that.

My final concern has to do with energy and repetition. Part of what I rely on with these types of classes is discovery – both on the student’s part as well as my own. Having sat down and talked through what I have learned about these types of classes this past summer there is an element of this course that is beginning to feel repetitive. The subject is different, but the process is the same. The comment I made in class today is that all of my courses are set up like a well made play – the first week or so is exposition then we work on rising action toward a climax and then dénouement. I need to be aware that the climax doesn’t happen too fast – as it has in some courses – as well as what I do with the ending. In the past I have pulled away or disrupted the pattern to allow the students to take the lead toward the end. This time I will be asking them to apply what they have learned to a handful of pieces. We shall see what happens.

So these were my concerns as I began the class. The first day can be little more than introductory material. I familiarize them with the subject matter, the syllabus, the rules, the projects, etc. then we get to the class part. The physical warm up and mental warm up. As awkward as this feels at times I know that these pieces are necessary for moving forward with these ideas. The exercise for that day was called “one second late” with the premise that someone or something awoke a second later than usual and because of that time gap the following 5 events occurred. The answers were interesting, but all had a kind of linear pattern to them – one thing happened that lead to another and another. Not necessarily the intent of the question, but a good starting point to discuss narrative form and how chaos can challenge it.

The next class I was out. I had them play the chaos game and (hopefully) watch the youtube version of the Nova on Chaos Theory. Here they would see more of the ideas behind the chaos game. I wanted them to do the painstaking process of rolling dice and plotting points because one this is run out to hundreds of places a pattern that is hard to see by hand emerges. The point is to try and get some of these ideas into the body and not just a mental exercise .