It has been ages since I have ad the time to jot down my
thoughts about the class. It looks like I am trying to account for about seven
classes with this one post. The bad thing about this is that much of the detail
has faded. The good thing is that I have a different perspective on what has
transpired. Some of the “text”
days were given over to exploring and explaining fractals and strange
attractors. This is the first time they have been so deep into the class –
which worked well since they are perhaps the most complex ideas we address.
They provide a way of looking at structure that side-steps the question of
linearity. The structures emerge from non-linear and non-deterministic process
but nevertheless create a recognizable structure. This was all meant as a lead
in to the narrative structures project – which was re-titled “strange
attractors indeed.”
The assignment dealt with taking one of five American folk
tales and reconfiguring it based on one or more of the chaos ideas. I suggested
that students might want to isolate elements of the story such as theme and
character, location and events to see what materials they had to work with. The
results were amazing. In fact, I think this was the peak of the class with the
larges number of interesting and engaging projects. I do find that having
repeated this course structure a number of times now that there is always one
project where things come together. When I taught the Dissonance class it was
the Fluxus pieces – which fell far too soon in the term for the peak. I didn’t
feel we could recapture the energy after that project and after spring break.
With the Postmodern class I deliberately put this type of material after the break but the class peaked one project
before this with the Ironic Museum piece.
What made this chaos project so interesting was the range of
answers. So many different ways to mangle, alter, re-shape, and change the
stories while still holding onto the basic story or characters. What I found
most surprising about the projects were how many students actually created an
algorithm or small machine to run the story through and then watched to or
listened to the results. Really interesting stuff – and just as much about the
process as the product. In the discussion of these pieces we looked at where the
similarities were and how unique some of the solutions were.
From there we looked at Borges “Garden of Forking Paths” and
an essay on non-linearity. Part of what I was getting at with this stuff is how
many different ways there are of approaching structure and how often we fall
back on the same linear models. So – we explored 77 Million Paintings and a few
key examples of hypertext as well as experimental fiction. Reaching back to
discuss Barthes’ “The End and Introduction” provided an opportunity to discuss
how chaos theory ideas might play out in specific stories.
The next bit was the final project which was focused on
creating a machine to make a mark. Part of the intent with this assignment was
to get students out of themselves to create something that cold run without
their control. It was intended to build off of the machine-like solutions for
the narrative project as well as be a lead in to the discussion of generative
and non-deterministic art. When I say that the class peaked with the fourth
project it is largely because I felt that as a whole the class developed some
interesting ideas. The fifth project certainly had highlights with a handful of
students doing some remarkable work, but not all were firing on all cylinders.
When the machines were clever and engaging you could feel
the reaction from the group. Others had ore straight forward solutions – which
adequately addressed the prompt, but didn’t necessarily go that extra step.
Part of the intent with this section is to begin to show applications of these
chaos ideas. To open students up to the possibility that there are other ways
of exploring structure and control. This gave way to a discussion of Eno’s work
and the idea of generative art – which always includes a playing of the four
disk Zaiereeka. The conversation was more successful than some pervious because
I tried to ground it in questions about what the students are learning and what
is expected of them as artists. The main question was why would an artist –
like Eno, or Reich, or Terry Riley – want to set a piece of music in motion
when they had no idea what would happen. Hopefully this all primes the pump to
talk about Cunningham and Cage.
As a side note about the rhythm of the class. Although I
have taught a number of courses this way – all built on the same basic frame –
they all seem to work totally differently. Some of this is due to the material
and some due to the students. Like any class I probably need to teach it this
way a number of times before I truly understand how it works. I do find
teaching these courses exhausting – constantly trying to come up with projects
or exercises that will illuminate one idea or another. I feel while it is a
less interesting way of teaching – sometimes just talking is much easier.
