New Media and Sustainability

As of the upcoming fall term I will no longer require textbooks in my studio classes.  I hope to follow suit with my lecture/theory courses soon thereafter.  I will also no longer print syllabi or assignments unless requested.  Instead I will be utilizing Blackboard and electronic resources in all of my courses.

I decided to make these changes for the simple reason that these traditional communication methods were no longer effective.  Sustainability was not even really on my radar originally. Sure I didn't go out of my way to be detrimental, but hey, I'd seen Penn and Teller's Bullshit! episode on recycling, and I thought I knew a lot of it was bunk.   I was simply tired of students not really reading the books, leaving the handouts behind and generally not utilizing these resources that I slaved so long over a hot xerox machine to prepare for them (ok, guilt trip over).

So I started to use new media more and more in my classrooms.  Originally I was only focused on the communication aspect, but as I continued to transition materials, I found that sustainability was a welcome side effect.  Some of my coworkers from the dean's office of another college asked me to help design some materials for their college's transition towards sustainability and that's really what got the ball rolling.  Working with them to get recycled paper in the copy machines (they still haven't!), convincing my department to switch to recycled paper and using 100% post-consumer content archival photo paper in the gallery for editorial cartoonist Ted Rall's work have all shown me that sustainability is achievable and doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice.

And then I realized that utilizing new media, while I had my other motives originally, is another way to promote sustainability.  Sure computers and electronic devices use energy, but saving paper saves energy, fossil fuels and (most importantly to a university) money.  New media is transforming more than just communication, it can also change the way we utilize resources and the way we affect the world around us.  How important is sustainability in your use of new media?  How can you utilize new media today in a way that is both convenient and sustainable?

Ur doin it wrong!

During my undergrad experience I witnessed the most vicious critique I had ever heard.  While I was not the "critiquee," I never forgot the experience or the effect on the remainder of the class.  The class was an advanced photography course and this student had produced several pieces throughout the course that were conceptually strong but not well executed and tedious to experience. The final straw came when she presented a 45 minute, silent, static video piece. The critique quickly turned ugly. Instead of focusing on the work, the comments became personal attacks that ended with her leaving the room in tears. She refused to return to class for the last few remaining weeks of the term.

Since then I have been in many critiques.  Students and faculty have recounted similar horror stories and the resulting battle scars.  I recently had a student express concern over an upcoming group critique because they were worried about receiving harsh feedback.  This led me to examine the critique process, what it should and shouldn't be, and how we can all get the most benefit from the process without resorting to making people run from the room never to return.

So what is the function of an art critique?  Let's start by defining what it is not:

• It is not a chance to show off how wordy you can be.
  
• It is not a chance to rip on someone you don't like.
  
• It should never be an attack on personal qualities.
  
• It should never be mean-spirited.

So what should it be?  In my introductory level course I use the analogy of a friend or relative having toilet paper stuck to their shoe.  You wouldn't let them walk around like that would you?  So you tell them, but not with malice or to embarrass them, but to save them from embarrassment.  This is the approach I try to take and instill in my students.  The long term goal of a critique is to give productive feedback that leads to a better product that communicates with intention. 

• Any critique comment should always be constructive and should have the ultimate goal of improvement of the work.
  
• Someone doesn't have to make work you like, but they should be helped to make the work that they are making better.
  
• Style does not connote quality.
  
• Before speaking ask yourself, "How will this suggestion/comment make the work stronger?"
  
• Have your students pair up and have one take notes on the other's critique.  While you're in the "hot seat" it's hard to remember the good things that are being said.
  

At the end of the day the critique should help each student to become a better artist.  I often tell my students this has nothing to do with me.  You might never see me again.  So who cares if I like your work?  What matters is you.  Who are you?  What do you want your work to say?

I still feel badly about that critique in undergrad.   We were tired and frustrated and we took it out on her.  That was not constructive.  And the real lesson was that we should give someone the critique we would want to receive - toilet paper and all.

The Mythology of Art Education

When I was a little kid I always hated that feeling of not knowing what was going on because I had missed a day of class. Usually I'd have a moment of confusion and would wrack my brain to try to figure out what was being talked about, until I would realize "oh I was absent that day."

Interestingly enough, these feeling didn't go away even after I became a full-fledged "adult." In college and grad school and then into my first few teaching gigs, I would often see other artists and educators getting grants and having impressive shows and I would say to myself, "where did they learn how to do that? Was I absent the day they taught this?"

Now as an educator myself, I have come to realize that the fault lies more with a disconnection between the expectations of education and the way art pedagogy is handled.

So what are the myths of Art education?

1. Art critics will "discover" you and your artwork will become famous
   
2. Getting into art galleries is easy and means that you have "made it"

Sadly, these ideals are quite removed from what students actually experience in their classes, and these concepts of exhibition and exposure remain as abstract concepts rather than experience and practice. Instead, students are left with a success strategy much like that of the Southpark underpants gnomes.

Art education focuses on the process with the promise of future success, but very little, if any instruction focuses on the practice of how to reach success. Art students, like the underpants gnomes, are left without a phase 2.

So what is Phase 2? For me it has been the integration of as much "real life" experience as I can fit into my classes. My department offers a capstone course called Professional Skills which I get to teach this term. This course focuses on our graduating seniors by asking them to develop an artist statement, a cv and put together an exhibition of their work. I have also integrated portfolio development into the course and I am requiring that every student create a website and develop a web presence. Today every artist needs a website, not just digital media designers.  Additionally in another course I teach, Creativity and the Internet (see my post from March 17th), the focus is on examining and participating in the developing "user driven" Internet environment.  While some skill and technique are covered, the focus of the class is on aesthetic development, creative expression and community interaction.

The goal here is twofold. Art educators should focus more on "phase 2" in their classes. But we should also reconsider the original mythology of art education. Part of social media is a restructuring of success. I don't have to get into the Gagosian to be considered a "good" artist. I'll never be "discovered." While art education has to shift, so does our perception of success in the arts.

New Design!

Yes, I'm new to blogging. No, I didn't use the most sophisticated blog publisher. But hey I'm learning. It's just difficult when your learning is visible to the world. But this is my new layout, I think it's a bit less generic, what do you think?

Profit, Art-Making and the Web

A concern that is often raised when discussing art and social media is profit.  "How can you make money if you give things away?"

In February, my gallery exhibited the 3D modeling sculptures of Bathsheba Grossman.  If you haven't heard of her you should really check out her work, it is a most interesting fusion of digital imaging, art, science and mathematics (see, there is a reason art majors should study math!).  I was very taken with her artist statement and the way she handles work production and distribution:

My plan is to make these designs available, rather than restrict the supply.  It's more like publishing than like gallery-based art marketing: we don't feel that a book has lost anything because many people have read it.  In fact it becomes more valuable as it gains wide currency and influence.  With the advent of 3D printing, this is the first moment in art history when sculpture can be, in this sense, published.  I think it's the wave of the future.

I think it is as well.  I've never been an artist for profit.  Of course I want to be successful and appreciated as an artist but profit has never been my main motivation for the creation of artwork.  If I really cared about finances I would have never pursued two art degrees or teaching in the arts.  Believe me, I'm not in it for the money, because the money isn't always there.  If financial consistency was my main goal I should have become a doctor or majored in business or pretty much done anything besides becoming an artist.  I have sold my work, but I don't believe in charging outlandish prices for diamond-encrusted skulls and whatnot.  This mindset is everything that is wrong with art making.  And according to this article, with the economy the way it is, inflated art values might have reached the end of the road.

But what happens to the value of work when there are unlimited amounts or if it is given away for free?  Instinctively, this sounds like a bad idea because it isn't the model of distribution we are used to.  But then again we are dealing with a medium that has not existed and new models of marketing are necessary.  Recently there has been a lot of talk about the comedy group Monty Python's page on YouTube.  Their site states:

No more of those crap quality videos you've been posting. We're giving you the real thing - HQ videos delivered straight from our vault.
What's more, we're taking our most viewed clips and uploading brand new HQ versions. And what's even more, we're letting you see absolutely everything for free. So there!

Crazy?  Many people thought so.  If you give content away for free, then who will pay for it?  But that's just what has happened.  Shortly thereafter, YouTube reported that Monty Python's DVD sales increased 23,000 percent on Amazon.  And Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails) has employed a similar method of offering some material free and charging for higher quality and "collectible" versions on their website.  These are a few of the more popular examples floating around, but there are countless more artists out there finding new ways to distribute their work and get recognition.

Artists now have more freedom to reach a wider range of audience.  We should not fear the web as a place where others will "steal" away our work without paying.  But we should approach the web as a place to share, to sample and to reach more of an audience than ever before.  Exposure is a currency in itself.

Social Media in the Classroom

Being as this week is spring break, I've been tempted not to write, but then I saw this great list by Chris Brogan on 100 topics to blog about. I got to item #12 before I was inspired; (maybe someday I'll read the other 88 topics).

The topic that stood out was How Schools Could Use Social Media. 

I mentioned earlier that I've been included in interviewing candidates for a New-Media Journalism position. While giving one of the candidates a tour of my classroom - which is a computer lab - the candidate lamented at the layout of the room. "Oh, you have the teacher station in the front, don't you hate that? You can't make sure they aren't goofing around." I told them it didn't really bother me anymore if my students were using facebook in class. I also said if I can't beat them, I might as well join them. Using facebook has allowed me to connect with my students more as individuals and it has even allowed me to "catch" students skipping class by monitoring their status. (I should mention here that I do not seek out students on facebook. If students find me and wish to add me, I accept, but I don't initiate).

Yesterday I read this article in the Chronicle, Students Stop Surfing After Being Shown How In-Class Laptop Use Lowers Test Scores. While the argument is inherently flawed due to an extremely small sample group (oh yes, I took statistics in college) I also have to disagree with the concept in general.

By the very nature of the subject I teach, computers are an integral part of the classroom experience. I'll often find myself encouraging students to use the internet in class. They will tell me they don't know something or they can't find something and I'll teasingly say "If only there were some sort of electronic device available that allowed us to instantly access all the information in the world." In other words, I feel the internet can be an enhancement to the classroom experience. Very often in a lecture or discussion my students and I will utilize the internet to find additional information or solve a technical issue.

But social media in the classroom, I argue, can be just as useful. Last summer I developed a course called Creativity and the Internet. The focus of the course was using social media sites as a launching pad for creative ideas and exploration as well as developing professional and like-minded contacts. Using sites like flickr, youtube, vimeo and now facebook and twitter, young artists can start to make connections, be inspired and possibly even sell their art. In another new course that I developed this term, The Digital Image in Art, my students have been asked to set up a flickr page for their work. In this way critiques become more than a one-way conversation between the student and myself. The dialog is opened up, students and even people outside the class can comment on anyone's work. This changes the course considerably, it is no longer insular, no longer disconnected from the world.

To use social media in the classroom is to allow the world to enter into your class. Too often college classes operate as a "practice round" but the transition step from practice to implementation is often absent or briefly thrown in at the end. Utilizing social media opens our classes to practical experience at every step of the way. There is a decentralization of authority and an increase in connections, critiques and points of view. While this could be seen as scary or the loss of "control" over a class, I see it as a far more practical, realistic view of the world and pedagogy in the 21st century.

Don't Copy That Floppy!

Between a new copyright committee at work and a new media journalism candidate search, copyright has been on my mind recently. So just for fun I found and re-watched the 1992 Don't Copy That Floppy PSA video this morning. It predicted all but certain doom for the gaming and computing industries if young punks continued to make their own copies of Neverwinter Nights. What was really striking about the video was the fact that the "doom" described was the result of the inherent qualities of digital media. That is the ability for data to be copied or recreated intact, indefinitely, with lossless quality. What was even more striking was that 17 years later, this is still the best complaint they have.

Digital media consists of binary code. Ok, Duh. But at the same time, yes, this is really the whole point. No other medium has existed quite like digital media. Even in printmaking and photography, there is both quality loss and variations possible in reproduction. In 1935 Walter Benjamin wrote about the effect mechanical reproducibility had on artwork; nearly 50 years later Paul Virilio talks about Dromology, or the science of speed, and the effects technology has on concepts of distance, space and time. While Virilio is overall negative about this, it is inherently true that digital media has shifted our concepts of distance and time - just think how Twitter is being used as a device for breaking news journalism.

When I have my students read Benjamin I always ask them, "Are we still in the age of mechanical reproduction? If no, what age are we in?" The answer of course is the age of digital reproduction. We have to realize this is an entirely new distribution model. This is world altering, just at the Gutenberg press altered the world in the 1500's. Dissemination of information has shifted as much as when Church and Crown controlled access to hand-scribed manuscripts shifted to the production of faster, cheaper, widely-distributable books.

The first copyright laws quickly followed the invention of Gutenberg's press. Some say this was because the Church had a monopoly on the written word. In an age of common illiteracy, facts and information could be controlled by the powerful few and distributed at will. Can you think of any comparable product distribution being controlled today?

I don't think all copyright is bad. I don't think people should be denied the right to profit form their work. But I do think we need to have a shift in the way we view media, the way we understand the very nature of digital distribution and really examine and redefine the very nature of digital proliferation. Attacking the medium for it's unique qualities will fail. It will not spell out the doom of the future. Don't Copy That Floppy was wrong 17 years ago, and it's still wrong about that point today.

Don't Copy That Floppy on YouTube

Where does creativity come from?

I am always hearing people say "oh I'm not creative." There's no such thing! Everyone has the capacity for creativity, but not everyone gives themselves the freedom to try it out.

The other day I was asked by a local gallery to judge an art show by the local elementary students. The gallery owner told me that he enjoyed the elementary students' work because it was so free as opposed to the middle and high school student work which he said became more regimented. That got me to thinking, why is it this way?

Do you remember making art when you were a little kid? Everyone made art. Everyone painted. Everyone drew. Everyone worked in clay, playdoh, ketchup, dirt - whatever we could get our hands on. But as we get older, there is more pressure to be "good" at something. And students begin to focus more on praise and grades and stop exploring. I think honestly the middle and high school students work is more regimented because it has to be. The teachers have to make these structured assignments in order to get their students to produce. As people become self-aware, they loose that freedom of experimentation and the risk of failure comes into the picture.

How to fix this? I don't know. But it's my job everyday to teach college students it's ok to play again, to experiment. Get out that dirt, that ketchup, yarn, photoshop - whatever, but don't worry about failure or success. Just play. We are all creative if we're not afraid.

and another blog falls on deaf eyes...

Who am I?
Why do I think I need a blog?
Who will read this?

I honestly have no idea, but what the hey, this is free.