this tuesday, we had a talk about media art education, titled as "working on sand with eigensinn".
too bad that till the end of the lecture, i didn't quite get the essence of eigensinn. however, some points, which prof schiesser mentioned, did catch me. maybe, this was the reason i counldn't really continue to use my ear.
i asked him a question at the end and tried to know what he thought about the possibility of applying his theory to lower education level. from what i understood, it seems that his concept only focuses on tertiary education. which sounds like this still remains a gap between the pre-college and college (media) art education unsolved (for me). it seems fine to have a more specialised education on college level. however, if he was suggesting a more "transmedia" creative education approach, i wonder how much he has considered the pre-college categories set by other creative educators can be the obstacle to achieve the goal. further, will this new approach only be regarded as another new category, outside the streams of art and science.
i mentioned one thing, which i had been thinking for years. that is we actually start to receive creative education as young as since kindergarten. what consideration has been taken; hence, creative education can only be introduced in the field of arts, in spite of the wide use of technology or even science concept; thus, it forever has a clear cut from the science in general. furthermore, transition from one level of education to another also appears to be so cut-off.
i am interested in knowing whether this approach to media art education can be a way to build a conceptual bridge for students from different fields of studies to join media (art) creation with a better common ground for exchange.
unfortunately, my information got back is quite disappointing:
from schiesser:
-this is an approach for 20 years old and above, cos he doesn't think the younger can have the life experience and knowledge to study under this approach.
-the students they receive in switzerland have no problem in transiting to college cos most of them have started making video before getting in. this is also how the school choose new students. so, video is more or less the first step for student to enter the field of media art.
from marcia:
european treats art as a profession, schools train artist. so, it is not really a place for mix-and-match.
then, i start to ask:
what is essential for the 20-and-under in their creative/art education?
what is the difference from those above 20? skills? concepts?
if students in the school are very similar, of course, the school can manage the syllabus easily. however, if students actually come from very fields, situation will be totally different.
in my experience teaching in scm, hk, students in yr 1 (consisting diploma and bachelor programme students) can be ranging from having no experience in using graphics software to fluent in all dtp softwares, or, from having no interest and knowledge in cultural theory/concept to being able to write readable critics on art event. what kind of fundamental courses can be designed for them? how can educator simulate them to create something difference (if university is not or not just vocational, but for leading the society to go forward)? i started to doubt about the objective of creative education since i started teaching. i started to question it seriously again since i started studying again.
in iamas, it seems that the school uses the same approach to bridge students, as scm: teaching them things of both sides. however, no matter how i weight it, it seems that technology still seems more important. with the same reason/excuse, perhaps, we cannot work without skills. nevertheless, i just want to express one thing: when can artist need less power to negotiate with scientist/engineer? or, when can people start to believe that creative people can do a lot more than making useless (fine-art) objects?
thks to schiesser for mentioning the concept-selling business in europe. which let me know the world is not just gloomy.
besides, if mix-and-match kind of integration can't happen in the school schiesser mentioned, how can a "more real " transmedia" art education be introduced? a good combination of a school can't only depend on instructors, but also students. i tried to compare how people learn art in america. it seems that the combinations, created by the credit-based education system, are more varied and interesting. also, it seems more potential to create the broadness in classroom.
hong kong is a monster creature. on one hand, trying to meet the request from the manufacture sector (which sounds quite reasonable not just in hk); on the other hand, trying to make everyone (people in school, university, commerce, government itself, and at home (parents)) understand creative education is the only way to further develop this tiny city in china. however, how to make one believe developing something for the current need can do good for the future thirty or fifty years.
how can educator pick the best timing to "adjust" the mentality of the students in general, including their parents, who pay and request fiercely?
is this once again the problem of choosing between broad or specialised?
if so, when should be broad and when should be specialised?
can we think about it once again? or, can we consider the period for education longer, if we (hk gov) believe in life-time learning?
i like what marcia said one day: we all know that the skills we learnt ten years ago are totally useless now, right?
-----
メディア文化特論
-----
日時：７／２０（火）３，４限（１３：５０〜）
場所：新校舎５Ｆホール
講義タイトル：
On a Contemporary Media Art Education
「今日のメディアアート教育について」(仮題)
講師プロフィール：
スイス、オーストリア、ドイツ、オランダの大学において教鞭をとるかたわら、メディア文化・メディア教育関係の著書・論文多数(添付業績表を参照)
URL: www.hgkz.ch | www.xcult.org/texte/schiesser
hei Jamsen,
I dont agree with one thing Mr. Schiesser said but there was not time anymore to speak about it. As Christa gave the example of Steiner or Waldorf Schools etc. He said these schools dont work with the "Eigensinn" (genuine characteristics) of media art. Of course not because when Rudolf Steiner created this pedagogy there was not media art! But Steiner was interested about how to raise kids of fabric workers [Steiner was really worried about how humans would react in the future generations to the automatic activities in mass production fabrics] in a way they would be free of the lack of activities and have a brighter and complexer view of the world, being more integrated to nature. They really work with kids with the idea of finding out the genuine characteristics of the medium (in this case painting, poetry, singing, theater - and they do it a lot etc...).
Particularly the school where my son goes is not just a Steiner or Waldorf school but also an integrative school that means there are kids with handicap: physical and other syndromes. The stimuli of non handicapped kids makes them to develope quickier and help the other kids realize there are other realities and there are many kinds of people around. It works very well - besides the fact that they must have about 1 teacher por 10 kids - what makes all more expensive.
I guess the best art education under 20 should be to be able to go to the woods, to play with animals, to be able to fish, play with toys, ride the bike, have girl/boy friends and to be able to go to a school that stimulates the brainstorm, the talk, the writing, the theater, the music, the poetry, the observation, the questioning, the smile, the language skills, the relaxation, the dance, the empty space, to feel free to do something, it doesnt matter what. Of course a good art/film history teacher helps a lot, one that can put examples into a cultural/economic/political context.
The Steiner schools work with the idea that if the body does not functions with stability and rythm there is not the possibility to learn and create... What makes some sense.
But as I heard many times in Europe "Art is Art. Art is no therapy"... I agree with that, but it does not mean to me that Art is just a "profession".
I guess it is quite like music, dance or eating. We need that all as "humans". It is not like just cooking for others to eat, it is cooking for us all to eat together, and trying to cook well. So, when I think about artists running all the time for the best position in the sun as business people or marketing people - I feel sick. And this whole "art marketing" makes me even sicker. Showing works as they would be insurance policies or a new soda pop. Come on, could people be a bit less "smart" and a bit more serious?
(and I include myself into all this "bad" examples as well...)
WE NEED MORE EMPTY SPACE AS WELL AND PROJECTS WITH NO PROPOSAL... WHAT ABOUT IT?
Posted by: marcia at July 26, 2004 01:11 PMi always wonder why can't kindergarten students learn computer language when it is also a kind of language. If we can learn English when we were only 3, why can't we learn computer language when we were 3?
Bridging for me is always impossible since without the language and a certain level of knowledge, you cannot even communicate with others.
Posted by: kim at July 26, 2004 05:45 PM