Goethe, the essay and a forest metaphor as working method in art education
an experimental case-study at Prague AVU (in progress)
This studio enables AVU students to spend each semester under the guidance of a new, outstanding personality in the field, usually invited from abroad. The atelier’s focus changes regularly.
A grant received from the City of Prague Municipal Authorities supported by the European Development Fund has enabled AVU to organise six successful semester-long courses over the past few years led by leading artists on the international scene in the Šaloun Studio, which AVU had specially refurbished for this purpose. Given the ever-increasing interest of students in visiting lecturers, this is one of the school’s long-term priorities.
For the period of four months (September 2016 to January 2017) artist Christina Della Giustina is the visting artist at Saloun. For this period I will be the teacher assistent of Christina.
After several conversations about art and education, and specifically the potential I see in an essayistic method in art education, Christina invited me to join her as a teacher assistant. Christina Della Giustina (1) is an Amsterdam based artist, and is currently teaching at Fine Art at HKU Utrecht (NL) and she is doing a practice-related artistic PhD at UCL's Slade School of Fine Arts in London (UK). Christina’s artistic practice entails the gathering, structuring and transposing of scientific long term data of trees, and translating this to art. The media used are mainly video, light and audio but the products of her research can take a verity of forms. The aim of her works is to investigate the 'meeting’ of and between humans and non-humans, in a state of being together and becoming each other. Christina was asked to give a lecture and presentation about her work, students from all departments and levels at the AVU (Bachelor, Master and PhD) could sign up for seminar. The group consists of 10 students form different diciplines with 7 different nationalities. Each had their own motivation and level of affiliation with Christina’s work, we wanted to use this initial motivation as a point of departure by letting the students contribute work from the first day we started. We structured the seminar very experimentally with only a set of values. My roll is to assist Christina and document the experiences (aso see appendix with schedule, logbook and reflection). I used the text “The mediator of subject and object” by Goethe as theocratical point of departure and as metaphorical point of departure we used the communication and functioning of trees and forests since this is core to Christina’s practice. In this text I will first give a theoretical background of Goethes text and its relation to essayism and then link it to this case study at Saloun.
In Goethe’s scientific experiments the main object of investigation are natural phenomena like plants, and color. According to Goethe we should not try to directly prove or confirm, a theory or hypothesis, through experiments. He says that experiments do not prove anything, and claiming they do is potentially harmful. Just as every single experiment through which we reproduce an experience, every single experience is essentially, and by nature, an isolated piece of knowledge. On the other hand, he says, the power of the human mind seeks to unite experiences with tremendous force. Because of the dominance of our teachings and experiences, our mind is constantly tempted into historical frameworks. The experiment should break with pre-set theory and only mediate the subject and object — to try and create a situation in which the object can be newly seen.
The procedure of Goethe’s experiments is to meticulously write down everything seen and experienced; everything which is associated with, and which happens in the proximity of the object, both subjectively and objectively, without drawing conclusions. In this is way the information will be as complete as possible and will always be open to interpretation. In addition, the experiment should be carried out a number of times from a manifold of perspectives. This manifold also consists of other people executing the experiments. Goethe insists on working together from individual points of view. Only if we unite a manifold of unique, but relatable, experiences of the experiments, we can verify the experience to a certain level, and start to relate them. Through the accumulation of the non-reducted (and manifold) experiences, the object is formed. In consequence, there are no pre-set rules or methods, nor any conclusions, to the experiment.
Goethe's experimental procedure and deeply rooted skepticism towards truth claims on knowledge, is relatable to the essay’s procedure. Burgergard even call’s it “essaying science” (Burgard 1992). The first essay was written by Montaigne (Essais, 1582-90) and the main theorization is of Adorno (The Essay as Form, 1958). Where Goethe conducts physical experiments, Montaigne and Adorno thought experiments. Montaigne’s investigation was of a personal nature and Adorno’s main focus is on concepts and cultural artifacts. But they all have a similar strategy at hand, they all place significant emphasis on the observer’s perception and experience, as well as on the environment surrounding an object, including others observers sharing their perception and experience. Can we use this idea of the essayistic experiment as a working method in a group of art students? Can this way of collective individualisms and sharing of a thought/work process convey in a group exposition?
For Goethe the object is not just the flower he investigates, but the stern and the roots, the complete environment. Our initial object of investigation is Christina’s work, or more generative, our relation to trees both scientifically as personally. We wanted to treat the space at Saloun as a forest, a forest with individual trees and different types of trees, but to have a common soil from which the works arise and to share this root system (see video 1, brought in by a student). We decided that from day one we all had to put in a contribution in the space in the center of the studio, marked by tape. These first contributions were without knowledge of each others background or level, without an introduction. This start contributed to a common ground, a common level. (The informal introduction was om day 4). All these contributions would be videotaped from the start. And all students were encouraged to add their won association, and archive them in the online workspace (see above).
If multiple people in a group surround one object of investigation they should all be allowed and encouraged to take their own position toward it. An artistic work environment should be a safe environment, where both young artist and experienced artists can share. The environment should provide the freedom to have their own interpretations, standpoints and associations, the freedom to change these, and the freedom to have differences. Its’s where the individual is collective by sharing. The individual artists share their working process by adding their contribution, and continuing to change, adapt and develop this contribution. Most important is that each contribution is taken seriously and gets attention, not just attention for the contributor, but also attention for associations of the others. Because looking at something also implies actively finding your own position towards it. From a pedagogical perspective I see that students gain self-confidence, and start looking more closely to their own fascinations and claiming their own specific point of view in a well informed and critical environment. The students get more insight in their own work motivations and fascinations, this is key to developing their own visual language. We stimulate an artistic process that integrates theocratical and practical knowledge, but also personal knowledge and experience. It is way to zoom in on a subject, what is your fascination? (see appendix with questions) Because perhaps the answer is found, not by looking further but by looking closer. Incorporating different types of information like: personal associations, theocratical observations, historical relations and so on. This looking is not passive, it is actively integrating what you see and sharing your own thoughts on them. To create space between individuality that by sharing becomes collectively bound by influencing each other, and finding relations. Not with an end work in mind, but by letting themselves be influenced. by being an individual that is inevitably connected to others. Like the root systems of a forest. These relations created in the process I wanted to somehow make this root system visible to the public, so I started to make a video compilation of all the documented contributions (see video 2). I thinks our educational position is definitely that of an artist-teacher, we treat the students like equal artist and we also participate. Even though we try to avoid a hierarchy, this does ask for active questioning and encouraging active participation, even - and especially- when ideas are not fully developed yet. It is about sharing a work process that we usually might keep hidden. It’s about letting relations and influence rise and allow an individual approach, finding a place in the group dynamic. The seminar is in full progress and the last weeks are in January, but I think we hope to create a group exposition in which the relations (and associations) — that have grown and intertwined in the process — can be seen in the works. One of the most amazing things to see, is that all elements compliment each other naturally in the process. There is an element of water, an element of sent, an element of stone, an element of sound and light, an element of language. The element of smell was brought in by one student and incorporated by another, by sharing the process they become aware of these different elements and the relations between them in the space. This awareness influences the work. I am very curious to see how the exposition will form itself.
.
1) STRUCTURE and LOGBOOG:
WEEK 1 (40 '16)
Presentation of work by Christina Della Giustina
- making a common square by taping to the floor
- making workplaces around the square
- ask to put something (object or action) in the square
WEEK 3 (42 '16)
Workweek (documented)
DAY 1-3 (mon, tues, wed)
- no introduction of the people
- putting works in the common square
DAY 4 (thursday
- lectures and musea
- having dinner (introductions)
DAY 5
- work individually in the space WEEK 4
WEEK 4 (44 '16)
Skype meeting
- cleaning lady cleaned everything up and put the works on the chair
WEEK 5 (45 '16)
Workweek (documented)
- New input/adapted input (either individually or together)
WEEK 6 (46 '16)
skype conversation
WEEK 10 (50 '16)
Workweek
DAY 1:
- discussing the processes
DAY 2 and 3:
- discussing all the inputs (as ingredients)
- start thinking about placing the woks in the space
- end with a dinner
WEEK 15 (2 and 3 ’17)
- finalizing the works
- Build-up of the group exposition
2) QUESTIONS
the basic strategy is question based
- what interests you (subject)
- why does it interest you? (personal associations)
- what does it relate to? (historical, theoretical associations)
- what materials/techniques do you want to use? (material: - sound, image, performing, etc.)
- why that/those material(s)/technique(s)?
- how does the material/technique relate to your subject?
- if there are several interests, go through this list for all and see how you can combine the elements of these interests
3) GUIDELINES
everything is filmed, by filming or documenting (by photograph in Café Chercehr) there is the freedom to change, adapt and revise. the "original" is always on camera.
inputs are carefully analyzed and associated upon
associations are gathered in the common online space (research catalogue) picture
Tools:
etymology as tool to open up definitions and new associations, to be more precise in our description
documenting as tool to re-make and change
Ethics:
Steel from others and make your own associations (listen to yourself while the other talks)
ask questions if you don't understand something, or is something isn't clear
WORDS:
form /content:
contenceptual/ formentation
individual / collective:
Individual: lone/ single/singular/ alone, selfish, egoistic (altruistic)
Collective: together, multiple, multiplicity, mutual, unified, joint,
monocollective, collective of selfs, selfisless, twone,
self/other, apart/together
“Together alone”
when turned over
me=we=me
