Re-imagining the art school
Tag Archives: Learning
„DER FACHIDIOT?” The Paratechnic in the Monotechnic
„DER FACHIDIOT?” : The Paratechnic in the Monotechnic
13:30 Provocation Paper for CHEAD, ‘Agents of Change: Art School & Universities’ http://chead.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CHEAD-Annual-Conference-2016-programme.pdf
Since the early ’60s, increasingly integrated paratechnical curricula have been (begrudgingly) hosted by monotechnical art and design schools. I outline the key characteristics and limitations of the (modernist) monotechnical art and design curriculum and give some examples of different integrated paratechnical tactics and strategies. From this, I suggest that the paratechnic attempts to pursue the following qualities:
Diversification of methods and communities of practice
Externally-networked dissensus (Bill Reading’s ‘University of Dissensus’)
1:1 scale immediation (non-representational)
Ludic, adaptive flow
Paragogical cooperation and collegiality
An opportunity lies in admitting that the monoculture of art and design education – its internal ethics – still nurtures modernist assimilation and bias, and that, in preventing art and design from realising its educational potential, fachidiots place their own field at risk of redundancy. From this we may begin a productive transformation of the art school’s communities of practice (its variety of staff and students) and their relations with international communities of purpose.
Shift/Work: Performative Unlearning
Shift/Work: Performative Unlearning
Strand B: The Politics of Performance Alternative Zones: Uncovering the Official and the Unofficial in Fine Art Practice, Research and Education, Paradox Biennial Conference, 9-11th September 2015, Poznan, Poland.
“It was immediately apparent to us that unlearning presented a paradox. Unlearning is an anti-foundational foundation from which to proceed. This makes it a provocative starting point for a workshop, given that workshops are so often predicated on ‘active learning’. Our question, therefore, was what would happen if participants (who we call Shift/Workers) were encouraged to reverse engineer the process of active learning?”
