August 30, 2022 • 44 mins
In a time when online classrooms and meetings have become both indispensable and mundane features of the university, STUDIOUS DRIFT asks: What kind of university becomes possible when digital tools are not taken for granted but hacked into and tinkered with in order to set study adrift? In part a meditation on the essence of the studio space, this book looks at ways we can creatively and critically muddle through the rise of e-learning logics to redefine education. Authors Tyson E. Lewis and Peter B. Hyland both teach at the University of North Texas, and are joined here today by colleague and studio artist James Thurman.
Tyson E. Lewis is professor of art education in the College of Visual Arts and Design at the University of North Texas.
Peter B. Hyland is director of the Jo Ann (Jody) and Dr. CHarles O. Onstead Institute for Education in the College fo Visual Arts and Design at the University of North Texas.
James Thurman is associate professor of metalsmithing and jewelry in the Department of Studio Art at the University of North Texas.
References:
Gert Biesta (“learnification”)
Alfred Jarry’s pataphysics
The Undercommons / Stefano Harney and Fred Moten
Links:
-Read Studious Drift free online: z.umn.edu/studiousdrift-m (also available for purchase: z.umn.edu/studiousdrift)
-Watch: Education as Experimentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llUj_Qyd5Zo
-Education as Experimentation: The Studio-D Project (homepage): https://onstead.cvad.unt.edu/studio-d
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tyson E. Lewis (00:09):
I began to wonder what would an education
beyond learning look like.
James Thurman (00:15):
The studio is something different. Freedom
start opening up.
Peter B. Hyland (00:20):
We started with the action, and actually, the
theory came out of what we did.Hello. My name is Peter Hyland,
(00:54):
and I am a co author ofMovements and Protocols for a
Post Digital Education, as wellas director of the Onstead
Institute for Education in theVisual Arts and Design at the
University of North Texas.
Tyson E. Lewis (01:08):
And I am doctor Tyson Lewis. I coauthored the
book, Studio Drift with mycolleague, Peter. And I am a
professor of art education atUNT where I teach courses in
critical theory, criticalphenomenology, aesthetic
philosophy, educationalphilosophy, and dialogue and
inquiry into the arts.
James Thurman (01:29):
And, hi, I'm, James Thurman, a friend and
colleague of Tyson and Peter'sat the University of North Texas
in the College of Visual Artsand Design. I'm a studio artist
and a faculty member in themetalsmithing and jewelry area,
but I've worked with both, Peterand Tyson on a a variety of
different projects, some ofwhich mentioned in the book.
Peter B. Hyland (01:50):
So I thought maybe we'd start out by, taking
us back to where it all began.When Tyson and I first met when
I came to the University ofNorth Texas and, I was, you
know, in this new role, which,did not really have anything
defined in terms of programmingthat I was overseeing. And
Tayson came to me with anintriguing idea that just sort
(02:11):
of took us in this trajectorythat we're still currently
enjoying at the moment.
Tyson E. Lewis (02:17):
Yeah. I I really like this question, Peter,
because it allows us toemphasize that the book came out
of a long process ofexperimentation with different
forms of educational practice.Before I came to UNT, I had
already become really interestedin forms of education that did
(02:40):
not necessarily abide by thelogic of learning. By learning,
I'm referring to discourses andpractices of what my friend and
colleague, Herit Biesta, callslearnification or the
economization of education sothat all of education becomes a
calculus of inputs and outputs.In fact, when Peter and I refer
(03:03):
to learning in the book,Studio's Drift, we push this
claim even further and we we tryto argue that learning has
become a kind of metaphysics oflate capitalism.
And by that, we just simply meanthat learning has become the
lens through which we interpreteverything that counts as
education. So if one cannotcalculate the inputs and outputs
(03:23):
going into an educationalrelationship, then it simply
does not count as educationallyrelevant and might even be
miseducational. This means thatfrom our perspective that the
language of education has becomeimpoverished basically, and that
marginal or minor practices thatfall outside of this
(03:44):
economization model are nolonger discussed. They're no
longer seen as relevant. So Ihad already been thinking a lot
about this, but I I began towonder what would an education
beyond learning look like?
How could we actually enact it?How could we make it come to
life? This is the project Ibrought to Peter when I first
(04:05):
arrived at UNT. And this wasreally the underlying goal of
the first symposium that wehosted called Education as
Experimentation, and it tookplace in 02/2017 at the
University of North Texas. Andfor this event, we asked
scholars, designers,philosophers, artists, art
(04:26):
educators, museum educators, weask them all to write short
protocols or rules of engagementthat would explicitly try to
interrupt, suspend, or render anoperative the discourses,
practices, or materials, ortechnologies of learning, of
learnification.
And we didn't know really whatwould happen at this conference.
(04:50):
And afterwards, it was actuallyquite challenging to assess it
because any form of assessingits success in a way would turn
it into a learning event. We'dbe asking questions like, well,
what did people learn? And thenthat would fall into the trap of
the economization of learningand and education. So how do we
even talk about what happened?
(05:11):
And the people at the event alsodidn't seem to really have a
language for what happened. Infact, on the final day, somebody
in the audience raised theirhand and said, well, I don't
know what actually happenedhere, but something happened.
You know, and that really seemedto be pretty accurate. And so
since that initial experiment,Peter and I have been wrestling
(05:31):
with a way to frame thefundamental problems or
questions that came out of thatfirst event. And that sort of
led us to the second iterationof the event, which we called
Studio D.
That happened the spring thatCOVID hit. So the spring
semester of twenty twenty. Itwas really a version of the
(05:52):
first event, but dealingspecifically with the ed tech
industry or the e learningindustry or the online digital
learning platforms. And so thequestion was, how could we hack
into or tinker with or render anoperative the learning logics or
the metaphysics of learningembedded within learning
technologies like Canvas orBlackboard or even everyday
(06:17):
technologies and apps and eventhings like Facebook and and so
on and so forth. So this was a,specifically technologically
oriented version of the firstevent, and that is ultimately
what led to the book's studiousdrift.
That was sort of the springboardfor our writing.
Peter B. Hyland (06:36):
Yeah. And, you know, I remember when you first
came into my office to pitch theidea for the first symposium.
You seemed a little tenuousbecause I think that you didn't
know how well the ideas weregonna go over. You know, I
remember just thinking I waslike, wow, this is a really,
like, punk rock kind of thing todo. I find myself drawn to
(06:56):
things that are irreverent or,disruptive because I think that
they can many times clarify, youknow, real issues that you wanna
dig into.
I was very intrigued by thisformat that Tyson was putting
forward. Part of the intriguingaspect of it was the fact that
it was actionable. What'sinteresting about the trajectory
(07:17):
of this project is that wedidn't really start in theory
and then wind up with actionableitems. We started with the
action and actually the theorycame out of what we did. You
know, in part, it's an attemptto, as Tyson was indicating, to
make sense of what whatoccurred.
So we had these happenings. Wehad these interactions. We had
(07:41):
these protocols, which we'lltalk about in a little bit. All
this stuff occurred, but wedidn't really yet have a
language in place to unpack itand delineate it for ourselves
yet. And so the book really inpart is the culmination of us
thinking through what hashappened to us in these
instances of sort of, actionresearch.
Tyson E. Lewis (08:03):
Yeah. And so we really are trying to build up a
set of concepts. And so some ofthose concepts that we've
subsequently used to give adescription of these happenings
or or situations or things likea path of physics of study or
emphasis on studioing or an ideaof studious drift in the
protocol, the concept of theprotocol. So the book is really
(08:26):
trying to figure out how allthese concepts hang together and
how they can inform a sort ofpataphysical educational form of
experimentation.
Peter B. Hyland (08:36):
Well, maybe let's talk a little bit about
what we mean when we sayprotocol.
Tyson E. Lewis (08:40):
The most important thing I think about
the protocol is that it's aparticular kind of writing. And
I think when we talk abouteducational forms of writing, we
often think about lessonplanning or curriculum building
or writing a syllabus. And oneof the things that informs all
those modes of writing is thatthey themselves are plans.
(09:01):
You're planning a course. You'restarting at point a, and you're
trying to get to point b.
And in that sense, they embody akind of implicit or explicit
logic of learning where you wantyour students to acquire this
set of skills or this knowledgebase and to progress, and then
you want to evaluate or assesstheir progress. And so the
(09:22):
protocol was really an attemptto suspend or render an
operative that form of writingand the learning logic embedded
in those forms of writing andreally to create a form of
writing that isn't aboutplanning and isn't about
assessing, but is stilleducational, still has something
educational about it. When weinitially gave the charge to
(09:43):
come up with protocols, wereally only gave three basic
instructions. And that was one,the protocols have a
minimalistic aesthetic. So lessis more.
Don't make them overlycomplicated. Secondly, the
protocols should be able to beenacted by the largest possible
audience. They should be asinclusive and as public as
(10:05):
possible. They should be a setof rules that should be able to
be held in common, whether ornot you're, for instance, in a
university. And thirdly, theyshould be genuinely
experimental.
And this is the most importantcharge for protocol writing. And
by experimental, we mean theyshould be an open procedure and
they should balance sort of formand chance. So they should be a
(10:26):
set of constraints that releasepossibilities, unforeseen
potentialities. James and I havewritten protocols together, and
I'm just wondering, James, ifyou could speak to your
experience of working on thesebecause I know speaking to other
participants, they often foundthis to be extremely challenging
to to write these things.
James Thurman (10:46):
Yeah. And, I mean, I've obviously been
thinking a lot about those earlyexperiences of going to the that
first gathering and calling onmy background as a teacher and
educator for years, and it waswonderful to sort of have that
subverted and inverted and tonot necessarily be in control of
things, not necessarily knowwhat the specific goals or
(11:09):
outcomes would be. I still goback to kind of the state of
mind that I had and through thatprocess of starting to get
comfortable being uncomfortable.It's something that I've taken
from that and brought to mystudents because I found,
particularly in studio art, thestudents are so focused on
product. Like, they have tofinish this piece, and they have
(11:33):
to exhibit this piece to thepublic, or they have to get
graded on it, or all of thosekinds of structures that are so
indoctrinated into the patternof experiences that they have in
these courses.
And so, obviously, my studentsweren't there and didn't have
these experiences, but throughmy experiences, I'm able to
carry that forward to them. It'sgonna be interesting to kind of
(11:53):
implement this coming fall wherewe've opened up this, new one on
one interdisciplinary kind ofresearch topic. And students
that don't have any training inmetalsmithing and jewelry are
gonna be coming into themetalsmithing and jewelry area
through my guidance just to makesure that they're working
safely, just kind of experiment.And I've had initial meetings
(12:17):
and planning that out. And thethe students are both excited,
and I think the ones that don'tknow me as well are maybe a
little suspicious that it'slike, well, I can just play and
experiment.
I said, as long as you'repushing, as long as you're doing
things, then you're succeeding.And we'll talk about what that
(12:37):
whole process is. And so I'mkind of challenging those ideas
specific within my field ofbeing so product focused of I
have to make this thing, and nowI've made this thing, and now I
can do all the stuff with it asfar as the exhibiting and the
grading and and all of thosethings. And trying to take even
some aspects that are maybe morecommon and accepted in the
(13:00):
performing arts of the idea of,like, practice. You just
practice and you develop skills,but there's no end to that.
And really just trying tocommunicate the value of process
and remind myself of that too,of of trying to carve out time
for myself in the studio toplay, to experiment, to not have
(13:22):
that focus that has been, youknow, I'm sort of subject to it
as well as our students are asfar as having deliverables and
things that can beprofessionally evaluated for
promotion and all that kind ofthings.
Tyson E. Lewis (13:35):
Yeah. I think that what's really at stake
there is rehabilitating the ideaof the studio, a space that's
fundamentally different from aclassroom and opens up
educational possibilities beyondthe metaphysics of learning,
opens up the possibility of whatwe call like the pataphysics of
study. We want to emphasize theresources that the arts bring to
(13:57):
the table in terms of thealternative space and times of
education beyond learning.There's, like, basically three
points we try to make aboutstudios. One is that studios are
space time machines fordeactivating, deactivating power
relationships potentially, or asMichel Foucault might say,
(14:18):
they're experimental zones inwhich power is put into play in
new ways.
And secondly, they areadisciplinary. Studios
historically existed before thedivision of knowledge into the
disciplines, and we think thatthis is fertile ground for
thinking the space and time for,like, interdisciplinary studies
today or a disciplinary studies,studies that aren't bound by,
(14:42):
you know, disciplinary divisionsthat we find in the academy. And
then thirdly, studios areparadoxical locations. If you
look at the literature onstudios and you look at actual
historical examples of studios,they sort of blur the difference
between public and private,inside, outside nature, culture.
There are places where thingsthat come into the studio are
(15:04):
sort of opened up for newpotential uses, new strange
experimentations that aren'tnecessarily meant to be sold on
a market or exhibited ordistributed in some way or even
taught to others.
Rather, they they open up newpossibilities for what counts as
knowledge or what counts as anartwork.
Peter B. Hyland (15:23):
Coming to these realizations, think back to my
experience. I've got abackground both as a visual
artist and as a writer. And whenI was in college, my painting
studio sort of was in this openarea that was right where my
writing studio was. It was allone thing. I remember sort of
this feeling of, well, as we sayin the book, drifting.
(15:45):
Moving between these media,moving between these thinkers,
these ideas, and sort of knowingthat space was singular in some
way, but, you know, not reallyhaving the language to indicate
how. One of the things Iappreciate about the work that
we've been doing is giving avocabulary to that experience,
you know, experience of, as sortof James was indicating earlier,
(16:08):
awkwardness in a certain way,which we feel is a generative
thing. Awkwardness revealsthings and usually things that
are pretty fundamental and,therefore uncomfortable, which
is why we don't like beingawkward because something is
askew in a way and is disruptivein a way that is going to
complicate our notion of self,complicate our notion of the
(16:31):
world. You know, what I'veappreciated about the work that
we've undertaken is that it'ssort of explicitly that's kind
of like all we wanna do is getto that, as you were saying
with, Foucault, generate thesezones, these liminal spaces in
which becomings of certain kindscan happen and have free rein
and be let loose without anypreconceived notions of what
(16:51):
they're supposed to be doing.
Tyson E. Lewis (16:53):
Yeah. And I think the protocol is a
technology that enables us to dothat. Like, sometimes to get
outside of yourself, you have touse techniques. If you sort of
write down a protocol or a setof rules for yourself, this can
almost open the self up topossibilities that the self
might otherwise find too awkwardto engage with. But but the
(17:13):
rules sort of give you an excuseto to test things out.
The constraints do not limit thefreedom of the studio, but
actually are the fulcrum of thefreedom that you find in a
studio. They make movespossible. They sort of introduce
weird uncanny swerves into one'spractice, for instance. If we
(17:33):
have in education safe spacesand brave spaces, I think Peter
and I are trying to argue forawkward spaces as educationally
generative and that the studiois a space that embraces
awkwardness and generates it.Awkwardness, simply put, is
living a life of risk takingwhere the norms are suspended,
where you don't have the socialrules guiding you.
(17:55):
You don't have the safeguard ofknowing what's expected. It's
hard to get yourself into aspace of being comfortable with
uncomfortability, of engaging inunprofessional activities or
unproductive activities orunpractical practices, right, or
impractical practices. So that'ssort of one of the struggles, I
think, of the studio is how howto open those spaces up and then
(18:18):
sustain them.
Peter B. Hyland (18:19):
You know, we talk about it in the book as
being an existential risk. Partof the things that are put at
risk are your notion of youridentity, your notion of
authenticity. All of thesethings are meant to be taken
apart in these zones that arecreated. It is a very sort of
visceral thing. Your sort ofmode of thinking is on the line.
(18:41):
So getting to that risk is, Ithink, a fundamental thing that
we want to try to achieve, andthe protocols are, in some ways,
handrails to get us there.
Tyson E. Lewis (18:52):
I think it's so interesting. And, James, I have
to make this comment about whereyou are right now. I think it
actually describes very well thespace of a studio.
James Thurman (19:01):
Well, sure. So just out of necessity having to
to find a place that would be agood quieter place for
recording. It's a, convertedsunroom of my house, which
functions both my wife and I aremetalsmiths and jewelers and
artists. And so this spacefunctions as a combination home
office, storage room, materialand tool availability, craft
(19:26):
supplies, shipping materials. Sothere's pieces that are finished
that are maybe on their way outto the world.
There's photography space fordocumenting that before it
happens. It really is acatchall, unnameable space. We
are fortunate to have a a studiostudio kind of behind our house,
(19:46):
but this space is sort of onestep removed from it, where it's
it's a support space to thestudio. So the studio has all
the kind of more traditionaltools and materials and all of
those things. And then thisspace, we can't really even
settle on a name for it.
It's kind of a wonderfullyunnamable space because its
(20:08):
function is constantly shiftingbased on our day to day needs.
And it has that ambiguous, fluidpurpose that best embodies kind
of an ideal studio that evenchallenges sort of its own rules
of what you might consider.Like, day to day, my wife and I
don't consider this our studio,even though a great amount of
(20:31):
creative activity happens withinthis space. This is just what we
use for what we need it to be.And I think that that's kinda
probably most in line withconcepts of studio within the
book.
Tyson E. Lewis (20:43):
Yeah. I I just love this because it's it's like
the studio of the studio. Youknow, it's sort of like the
weird remnant space that's, it'sso liminal that it's even
misrecognized as a creativespace at all. Sort of junk room,
creative room. In the book, wetalk a lot about, the alchemist
studio.
And historically, the depictionsof the alchemist studio
(21:05):
throughout art history were usedin a sense as a warning to the
audience. Like the audiencewould look at these images and
they would be chaotic. But in away, those spaces, the most
discarded spaces, these minorspaces are the ones that Peter
and I feel are full of the moststudious potential.
James Thurman (21:22):
It's something interesting I've noticed in the
past when I worked a lot morewith first year students, their
kind of acclimation to this newform of classroom, where
certainly the vast majority ofthem had art classes in k
through 12 before startingcollege and and things like
that. But as they became morepersonally invested in, I'm an
art major now, and this is theroom where I do all that
(21:46):
creative stuff, I think theystarted having some of those
feelings. And I still see thateven as they specialize, like,
even as they come into adeclared major like
metalsmithing and jewelry orsomething. They still have this
push and pull where the studioslash classroom okay. It's both
that classroom with all thatkind of baggage and and
(22:07):
traditional hierarchies ofteacher and power and all those
kind of things, but then it'salso the majority of time that
they're in that space is not inclass.
They're coming in outside ofclass time, and they have their
workbench that is assigned tothem. So this becomes this very
personal space. I think it'sconstantly morphing for them.
And I'm hoping in thatexperience that as they move out
(22:29):
into the world, they then createtheir own physical spaces that
that have that malleability offunction and creativity and
exploration. But I see that evenin their first year starting
where there's this mix of, like,alright.
Well, this isn't my classroomthat I've grew up with. Now this
is this is something different.I don't have to sit in this
(22:49):
particular chair if I don't wantto. Like, these freedoms start
opening up. And I'm hoping that,you know, despite all the other
structures that we do have todeal with within the university,
that they can start experiencingsome of that questioning and
fluidity of experience withinthose spaces.
And I know that happens maybelater in the evenings when
faculty and staff aren't aroundas much, but they're still being
(23:11):
productive and they're stillmaking things and being creative
and forming their owncommunities within that
experience.
Peter B. Hyland (23:18):
Yeah. I'm really interested in, you know,
your observations, James, aboutstudents' conception of space
these days. One of the thingsthat we talk about in the book
is our discovery during StudioD. Once we entered into the
pandemic phase and people weresubmitting things, you know,
students were working in thesedifferent spaces, out of
(23:38):
necessity. So all of a suddentheir bedroom and, you know,
literally their bed becomestheir studio or becomes their
office.
We all felt this in one way oranother, as we went remote. You
know, and this sort of connectsto, what we talk about as the
post digital in the book. Insome sense, the what we're doing
right now, you know, we'rerecording audio, but we're also
(24:00):
seeing each other via thesescreens. And so we're bringing
the external into an interior,but the external that we're
bringing in is somebody else'sinterior as well. So there's all
of these weird fittings togetherthat are happening.
And I'm wondering if, you know,do you think that the necessary
relocating that the pandemicthrough our way, has that
(24:22):
changed the way that studentsthink about studio spaces at
all? Do you see that coming outin any way?
James Thurman (24:28):
Yes. In many different ways. And I've been
thinking about this a lot aswe've started to transition and
return back to more typical kindof spaces that we're working in
before. I teach both in personin the the studio classroom with
metalsmithing and jewelrystudents and then also online.
The online courses are more forall art majors about
(24:49):
professional practices.
But I noticed that the studentsare more confident in their
ability to basically problemsolve. So they got through this.
They got things done, and theywere sort of forced to come up
with ways of accomplishing thesethat were more independent than
typically happens during theireducational experience. I think
(25:11):
when they graduate, they're sortof thrown out into the street,
like, alright, you've had accessto all these wonderful tools and
spaces, and it's been greatworking with you, and you did
some great stuff, and good luckout there. Bye.
And there's a shock that I thinkmost of our art majors kind of
go through of, like, I don'tknow what to do now. And I'm
sort of more optimistic andhopeful about these students
(25:32):
that have been through thiswhere they did create their own
spaces and their own ways ofmaking when they were sort of
banned from campus in thatspring semester of twenty
twenty. And then as theyreturned, we were able to keep
in person instruction throughthe 2021 academic year, but much
more limited, a lot more socialdistancing, less time that they
(25:53):
had in the studio. And so,again, they had to figure out
ways to keep making and keepbeing creative outside of what
the physical structures ofschool was providing to them.
They haven't been happy aboutthat, but I think it's some of
that awkwardness that we weretalking about that I know will
serve them so well.
And I really believe that muchmore of them as they go out into
(26:14):
the world will continue on ascreative practitioners, Whatever
they resonate with and whateverthey choose to sort of
creatively explore, I reallyfeel that they'll have more of
that sort of stubbornness anddetermination to stick with it
as opposed to that shock of, oh,well, I can't go to those
studios on campus anymore, andso I don't know what to do. And
(26:36):
it's just too hard, and so I'llgo get a day job or, you know,
something like that. I'minterested to see how, as they
start becoming alumni, what willhappen for them and and how
that'll evolve.
Tyson E. Lewis (26:47):
I think this actually, you were talking about
challenges that COVID placed onstudents, and I think it's also
interesting to think about it interms of the challenges placed
on teachers and professors andnot only the challenges, but the
sort of opportunities. And Ithink that the fallback position
was we just want to use Canvasor Blackboard or some sort of
(27:08):
online platform to recreate thelearning conditions of the
classroom. The reallyinteresting question for me when
I was teaching online was how doI interrupt this? How do I use
Canvas, but suspend or render anoperative or neutralize the
implicit educational metaphysicsinscribed in the algorithm? How
(27:30):
can I turn it into a kind ofstudious space, a sort of post
digital studious space?
So with learning, students feelthat there's a purpose. So
there's a problem, they're gonnasurmount it. They're gonna solve
it. And so there's a clearpurpose and they are willfully
pursuing resolution. I thinkthat that's the quintessential
sort of phenomenologicalexperience of learning is that
(27:53):
sort of there's the problem, Ihave the skills to cope with it,
and I did it.
And I can look back and assessmy progress. I can feel growth.
I can feel my developmentthrough that process. And I
think that things like Canvasare scaffolded to to to support
that. I think on the flip side,there's just the Internet, which
is, you know, no purpose.
It's like a sense of lack ofpurpose. This is why we all
(28:15):
watch cat videos for endlesshours or, you know, it's just
like endless streaming or whatPeter and I call browsing.
Right? The challenge was toavoid both of these for
teachers, like not to simplyreplicate the learning model
that's being fed to us throughCanvas and not simply letting
students browse endlessly theinternet and having an
(28:35):
overwhelming sense of nihilismthat often accompanies that. So
the sweet spot, I think, forturning the internet or post
digital platforms into studiosis a sense of purposiveness
without a purpose.
You don't know exactly whereit's going. You don't even
necessarily care, but there's anunderlying sense of urgency or
(28:56):
importance to it. Like you feellike it matters. So there's a
proposiveness there. You feellike things matter, but you
can't necessarily articulate whyor what the outcome is gonna be
or what's directing it.
And that's for us neither thesort of summiting experience of
learning, nor is it the browsingexperience of the internet. It
is instead, what we calldrifting, which is a kind of
(29:18):
proposiveness withoutnecessarily being wedded to a
specific purpose. And thechallenge, I think, during COVID
was how can this experience betranslated into an online
environment?
James Thurman (29:31):
It's funny that you bring up subverting Canvas
because something that, I guess,was kind of a backhanded
compliment, but I see the valuein peer feedback. I mean, it's a
basic tool and everything else.And so I set it up so that the
students could turn in all theirassignments as part of a
discussion thread, which is notkind of what Canvas wants you to
(29:51):
do. So they're posting itpublicly within the course,
which is a different dynamicthan just turning it into the
teacher. And then the studentsare posting feedback, and
there's some guidelines aboutdon't be a troll and all these
kind of things.
And so I found that that dynamichas greatly shifted what the
students do in the course. Youknow, the course had to be
(30:11):
reviewed to be approved for allthat, you know, administrative
stuff. And one of the peoplereviewing it was sort of
impressed, but they said, youknow, you're not supposed to use
discussion boards this way. Isaid, yeah, I know. They're
like, I've never seen anyone useit this way.
I said, well, it makes sense forwhat my goals are. They just
didn't know what to do with it.And I was I was actually really
(30:32):
happy about that because, likeyou're saying, the students get
trained and it's I turn in theassignment here. And and there's
just that subtle shift of whereif they're posting it publicly
that anyone in the class canlook at their assignment, that's
a different thing. The studentsrespond in different ways about
that.
And I've had private messagesfrom the students of either
(30:56):
wanting additional feedbackbefore they post. Like, it was
more important to them, like,posting it out to everybody than
just turning in the assignment,which actually made me very
happy. And I felt that thatshift or subversion of the
structures was working becauseit started getting the students
to think a bit more about theimpact of their work beyond
(31:17):
these these very regimented kindof educational structures that
they're indoctrinated into.
Peter B. Hyland (31:23):
It sounds like in a way they made that
discussion board space anexhibition space. It reminds me
of part of what informs the bookis, Alfred Gere's pad of
physics, which means a lot ofdifferent things to a lot of
different people. But one of thethings that Gere, says is that
it's the science of impossiblesolutions. It is concerned with
(31:44):
laws governing exceptions.What's the other the other one,
Tyson?
Tyson E. Lewis (31:48):
It's interested not in generalities, but in
particulars.
Peter B. Hyland (31:52):
Yeah. So, you know, the the notion of
impossible solutions, your, youknow, students took this tool
that was supposed to be usedfor, you know, a very specific
purpose and they just said, no,that that's not that's not what
this is. They made it into whatthey needed it to be. That seems
to me very much in the spirit ofa patty physical approach.
(32:13):
Again, an irreverence forreceived forms, for received
truths and received knowledge,not because you want to negate
them, but because you want toopen them to different
understandings.
You want to open them todifferent ways of making things
become in the broadest sense.
Tyson E. Lewis (32:34):
Yeah. I think that's really well stated,
Peter. The features ofpataphysics, they're hard enough
to understand on their own. ButI think it's interesting
interesting just to thinkthrough how are they
educationally relevant, thisemphasis on particulars,
exceptions, and impossiblesolutions. And I think that all
of these features of pataphysicsmove us in a place beyond the
(32:55):
metaphysics of learning.
So for instance, learning, youcould think of as sort of
standardization andgeneralization of predictable
patterns. Sort ofstandardization and
generalization of predictablepatterns. And the students fall
into these patterns. Like theywere predicting that Canvas
would be used in a veryparticular way in James's
course, and they were thrown offwhen it wasn't used in the
appropriate way. And so learningis all about, it's like a
(33:16):
science of generalizability.
And I think also the laws, thesort of metaphysical laws of
learning reject exceptions. Ifyou're exceptional, you drop out
or you become invisible or youdon't fall on the bell curve,
the graded bell curve. Whereas,pataphysics is really interested
in those extremes, in thosethings that fall outside of the
(33:37):
graph of what's predictable, theanomalies, the swerves, the
clinemen, as Jerry would say.Thirdly, this idea of impossible
solutions is so interestingbecause education, we wanna say,
is all about solving problems.We wanna say it's all about
solutions, you know.
But in a certain sense, it's,you know, Jerry's idea of
impossible solutions pushes usto the very edge of our
(34:00):
imaginations about what does asolution look like. You know, it
pushes us beyond pragmatic realworld solutions towards a
horizon of new possibilitiesthat might not look feasible
within the given common sense ofa situation. So you might have
to find very unusual anomalous,quote, unquote, solutions to a
(34:22):
situation. I think thatpataphysics encourages us to
take these up as educationalcharges and to experiment with
them. And the experiment, Ithink this is also important to
note, James, with your example.
The experiment might be quitesmall. Sometimes very small
things introduce that swerve,introduce that like, you set up
a protocol there. It was a veryparticular protocol that created
(34:43):
a certain kind of awkwardnessthat generated outcomes that
people were not expecting. Soyou introduced a swerve into the
learning technology of Canvas.And I think that it's important
to pay homage to those smallthings sometimes that teachers
can do to open up thatpataphysical dimension within
learning.
James Thurman (35:01):
As educators, we're modeling some of the
behavior. I think it becomeschallenging as you progress in
your career where you getsettled in certain ways of doing
things. And like I mentioned,something that I really enjoyed
was that process of how can youbecome comfortable being
uncomfortable. If I want thatfor my students, I feel that I
(35:21):
have to be living that as well.I have to be pushing myself into
that zone as well.
It can be very discerning forall parties involved. Students
often want a very comfortableestablished power hierarchy,
even though they they say theymay not. But in times when I've
abdicated that and said,alright, well, let let's sort
(35:44):
this all out together, aninitial response is like, well,
you're not doing your job.That's your job. You tell us
what to do.
Eventually, they'll develop thattrust and understand the
reasoning behind shifting thosedynamics. You know, we keep
coming back to sort ofawkwardness or being
uncomfortable. And I think thatthat's because, at least for me,
(36:05):
a real lack of language, becauseI know that there's a lot of
subtleties of states that I'mnot, linguistically equipped to
specifically describe. Okay.Well, I'm I'm working towards
something, but I don't know whatI'm working towards.
How do I know I'm makingprogress? I'm feeling I'm making
(36:25):
progress, but is that anillusion? And even just that
process of questioning is, Ithink, critical to the whole
process.
Tyson E. Lewis (36:32):
One thing that Peter and I do, because we have
used the book now and as anopportunity to perform protocol
ing with practicing teachers aspart of professional development
courses and so on. And, this isvery interesting because really
the protocol isunprofessionalizing professional
development and undermining thevery idea of development. This
(36:53):
is our like small subversiveact. But I think that part of it
is genuinely conveying to themthat this is a real experiment.
This isn't a setup.
We are not trying to humiliateyou. We are as awkward as you
are in this moment. We're gonnasee what happens. And so there's
a kind of adventure that takesplace because the path we're all
(37:15):
on is uncertain andexperimental. There are some
people that of course will reactnegatively to that.
But I do think that if you aregenuinely open about your own
awkwardness and willing to gothere with them, that there will
be some kind of solidarity inthe moment of the experiment of
(37:36):
the happening.
James Thurman (37:36):
You
Peter B. Hyland (37:37):
know, as we talk about all of this, the
notion of common sense or orreason, there are limits to
those things. Uncommon sense,you know, irrationality. They
have import as well, in waysthat we don't normally, I think,
stop to examine.
Tyson E. Lewis (37:53):
Maybe what we need are educational situations
in the way the situationiststalk about them, sort of like
educational dureeves. And theprotocol is one way of unlocking
the dureeves and inducing a kindof studious drift into whatever
space you might be occupying.And you can occupy a classroom
or you can occupy a streetcorner or you can occupy a
(38:15):
storage closet and turn any ofthose into studios simply
through very simple practices.Our students during the COVID
crisis tried that out, and someof them did some really
interesting things. I wouldencourage listeners to go to the
Studio D website, which ishosted through the Onstead
Institute for Research in VisualArts and Design, at UNT.
(38:38):
One of the protocols was tocreate self studies, which is a
riff on selfies. James and Icame up with this idea. And take
unsexy photographs of your studyspaces and then talk about what
those study spaces reveal toyou. And I think that this
really was an interesting recordof that moment in history.
James Thurman (38:55):
And I love the idea of shifting studio to a
verb. Like, there's somethingreally critical and important
about that. I think I mentionedearlier about certain things
about practice that's a partmore of the performing arts and
not as public a part of thevisual arts. By turning the
(39:19):
studio into a verb, it gives anan activity or a a trajectory or
a vector to it that is verydifferent from the typical
concept of it as a specificplace. I feel this movement.
It's not as reliant upon, oh,well, I need this whole big
setup with all these, you know,tools and materials in order.
(39:40):
Now I can be creative. I'm in mystudio now. If you're studioing,
it sort of feels like somethingon the go. It can happen
whenever your mind is reallytaking you there and creating
that context for that activity.
That was something from the bookthat continues to resonate with
me, and I try to keep that withme just as I go about my daily
(40:00):
life. It's much more a mentalspace and context as opposed to
a physical one.
Peter B. Hyland (40:06):
And I think deeply entrenched in that is the
notion that it's a democraticpractice as well because it's
not situated on materialequipment that one needs to,
like, have a studio. Like, inorder to have a studio, you have
to have an easel, and you haveto have this and that and the
other. What we're talking aboutis a calibration of the mind
that allows you to enter intowhat I would say my one of my
(40:30):
mentors in poetry, TonyHoagland, used to call ghost
logic, where he would describewithin the functioning of a poem
its ability to create a certainemotional effect in a in a
reader or to conjure up acertain idea. And you don't
really know how that is workingreally. It's happening.
But when you look at the poem totry to figure out, okay, well,
(40:52):
why is this happening? It's notvery clear, but yet it still
makes sense. Turning to valuingthose moments and valuing that
way of thinking can bedifficult. A lot of it is
unknown to you. They're theparts of yourself that are not
as clearly defined.
They're the undercurrents thatinform your thinking throughout
the day, but that you don'ttypically turn to. What we're
(41:15):
trying to advocate for is aconjuring up of of that state.
Tyson E. Lewis (41:20):
Yeah. I like the verb conjuring too. It's like
democratic, but also esotericbecause you can't necessarily
explain to somebody what'shappening. You know you are
running into a studier or a realstudious person or somebody
studioing when you ask them,Hey, what's going on? What are
you up to?
And they're like, I don't knowexactly how to describe it to
you. Or I They're always in themiddle, right? They're never at
(41:43):
the beginning or the end ofsomething. They're always sort
of circulating, drifting aroundwhere they find sort of
potentialities. There'ssomething difficult to describe
about it.
It does have a kind of ghostlogic. And then also studioing,
I think, is somewhatopportunistic and fugitive. You
can sort of steal studio time orsteal studio spaces by occupying
(42:04):
liminal spaces in your house ora closet on campus or wherever
it is. You know? Harney andMoten have this concept of the
undercommons, and I think thatit shares a lot in common with
the idea of the studio as a kindof fugitive study space that's
shared in common with otherstudiers.
James Thurman (42:19):
Something that's happened to me recently that I'm
thinking has a connection backto the book. So I was working in
a more typical traditional wayin my studio on this piece, and
it has a deadline and so on. Ihad some shifts in what I wanted
to do for the piece, and Ididn't physically know how to
(42:40):
get it to work, which is not aplace I expected to be after,
you know, I've been a maker fordecades. You know, twenty plus
years, I've been in the studiomaking things, and I'm pretty
good at making certain things.And I never expected this point
in my development and career tostill be challenging myself that
way and still not have answers.
(43:01):
I thought it would be honestlykind of, like, less interesting.
I sort of imagined, like, oh,you get later into your career,
and you just kinda do the samething, and you get known for
that and whatever. And I am sohappy that I went through that
process. And I think myinvolvement with this book and
Studio D and the the gatheringand all those other aspects, I
(43:21):
think, led to that. And I'mhoping that that repeats for me
in my studio practice becausesometimes these things feel
disconnected and disparate.
Like, oh, okay. Let's go do thisthing over here, and I'll go
back to my studio and do mything over there. It seeped in
and without consciously makingthose connections or anything
else. And I ultimately solvedthe problem, but I kept feeling
(43:44):
like I was almost paintingmyself into a corner, and I had
to, like, magically materializea rope to climb up to get out of
that spot. I ran into that a lotmore when I was less skilled and
less knowledgeable.
But in a way, this book and therelated experiences and
materials have helped me pushthat and to to honestly be more
(44:05):
successful in that practice.Certainly wanna just take this
moment to thank you guys forkind of dragging me into this
and having these experiences,and I feel sort of more equipped
to continue on with thoseexperiences through this.
Tyson E. Lewis (44:17):
That's great. Thank you, James. I look forward
to having more studiousadventures with both of you in
the future. You know, hopefully,this book is just another
occasion for more studioing.
I began to wonder what would an education
beyond learning look like.
James Thurman (00:15):
The studio is something different. Freedom
start opening up.
Peter B. Hyland (00:20):
We started with the action, and actually, the
theory came out of what we did.Hello. My name is Peter Hyland,
(00:54):
and I am a co author ofMovements and Protocols for a
Post Digital Education, as wellas director of the Onstead
Institute for Education in theVisual Arts and Design at the
University of North Texas.
Tyson E. Lewis (01:08):
And I am doctor Tyson Lewis. I coauthored the
book, Studio Drift with mycolleague, Peter. And I am a
professor of art education atUNT where I teach courses in
critical theory, criticalphenomenology, aesthetic
philosophy, educationalphilosophy, and dialogue and
inquiry into the arts.
James Thurman (01:29):
And, hi, I'm, James Thurman, a friend and
colleague of Tyson and Peter'sat the University of North Texas
in the College of Visual Artsand Design. I'm a studio artist
and a faculty member in themetalsmithing and jewelry area,
but I've worked with both, Peterand Tyson on a a variety of
different projects, some ofwhich mentioned in the book.
Peter B. Hyland (01:50):
So I thought maybe we'd start out by, taking
us back to where it all began.When Tyson and I first met when
I came to the University ofNorth Texas and, I was, you
know, in this new role, which,did not really have anything
defined in terms of programmingthat I was overseeing. And
Tayson came to me with anintriguing idea that just sort
(02:11):
of took us in this trajectorythat we're still currently
enjoying at the moment.
Tyson E. Lewis (02:17):
Yeah. I I really like this question, Peter,
because it allows us toemphasize that the book came out
of a long process ofexperimentation with different
forms of educational practice.Before I came to UNT, I had
already become really interestedin forms of education that did
(02:40):
not necessarily abide by thelogic of learning. By learning,
I'm referring to discourses andpractices of what my friend and
colleague, Herit Biesta, callslearnification or the
economization of education sothat all of education becomes a
calculus of inputs and outputs.In fact, when Peter and I refer
(03:03):
to learning in the book,Studio's Drift, we push this
claim even further and we we tryto argue that learning has
become a kind of metaphysics oflate capitalism.
And by that, we just simply meanthat learning has become the
lens through which we interpreteverything that counts as
education. So if one cannotcalculate the inputs and outputs
(03:23):
going into an educationalrelationship, then it simply
does not count as educationallyrelevant and might even be
miseducational. This means thatfrom our perspective that the
language of education has becomeimpoverished basically, and that
marginal or minor practices thatfall outside of this
(03:44):
economization model are nolonger discussed. They're no
longer seen as relevant. So Ihad already been thinking a lot
about this, but I I began towonder what would an education
beyond learning look like?
How could we actually enact it?How could we make it come to
life? This is the project Ibrought to Peter when I first
(04:05):
arrived at UNT. And this wasreally the underlying goal of
the first symposium that wehosted called Education as
Experimentation, and it tookplace in 02/2017 at the
University of North Texas. Andfor this event, we asked
scholars, designers,philosophers, artists, art
(04:26):
educators, museum educators, weask them all to write short
protocols or rules of engagementthat would explicitly try to
interrupt, suspend, or render anoperative the discourses,
practices, or materials, ortechnologies of learning, of
learnification.
And we didn't know really whatwould happen at this conference.
(04:50):
And afterwards, it was actuallyquite challenging to assess it
because any form of assessingits success in a way would turn
it into a learning event. We'dbe asking questions like, well,
what did people learn? And thenthat would fall into the trap of
the economization of learningand and education. So how do we
even talk about what happened?
(05:11):
And the people at the event alsodidn't seem to really have a
language for what happened. Infact, on the final day, somebody
in the audience raised theirhand and said, well, I don't
know what actually happenedhere, but something happened.
You know, and that really seemedto be pretty accurate. And so
since that initial experiment,Peter and I have been wrestling
(05:31):
with a way to frame thefundamental problems or
questions that came out of thatfirst event. And that sort of
led us to the second iterationof the event, which we called
Studio D.
That happened the spring thatCOVID hit. So the spring
semester of twenty twenty. Itwas really a version of the
(05:52):
first event, but dealingspecifically with the ed tech
industry or the e learningindustry or the online digital
learning platforms. And so thequestion was, how could we hack
into or tinker with or render anoperative the learning logics or
the metaphysics of learningembedded within learning
technologies like Canvas orBlackboard or even everyday
(06:17):
technologies and apps and eventhings like Facebook and and so
on and so forth. So this was a,specifically technologically
oriented version of the firstevent, and that is ultimately
what led to the book's studiousdrift.
That was sort of the springboardfor our writing.
Peter B. Hyland (06:36):
Yeah. And, you know, I remember when you first
came into my office to pitch theidea for the first symposium.
You seemed a little tenuousbecause I think that you didn't
know how well the ideas weregonna go over. You know, I
remember just thinking I waslike, wow, this is a really,
like, punk rock kind of thing todo. I find myself drawn to
(06:56):
things that are irreverent or,disruptive because I think that
they can many times clarify, youknow, real issues that you wanna
dig into.
I was very intrigued by thisformat that Tyson was putting
forward. Part of the intriguingaspect of it was the fact that
it was actionable. What'sinteresting about the trajectory
(07:17):
of this project is that wedidn't really start in theory
and then wind up with actionableitems. We started with the
action and actually the theorycame out of what we did. You
know, in part, it's an attemptto, as Tyson was indicating, to
make sense of what whatoccurred.
So we had these happenings. Wehad these interactions. We had
(07:41):
these protocols, which we'lltalk about in a little bit. All
this stuff occurred, but wedidn't really yet have a
language in place to unpack itand delineate it for ourselves
yet. And so the book really inpart is the culmination of us
thinking through what hashappened to us in these
instances of sort of, actionresearch.
Tyson E. Lewis (08:03):
Yeah. And so we really are trying to build up a
set of concepts. And so some ofthose concepts that we've
subsequently used to give adescription of these happenings
or or situations or things likea path of physics of study or
emphasis on studioing or an ideaof studious drift in the
protocol, the concept of theprotocol. So the book is really
(08:26):
trying to figure out how allthese concepts hang together and
how they can inform a sort ofpataphysical educational form of
experimentation.
Peter B. Hyland (08:36):
Well, maybe let's talk a little bit about
what we mean when we sayprotocol.
Tyson E. Lewis (08:40):
The most important thing I think about
the protocol is that it's aparticular kind of writing. And
I think when we talk abouteducational forms of writing, we
often think about lessonplanning or curriculum building
or writing a syllabus. And oneof the things that informs all
those modes of writing is thatthey themselves are plans.
(09:01):
You're planning a course. You'restarting at point a, and you're
trying to get to point b.
And in that sense, they embody akind of implicit or explicit
logic of learning where you wantyour students to acquire this
set of skills or this knowledgebase and to progress, and then
you want to evaluate or assesstheir progress. And so the
(09:22):
protocol was really an attemptto suspend or render an
operative that form of writingand the learning logic embedded
in those forms of writing andreally to create a form of
writing that isn't aboutplanning and isn't about
assessing, but is stilleducational, still has something
educational about it. When weinitially gave the charge to
(09:43):
come up with protocols, wereally only gave three basic
instructions. And that was one,the protocols have a
minimalistic aesthetic. So lessis more.
Don't make them overlycomplicated. Secondly, the
protocols should be able to beenacted by the largest possible
audience. They should be asinclusive and as public as
(10:05):
possible. They should be a setof rules that should be able to
be held in common, whether ornot you're, for instance, in a
university. And thirdly, theyshould be genuinely
experimental.
And this is the most importantcharge for protocol writing. And
by experimental, we mean theyshould be an open procedure and
they should balance sort of formand chance. So they should be a
(10:26):
set of constraints that releasepossibilities, unforeseen
potentialities. James and I havewritten protocols together, and
I'm just wondering, James, ifyou could speak to your
experience of working on thesebecause I know speaking to other
participants, they often foundthis to be extremely challenging
to to write these things.
James Thurman (10:46):
Yeah. And, I mean, I've obviously been
thinking a lot about those earlyexperiences of going to the that
first gathering and calling onmy background as a teacher and
educator for years, and it waswonderful to sort of have that
subverted and inverted and tonot necessarily be in control of
things, not necessarily knowwhat the specific goals or
(11:09):
outcomes would be. I still goback to kind of the state of
mind that I had and through thatprocess of starting to get
comfortable being uncomfortable.It's something that I've taken
from that and brought to mystudents because I found,
particularly in studio art, thestudents are so focused on
product. Like, they have tofinish this piece, and they have
(11:33):
to exhibit this piece to thepublic, or they have to get
graded on it, or all of thosekinds of structures that are so
indoctrinated into the patternof experiences that they have in
these courses.
And so, obviously, my studentsweren't there and didn't have
these experiences, but throughmy experiences, I'm able to
carry that forward to them. It'sgonna be interesting to kind of
(11:53):
implement this coming fall wherewe've opened up this, new one on
one interdisciplinary kind ofresearch topic. And students
that don't have any training inmetalsmithing and jewelry are
gonna be coming into themetalsmithing and jewelry area
through my guidance just to makesure that they're working
safely, just kind of experiment.And I've had initial meetings
(12:17):
and planning that out. And thethe students are both excited,
and I think the ones that don'tknow me as well are maybe a
little suspicious that it'slike, well, I can just play and
experiment.
I said, as long as you'repushing, as long as you're doing
things, then you're succeeding.And we'll talk about what that
(12:37):
whole process is. And so I'mkind of challenging those ideas
specific within my field ofbeing so product focused of I
have to make this thing, and nowI've made this thing, and now I
can do all the stuff with it asfar as the exhibiting and the
grading and and all of thosethings. And trying to take even
some aspects that are maybe morecommon and accepted in the
(13:00):
performing arts of the idea of,like, practice. You just
practice and you develop skills,but there's no end to that.
And really just trying tocommunicate the value of process
and remind myself of that too,of of trying to carve out time
for myself in the studio toplay, to experiment, to not have
(13:22):
that focus that has been, youknow, I'm sort of subject to it
as well as our students are asfar as having deliverables and
things that can beprofessionally evaluated for
promotion and all that kind ofthings.
Tyson E. Lewis (13:35):
Yeah. I think that what's really at stake
there is rehabilitating the ideaof the studio, a space that's
fundamentally different from aclassroom and opens up
educational possibilities beyondthe metaphysics of learning,
opens up the possibility of whatwe call like the pataphysics of
study. We want to emphasize theresources that the arts bring to
(13:57):
the table in terms of thealternative space and times of
education beyond learning.There's, like, basically three
points we try to make aboutstudios. One is that studios are
space time machines fordeactivating, deactivating power
relationships potentially, or asMichel Foucault might say,
(14:18):
they're experimental zones inwhich power is put into play in
new ways.
And secondly, they areadisciplinary. Studios
historically existed before thedivision of knowledge into the
disciplines, and we think thatthis is fertile ground for
thinking the space and time for,like, interdisciplinary studies
today or a disciplinary studies,studies that aren't bound by,
(14:42):
you know, disciplinary divisionsthat we find in the academy. And
then thirdly, studios areparadoxical locations. If you
look at the literature onstudios and you look at actual
historical examples of studios,they sort of blur the difference
between public and private,inside, outside nature, culture.
There are places where thingsthat come into the studio are
(15:04):
sort of opened up for newpotential uses, new strange
experimentations that aren'tnecessarily meant to be sold on
a market or exhibited ordistributed in some way or even
taught to others.
Rather, they they open up newpossibilities for what counts as
knowledge or what counts as anartwork.
Peter B. Hyland (15:23):
Coming to these realizations, think back to my
experience. I've got abackground both as a visual
artist and as a writer. And whenI was in college, my painting
studio sort of was in this openarea that was right where my
writing studio was. It was allone thing. I remember sort of
this feeling of, well, as we sayin the book, drifting.
(15:45):
Moving between these media,moving between these thinkers,
these ideas, and sort of knowingthat space was singular in some
way, but, you know, not reallyhaving the language to indicate
how. One of the things Iappreciate about the work that
we've been doing is giving avocabulary to that experience,
you know, experience of, as sortof James was indicating earlier,
(16:08):
awkwardness in a certain way,which we feel is a generative
thing. Awkwardness revealsthings and usually things that
are pretty fundamental and,therefore uncomfortable, which
is why we don't like beingawkward because something is
askew in a way and is disruptivein a way that is going to
complicate our notion of self,complicate our notion of the
(16:31):
world. You know, what I'veappreciated about the work that
we've undertaken is that it'ssort of explicitly that's kind
of like all we wanna do is getto that, as you were saying
with, Foucault, generate thesezones, these liminal spaces in
which becomings of certain kindscan happen and have free rein
and be let loose without anypreconceived notions of what
(16:51):
they're supposed to be doing.
Tyson E. Lewis (16:53):
Yeah. And I think the protocol is a
technology that enables us to dothat. Like, sometimes to get
outside of yourself, you have touse techniques. If you sort of
write down a protocol or a setof rules for yourself, this can
almost open the self up topossibilities that the self
might otherwise find too awkwardto engage with. But but the
(17:13):
rules sort of give you an excuseto to test things out.
The constraints do not limit thefreedom of the studio, but
actually are the fulcrum of thefreedom that you find in a
studio. They make movespossible. They sort of introduce
weird uncanny swerves into one'spractice, for instance. If we
(17:33):
have in education safe spacesand brave spaces, I think Peter
and I are trying to argue forawkward spaces as educationally
generative and that the studiois a space that embraces
awkwardness and generates it.Awkwardness, simply put, is
living a life of risk takingwhere the norms are suspended,
where you don't have the socialrules guiding you.
(17:55):
You don't have the safeguard ofknowing what's expected. It's
hard to get yourself into aspace of being comfortable with
uncomfortability, of engaging inunprofessional activities or
unproductive activities orunpractical practices, right, or
impractical practices. So that'ssort of one of the struggles, I
think, of the studio is how howto open those spaces up and then
(18:18):
sustain them.
Peter B. Hyland (18:19):
You know, we talk about it in the book as
being an existential risk. Partof the things that are put at
risk are your notion of youridentity, your notion of
authenticity. All of thesethings are meant to be taken
apart in these zones that arecreated. It is a very sort of
visceral thing. Your sort ofmode of thinking is on the line.
(18:41):
So getting to that risk is, Ithink, a fundamental thing that
we want to try to achieve, andthe protocols are, in some ways,
handrails to get us there.
Tyson E. Lewis (18:52):
I think it's so interesting. And, James, I have
to make this comment about whereyou are right now. I think it
actually describes very well thespace of a studio.
James Thurman (19:01):
Well, sure. So just out of necessity having to
to find a place that would be agood quieter place for
recording. It's a, convertedsunroom of my house, which
functions both my wife and I aremetalsmiths and jewelers and
artists. And so this spacefunctions as a combination home
office, storage room, materialand tool availability, craft
(19:26):
supplies, shipping materials. Sothere's pieces that are finished
that are maybe on their way outto the world.
There's photography space fordocumenting that before it
happens. It really is acatchall, unnameable space. We
are fortunate to have a a studiostudio kind of behind our house,
(19:46):
but this space is sort of onestep removed from it, where it's
it's a support space to thestudio. So the studio has all
the kind of more traditionaltools and materials and all of
those things. And then thisspace, we can't really even
settle on a name for it.
It's kind of a wonderfullyunnamable space because its
(20:08):
function is constantly shiftingbased on our day to day needs.
And it has that ambiguous, fluidpurpose that best embodies kind
of an ideal studio that evenchallenges sort of its own rules
of what you might consider.Like, day to day, my wife and I
don't consider this our studio,even though a great amount of
(20:31):
creative activity happens withinthis space. This is just what we
use for what we need it to be.And I think that that's kinda
probably most in line withconcepts of studio within the
book.
Tyson E. Lewis (20:43):
Yeah. I I just love this because it's it's like
the studio of the studio. Youknow, it's sort of like the
weird remnant space that's, it'sso liminal that it's even
misrecognized as a creativespace at all. Sort of junk room,
creative room. In the book, wetalk a lot about, the alchemist
studio.
And historically, the depictionsof the alchemist studio
(21:05):
throughout art history were usedin a sense as a warning to the
audience. Like the audiencewould look at these images and
they would be chaotic. But in away, those spaces, the most
discarded spaces, these minorspaces are the ones that Peter
and I feel are full of the moststudious potential.
James Thurman (21:22):
It's something interesting I've noticed in the
past when I worked a lot morewith first year students, their
kind of acclimation to this newform of classroom, where
certainly the vast majority ofthem had art classes in k
through 12 before startingcollege and and things like
that. But as they became morepersonally invested in, I'm an
art major now, and this is theroom where I do all that
(21:46):
creative stuff, I think theystarted having some of those
feelings. And I still see thateven as they specialize, like,
even as they come into adeclared major like
metalsmithing and jewelry orsomething. They still have this
push and pull where the studioslash classroom okay. It's both
that classroom with all thatkind of baggage and and
(22:07):
traditional hierarchies ofteacher and power and all those
kind of things, but then it'salso the majority of time that
they're in that space is not inclass.
They're coming in outside ofclass time, and they have their
workbench that is assigned tothem. So this becomes this very
personal space. I think it'sconstantly morphing for them.
And I'm hoping in thatexperience that as they move out
(22:29):
into the world, they then createtheir own physical spaces that
that have that malleability offunction and creativity and
exploration. But I see that evenin their first year starting
where there's this mix of, like,alright.
Well, this isn't my classroomthat I've grew up with. Now this
is this is something different.I don't have to sit in this
(22:49):
particular chair if I don't wantto. Like, these freedoms start
opening up. And I'm hoping that,you know, despite all the other
structures that we do have todeal with within the university,
that they can start experiencingsome of that questioning and
fluidity of experience withinthose spaces.
And I know that happens maybelater in the evenings when
faculty and staff aren't aroundas much, but they're still being
(23:11):
productive and they're stillmaking things and being creative
and forming their owncommunities within that
experience.
Peter B. Hyland (23:18):
Yeah. I'm really interested in, you know,
your observations, James, aboutstudents' conception of space
these days. One of the thingsthat we talk about in the book
is our discovery during StudioD. Once we entered into the
pandemic phase and people weresubmitting things, you know,
students were working in thesedifferent spaces, out of
(23:38):
necessity. So all of a suddentheir bedroom and, you know,
literally their bed becomestheir studio or becomes their
office.
We all felt this in one way oranother, as we went remote. You
know, and this sort of connectsto, what we talk about as the
post digital in the book. Insome sense, the what we're doing
right now, you know, we'rerecording audio, but we're also
(24:00):
seeing each other via thesescreens. And so we're bringing
the external into an interior,but the external that we're
bringing in is somebody else'sinterior as well. So there's all
of these weird fittings togetherthat are happening.
And I'm wondering if, you know,do you think that the necessary
relocating that the pandemicthrough our way, has that
(24:22):
changed the way that studentsthink about studio spaces at
all? Do you see that coming outin any way?
James Thurman (24:28):
Yes. In many different ways. And I've been
thinking about this a lot aswe've started to transition and
return back to more typical kindof spaces that we're working in
before. I teach both in personin the the studio classroom with
metalsmithing and jewelrystudents and then also online.
The online courses are more forall art majors about
(24:49):
professional practices.
But I noticed that the studentsare more confident in their
ability to basically problemsolve. So they got through this.
They got things done, and theywere sort of forced to come up
with ways of accomplishing thesethat were more independent than
typically happens during theireducational experience. I think
(25:11):
when they graduate, they're sortof thrown out into the street,
like, alright, you've had accessto all these wonderful tools and
spaces, and it's been greatworking with you, and you did
some great stuff, and good luckout there. Bye.
And there's a shock that I thinkmost of our art majors kind of
go through of, like, I don'tknow what to do now. And I'm
sort of more optimistic andhopeful about these students
(25:32):
that have been through thiswhere they did create their own
spaces and their own ways ofmaking when they were sort of
banned from campus in thatspring semester of twenty
twenty. And then as theyreturned, we were able to keep
in person instruction throughthe 2021 academic year, but much
more limited, a lot more socialdistancing, less time that they
(25:53):
had in the studio. And so,again, they had to figure out
ways to keep making and keepbeing creative outside of what
the physical structures ofschool was providing to them.
They haven't been happy aboutthat, but I think it's some of
that awkwardness that we weretalking about that I know will
serve them so well.
And I really believe that muchmore of them as they go out into
(26:14):
the world will continue on ascreative practitioners, Whatever
they resonate with and whateverthey choose to sort of
creatively explore, I reallyfeel that they'll have more of
that sort of stubbornness anddetermination to stick with it
as opposed to that shock of, oh,well, I can't go to those
studios on campus anymore, andso I don't know what to do. And
(26:36):
it's just too hard, and so I'llgo get a day job or, you know,
something like that. I'minterested to see how, as they
start becoming alumni, what willhappen for them and and how
that'll evolve.
Tyson E. Lewis (26:47):
I think this actually, you were talking about
challenges that COVID placed onstudents, and I think it's also
interesting to think about it interms of the challenges placed
on teachers and professors andnot only the challenges, but the
sort of opportunities. And Ithink that the fallback position
was we just want to use Canvasor Blackboard or some sort of
(27:08):
online platform to recreate thelearning conditions of the
classroom. The reallyinteresting question for me when
I was teaching online was how doI interrupt this? How do I use
Canvas, but suspend or render anoperative or neutralize the
implicit educational metaphysicsinscribed in the algorithm? How
(27:30):
can I turn it into a kind ofstudious space, a sort of post
digital studious space?
So with learning, students feelthat there's a purpose. So
there's a problem, they're gonnasurmount it. They're gonna solve
it. And so there's a clearpurpose and they are willfully
pursuing resolution. I thinkthat that's the quintessential
sort of phenomenologicalexperience of learning is that
(27:53):
sort of there's the problem, Ihave the skills to cope with it,
and I did it.
And I can look back and assessmy progress. I can feel growth.
I can feel my developmentthrough that process. And I
think that things like Canvasare scaffolded to to to support
that. I think on the flip side,there's just the Internet, which
is, you know, no purpose.
It's like a sense of lack ofpurpose. This is why we all
(28:15):
watch cat videos for endlesshours or, you know, it's just
like endless streaming or whatPeter and I call browsing.
Right? The challenge was toavoid both of these for
teachers, like not to simplyreplicate the learning model
that's being fed to us throughCanvas and not simply letting
students browse endlessly theinternet and having an
(28:35):
overwhelming sense of nihilismthat often accompanies that. So
the sweet spot, I think, forturning the internet or post
digital platforms into studiosis a sense of purposiveness
without a purpose.
You don't know exactly whereit's going. You don't even
necessarily care, but there's anunderlying sense of urgency or
(28:56):
importance to it. Like you feellike it matters. So there's a
proposiveness there. You feellike things matter, but you
can't necessarily articulate whyor what the outcome is gonna be
or what's directing it.
And that's for us neither thesort of summiting experience of
learning, nor is it the browsingexperience of the internet. It
is instead, what we calldrifting, which is a kind of
(29:18):
proposiveness withoutnecessarily being wedded to a
specific purpose. And thechallenge, I think, during COVID
was how can this experience betranslated into an online
environment?
James Thurman (29:31):
It's funny that you bring up subverting Canvas
because something that, I guess,was kind of a backhanded
compliment, but I see the valuein peer feedback. I mean, it's a
basic tool and everything else.And so I set it up so that the
students could turn in all theirassignments as part of a
discussion thread, which is notkind of what Canvas wants you to
(29:51):
do. So they're posting itpublicly within the course,
which is a different dynamicthan just turning it into the
teacher. And then the studentsare posting feedback, and
there's some guidelines aboutdon't be a troll and all these
kind of things.
And so I found that that dynamichas greatly shifted what the
students do in the course. Youknow, the course had to be
(30:11):
reviewed to be approved for allthat, you know, administrative
stuff. And one of the peoplereviewing it was sort of
impressed, but they said, youknow, you're not supposed to use
discussion boards this way. Isaid, yeah, I know. They're
like, I've never seen anyone useit this way.
I said, well, it makes sense forwhat my goals are. They just
didn't know what to do with it.And I was I was actually really
(30:32):
happy about that because, likeyou're saying, the students get
trained and it's I turn in theassignment here. And and there's
just that subtle shift of whereif they're posting it publicly
that anyone in the class canlook at their assignment, that's
a different thing. The studentsrespond in different ways about
that.
And I've had private messagesfrom the students of either
(30:56):
wanting additional feedbackbefore they post. Like, it was
more important to them, like,posting it out to everybody than
just turning in the assignment,which actually made me very
happy. And I felt that thatshift or subversion of the
structures was working becauseit started getting the students
to think a bit more about theimpact of their work beyond
(31:17):
these these very regimented kindof educational structures that
they're indoctrinated into.
Peter B. Hyland (31:23):
It sounds like in a way they made that
discussion board space anexhibition space. It reminds me
of part of what informs the bookis, Alfred Gere's pad of
physics, which means a lot ofdifferent things to a lot of
different people. But one of thethings that Gere, says is that
it's the science of impossiblesolutions. It is concerned with
(31:44):
laws governing exceptions.What's the other the other one,
Tyson?
Tyson E. Lewis (31:48):
It's interested not in generalities, but in
particulars.
Peter B. Hyland (31:52):
Yeah. So, you know, the the notion of
impossible solutions, your, youknow, students took this tool
that was supposed to be usedfor, you know, a very specific
purpose and they just said, no,that that's not that's not what
this is. They made it into whatthey needed it to be. That seems
to me very much in the spirit ofa patty physical approach.
(32:13):
Again, an irreverence forreceived forms, for received
truths and received knowledge,not because you want to negate
them, but because you want toopen them to different
understandings.
You want to open them todifferent ways of making things
become in the broadest sense.
Tyson E. Lewis (32:34):
Yeah. I think that's really well stated,
Peter. The features ofpataphysics, they're hard enough
to understand on their own. ButI think it's interesting
interesting just to thinkthrough how are they
educationally relevant, thisemphasis on particulars,
exceptions, and impossiblesolutions. And I think that all
of these features of pataphysicsmove us in a place beyond the
(32:55):
metaphysics of learning.
So for instance, learning, youcould think of as sort of
standardization andgeneralization of predictable
patterns. Sort ofstandardization and
generalization of predictablepatterns. And the students fall
into these patterns. Like theywere predicting that Canvas
would be used in a veryparticular way in James's
course, and they were thrown offwhen it wasn't used in the
appropriate way. And so learningis all about, it's like a
(33:16):
science of generalizability.
And I think also the laws, thesort of metaphysical laws of
learning reject exceptions. Ifyou're exceptional, you drop out
or you become invisible or youdon't fall on the bell curve,
the graded bell curve. Whereas,pataphysics is really interested
in those extremes, in thosethings that fall outside of the
(33:37):
graph of what's predictable, theanomalies, the swerves, the
clinemen, as Jerry would say.Thirdly, this idea of impossible
solutions is so interestingbecause education, we wanna say,
is all about solving problems.We wanna say it's all about
solutions, you know.
But in a certain sense, it's,you know, Jerry's idea of
impossible solutions pushes usto the very edge of our
(34:00):
imaginations about what does asolution look like. You know, it
pushes us beyond pragmatic realworld solutions towards a
horizon of new possibilitiesthat might not look feasible
within the given common sense ofa situation. So you might have
to find very unusual anomalous,quote, unquote, solutions to a
(34:22):
situation. I think thatpataphysics encourages us to
take these up as educationalcharges and to experiment with
them. And the experiment, Ithink this is also important to
note, James, with your example.
The experiment might be quitesmall. Sometimes very small
things introduce that swerve,introduce that like, you set up
a protocol there. It was a veryparticular protocol that created
(34:43):
a certain kind of awkwardnessthat generated outcomes that
people were not expecting. Soyou introduced a swerve into the
learning technology of Canvas.And I think that it's important
to pay homage to those smallthings sometimes that teachers
can do to open up thatpataphysical dimension within
learning.
James Thurman (35:01):
As educators, we're modeling some of the
behavior. I think it becomeschallenging as you progress in
your career where you getsettled in certain ways of doing
things. And like I mentioned,something that I really enjoyed
was that process of how can youbecome comfortable being
uncomfortable. If I want thatfor my students, I feel that I
(35:21):
have to be living that as well.I have to be pushing myself into
that zone as well.
It can be very discerning forall parties involved. Students
often want a very comfortableestablished power hierarchy,
even though they they say theymay not. But in times when I've
abdicated that and said,alright, well, let let's sort
(35:44):
this all out together, aninitial response is like, well,
you're not doing your job.That's your job. You tell us
what to do.
Eventually, they'll develop thattrust and understand the
reasoning behind shifting thosedynamics. You know, we keep
coming back to sort ofawkwardness or being
uncomfortable. And I think thatthat's because, at least for me,
(36:05):
a real lack of language, becauseI know that there's a lot of
subtleties of states that I'mnot, linguistically equipped to
specifically describe. Okay.Well, I'm I'm working towards
something, but I don't know whatI'm working towards.
How do I know I'm makingprogress? I'm feeling I'm making
(36:25):
progress, but is that anillusion? And even just that
process of questioning is, Ithink, critical to the whole
process.
Tyson E. Lewis (36:32):
One thing that Peter and I do, because we have
used the book now and as anopportunity to perform protocol
ing with practicing teachers aspart of professional development
courses and so on. And, this isvery interesting because really
the protocol isunprofessionalizing professional
development and undermining thevery idea of development. This
(36:53):
is our like small subversiveact. But I think that part of it
is genuinely conveying to themthat this is a real experiment.
This isn't a setup.
We are not trying to humiliateyou. We are as awkward as you
are in this moment. We're gonnasee what happens. And so there's
a kind of adventure that takesplace because the path we're all
(37:15):
on is uncertain andexperimental. There are some
people that of course will reactnegatively to that.
But I do think that if you aregenuinely open about your own
awkwardness and willing to gothere with them, that there will
be some kind of solidarity inthe moment of the experiment of
(37:36):
the happening.
James Thurman (37:36):
You
Peter B. Hyland (37:37):
know, as we talk about all of this, the
notion of common sense or orreason, there are limits to
those things. Uncommon sense,you know, irrationality. They
have import as well, in waysthat we don't normally, I think,
stop to examine.
Tyson E. Lewis (37:53):
Maybe what we need are educational situations
in the way the situationiststalk about them, sort of like
educational dureeves. And theprotocol is one way of unlocking
the dureeves and inducing a kindof studious drift into whatever
space you might be occupying.And you can occupy a classroom
or you can occupy a streetcorner or you can occupy a
(38:15):
storage closet and turn any ofthose into studios simply
through very simple practices.Our students during the COVID
crisis tried that out, and someof them did some really
interesting things. I wouldencourage listeners to go to the
Studio D website, which ishosted through the Onstead
Institute for Research in VisualArts and Design, at UNT.
(38:38):
One of the protocols was tocreate self studies, which is a
riff on selfies. James and Icame up with this idea. And take
unsexy photographs of your studyspaces and then talk about what
those study spaces reveal toyou. And I think that this
really was an interesting recordof that moment in history.
James Thurman (38:55):
And I love the idea of shifting studio to a
verb. Like, there's somethingreally critical and important
about that. I think I mentionedearlier about certain things
about practice that's a partmore of the performing arts and
not as public a part of thevisual arts. By turning the
(39:19):
studio into a verb, it gives anan activity or a a trajectory or
a vector to it that is verydifferent from the typical
concept of it as a specificplace. I feel this movement.
It's not as reliant upon, oh,well, I need this whole big
setup with all these, you know,tools and materials in order.
(39:40):
Now I can be creative. I'm in mystudio now. If you're studioing,
it sort of feels like somethingon the go. It can happen
whenever your mind is reallytaking you there and creating
that context for that activity.
That was something from the bookthat continues to resonate with
me, and I try to keep that withme just as I go about my daily
(40:00):
life. It's much more a mentalspace and context as opposed to
a physical one.
Peter B. Hyland (40:06):
And I think deeply entrenched in that is the
notion that it's a democraticpractice as well because it's
not situated on materialequipment that one needs to,
like, have a studio. Like, inorder to have a studio, you have
to have an easel, and you haveto have this and that and the
other. What we're talking aboutis a calibration of the mind
that allows you to enter intowhat I would say my one of my
(40:30):
mentors in poetry, TonyHoagland, used to call ghost
logic, where he would describewithin the functioning of a poem
its ability to create a certainemotional effect in a in a
reader or to conjure up acertain idea. And you don't
really know how that is workingreally. It's happening.
But when you look at the poem totry to figure out, okay, well,
(40:52):
why is this happening? It's notvery clear, but yet it still
makes sense. Turning to valuingthose moments and valuing that
way of thinking can bedifficult. A lot of it is
unknown to you. They're theparts of yourself that are not
as clearly defined.
They're the undercurrents thatinform your thinking throughout
the day, but that you don'ttypically turn to. What we're
(41:15):
trying to advocate for is aconjuring up of of that state.
Tyson E. Lewis (41:20):
Yeah. I like the verb conjuring too. It's like
democratic, but also esotericbecause you can't necessarily
explain to somebody what'shappening. You know you are
running into a studier or a realstudious person or somebody
studioing when you ask them,Hey, what's going on? What are
you up to?
And they're like, I don't knowexactly how to describe it to
you. Or I They're always in themiddle, right? They're never at
(41:43):
the beginning or the end ofsomething. They're always sort
of circulating, drifting aroundwhere they find sort of
potentialities. There'ssomething difficult to describe
about it.
It does have a kind of ghostlogic. And then also studioing,
I think, is somewhatopportunistic and fugitive. You
can sort of steal studio time orsteal studio spaces by occupying
(42:04):
liminal spaces in your house ora closet on campus or wherever
it is. You know? Harney andMoten have this concept of the
undercommons, and I think thatit shares a lot in common with
the idea of the studio as a kindof fugitive study space that's
shared in common with otherstudiers.
James Thurman (42:19):
Something that's happened to me recently that I'm
thinking has a connection backto the book. So I was working in
a more typical traditional wayin my studio on this piece, and
it has a deadline and so on. Ihad some shifts in what I wanted
to do for the piece, and Ididn't physically know how to
(42:40):
get it to work, which is not aplace I expected to be after,
you know, I've been a maker fordecades. You know, twenty plus
years, I've been in the studiomaking things, and I'm pretty
good at making certain things.And I never expected this point
in my development and career tostill be challenging myself that
way and still not have answers.
(43:01):
I thought it would be honestlykind of, like, less interesting.
I sort of imagined, like, oh,you get later into your career,
and you just kinda do the samething, and you get known for
that and whatever. And I am sohappy that I went through that
process. And I think myinvolvement with this book and
Studio D and the the gatheringand all those other aspects, I
(43:21):
think, led to that. And I'mhoping that that repeats for me
in my studio practice becausesometimes these things feel
disconnected and disparate.
Like, oh, okay. Let's go do thisthing over here, and I'll go
back to my studio and do mything over there. It seeped in
and without consciously makingthose connections or anything
else. And I ultimately solvedthe problem, but I kept feeling
(43:44):
like I was almost paintingmyself into a corner, and I had
to, like, magically materializea rope to climb up to get out of
that spot. I ran into that a lotmore when I was less skilled and
less knowledgeable.
But in a way, this book and therelated experiences and
materials have helped me pushthat and to to honestly be more
(44:05):
successful in that practice.Certainly wanna just take this
moment to thank you guys forkind of dragging me into this
and having these experiences,and I feel sort of more equipped
to continue on with thoseexperiences through this.
Tyson E. Lewis (44:17):
That's great. Thank you, James. I look forward
to having more studiousadventures with both of you in
the future. You know, hopefully,this book is just another
occasion for more studioing.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.