critical creative collaborative

rec room r.i.p.

Do rumpus rooms even exist anymore? Been awhile since I was hanging suburban basements, but I wonder if the once popular rec room (or rumpus room) has gone the way of the dodo, usurped by the home office or studio and a whole new set of expectation about how and why we recreate.

Frequenting online music sites, as I sometimes do, I notice numerous references to the “home studio”—as in for sale: mint condition Les Paul, only ever used in the “home studio.”  Following the links back to YouTube, there is evidence that new hybrid, prosumer (blended consumption and production) spaces are flourishing. The rec rooms of yesteryear seem to be giving way to these “studios”—spare bedrooms and basement living spaces that are fitted out with all the gear (instruments, amps, mics, mixers, recorders, and cameras wired up to a laptop or PC) needed to play along with your favourite performers, and in so doing, to produce DIY audio-video recordings as you do.

▶

These home office/studio spaces offer haphazard collections of gear and furniture that are reminiscent of older rec rooms; yet, they are designed to function in a categorically different way. These studios are not the spaces of active consumption we grew up with: they do not seem to be well equipped for rowdy TV watching, loud partying, or general rough housing. Instead, these spaces seem to favour relatively passive forms of production: individualized recording rehearsal sessions in which one plays along with a favourite track.

Rock and roll, it seems, has left the garage for the youtube channel.

play along

In this week’s ENGL 100 lecture, I talked about “play along culture.” I lit on the idea as was looking for a way of unpacking Raymond Carver’s “Cathedral,” and thinking about the text in relation a chapter from John Seabrook’s Nobrow: The Culture of Marketing, The Marketing of Culture.

▶

Surfing the web, I was looking for video clips for Thelonius Monk and Glenn Gould, two artists who exemplify a productive approach to the tension between performance and recording. To me, their very different mystiques rest on an uncanny ability to flout the grid, to produce recordings that seem to fly beyond it. In the process, I stumbled across the video of the young man playing bass along with Third World’s “Reggae Ambassador.”

Initially, I was struck by the uncool way this performer uses his t-shirt or pillow case as a buffer between his naked torso and bass. As I listened, however, I was taken by his ability to more or less insert himself into the groove. He’s not bad, I found myself thinking. I started to enjoy the track, almost in spite of myself. The other aspect of the video that struck me was the number of associated videos linked to it. I have seen hours of instructional videos on youtube, and am aware of numerous amateur players uploading videos. Usually, however, these videos mingle with those of the “real performers”—the amateurs’ DIY recordings intermingle with live footage and music videos from the pros. Next to this, this play-along artist’s offering, there was a full stream of amateur bass player sharing their own interpretations, or rather recreations, of famous reggae bass lines.

In the context of thinking about my lecture and Carver and Seabrook texts, the notion of playing along took on new meaning.

“Cathedral”

Carver’s now canonical  “Cathedral,” the title story of his 1983 collection, offers an exquisite representation of late 20th century life, which culminates in a trenchant critique of the hyper-mediation North American culture. The story revolves around the relationship between an unnamed narrator and a “blind man,” Robert.  Robert is a friend of the narrator’s (also unnamed) wife, and he comes to visit the couple for an evening.

After dinner and copious amounts of alcohol, the narrator and Robert retire to the living room where they watch television and share “some cannabis” (104). The wife joins the two men on the sofa, but soon falls asleep.  When she goes to bed, the men stay up watching TV: “Something about the church and the Middle Ages” (105).

In the silence between voice overs, Robert asks the narrator to describe the documentary and what he sees on screen. It is apparent that the narrator understand little about what he is watching. When asked, he is unable to relate anything more than the information provided in the voice over. He confesses, “I’m not doing so good, am I.” And when Robert encourages him, the narrator relates that “he tried to think of what else to say.’They are really big,’ I said. ‘They’re massive. They’re built of stone. Marble, too, sometimes.’”

The narrator is frustrated that he can’t do much better than this: “‘The Truth is, cathedrals don’t mean anything special to me. Nothing. Catherdrals. They’re something to look at on late-night TV. That’s all they are.’” Robert responds, “I get it, bub. It’s okay. It happens. Don’t worry about it.” And then he asks the narrator to get a heavy piece of paper and a pen and the two work together to draw a cathedral. Getting down onto the carpet the “blind man . . . found my hand, the had with the pen. He closed his had over my hand. ‘Go ahead, bub, draw.”Hand in hand on the carpet the two men work toward a deeper (spiritual?) understanding of their subject matter.

Carver’s narrative ends on a deeply ambivalent note, and yet in so doing, it sets out a paradigm that seems to be increasingly familiar and relevant today. Making the shift from passive consumers to active producers, the narrator and Robert effectively transform the living room. Off the sofa, they play together; sharing the controls, they redraw the catherdral’s sacred seat in the midst of the narrator’s mundane, deeply secular living space.

Deep Ambiguity, Serious Play

Trying to make sense of this play along paradigm and its potentially applicability to Carver “Cathedral,” I came across the work of Kiri Miller, an ethnomusicologist whose research looks at new forms of game play: Guitar Hero and Grand Theft Auto. Miller’s blog playing along and recent Oxford UP publication Playing Along: Digital Games, YouTube, and Virtual Performance trace a link been multi-user games and online music lessons as important forms of embodied learning.

As a gloss on Carver’s wonderfully ironic, erotically charged ending, Miller’s work seems to add an interesting angle on thinking about the transformation of literary studies. If Carver’s narrative encapsulates the demise of literary culture, it does so in a way that foregrounds reading as a physical, material, embodied practice. Superseded by television, and perhaps Robert’s audio books, the printed literary text may have ceased to play a vital roll in the social or personal lives of these characters. Like the cathedral, the printed word has come to take on historical, rather than immediate relevance. And yet, it is as writer and reader that the two men embrace. In the glow of this late night documentary, their awkward connection hangs. Uncertain of the different meanings each character might take from the event, uncertain who will remember what in the morning, Carver’s readers are taken to the un/comfortable edge of voyeurism, to this place between watching and doing.

Seeing their shared pen as a prototypical joy stick (phallic pun intact), I’m tempted to say the story takes us up to the historical beginnings of video gaming. Working together, the efforts of narrator and Robert in someways prefigure the radical transformation of living room or rumpus room into new kind of play space—in which the consumption and production of culture converge.

The trick is to enter this space with a kind of critical openness. To this end, Miller throws herself into her research, playing along with the millions of gamers and performers she seeks to study and learn from. In this way, she finds personal meaning in what might seem on first blush to be fairly lowbrow culture. In  a blog post from her fieldwork as student of the nextlevelguitar.com online program, Miller writes that

the total absence of performance anxiety is one major difference between this learning experience and the private piano and voice lessons of my teenage years: after all, I’m alone in my living room. Except that I’m also not alone, because at any moment I can click over to the NextLevelGuitar forum and seek advice and encouragement from other students, or send David a question, or do a YouTube search to see how other guitarists hold the instrument or the pick. And if I want an audience, I can post a video of my playing to the NextLevelGuitar “Audio/Video Showcase”

At the time she posted this blog, Miller tells us that there are “1,894 posts in that section so far, and a wealth of crowd-sourced feedback.” I could get to like this “real guitar” thing.

As a synopsis of Mobile Media: Changing Educational Landscape (Parts I, II, III), I would like to highlight:

5 Things to Consider in Changing Educational Landscapes

1. Changing (verb transitive): 

Changing is both an adjective and a verb. The imperative facing educators is to figure out how we engage with this change in positive, meaningful ways. Within an art and design context, how might we actively transform educational spaces?

2. Outside is In: Multi-sited Teaching and Learning 

Mobile media push the impetus for teaching and learning beyond the confines of a single “brick and mortar” classroom, lecture theatre, studio, or lab. To respond to changing economic realities and social situations, learning spaces need to be conversant with the movements of students (and faculty) across multiple (local, national and international) sites. Consider how our classrooms work withor includes the bus, train, airport lounge, or coffee shop.

3. Learning Cross-Platform:

Moodle, WordPress, Buddypress, flickr.com, Youtube,tumblr, twitter.com, Facebook.com,  wikipedia, to name a few platforms among many others—are instrumental in changing educational landscapes. However, they were not all created equal. Educators need to consider how / why / when we work with different proprietary and non-proprietary (open source) solutions.  Effective eLearning requires a knowledge of multiple platforms (and of the potential strengths / weaknesses of each), often within the auspices of a single course. There are seldom single solutions.

4. Co-Create:

The changing landscape is dramatic and involves many actors. Too often, we approach the situation from the top down, using technology solve simple problems. We need a variety of approaches to complex solutions. While they may not be the mythic Digital Natives we often hear about, students have extremely valuable ideas, insights, and skills that can help radically transform the educational paradigm. We need to follow the lead of Mike Wesch, who uses youtube.com and student produced video to teach “subjectivities,” rather than “subjects.” Or Jon Beasley Murray who, rather than restricting their use of the internet, had his 300-level literature students produce their written work on wikipedia (link).

5. Go Live: Teaching Out Loud

This is a time of great social change and rather than hiding ourselves away while we try and figure out the answers, as scholars have done historically, educators need to think (blog, podcast, document) their transformational research in public venues. This is not instead of academic publication but part of it. Part of the co-creational approach is sharing our thinking with our collaborators: students, colleagues, community members, the broader public.

This is an overview of my longer, rabbling posts on the subject. For more details and useful links, please read the following:

Mobile Media: Changing Educational Landscapes (Part I)

Mobile Media: Changing Educational Landscapes (Part II)

Mobile Media: Changing Educational Landscapes (Part III)

This is a continuation of a discussion presented in Mobile Media: Changing Educational Landscapes (Overview and Part I). For a synopsis, see this overview.

Myth of the Digital Native: put it to rest

Before I discuss mobile affordances, I thought I’d touch on the idea of the digital native. This is a topic others have discussed, but I think it is crucial to how we approach the problem of changing landscapes.

This term is troubling–culturally, ethnographically, and pragmatically. While our students may have grown up using computers, many lack sophistication, few are capable of critical self-reflection. They need opportunities to think through complex issues of identity formation, knowledge creation/validation. and network building.

The idea of the Digital Native is often based on a misappropriation of Marc Prensky’s 2001 argument about the divide between “Digital Native, Digital Immigrant” (pdf). The reification of the Digital Native not only risks dubious essentialisms around questions of demographics and language acquisition by asserting an analogy between those born before the 1960s and second language learners from immigrant families—Prensky suggests both share an “accent” of sorts. It also avoids difficult questions about the social differences that mark digital culture across age, gender, race, and class distinctions.

Experts are beginning to come to terms with the magnitude of cultural changes created by a shift in communications technologies. 10, 20 200, 500 years(?) How long until we understand the scope of the social impact of these new technologies. After all, we’re still grappling with effect of the printing press.

The study of digital culture and mobile media studies are growing and contested fields of research. Careful consideration of their importance to teaching and teaching is beyond this scope of these posts, even though they do influence my thinking. My main concern with is that we need to understand the disparate, often contradictory skill sets students bring to bear on post-secondary education.

On a pragmatic level, as Prensky (along with a host of others) suggests, we need to aware of the shifting cultural space of education and the dramatic impact of new media on the classroom. This a point Cathy Davidson makes clearly in her discussions on rethinking education beyond the confines of industrial learning.

▶

My concern is that too often we make assumption about the students abilities and facilities and in so doing, fail to carefully consider the deeper pedagogical implications of teaching in this networked and mediated age. To wit, I like to recommend to students that they check out the digital tattoo, a website/tool set up at UBC to help students understand their digital identity and to protect themselves.

It is incumbent on educators, artists, curators, and other cultural theorists to be vigilant to the actors and networks changing around us. I invoke Bruno Latour’s ANT (actor-network theory) (reference), because it helps me to think about the landscape of education in a very broad sense and to new configurations of  human and non-human actors and the myriad links between us.

The increasing diversity of students can not be thought of or approached separately from the proliferation of hardware and software that is reshaping our teaching and learning environment, our lives. The laptop, cellphone, ipad, digital projector, ipod, as well as moodle, tumblr.com, wordpress, buddypress, twitter.com, posterous.com, facebook.com need to thoughtfully and carefully understood in terms of a web of intricate association.

II Looking for Affordances

To move this discussion back into the realm of the practical and pragmatic, I’d like discuss Mobility Shifts, a recent conference at the New School in New York. This conference brought together digital educators and innovators to discuss mobile media and open access to education. The organizers said, the conference was motivated by a crisis in the US system of post-secondary education (higher tuition costs, escalating student debt, and a struggle for universities to remain relevant).

To highlight the main ideas, I would like to quote from John Belshaw’s blog post:

5 key trends for the future of education

1. Openness – This has been going on for a while, but there’s a real drive towards open access for academic research in particular.There is a feeling that education and public services should be open and transparent.
2. Greater insight into the knowledge creation process – This is similar to openness but pertains to the creation of articles, books and other material. It’s not just the output that should be shared, but the context of how it was put together.
3. Mobile learning. – The big movement at the moment outside the conference is BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) but the focus at Mobility Shifts was upon mobile for ubiquitous learning. It’s not so much about the mobility of the device but the multiple ways in which the learner is mobile.
4. Alternative forms of assessment – This is a big one with Mozilla’s Open Badges leading the way. Because assessment often drives the structure of learning, this is key.
5. Rethinking the classroom environment – This goes hand-in-hand with the curricula redesign necessitated by alternative forms of assessment. How should we build new (or reorganise existing) classrooms?

http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2011/10/mobilityshifts-5-key-trends-for-the-future-of-education-guest-post.html

Without going into a play-by-play of the different conversations presented at Mobility Shifts, I’d like to point to a number of people / projects helping in thinking about making positive changes to the landscapes of education.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it suggests a few interesting and, for me, watershed projects.

Trebor Scholz: Mobility Shifts organizer, collectivate.net, and editor of Learning Through Digital Media: Experiments in Technology and Pedagogy (online)

Shin Mizukoshi: Mobile Media theorist and specialist at the Univ of Tokyo (Hastac link)

John Willinsky: Standford Professor (link) and advocate for open source academic publishing, involved with the Public Knowledge Project.

Bob Stein and the future of the book are radically transforming the way we think about and experience books.

Mimi Ito: Cultural Anthropologist and author of Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media (pdf). Ito’s work helps us to understand the diverse experience shaping young peoples use of social media.

Mike Wesch: Prof of Anthropology at Kansas State University (see digital ethnography). Wesch is well known for his youtube channel and ground breaking (co-creative) work with students.

Cathy Davidson: Duke English Prof, author, geek, educational mover and shaker (fast company article). Check out. Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn (Viking Press June 2011 publication date). 2010. [web]

Matthew Gold: One of the creatives of the CUNY Commons, a buddy press built multiuser blog the multiple campuses of the City University of New York.

Geert Lovink: digital editor, publisher, activist (see Institute of Network Cultures). Lovink’s understanding of the need to support writers on the level of content while respecting the human/emotional side of academic publishing is important.

Eric Gordon: Professor of Media Studies at Emerson and Director of Engagement Game Lab. Gordon’s approach to engagement vs. participation is extremely useful and will be more fully discussed in Part III of this series.

Closer to Home, I should also mention

Brian Lamb (blog) and BCCampus. Both have had an important influence on eLearning in BC and on my own teaching and learning directly.

Part I: Mobile Media Changing Educational Landscapes

Part III: Mobile Media Changing Educational Landscapes 

the inevitable question

Last week in lecture, a brave student put up his hand and asked: isn’t all this technology dehumanizing?

For the past week, I’ve been trying to think of how to respond to this question, wondering how I might situate my own interest in new media while keeping the question open. I think the question of “the human”—how this idea or category functions in relation to the key ethical, political, legal (juridical), cultural, and environmental concern—is absolutely fundamental and can not be wished away with short responses. It probably requires a multitudes of tweets and retweets just to get the ball rolling.

The following post goes someway to provide a rough sketch of what I see as some of the important underlying issues in the human/post-human debate. It also provides a few cultural texts/contexts that have helped me to think about the impact of digital media on teaching literature and the arts.

▶

a bit of background

The question of the (de)human was raised in response to my clumsy introduction of deqq.com, a microblogging application we have implemented to open an extra channel for students and instructors to continue discussions beyond the lecture hall—extra in the sense of being in addition to seminars, regular office hours, and Moodle fora. It is important to note that this concern about the (de)humanizing effect of social media surfaced in the midst of a larger anxiety about a change in the format of the course delivery.

This semester my Emily Carr colleagues and I have been charged with teaching English 101: Intro to Poetry & Drama as a lecture course (with breakout tutorials) rather than as a seminar course. Predictably, the format change has caused significant trepidation among students and faculty, even before the course began. Many saw it as a regressive move—a retreat to the old model of the sage on the stage.

i like change

I should confess that, despite misgivings about the economic impetus for restructuring of first year English, I saw the change as a valuable opportunity:

1. to rethink the curriculum,
2. to radically shift our approach to teaching literature and composition,
3. to work together with a group of seven colleagues (7 sages on the stage) to re-animate the lecture format.

I saw and see this change in the delivery model as a vital point of entry into a much larger set of questions around 21st century cultural literacies, especially these impact Art, Design, and Media education.

Having taught first year English for most of past fifteen years, mainly in seminar classes, I am familiar with the pros and cons of small group learning. Furthermore, I have no interest in returning the massive survey courses—e.g., English 101: Beowolf to Hemingway. Yet, from my teaching, learning, and research on creative and critical collaborations, I’ve become concerned about a kind of complacency (mine own and others) with regard to received knowledge about the role and function of culture. A concern that, for me, goes to the heart of how and what we teach when we teach English.

teaching beyond print-culture

In the context of English, Critical thinking is one of the key learning outcomes. This usually means that students are encouraged to practice textual analysis (close reading, see also this howto from the Harvard Writing Centre) and to participate in in-class discussions (usually modeled on the Socratic method). Critical thinking is important. Given the current anti-intellectualism of our political leaders, I think it is vital. However, what often passes for critical thinking tends to rely on various out-of-date assumptions about communication and the importance of print culture.

What happens when we consider 1/ the nature and transformation of texts as we move from analogue output (objects) to digital texts (an environment) and 2/ the impact of communication technologies on staging and mediating  meaningful dialogue or debate? In a nutshell, I wonder how long English, as an academic discipline, will last after the disappearance of the book. What comes next?

Being able to interpret or unpack literary texts and then to be able to engage in dialogue with one’s peers—these are absolutely fundamental skills. And university English can be (often is) an extraordinary opportunity for many people to learn about influential cultural texts and critical contexts. Having devoted a life to reading, studying, writing about, and publishing literary texts, I am aware of power of Literature and print-based culture.

Nevertheless, we need to be clear that English Studies, as it developed during the twentieth century, came to be dependent on  the availability of print media, which was became affordable with the mechanization of printing processes (movable type), and print-based literacies, which were a major focus of government investments in educations and culture. As consequence, English as we now know it is deeply intertwined with the development both of mass media and the influence of the British Empire.

Since the 1950′s with the advent of television and the emergence of post-colonial resistances throughout the English speaking world, this has begun to slowly change. Across a number of fronts, there has been a dramatic shift in power and a growing mistrust of print-culture, particularly outside dominant cultures. (Perhaps, I need to follow this up on a post about Stuart Hall and legacy of the Birgminham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.)

if you google it, does it not bleed?

The state of literature, the nature and meaning of twenty-first century comminications technologies, a world without printed texts—books and newspapers—these are huge philosophical and sociological concerns. And I can’t begin to answer them here. I’m not even sure, to be candid, that I want to save English by transforming it, or updating it. Still, I have trouble ignoring the impact of new media on how, why and what we teach under the guise of English.

What strikes me about our current situation—in many ways this is crucial to how we might positively transform the Humanities—is that the new modes of communication, which are  irrevocably reorganizing all facets of twentieth century life, have yet to take hold in English class. Granted many of us now rely on Moodle, Blackboard or other Course Management Systems. Most universities I know have committed to “smart classrooms” and trying to provide faculty with computers and lcd projectors in the classroom. And in many institutions, the course packs that replaced books as a less expensive alternative are in turn being replaced by Open Courseware. I imagine too that many instructors are increasingly dependent on Youtube, Flickr, Google and other web-based tools to provide supplementary materials.

In good old Marxist terms, one might have talked about this change in terms of base and superstructure. I might ask how can we discuss about the importance of English Literature, when even the most committed of us have all begun to abadon books? If reading and writing are what matter to us, why are we not shifting our focus on to wiki’s, blog post, email discussions, or even tweets.

Why are more of us teaching courses like UBC Prof. John Beasley Murray’s wiki-based “Murder, Madness, and Mayhem: Latin American Literature in Translation”? Granted this is a Spanish Literature course, but I sure we can develop similar approaches with English texts and contexts.

If it is critical engagement that motivates us, might we not be more inclined to find connections between the growth of English what do we make of Google’s recent struggles with China?

social knowledge / social space

Relative to books, newspapers, and other older forms of mass media, Social media open new possibilities for educators and cultural producers, particularly for artists, educators, and designers.

It used to be that if you wanted to participate in political dialogue you would have to travel to a particular space: Agora, Altingi, Parliament, House of Commons. Likewise for so called “higher learning,” one would have to travel to the University: Bologna, Oxford, Heidelberg, Harvard, or the U of T. The central buildings for these great universities were their libraries. Much like the banks or treasuries at the centre of political capitals, the university library functioned as storehouse for what was most valued: information, debate, knowledge.

The traditional function of libraries has been superseded. Digital Archives such as Project Gutenberg or perhaps more importantly those collected by Google are rendering libraries obsolete. This does not mean that I think librarians and archivists are no longer relevant (as my original draft of this post suggested (see comments bellow). In fact, the opposite is true their knowledge and skills are increasingly important as we struggle make sense of the at times overwhelming flow of information. With the emergence of the web and growing ubiquity of mobile communications, individuals can participate in political dialogue, scholarly research, and various cultural forms of cultural production from almost anywhere. The most powerful institutions will be those who can facilitate access to their massive storehouses—e.g., MIT or the Bodelian library at Oxford.

▶

The example of  the Back Dorm Boys (wikipedia entry), featured in the above video, is instructive: the original response by the English speaking media to their viral youtube posts was to poke fun and to marvel at the number of “hits” these videos they were getting. Few recognized that these videos were produced by Wei Wei and Huang Yi Xin, two students at the Guangzhou Arts Institute, or that their off-centre mimickry of American culture might be anything but a pale imitation of the real thing, if one is allowed to refer to the Back Street Boys as such.

The a tendency to disparage new forms of communication limits the development of new ideas, and in so doing, it allows for the exclusion of individuals and groups who don’t immediately fit the norms of a dominant culture. Perhaps the ability to normalize or naturalize certian modes of representation to the exclusion of others is, unfortunately, one of the most enduring legacies of the Humanist project.

Arguably some of the most influential and innovative interventions in contemporary culture are happening off or under the radar of West’s major arts/culture institutions, and are often hard for people to recognize or accept as Art or Culture. This idea, as controversial as it is, has been fundamental to the reconfiguration of curatorial practices, particularly in the wake of  curator Okwui Enwezor’s radical (re)programing of the Document for Documenta XI across a series of geographically dispersed platforms (Frieze Article)—to give one famous example.

a conclusion of sorts

This long, a slightly rambling post has touched on a number of complicated issues around the cultural politics of representation, including thinking about the history of English Studies, the Enlightenment, Post-coloniality, contemporary Curatorial practices and more. The points I’ve raised in the post are but the tips of a much larger idea flows, which I will continue to explore in future posts. Nonetheless, I hope they might help situate this prickly question of “the human” or more to the point our assumptions about the dehumanizing nature of these technologies with were are so embroiled.

In my last post, I suggested that I’d share some basic blogging advice, gleaned from the numerous blogging howtos I’ve been reading. The following post discusses a few of the more interesting or provocative examples of this large and growing genre.

Read the rest of this entry »