Un_Universität / Un_University TransArts platform on forms of teaching and learning Ricarda Denzer and Jo Schmeiser During the two-day Un_University platform we want to discuss forms of teaching and learning, both within and beyond (art) universities, with reference to the concept of anarchitecture. 1 How do academic knowledge transfer formats, such as seminars or lectures, shape what is being taught? How can such formats be reconsidered from the viewpoint of artistic practice? And which formats and approaches are being developed elsewhere, including outside academic contexts? As an inter- and transdisciplinary “class”, TransArts2 is well-suited to such a de_constructive focus on aesthetics of knowledge and their socio-political significance. Students and teachers work with a broad range of materials, media and genres. They work across classical borders between disciplines and methods, criticizing and re_defining them, creating hybrids and inventing new artistic formats, such as the post-Internet demonstration or the lecture performance. At Vienna’s University of Applied Arts, TransArts has a unique structure: wherever possible, teachers and students have equal status and critical engagement with hierarchic teaching formats is fostered. The “class” is led by a team; a degree of student participation is anchored in the curriculum; and parts of the course are shaped collectively. What takes place in the “class”, then, is collective listening – on the level of structures, of teaching models, and of artistic methods: speaking, reading, language and text become objects and media of (audio) visual engagement. The underscore in the platform’s title – Un_University – expresses a critical oscillation between negation and affirmation. We want to use artistic means to reflect on teaching at (art) universities. We want to discuss forms of un_university thinking, speaking, listening and reading, as well as inventing new ones. And we want to examine both academic and non-academic contexts and institutions to see which current forms of critical knowledge production they facilitate and/or prevent. The platform will begin by asking the following questions: What is an (art) university? What is it not? What part does the (art) university play in society today? Where and when do we study? Who is “we”? Who has access to the (art) university? And who does not? What is taught at (art) universities? What can be learned on the margins of society? How can an (art) university contribute to the recognition of marginalized knowledge production and the contexts where it takes place? Which knowledge must be unlearned and untaught if we are to have an egalitarian society in which all people – regardless of origin, gender, social stratum or historical background – have the same right to free access to knowledge, education and the expansion of society’s reservoir of knowledge via one’s own (artistic) research? Which form(s) does studying take? How is knowledge embodied? 1 “Based in New York in the 1970s, Anarchitecture was an artists’ group whose members included artists Laurie Anderson, Tina Girouard, Carol Goodden, Suzanne Harris, Jene Highstein, Bernard Kirschenbaun, Richard Landry, and Richard Nonas, as well as the architecturally trained artist, Gordon Matta Clark (1943-1978). Their name, a mixture of ‘anarchy’ and ‘architecture’, was conceived in informal conversation, one of the main ways through which the group collaborated.”
Source: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/the.anarchitecture.group 2 See http://www.dieangewandte.at and http://www.transarts.at Which knowledge? Platform Un_University Concept: Ricarda Denzer, Jo Schmeiser Date: 12.-13. April 2016 Venue: Heiligenkreuzerhof, Schönlaterngasse 5, 1010 Vienna Programme: Online at www.transarts.at from March 2016 Translation from the German: Nicholas Grindell
DF: Kdy vznikl Ateliér bez vedoucího?
VM: Většinou se říká, že před rokem, ale to už se říká nějakou dobu.
Projekt s názvem „ATHÉNY: SPOLUPRÁCE, EDUKACE, KRITIKA“, který vzniknul z iniciativy Ateliéru bez vedoucího (Prague, CZ), vychází z potřeby prozkoumat chybějící, nebo omezené formy reflexe vzdělávácích procesů, a jejich možných důsledků. Institucionální možnost vzdělání je dnes často postavena na hierarchickém vztahu učitel – žák, toho kdo mluví a kdo poslouchá. Vzdělání je výměna „informací/ faktů“, jejichž pravdivost je doložena institucí, v níž jsou přednášeny. Experimentální potenciál škol je potlačen komercionalizací poznatků, které musí být využitelné v aplikované sféře. Ze vzdělání se díky tomu stává subjekt, určený ke směně. Ačkoliv je student součásti „těla školy“, jeho vlastní hlas je umlčen ve prospěch toho, co má být předpokládáným výstupem jeho aktivit. Měřitelným výsledkem je konkurenceschopnost na trhu. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak mluví v této souvislosti o západním kánonu „zastupovaní druhého“ (other speaker). Tím jsou eliminovány všechny proti-postoje a proti-názory. Není zde jasné, kdo mluví, nebo odkud přichází to, co říkáme my sami. Model „zastupitelské demokracie“, který se neobjevuje jen ve vztahu učitel-žák, ale také občan-stát, je blízký formě břichomluvy, při které hlava mluví za ostatní části. Mluvení bez obrazu je však delokalizované, blíží se spíše iluzi „fantomatického těla“, při níž není možné obsáhnout její pravou podstatu.
In this moment of unconsciousness, we disposed of the face and let
processes sound. They flowed silently, tracking existing troughs as in a
strange digestive system. Followed its changing rules. Decomposing the
But what if the belly realized itself and transformed its activity into
a speech act?
We are full of non-digested knowledge. Refusing the program of our
digesting system. Attempting to change its flows.
How to hear the voice in a headless body’s sounds? How to become a
The project “ATHENS: Cooperation, Education, Critique,“ which emerged from the Studio without master initiative (Prague, CZ), is based on the need to investigate the lack of reflection (or its limited forms) about general process of providing education to students and its possible consequences. Nowadays institutionalized education is often based on a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student, in other words: one speaks and the other one listens.
Education is based on information (facts) exchange. Institution determines its truthfulness that is emphasized through lecturing. The experimental potential of schools is suppressed by the commercialization of knowledge that must be at hand for the exploitable structure. As a result, education becomes a “subject to change”. Although a student is a part of the “status of the class”, his own voice is silenced in favor of what should be the expected outcome of its activities.
The measurable outcome is a competitive market. In this context Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak speaks about the Western canon called “representation of someone else” (other speaker). This shuts the door on any opposing opinions or approaches. It is unclear who is speaking or where the things we say ourselves come from. The model of “representative democracy” occurs not only in the Teacher-Student relationship, but also in the relationship between the citizen and the state. It very is close to a kind of ventriloquist in which the head speaks for other parts of the body.
Speaking without an accurate picture removes (something) from a particular place or location. It thus verges on the “phantom body” in which is impossible to comprehend its true nature.
Marina Grzinic, Ph.D., je profesorkou na Akademii výtvarných umění ve Vídni a výzkumnou pracovnicí na FI SRC SASA (Institut filosofie vědeckého a výzkumného centra na Slovinské akademii věd a umění) v Lublani.
V polovině června přijeli do Prahy na pozvání členů ABV dva studenti ze spřáteleného kolektivu, který se ve své činnosti pod Akademií umění v Lipsku zabývá podobnými otázkami jako pražský Ateliér bez vedoucího. Ve čtvrtek 11.6. se studenti z ABV a další zájemci o přednášku setkali s Linoua Philippem v aule na AVU, aby si vyslechli podrobný report o činnosti lipského kolektivu.Ti prezentovali nejen průběh a výsledky svých workshopů, ale také své názory na možnosti diskuze o autonomním a nehierarchickém vedení skupiny, která se zeširoka zabývá otázkami kolem současného umění a uměleckého vzdělávání.
Společné promítání videí studentů z ABV v prostoru již ukončené výstavy Moving Images ve Veletržním paláci.
Níže uvedené texty vznikly pomocí metody “Threeing” umělce Paula Ryana v rámci workshopu vedeném americkou umělkyní Mariannou Maruyama, žijící v Holandsku.
The following texts were created with using of the method “Threeing” by artist Paul Ryan during the workshop maintained by American artist Marianne Maruyama, who lives in Holland.
– What one sees and feels is evidence for her/him. Be obedient to manipulation – or – ask whose are the information about what, how and why? You wish to make the spectator believe or just to unsettle him/her.
– Both of these statements are an interpretation, which are not so opposed to each other. The first one addresses more the moment of the fictional structure of the narratives, the critical aspect of these narratives. Nonetheless they are looking at the same aim.
– I just want to stay visible and sometimes it’s not easy. I’ve chosen the role of an invader. There is no special reason to do that. It just has a special reason for me.
For Lucie Fricova
– I asked her what that means, documenting something. She said, it is a description of reality by the truth. To her, the truth is her memory. If her memory was a machine for real-live time recording, could it be large enough for grabbing whole pictures of anything.
– to step off her own memories can bring some higher to what seems more important to her – collective memory of a town.
For Lucie Rozenfeld
That any and all reality is constructed is made apparent when an ‘ideal situation’ is articulated.
There is a misunderstanding between those two texts. Jiri didn’t want to be complex in his thesis. There is no complexity in the first text and Bara looked for a sense of a rule in his text, but he didn’t make a logical structure, he only pointed out two statements. His question at the end provokes a doubt about it. There supposes to be no interconnection between these two statements.
Bara works with the subversive rhetoric of criticism that deals with the social system and structure. She deals with the contemporary visual materials to make a new structure of the visuality and way od seeing of it. This, new visuality, is an interaction with the written text or spoken word which is used in her works as a part of her final artwork.
Artist is not only someone who sees and allows people to see, he is also someone who allows people to understand, to know, to feel, to be. The artist transports the situation or some piece of reality from background to the stage . Sometimes he creates new thing, sometimes he describes with a new language an old thing. We will call him/her. Just he/she. And the things will be described as things. The names are limiting.
The author of the art piece is communicating wit the audience. He brings a piece in front of them and wants to educate. Communication as a necessary part of an art piece and education.
Although in her so-called no identity products she tries to manifest the border between fine art and design and its fluid controversial relationship, it doesn’t mean it is useless to define her own position in these two fields more precisely.
The camera as a part of the performance is the evident evidence of the movement. Of course, also because the camera is being moved by the performer. The surrounding for her is maybe not so important but the choice of it is essential.
And what about peg leg’s ? We have a lot of them. It is part of our body? We should
say something about them if we want to describe body as complex. Materiality it is part of the stage where body is acting.
It reminds me of some ritual around the fire, which many ancient social environments had been practicing and their acting made sense only for them.
The ritual components are defined by the agency we assign to present elements. The third eye will consume all the elements and retell the story with a new form of magic, beyond space and time.
She is not addressing the relevance of the new in artistic creation, since art repeats itself, but rather, she is interested in tracing a line to the place (perhaps a location in the brain) where a creative act takes place.
For Asa Maria Hedberg
Girls have agreed on a possibility to change people’s thinking with art. If it happens they say it is real art. But nothing lasts forever in this galaxy.
Narrative is also a combination of more things: interpretation of the artwork by the artist, interpretation of the artwork by the viewer, context of the artwork, interpretation of the contexts by both (artist and viewer), context of the institution in which the art is displayed, the interpretation of the artwork by the institution. Of course that art is when the artists’ meaning, viewer, and the objects work together, but the narrative as a result of that action is complex structure with a thousand branches.
About Studio Without a Pedagogue:
Our wish is relatively universal. We want to be special but we are not ready to be special and alone.
Man who forgot what it means to work in a group.
Man who have speech and doesn’t listen.
Man who stops where love begins.
The society that is divided into the small parts is not a society.
The community where the people have nothing in common is not a community.
The beginning without the ending is the beginning of nothing.
Artist, writers…. always thought the history worked in some network. In some chain reactions of the colleges or to some situations to.. It would be incorrect talk about them that they worked in situation with their imagination. Imagination or intuition it’s important part of the artistic process. But sometimes these ,,words’’ hide judgements with we (as artist… ) should ,,analyze’’ (reading between lines)
You are standing in a line. You can see your own feet and hands, the neck and the back of the person in front of you, hear and feel the breath of the other person behind you on your neck. You are both alone and surrounded by the intimacy of strangers. The border shows you a place you can never go, even if you can see it from where you stand.
Could artist find a answer in which context should create his/her work?
Its personal statement of mind or some situation outside?
We could say that situation in which art pieces are created is also part of immanent contain of this art work.
Any of art pieces are not cut out from context of art history and is part of our reading a seeing this works.
So what we could do now? and what change tomorrow?
That any and all reality is constructed, is made apparent when an ‘ideal situation’ is articulated.
Sometimes, the result comes aside by itself as a natural ending of the process. As the process- based practice is the most important thing to learn – we learn how to find the way to the result – where the way is and how to deal with the obstacles.
So in the end, there is always some result. But hunting for result without appreciating doesn’t come from the real life.
– statement je otevřen změnám –
„Ateliér bez vedoucího“ je studentskou iniciativou, která se zaměřuje na zkoumání a aplikování alternativních způsobů uměleckého vzdělávání napříč vysokými školami s důrazem na mezidisciplinární spolupráci. Potkávají se zde studenti z různých oborů s externími hosty.
Cílem je vytvořit prostor, kde je umožněna přímá reciprocita mezi studenty s důrazem na sdílení vědomostí, odkrývání a problematizování možných způsobů jejich recepce a produkce. „Ateliér bez vedoucího“ tak představuje alternativu k zažitému modelu uměleckého vzdělávání, který centralizuje rozhodovací a autoritativní moc v osobě vedoucího ateliéru.
V současnosti jsou organizovány každotýdenní schůzky, kde se pravidelně potkává několik desítek studentů z řad zájemců, jež se volně obměňují. Skupina si sama produkuje program, vybírá formu setkávání, sdílení, či konzultace prací. Podle aktuální potřeby a hromadné domluvy jsou zváni externí hosté pro společné diskuze. Studenti zde nejsou pasivní příjemci nabídky vzdělání ze strany školy, ale sami tuto nabídku generují.
Studio without pedagogue is a student initiative focused on exploring and applying methods of art education throughout universities with an emphasis on interdisciplinary cooperation. Students of various disciplines meet external guests here.
The task is to create a space that enables direct reciprocity among students with an emphasis on sharing knowledge, uncovering and questioning the possible ways of their reception and production. abv therefore presents an alternative to model of art education, that centralises the authoritative and decisive power in the hands of the studio/department leader.
In present time, there are weekly meetings during which tens of students meet. The composition of weekly participants varies from one meeting to another. The group itself produces its programme, chooses the form of meetings, sharing or consulting work. According to current need and agreement external guests are invited for group discussions. Students are not (only) passive receivers of education from school, but they generate this offer as well.