I am an energetic teacher. I teach two classes a year on top of my full time job at Metro. Why do I do this? Teaching makes me feel like I am contributing something, that I am making some kind of difference in the world. The students challenge my own thinking and contribute to my own intellectual and social engagement. I learn something new every time I teach a class.
I teach classes in both media production and theory. These classes have grown closer over the years. I teach theory in production classes and I ask my critical studies students to produce media projects.
My classes are structured thematically. Each week we explore an irresistible theme. These themes are meant to be suggestive. Rather than teach a class with the title “How to use Photoshop Brushes”, I might instead teach a class on software metaphor and affordances. I want my students to think outside commercial software products and consider the historical, metaphorical, ideological, and economic forces that drive software development. I want them to think about what’s going on under the hood and how their media might take other shapes.
In a production class the theme might be “Media Compression” or “Motion Blur.” The students bind these themes together through presentations, discussion, proposals and projects. Students prepare for each class by reading and/or viewing at least two assignments. These assignments may be primary materials, analysis, criticism, and reviews. I make an equal number of optional materials available to them to keep the discussions fresh and interesting. These include collateral material, alternate interpretations, literature, artwork, and other media that build on the primary materials in some fashion. Each student signs up to present these subject to the class. They are asked to introduce the materials—and more importantly—to present their interpretations and feelings about these materials. This requires them to synthesize the materials, and because I ask them to present their feelings about the assigned materials these presentations are often candid and interesting. The presentations lead to spontaneous discussion that may last up to an hour. Although I prepare discussion questions in advance, and the students are asked to do the same, I’ve found that we rarely need to call on them explicitly, as engaged discussion unfailingly develops out of the presentations themselves.
For instance, in my class “Cracking the Code: Information Theory in the Life Sciences” I ask the students to consider economics in the context of the life sciences. though it is clear that Darwin was influenced by Thomas Malthus and Adam Smith.
In my critical studies class “Panopticon in your Pocket”, themes included ‘The Phenomenology of Architecture’, ‘The Economics of Hypermedia’ and ‘Composing Symphonies for Hi-Fi.‘ Together these themes result is an episodic structure and students are asked to synthesize the material by considering its connection to the preview week’s theme.
I have worked with students on a wide range of media projects including audio, video, generative graphics, and dynamic text. Students in my advanced production classes may work in any medium they wish. I invite them to engage the cultural and ideological artifacts embedded in all technology. Students often learn more by making small media projects than they do by reading, discussing and presenting material.
I encourage my students to interact literally with the subject matter of the class. They have made light ocarinas and robot gamelans, automatic video editors and Twitter insult injectors, personal-tic feedback systems and a four-season Vivaldi extenuator. They compose trumpet solos with feedback loops and choreograph dances with semiotic structures. In general my students make thoughtful and engaging projects. They always surprise me.
On the production or studio side I have taught students at every skill level. I have taught several different versions of “Programming for Artists” using Python and Postscript, Processing, and Max/MSP. These are introductory programming classes for non-programmers. In an engineering school context “Programming for Artists” would become “Art for Programmers” or “Art from the Command-Line
I have developed a handful of useful techniques. I borrowed something from a French class exercise I call the Code Dictée. Like its namesake this is a transcription exercise. The students work in pairs. One starts by reading the code to the other student who types it out. They have to use the English words for things like starting functions, declaring and assigning variables, and setting up loops. When complete, the second student tries to compile and run the code. If it fails, the first student gives instructions on how to fix the code without showing the book. As soon as the code runs, the students trade roles. I invented this exercise to help art students become more fluent in computer programing. Engineering students have different needs of course. Perhaps they would benefit from an analysis of the influence culture makes on computers and programming languages.
I should also mention my experience at eCollege.com. I spent the heady days of the dot com era designing the first online university. We quickly learned that many of our assumptions about online learning were wrong. Those experiences now inform my teaching.
My approach to teaching owes a debt to Reed College, where I spent my college years. Reed makes a good effort to dissolve the enmity between the arts and sciences. But more than that, Reed encourages personal interpretation of canonical materials in science, literature, and art. In many ways, Reed taught me how to learn. I have brought those experiences with me into the classroom. My greatest pleasure is when this dynamic,engaged and challenging space blurs the line between teaching and learning.