This is not the work

The exhibition THIS IS NOT THE WORK surveyed a selection of community-engaged artist projects from different locations around the world, and followed the pathways of women-centred social networks in order to initiate further collaboration and conversation. The projects documented in this exhibition were examples of artists working with women and community in challenging and unpredictable ways, demonstrating feminist sensibilities and a commitment to non-hierarchical and collective structures. Co-curated by the feminist art collective LEVEL, this exhibition project uses the gallery as a conceptual base-camp or frontline rather than a just site of display. The exhibition was developed and presented at The Block, Creative Industries Precinct, Queensland University of Technology in 2014. A co-authored paper about the project 'THIS IS NOT THE WORK – Feminist Collectives, Collaboration and Curating‘ was presented by members of LEVEL at the 'Feminist Curating: Contemporary Art and Feminism Symposium', Sydney College of the Arts, Sydney in October 2014.

The Art of Studio Teaching

This project began in 2013, with the award of an internal QUT Teaching and Learning grant. The task we wished to undertake was to document and better understand the role of studio teaching practice in the Creative Industries Faculty. While it was well understood that the Faculty had long used studio pedagogies as a key part of its teaching approach, organizational and other changes made it productive and timely to consider how the various study areas within the Faculty were approaching studio teaching. Chief among these changes were innovations in the use of technology in teaching, and at an organizational level the merging of what were once two schools within different faculties into a newly-structured Creative Industries Faculty. The new faculty consists of two schools, Media, Entertainment and Creative Art (MECA) and Design. We hoped to discover more about how studio techniques were developing alongside an ever-increasing number of options for content delivery, assessment, and interaction with students. And naturally we wanted to understand such developments across the broad range of nineteen study areas now part of the Creative Industries Faculty. This e-book represents the first part of our project, which in the main consisted in observing the teaching practices used in eight units across the Faculty, and then interviews with the unit coordinators involved. In choosing units, we opted for a broad opening definition of ‘studio’ to include not only traditional studios but also workshops and tutorials in which we could identify a component of studio teaching as enumerated by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s Studio Teaching Project: • A culture, a creative community created by a group of students and studio teachers working together for periods of time • A mode of teaching and learning where students and studio teachers interact in a creative and reflective process • A program of projects and activities where content is structured to enable ‘learning in action’ • A physical space or constructed environment in which the teaching and learning can take place (Source: http://www.studioteaching.org/?page=what_is_studio) The units we chose to observe, and which we hoped would represent something of the diversity of our study areas, were: • Dance Project 1 • Furniture Studies • Wearable Architecture • Fashion Design 4 • Industrial Design 6 • Advanced Writing Practice 3 • Introduction to Creative Writing • Studio Art Practice 2 Over the course of two semesters in 2013, we attended classes, presentations, and studio time in these units, and then conducted interviews that we felt would give further insight into both individual and discipline-specific approaches to studio pedagogies. We asked the same questions in each of the interviews: • Could you describe the main focus and aims of your unit? • How do you use studio time to achieve those aims? • Can you give us an example of the kind of activities you use in your studio teaching? • What does/do these example(s) achieve in terms of learning outcomes? • What, if any, is the role of technology in your studio teaching practice? • What do you consider distinctive about your approach to studio teaching, or the approach taken in your discipline area? The unit coordinators’ responses to these questions form some of the most interesting and valuable material in this book, and point to both consistencies in approach and teaching philosophies, as well as areas of difference. We believe that both can help to raise our critical awareness of studio teaching, and provide points of comparison for the future development of studio pedagogy in the Creative Industries. In each of the following pages, the interviews are placed alongside written descriptions of the units, their aims and outcomes, assessment models, and where possible photographs and video footage, as well as additional resources that may be useful to others engaged in studio teaching.

The Science and Art of Light

Architecture today often is praised for its tectonics, floating volumes, and sensational, gravity-defying stunts of “starchitecture.” Yet, very so often there is a building that inspires descriptions of the sublime, the experiential, and the power of light and architecture to transcend our expectations. The new Meinel Optical Sciences Research Building, designed by Phoenix-based Richärd+Bauer for the University of Arizona, Tucson, is one of these architectural rarities. Already drawing comparisons to Louis Kahn's 1965 Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, the indescribable quality of light that characterizes the best of Kahn's work also resonates in Richärd+Bauer's new building. Both an expansion and renovation of the existing College of Optical Sciences facilities, the Meinel building includes teaching and research laboratories, six floors of offices, discussion areas, conference rooms, and an auditorium. The new 47,000 square-foot cast-in-place concrete structure, wrapped on three-sides in copper-alloy panels, harmonizes with the largely brick vocabulary of the campus while reflecting the ethereal quality of the wide Arizona sky. The façade, however, is merely a prelude for what awaits inside—where light and architecture seamlessly combine to create moments of pure awe.

Reengaging, reenacting and reenvisaging discourses of disaster through public space performance: Austerity, art, and the art of protest

This paper offers a mediation on disaster, recovery, resilience, and restoration of balance, in both a material and a metaphorical sense, when ‘disaster’ befalls not the body politic of the nation but the body personal. In the past few decades, of course, artists, activists and scholars have deliberately tried to avoid describing personal, physical and phenomenological experiences of the disabled body in terms of difficulty and disaster. This has been part of a political move, from a medical model, in which disability, disease and illness are positioned as personal catastrophes, to a social model, in which disability is positioned as a social construct that comes from systems, institutions and infrastructure designed to exclude different bodies. It is a move that is responsible for a certain discomfort people with disabilities, and artists with disabilities, today feel towards performances that deploy disability as a metaphor for disaster, from Hijikata, to Theatre Hora. In the past five years, though, this particular discourse has begun rising again, particularly as people with disabilities fact their own anything but natural disasters as a result of the austerity measures now widespread across the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. Measures that threaten people’s ability to live, and take part in social and institutional life, in any meaningful way. Measures that, as artist Katherine Araniello notes, also bring additional difficulty, danger, and potential for disaster as they ripple outwards across the tides of familial ties, threatening family, friends, and careers who become bound up in the struggle to do more with less. In this paper, I consider how people with disabilities use performance, particularly public space interventionalist performance, to reengage, renact and reenvisage the discourse of national, economic, environmental or other forms of disaster, the need for austerity, the need to avoid providing people with support for desires and interests as well as basic daily needs, particularly when fraud and corruption is so right, and other such ideas that have become an all too unpleasant reality for many people. Performances, for instance, like Liz Crow’s Bedding Out, where she invited people into her bed – for people with disabilities a symbolic space, which necessarily becomes more a public living room restaurant, office and so forth than a private space when poor mobility means they spend much time it in – to talk about their lives, their difficulties, and dealing with austerity. Or, for instance, like the Bolshy Divas, who mimic public and political policy, reports and advertising paranoia to undermine their discourses about austerity. I examine the effects, politics and ethics of such interventions, including examination of the comparative effect of highly bodied interventions (like Crow’s) and highly disembodied interventions (like the Bolshy Diva’s) in discourses of difficulty, disaster and austerity on a range of target spectator communities.

Theatre, networked performance, and notions of ‘democratised’ spectatorship

The potential to cultivate new relationships with spectators has long been cited as a primary motivator for those using digital technologies to construct networked or telematics performances or para-performance encounters in which performers and spectators come together in virtual – or at least virtually augmented – spaces and places. Today, with Web 2.0 technologies such as social media platforms becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and increasingly easy to use, more and more theatre makers are developing digitally mediated relationships with spectators. Sometimes for the purpose of an aesthetic encounter, sometimes for critical encounter, or sometimes as part of an audience politicisation, development or engagement agenda. Sometimes because this is genuinely an interest, and sometimes because spectators or funding bodies expect at least some engagement via Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. In this paper, I examine peculiarities and paradoxes emerging in some of these efforts to engage spectators via networked performance or para-performance encounters. I use examples ranging from theatre, to performance art, to political activism – from ‘cyberformaces’ on Helen Varley Jamieson’s Upstage Avatar Performance Platform, to Wafaa Bilal’s Domestic Tension installation where spectators around the world could use a webcam in a chat room to target him with paintballs while he was in residence in a living room set up in a gallery for a week, as a comment on use of drone technology in war, to Liz Crow’s Bedding Out where she invited people to physically and virtually join her in her bedroom to discuss the impact of an anti-disabled austerity politics emerging in her country, to Dislife’s use of holograms of disabled people popping up in disabled parking spaces when able bodied drivers attempted to pull into them, amongst others. I note the frequency with which these performance practices deploy discourses of democratisation, participation, power and agency to argue that these technologies assist in positioning spectators as co-creators actively engaged in the evolution of a performance (and, in politicised pieces that point to racism, sexism, or ableism, pushing spectators to reflect on their agency in that dramatic or daily-cum-dramatic performance of prejudice). I investigate how a range of issues – from the scenographic challenges in deploying networked technologies for both participant and bystander audiences others have already noted, to the siloisation of aesthetic, critical and audience activation activities on networked technologies, to conventionalised dramaturgies of response informed by power, politics and impression management that play out in online as much as offline performances, to the high personal, social and professional stakes involved in participating in a form where spectators responses are almost always documented, recorded and re-represented to secondary and tertiary sets of spectators via the circulation into new networks social media platforms so readily facilitate – complicate discourses of democratic co-creativity associated with networked performance and para-performance activities.