Cornell’s boxes were essentially containers of found objects, random assemblages of materials which challenged, in Sirc’s opinion, “notions of articulate coherence, conventional organization, and extensive development” (115). Because they remain completely abstract, these types of assemblage lead the viewer to ponder placement and meaning, to attempt to find pattern among the unpredictability, and to acquire attentive modes of observation.
An emphasis on similar methods, modes and genres in the composition classroom, argues Sirc, allows the student to consider everyday materials and objects from an equally new perspective. Furthermore, this attention to the quotidian becomes liberating to the student who is not versed in traditional / linear academic-compositional skill sets (128).
Sirc’s study is important to understanding Wysocki’s definition of new media primarily because his praxis does not depend upon technology. For Sirc, new media is not necessarily even “new”—we might find models in the surrealism and avant-garde movements of the early twentieth century. His application, however, is postmodern rathern than modern, and this is what I’m most interested in exploring. Sirc’s pedagogy further de-emphasizes product in the classroom in favor of a kind of postmodern, pastiche-there’s no other word for it-play.
My initial response is: Yes! Why not make composition more fun, and in the process, more meaningful for the student who struggles to acquire linear academic skills. But just immediately after that, the pedantic and cynic in me enters and has a few questions and doubts:
1) Where do we draw the line between language composition and artistic compostion?
2) If we replace traditional forms and structures including but not limited to the essay with more fluid / open forms like the box, what do we lose? and
3) Are there essential forms that students need to know?
3) Are there essential forms that students need to know?
ReplyDeleteThis question has bothered me for awhile. Sirc's article actually served to confuse me more than enlighten me regarding different learning methods and modes. I often have students ask what the point is of writing form essays...outside of academia. What a scary question! I try not to give them the old "in the business world..." response, but it's hard not to. As a student in graduate school, I know what forms are essential to me, but what about students who do not plan on going past their bachelor's degree?
In answer to your second question, replacing the essay with the box will probably make English departments lose Freshman Composition. I don't think that kind of shift in pedagogy would go over too well with university higher-ups in general, and so Freshman Composition will be taken away from us and given to someone else who will teach the essay. (And I would rather teach the essay than the box).
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your third question, no, I don't think these are essential forms that our students need to know. Some of the skills that go into making those forms, maybe, but not the forms.
It's interesting how a number of us are having same or similar concerns over Sirc's pedagogy and activities. I think Mat Nunes' last point is inspiring--that what we are looking at should be the making of forms instead of forms itself. The question is what do students think they gain from the projects Sirc designed. In this sense, Sirc's argument serves well as a continuation of Manovich's definition of the new media and Wysocki's advocation of it. Sirc's projects truly explores the materiality of various medium. However, we, as instructors, need to learn how much of this kind of metacognition we want to wrestle with in a freshman comp course.
ReplyDelete