Critical Digital Making in Art Education. Группа авторов

sound stronger. Hearing a much-loved sound in an outdoor environment also adds to the enchantment. In a conventional set up, sound can easily become competitive. Listened to in a controlled way, diminishes mutual relationality and shuts off the environment. This example intentionally causes the whole listening to be vague and embeds you as part of the technology. You become an important component of the speaker. You are the speaker; the speaker is you. It could be said that the desire to control and master sound is not met with this set-up—but something else is gained. Listening in this way awakens enjoyment; the value is not to hear music/sound in a correct represented way but to find pleasure and curiosity in listening.

      Here another version of the phenomena of meaningfulness appears in that the phenomena described as haunting appears. Being haunted, as part of listening to music from a digital source, appears as specific matter and as something that matters (Barad, 2007). The body and self serves an important role in making the speaker work. To be part of the speaker is an example of other and different apparatuses and intra-actions that matter; a place where other phenomena appear, like curiosity. In this process, the event of material-digital sound requires more care and activity from the person listening/sounding; the phenomena of both responsibility and respond-ability appear (Barad, 2014; Trinh, 2011). Differences appear as diffraction and allow for listening to come alive in another way.

      The phenomena that appear can also be described as vulnerability and engagement in the event of material-digital sound. This vulnerability/engagement is part of the intra-action as “cutting together-apart (one move)” (Barad, 2014, p. 168) since the phenomena of listening arises through the specific apparatus and material-discursive event consisting of human and technology, simultaneously defining each other as different and at the same time being part of and relying on each other (Barad, 2014). This unique relationship to technology is different from when technology is presented to you as a tool or as a design object.

      OTHER ROUTINES AND OTHER RUTS

      The sound system in all these experiments is not one system. The relations we describe are not human-machine relations. In these experiments, there are at least as many human-machine relations as there are humans and machines. And the relations are not just between the human and the machine. The nature, the weather, the sun and the wind for example, all engage in the experiments, contributing to ←44 | 45→the overall experience of sound and electricity. Interaction between the human and the machine force us to design or package phenomena into a pre-defined technology. Intra-action on the other hand opens up for technology to be part of a sensory experience, including human-machine-nature.

      By placing focus on intra-action as material-discursive apparatuses, and experimenting with material-digital sound and representation outdoors, new ruts of experimental engagement appear. In these examples, the vague event questions closed and delimited assumptions of the performed relation of passivity and activity, curiosity and control, individualism and the environment. The vague event questions the routines of art education, including material set-ups and borders of digital technology. To not fall into pre-decided use of digital technology, both in a material and discursive sense, Barad’s concept of intra-action is helpful (2007). Instead of technology development and new technologies driving the digitalization of art education, explorations of other and different material-digital experiments can allow for digitalization to be less pre-determined and more sustainable.

      In these events, the road to knowledge is vague and requires a lot of care and respond-ability. The obstacles of the vague events, can either be considered as problems that should be eliminated or they could be included as part of other phenomena and intra-actions that can be treated as valuable for finding more differences and knowledge. Too much in-securities (vagueness) and pre-determined routines of technology use can both be difficulties in art and technology-based education and research (Crutzen, 2006). These two extremes need to be balanced to reveal opportunities to develop an art education that is both innovative and critical. Here, the use of the concept of apparatus by Barad makes it possible to include ethics and aesthetics, as responsibility becomes part of the material-discursive set-up (2007). Sensory experience and the self-representation that we traditionally connect to identity and individuality, and not to responsibility and sustainability, could through performing, become a part of a re-configuration of the world. In this reconfiguration, every instant, sensory experience, and representation are transformed into a possible rut to a sustainable system change within a material-digital art education.

      REFERENCES

Atkinson, D. (2017). Art, pedagogies and becoming: The force of art and the individuation of new world. In L. Knight & A. Lasczik Cutcher (Eds.), Arts-research-education: Connections and directions (pp. 3–16). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward and understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

      ←45 | 46→

Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–186.

Berglin, L. T. H. (2008). Interactive textile structures: Creating multifunctional textiles based on Smart Materials (Doctoral Dissertation). Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniet, A., Langer, L., Redecker, C., … Punie, Y. (2017). Digital education policies in Europe and beyond: Key design principles for more effective policies. EUR—Scientific and Technical Research Reports. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/digital-education-policies-europe-and-beyond-key-design-principles-more-effective-policies

Crutzen, C. K. M. (2006). Invisibility and the meaning of ambient intelligence. International Review of Information Ethics, 6 (12/2006), 52–62. Retrieved from http://www.i-r-i-e.net/inhalt/006/006_Crutzen.pdf

Dunne, A. (2008). Herzian tales. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eriksson, K. G. (2009). Concrete fashion: Dress, art, and engagement in public space (Doctoral dissertation). HDK, School of Design and Crafts, Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Jones, C., & Arning, B. (2006). Sensorium: Embodied experience, technology, and contemporary art. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Lenz Taguchi, H. (2009). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London, UK: Routledge.

Lenz Taguchi, H. (2016). Deleuzo-Guattarian rhizomatics: Mapping the desiring forces and connections between educational practices and the neurosciences. In C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices (pp. 37–57). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lykke, N. (2009). Genusforskning: En guide till feministisk teori, metodologi och skrift. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.

Manning, E. (2009).