INTRODUCTION
August 16-17, 2021 the Visual and Media Arts Department of Grand Valley State University met for a retreat. 29 Faculty, staff and alumni participated over the two days. Invited and supported by department chair Paul Wittenbraker, I worked closely with Jenn Schaub, an alum of the program and currently the Director of Community Building & Engagement at the Dwelling Place of Grand Rapids. Goals were bringing everyone together after a recent aera merger, to assess and reconnect following pandemic isolation, and visioning future scenarios. Learnings were to be collected and shared. For this report, they are framed as recommendations.
Facilitation was designed to alternate between prompts for explorative conversation and group and individual reflection, supported by diagrammatic, epistemic devices that encouraged participants to be physically mobile while being in conversation, and thereby drawing on more than verbal ways of thinking and working together.
I call the epistemic device I use ‘The Braid”. Before the retreat, participants had already received a digital copy of a short primer. Printed out and augmented with empty pages, it was also part of a personalized notebook each person received, designed and assembled by Paul Wittenbraker and Blake Matthews.
At the beginning of the retreat, we distributed short stainless steel wires and asked participants to shape them into trefoils, while I spoke about the Braid, and our plans for the retreat.
THE BRAID
The Braid diagram shows a trefoil wound around a torus. It can visualize relations among interrelated categories through which people make sense, and ultimately act and connect: doing, knowing and being. I think about these categories as received wisdom and as drivers of change. Together, ways of doing, knowing and being constitute paradigms of sense making that express and enable value systems. Paradigms play out in everyday and professional life, often invisibly or taken for granted, but also seen and debated [1].
The Braid diagram is a visualization of doing, knowing, and being as topologically related. In a topological system, relations can be stretched or squeezed, but not cut. The Braid emerged from conversations with many artists and cultural practitioners, noticeably speaking about all aspects of their work as interrelated, and describing how those relations matter. Alliterations helped grasp the Braid conversations. Before doing, knowing, and being came making (in the expanded studio), mediating (with peers, gatekeepers and audiences) and managing (rules and opportunities).* [2]
The goal of a Braid facilitated conversation is amplifying agency for sustained practices within the intentionally adapted or designed, cultural and institutional contexts of educational and cultural organizations.
Presented at the retreat as the Braid diagram and the String Braid Kit, two of several forms the Braid can take as a Diagrammatic Instrument, the Braid is an alternative to engaging in pedagogies of critique. Critique comes from the word ‘to cut’. The Braid Instrument supports a better understanding of how any practitioner makes meaning, not by cutting, but braiding the specifics of their experiences and relationships within a topological whole.
As we move in relation to it, we can use the Braid instrument to draw on embodied knowing in conversation, while inscribing it with thoughts, ideas, and observations. Diagram artist and philosopher Félix Guattari called this type of process metamodeling, or self-management. [3]
This framework served to design engagements and interactions specifically for GVSU. An additional element was the careful planning of participant groupings, creating changing configurations over both days, to enable disciplinary and cross-disciplinary, intergenerational, and cross-hierarchical exchanges. On arrival, participants received badges that indicated which groups to join throughout the retreat, and their individual (but not private) notebook, along with the request to return the notebook to the organizers for scanning and inclusion in the retreat evaluation process.
The text below draws on thoughts shared in these notebooks, the facilitator’s observations, retreat host Jenn Schaub’s additional notes, and Tin Do’s photo documentation. Engagements and their outcomes will be discussed in the order in which they unfolded.
* Diagram supported conversations with practitioners in the arts developed starting in 2008 during a residency at the Banff Centre. The Braid Diagram began to take shape during a sabbatical in 2012 at MDW, residencies at AIR Krems, and VBKÖ. It was developed through a studio laboratory in 2016, supported by DCASE. The Braid Kit was prototyped between 2017-2020 during workshops at my studio, in exhibitions, and at conferences. Papers from 2021are here and here.
[1] Long established through academic, philosophical traditions, being is known as ontology, knowing as epistemology, doing as methodology, and the related valuing as axiology. Since the late 1960s, relationships among these terms have been discussed as research paradigms. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[2] Similarly, Performance Studies theorist Dwight Conquergood spoke about activism, analysis and artistry, or citizenship, critique and creativity. Conquergood, Dwight (2013). “Performance Studies: Interventions and Radical Research”. in: Cultural Struggles. Performance, Ethnography, Praxis. Edited by E. Patrick Johnson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[3] Guattari, Félix (2000). The Three Ecologies. London: The Athlone Press.
Engagement 1
Braid Pairings: How do you work?
Participants were divided into groups of four. Each grouping was set up with a large Braid diagram, printed on paper and mounted onto a rolling easel. Two participants were invited to enter into conversation with each other about how they work as creative professionals, taking notes on the diagram, while the other two observed. After a while, pairs switched roles. The reason for beginning the retreat with this exercise was to ground participants in their own, professional and creative roles, given that artists and researchers largely teach from within their own practices, including deriving their pedagogies from within those practices and entering into institutional self-management positions, both usually without additional training. Students often aspire to similar or related, professional and academic careers. Following the two conversations, pairs were asked to comment on their observations. This was followed by a short time period during which each was invited to reflect on their experience in writing, using the supplied notebook.
The annotated diagrams show that pedagogic, research and artistic practices strongly intersect in ways that are appreciated. Yet, overall these practices are perceived as encumbered by an increase in academic administrative tasks that additionally bleed into formerly protected, personal work and family time, particularly during COVID. This can lead to the inability to “plan a day.” An observation by a mamber of the departmental area of education is that “my development of a [future] teacher is strongly related to the opportunities I get”. Listed examples of opportunities are “residencies, summers, sabbaticals, research opportunities”.
Multiple notes emphasize the need to find “art/life balance”, and “personal vs. public” balance. Depending on “space and opportunity”, “PLAY” features large in the center of one Braid. One participant states explicitly what matters: “Making [a] career for [the] life you have, NOT making [a] life for your career.” Next to this, the important question is posed “where do systems limit?” Where and how does the department enable good working conditions, and where and how does the university enable the department?
“Making makes managing better” is a hopeful statement, pointing to the possibility of developing institutional imagination from within artistic practice. In turn, “managing inspired reflection in mediating”, an area historically involved with “critique of systems”, or institutional critique. This remark points to the possibility that governance experiences enable new forms of criticality. On a larger scale, “Global changes (pandemic/climate)” are invoked. Other keywords that appear across the boards are “community”, “collaboration”, “relational - organic structures”, “diversity”, and “democracy”. From a participating staff member’s administrative perspective, this is complemented by “institutional knowledge, historical knowledge”, awareness of “dept. well-being (emotional, physical)” and keeping a “primary focus on student success.” These remarks point to alliances that can be strengthened between faculty and staff, and the value of an increased understanding of the benefits of self-administration in academia, reaching beyond bureaucratic exercises.
In the notebooks, reflections on such points are stated succinctly. “Managing and mediating tend to demand the majority of my time and energy, leaving a small amount of resources for making. Where I feel some sense of optimism is in my work in the classroom.” Another writes: “Making is what I do. [...] It’s at the core of my teaching and information, and the way I navigate life.” The same person notes “a disconnect that happens between the intense practice of students in Studio Art and the eventual reality of their life after graduation. With that in mind, I think we teachers need to emphasize the interdisciplinary aspect of the education at GVSA.” In several conversations, this interdisciplinarity was also credited for student’s ability to knit together a number of skills and perspectives to make a career after school. An alum states “my well-rounded education in video, time-based art, photography, writing, and art history is very valuable to me in my career.”
Shown below are 4 of the 8 Braid boards.
String Braids: How does each area work?
Represented were the five areas of Studio Art, Art Education, Art History, Film/Video, and Photography. Based on numbers of faculty and staff in each area, and who of those were able to participate in the retreat, groups were composed differently. Studio art was the largest group. Art Education was the most interdisciplinary group. At the beginning of this segment, each group was handed a String Braid Kit, consisting of a 50 foot long cord looped into a trefoil (100 feet long for the largest group), and dry erase index cards along with dry erase pens and wipes, as well as attachments to connect the cards to the trefoil string. The first task for each group was to find a suitable site on the grounds and there to unfold the string. To follow was a conversation about how each area works, again engaging the categories of Doing, Knowing and Being, or Making, Mediating and Managing, while walking around and across the trefoil on the ground, and marking key conversation points with index cards.
Groups took to these tasks differently. Notably, one group decided it was too early to have such a conversation, needing to address issues arising from the previous department merger and several retirements first, in fact addressing the area of governance, or being, before other topics could be unfolded. Following the area conversations, each team was asked to collect what to share with the full group. In a sharing out, all assembled at each Braid location to learn what their colleagues had found.
As before, this segment ended with a time for individual reflection. The notes show that while each conversation developed its own voice, questions also arose in common.
There is broad “agreement that we have been asked to do more with less for quite some time.” Funding is a consistent concern. All across, the challenges to “stay current”, “stay contemporary to be relevant” and “managing student expectations” applied. Part of this is to build towards “awareness of greater agency”, positing “art as cultural practice rather than commodity.” Framed as a question here, “How do we make space for conversations about what matters to us as art educators and as colleagues?" In addition, and showing that the term ‘space’ should not be understood metaphorically only, one participant asked “Where do we all overlap? How can we promote the collaborative exchanges? Via proximity?", indicating that architecture and campus layout embody values and are crucial factors in prohibiting or promoting the maintenance and development of contemporary, current curriculum, together.
Specific to the area of Education were calls to “meet [...] the student where they are at”, including attention to “neurodiversity”, as part of the goal of educating “complete citizens”. One participant wrote that “recurring themes that all group members discussed were the essence of community & collaboration. It is very interesting to me that the desire to serve, help & grow others emerged. Perhaps this is a reason we are all in education.” In addition, it became clear that Education stands out because the area is “most constrained by external assessment.” With that, the necessity became very clear to succinctly define the value of the area’s work, “show what we do & how” towards framing “bullet points for administration.”
First and fundamental questions for Studio Art were framed as: “What are our first principles”? “What is essential in Studio Art [...] why should it be at a university?” One participant commented that in Studio Art, “the discussion became [...] collaborative as we found the language to discuss our ideas and processes of working. I found this very engaging as we discussed each person’s work ideas & developing common threads, the interactions pushed more ideas as each tried to describe what the keys were as makers, thinkers, designers.” As the largest group, Studio Art participants emphasized the need to “break silos”.
Art History was perceived to have a particularly wide range of responsibilities, including “critical thinking, reading, writing instruction”. Art history was framed as “intellectual history” and described as “poised perfectly to address critical race theory in the most organic [...] way.”
A participant described Photo as “the imagination of the institution”. Referencing professional opportunities, this field was also described as having “so many practices.” With that came the assertion that “budget, marketing, self-promo whether you’re a wedding photographer or an artist isn’t sexy but is necessary. We identified an opportunity for more teaching here.”
As the only group not augmented with members from other areas, Film Video Production used this time for preparatory discussion, not working with a Braid, but as they stated in closing, working out a circle. A participant observed that “their circle will overlay the other braid shapes so elegantly … and fittingly” since the area is “almost by default a collaborative proposition.”
Having considered the above, the question was posed “What will we do with the momentum?”
Engagement 3.
String Braids: How do the department areas work together?
Retrieving yesterday’s Braids, and finding the meadow dewy, we moved to the parking lot area at the beginning of the second retreat day. Area groups reconvened and set up their Braids, reconstituting yesterday's layouts including the note cards. The following conversations were to engage the full group in three rounds. In the first round, all areas were to compare their Doing/Making loops; in the second round, discuss the Knowing/Mediating loops; and in the third round, address the Being/Managing loops.
The prompt for each round was identical, to seek relations, overlaps and differences among areas. To better focus these conversations, each area was to determine a conversation leader for each round. The rounds were preceded by a conversation within each area, significantly expanding the discussions from the previous day, as was also attested by the rapidly multiplying note cards. The entire session was followed by a short reflection period, during which participants first used vertical Whiteboards, and then their notebooks to collect keywords, many showing overlaps among the areas.
Engagement 4.
How does the department work in the world?
The final engagement using the Braids was brief. The prompt was to create an architecture that accommodates all areas. Use people as bridges and connectors. There was a second of hesitation, but once encouraged to “embrace the chaos”, this became a celebratory and playful moment that culminated in an intense conversation about how to move forward. It was followed by a last notebook session.
A widely repeated assessment of the retreat was that it greatly enhanced communication: “Something that has stuck out for me is that though there [are] differing specialties & terminology between the various areas in the department - there is much greater commonality in what is being said & expressed. Something I think can happen often is because different disciplines use varying terms & verbiage, intent/meaning of what is being said can get lost in translation. I think the activities we’ve engaged in have caused each discipline/area to speak more generally & widely, which enables us to hear others better - I think a result is realizing there is much overlap though it might be talked about or “packaged’ differently.”
While the department is now perceived as strong, the relation to the university needs to be developed. “Societal changes make everyone feel helpless, hopeless.” ”Resources are needed to meet the challenges we have been given.” There is a “gap between willingness + ability within the department” and the understanding assumed by “higher administration/university”. “People within the institution want change but --- it’s not happening through the institution.” There is a “sense of futility with [the] larger picture” but that “the new curriculum/program will be more malleable, fluid, flexible. [A] good sense that this will be helpful, meaningful.”
The core questions recorded in the notebooks in response to this section were succinct: “There is a tremendous sense of respect & trust among faculty and willingness to work together.” “As a department going forward, what is our reason for being?” “How do we demonstrate & articulate our value?” “How do we maintain a relevant curriculum?” “How do facilities affect how we have to teach?” “How do facilities affect us as a department?” “How can we make a convincing argument to admin that we need more space?”, but also, “What baby steps can we take towards a more holistic approach to our curriculum? What [is] the low hanging fruit?”
Five Recommendations
1. Safeguard and support professional practices. The retreat conversations point to the centrality of underlying questions about conditions under which artistic practices can thrive, and how these conditions are changing, along with other systems. For artists, researchers and theorists to continue to teach from within their practices [1], the work associated with teaching should not impede, but rather inspire those. For GVSU-VMA, this means that the professional practices of faculty need to be safeguarded and supported, beyond the extended time-out of sabbaticals. This can begin with conversations about how to reduce the time needed for administrative work, including expectations of availability for email and other forms of communication, facility with software, and demands for data collection.
2. Incorporate education in Arts Management for faculty and students. The flip-side of safeguarding practice is the ability to develop not only managerial acumen, but an explicitly articulated understanding of the value systems that shape it. Systems thinking, and with it the ability to shape systems, is promoted by interdisciplinary education. Adding Arts Administration into the mix makes the value of interdisciplinarity explicit. This knowledge is often considered as being applicable outside of school, or after school, where it serves practicing artists, but as a place of work, it also applies to academia itself.
3. Continue interdisciplinary conversations with rotating membership. So much work was done in these groups to establish mutual appreciation and respect, and to begin the work of crafting language to develop clear internal mission statements for each area, that it seems imperative to find ways to continue this process at a smaller scale, on a regular basis. The feedback indicates that thinking about an area from multiple perspectives proved beneficial. Thus, a mixed, interdisciplinary group in conversation with representatives of an area could be convened once per semester, or at least once annually, in a convivial environment.
4. Develop a curatorial strategy to demonstrate and articulate the department’s value. Directly derived from the questions above, demonstrating and articulating value is a strongly felt need. In terms of demonstrating, websites and exhibitions had variously been mentioned during the retreat, as a way of showing what is already being produced. How something is shown is of course of great importance as well. Can a curatorial strategy be developed that reflects the common language that began to emerge during the retreat? In turn, this can support the process of further articulating the value of the department, from within artistic and curatorial practice. The department has the necessary skills, this might be a question of allocating release time or counting work as service. Events and programming can serve as recruitment tools within the university and attract new students. In turn, this may be an avenue towards allocating university resources.
5. Establish a co-location and resource sharing plan. To take advantage of the benefits for mutual education and rapid information sharing among faculty, students, faculty and students, and faculty and staff, the physical presence enabled by architecture needs to be carefully considered. Co-location is known as an important factor for facilitating innovation. Thinking about VMA as an arts incubator might also pave the road for outside engagement, and also new, pragmatic ways of engaging with burning, current issues.
[1]Howard Singerman, Art Subjects – making artists in the American University, University of California Press, 1999.
Additional Reflections
This retreat was organized from within sensibilities that have been honed by artistic practices. Throughout their careers, the organizers have intentionally brought their ways of doing, knowing and being into academic and community based administrative contexts, working as department chairs, and facilitators. The production team and support staff designed the event for experiential and cultural impact, and also participated in the retreat. It stands to reason that because of this, a retreat for an art department could be conducted particularly fruitfully.
Elements embedded in the structure of the retreat were 1) engaging personal ways of making sense by invoking artistic identities, before widening the conceptual scope to include disciplinary discourse, followed by considerations of institutional embeddedness. This sequencing privileges a progression from doing, to knowing, to being, while also fractally including all three areas in each step. By initially emphasizing agency, this sequencing encourages 2) position taking within a discursive field, something academia extensively encourages artists doing, and in addition, and importantly, supports a sense of institutional imagination from within agency and positionality. 3) By developing a topological model of interaction, the Braid is an alternative to engaging in pedagogies of critique. Critique comes from the word ‘to cut’. The Braid Instrument supports a better understanding of how any practitioner makes meaning, not by cutting, but braiding the specifics of their experiences and relationships into a topological whole. This process of supporting Institutional Imagination can also be engaged as a complement to the more familiar Institutional Critique.
It will be of great interest to further develop comparisons between Institutional Critique, with its origins in Critical Theory, and Institutional Imagination, hailing from aesthetic practices of attention, perception, and well-reflected epistemic specificity, to envision future forms of collective impact, towards a strengthening of the value of epistemic diversity.