Spectra of Transformation Arts Education Research and Cultural Dynamics. Erlanger Beiträge zur Pädagogik

Transcription

1 Erlanger Beiträge zur Pädagogik hrsg. von Michael Göhlich und Eckart Liebau 17 Benjamin Jörissen Lisa Unterberg Leopold Klepacki Juliane Engel Viktoria Flasche Tanja Klepacki (eds.) Spectra of Transformation Arts Education Research and Cultural Dynamics WAXMANN

2 Erlanger Beiträge zur Pädagogik edited by Michael Göhlich and Eckart Liebau Vol. 17

3 Benjamin Jörissen, Lisa Unterberg, Leopold Klepacki, Juliane Engel, Viktoria Flasche, Tanja Klepacki (eds.) Spectra of Transformation Arts Education Research and Cultural Dynamics Waxmann 2018 Münster New York

4 Publication sponsored by VolkswagenStiftung Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at Print-ISBN E-Book-ISBN Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 2018 Steinfurter Straße 555, Münster, Germany Cover Design: Christian Averbeck, Münster Cover Photo: Angel by Ricardo Gomez Typesetting: satz&sonders GmbH, Dülmen Print: CPI books GmbH, Leck Printed on age-resistant paper, acid-free as per ISO MIX Papier aus verantwortungsvollen Quellen FSC C Printed in Germany All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without permission in writing from the copyright holder.

5 Contents Preface Theoretical Perspectives Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformation from an Educational Science Perspective Hannelore Bublitz Spectra and Dynamics of Social and Cultural Transformation Transformations of Contemporary Culture, Work and Power Benjamin Jörissen, Lisa Unterberg Digital Cultural Education The Capability of Cultural Education Facing Digital Tansformation Marc Hill Space for Visions: Urban Life as Movement Catarina S. Martins The Alchemies of the Arts in Education Problematizing some of the Ingredients of the Recipe Teunis IJdens Studying Arts Education Policy and Governance Concepts and Perspectives Insights Tuula Jääskeläinen Plot A Space for Transformation in the Intercultural Research Process Zofia Małkowicz Blurred affiliations Transformation Between Fields of Art, Science and Humanities: Cases of Artistic Research and Arts-based Research

6 6 Contents Anna-Carolin Weber The Spectra of Post-digital Transformation Tracing The Haptic Field a Protocol of Facing Error, Dysfunction and Noise Martha Karoline Schröder Transformation of Museums What Happens if the Exhibits are Digital Objects? Luise Reitstätter Inclusive Museum Strategies that Make a Difference From Easy-to-Read to Learning German at the Museum Esther Ropón Mesa The Transformational Dynamics of Orchestras in the 21 st Century The New Socio-educational Functions of Symphonic Orchestras Vanessa Friedberger From Artist to Pedagogue? The Idea of Transformation in the Course of a Qualification Program for Vocal Artists Egge Kulbok-Lattik Community Houses Modern Cultural and Political Public Space in Estonia Fabian Hofmann, Sarah Kuschel Arts Education and Transformations Challenges for Sensitised Perspectives and Methodological Further Developments The authors

7 Preface It is evident that we are living in highly transformative times. Transformations on major cultural and societal scales, such as economical, digital- and media-related, environmental, migrational changes, are vastly changing people s liveworlds and everyday experiences on a global scale. These transformations affect edcuational systems, policies and the conditions of pedagogical thinking and working, as they change aesthetic practices, from (mostly informal) everyday practices to (more institutionalized) artistic ways, means, and conditions of work. Those both fields of change educational and aesthetic/artistic evidently interfere in the realms of aesthetic, arts and cultural education. With regards to arts education, the last decade has been a time where the challenges of the Seoul-Agenda goals met the challenges of the disruptive changes mentioned above which in fact only underlines the importance of a global, intercultural discourse and exchange in arts education research as well as practice. While we tend to look at major transformations by defining them as rather isolated issues such as the phenomenon of digitalization, it nowadays appears clearly that those processes are deeply intertwined, and have to be understood in and through their relatedness. For example, digitalization may hardly be understood without regard to economical globalization; political changes may hardly be understood without regard to digitalization; migration, of course, is tied to political and economical conditions, but evidently ever more related to digital (mobile) media and their capability of castly spreading information within seconds, from virtually every place on earth. In this spirit, the core idea of the international winter school Spectra of Transformation, which took place in February 2017 at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany, was to look at the effects and impacts of those multiple global transformational dynamics not as isolated phenomena, but to explore those in interrelated perspectives. In many keynotes and workshops, transformations due to migration/postmigration, digitalization, policy/governance, visual culture, transformative images and imagineries of arts education, and the research methodologies required to make the traces of transformational dynamics in (educational and everyday) practice visible have been deeply explored and discussed over a term of three days, especially regarding the research (PhD) projects of our participants. Encompassing practical, institutional, empirical and theoretical perspectives, this conference mainly driven by the many very elaborated and also critical inputs of the congregated young researchers, provided broad and rich insights to us, and hopefully to our participants. The volume presented here shows some of the results and developments as an aftermath of this event. We hope it will contribute as an inspiration to the international arts education discourses. A very special thanks goes to our partic-

8 8 Preface ipating researchers (most of whom contributed to this volume), to our cooperation partners, the Erlangen UNESCO-Chair for Arts and Culture in Education, the European Network of Observatories in Arts Education (related to UNESCO), to our critical friends from the German Netzwerk Forschung Kulturelle Bildung namely Professor Dr. Fabian Hofmann and Sarah Kuschel and, last not least, to our teammates who kindly took the efforts to prepare this volume, PD Dr. Leopold Klepacki and Dr. Lisa Unterberg. The winter school Spectra of Transformation, as well as this publication, has been made possible by a grant of the Volkswagen Foundation. Benjamin Jörissen, Erlangen, March 2018

9 Theoretical Perspectives

10

11 Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformation from an Educational Science Perspective Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki It initially appears self-evident that globalisation, digitalisation, economisation, transculturalisation etc. are not only contemporary cultural phenomena but appear as processes happening over time, and thus trigger social and cultural changes. However, how these processes happen as transformations of cultural and social structures and patterns and the extent to which these transformations include or generate dynamics affecting even individual lives (see Schimank/Volkmann 2017) 1 seem open to a differentiated analysis only if a concept of transformation adequate to the topic is generated first. Furthermore, if one assumes that transformations can only happen to something which already (latently or manifestly) exists and that this something will tend to be preserved, transformation processes can only be understood in terms of how they interact with processes of tradition. That is why this text will begin by attempting to define the two concepts in their mutual relation. Secondly, based on these basic considerations, processes of tradition and transformation will be discussed as the framework and the driving force of intergenerational cultural communication processes and will be postulated as relevant dimensions for educational theory. An explanation of terms thus appears the logical starting point of this contribution if we want to understand these phenomena appropriately. As a first conceptual approach, one might say that transformation simply means something like re-shaping. But this simple explanation of the term obscures two aspects that are of crucial significance for the perspectives and approaches explored in this paper: firstly, that transformations cannot happen per se but that something has to be transformed and, secondly, that transformation can only be imagined temporally and thus as a process. In a cultural and social scientific derivation, it follows that the subject of transformation the something consists of the conditions, structures, generation patterns, modalities etc. of social and cultural practices. Thus, a theory of the dynamics of cultural and societal transformation is necessarily connected to structural and process theories of culture and society. In a certain perspective, this is the only way to grasp the something at all. 1 In this context, it seems worth noting that they thus are gaining relevance not only in social and cultural theories but also in terms of subject theories.

12 12 Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki The clarification of the topic alone, however, is not necessarily sufficient for understanding the way and processes in which transformations work. Accordingly, a more detailed analysis of the phenomenon seems necessary. In order to understand what is transformed or what is transforming itself, we must first ask how transformations happen and by way of what. Consequently, transformations can only be understood if we also take their reasons and modalities into account. Transformations would thus be conceived as emergent effects of the specific action of transformation factors or transformation actors which themselves are not independent of historical (cultural, societal, technical/technological etc.) framework conditions. In this perspective, transformation dynamics could only be described by considering the mutual entanglement and contingency of each given historical-cultural structure as the subject and at the same time cause of transformation processes, transformation factors, transformation actors and transformation effects or consequences (see Schimank/Volkmann 2017). Secondly, if transformations take the form of an emergent and contingent (continuous while at the same time disruptive or transgressive) process, the analysis of transformation processes will allow for a specific approach to the understanding of human-cultural historicity, as what can be described as the history or historicity of human existence only constitutes itself in and through transformations. It is thus impossible to speak of cultural or societal transformation dynamics without having an idea or concept of human historicity. In the perspective of a history of transformation (see Böhme 2011), the phenomenon of transformation not only characterises what appears as a process of societal and cultural change history itself would have to be understood as an effect of ongoing transformations or constructions of history (see Böhme 2011) which themselves have a function for the future. If we therefore understand cultural or societal change as a history of transformation, there must be a double focus: on processes, events and contingencies (Böhme 2011, p. 10) of the historical change of culture(s) and society/ies and their generating factors and on modifications of the constructions of history. In this context, the concept of transformation refers to pragmatic, institutional and semantic phenomena of cultural change both by their nature as a chronological process and by their spatial localisation and diffusion (Bergmann et al. 2011, p. 40). That is why transformations as chronological and spatial, emergent and contingent processes require new or reorientation, or at least a re-formulation of previous orientations by the concerned individuals and groups in society (Düllo 2011, p. 28). From this perspective, processes of transformation create something new in the sense of cultural, societal and historical re-figurations (see Bergmann et al. 2011, p. 39) and, in doing so, they create both new presences and new pasts (as well as new futures). In this context, however, the new by its very difference and thus by its potential to create difference and resistance appears not only as connected to that what

13 Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformation 13 is transformed, but essentially only by the relation of continuity and the change of cultural formations (ibid.). Processes of cultural tradition and transformation are thus not in opposition to each other but must be understood as mutually interlinked constitution principles of cultural realities. On the one hand, it seems evident that cultural and societal processes of tradition have the general potential to function as specific mechanisms of historical stabilization (see Böhme 2011, p. 21). When it comes to forming and developing cultural present(s) and future(s), they are potentially able to constitute and generate (re)liability, orientation and continuity by attributing validity to certain cultural concepts, artefacts, customs, practices etc. On the other hand, it is obvious that under the impression of postmodern transformations the efficacy of these processes becomes fundamentally questionable if they were conceived as simple mechanisms of preserving certain established (hegemonial) cultural realities. In the light of this last notion it has to be considered that, logics, ways, dispositifs, practices and processes of tradition always also refer to the future or rather to concepts of the future. Processes of tradition therefore do not remain at a reproductive level but can be considered a transformative principle, which also creates something new in three respects: firstly, because not only the constituents, modalities and objectives of tradition but also its topics are included into the transformation processes (and vice versa); secondly, because the contents of tradition are transformed towards the drafts of the future, according to present interests processes of tradition are inevitably linked to practices of translation, re-configuration etc. Finally, passing on itself has a transforming effect, as the conditions, situations, processes and practices of tradition constitute both the cultural contents as those contents which are supposed to be passed on and the humans participating in passing on as present subjects of cultural knowledge sharing and appropriation. From an educational point of view, these figures seem very familiar. After all, they point to the problem or challenge described 35 years ago by German educationalist Klaus Mollenhauer (1983) as the entanglement of the task of education and overall culture, the social formation of this culture, its stocks of tradition as far as they can still be legitimated and the latter s future viability (see ibid., p. 19). From this, he concluded that considering the norms, standards and modalities of educational work as a practice of presentation ( passing on, presenting that what we believe to be important ) and representation (a task of adults to [have to] choose from the whole and to [have to] shape that what has been chosen in a way the child/youth can cope with ) is an educational necessity (ibid., p. 20). There are undoubtedly several good reasons why Mollenhauer s programme should be reconsidered and updated from a (post-)modern point of view. But there are also some points of reference worth considering in the context of our argumentation. Given globalised and trans-cultural realities of life and post-colonial objections to tra-

14 14 Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki ditional and/or hegemonial cultural dominance, two questions arise: On the basis of which stabilisation logics or in the context of which dispositifs are the contents of tradition chosen and the norms and standards of cultural passing on determined? And to what extent should the intergenerational nature of knowledge sharing in contexts of pluralised, post-migrant societies be imagined as a context characterised by differences, interferences and disruptions? The recognition of (intergenerational) cultural diversity may be a point of reference here for the conception of cultural tradition and education as a plural and open process, as it becomes possible to develop a critical view on the positions of the educators as cultural interpreters : Educational logics, practices and objectives of the adult or interpreting generation must be considered as results of contingent historical processes. Education as a mechanism of stabilization therefore always appears as both embedded in and generating specific cultural realities. The stabilising cultural function of education and the postulated representativeness of its contents thereby always look fragile and changeable. At this point a global and intercultural perspective is able to point out content-related and formal differences within processes of cultural knowledge-sharing and to open up possibilities to raise awareness of the danger of implementing hegemonial cultural logics and practices. Furthermore, the future viability of that which is to be passed on seems ever more difficult to predict, in the light of the post-modern signatures of culture(s) and society/ ies, like e. g. pluralised ways of life and worldviews, the erosion of traditional authorities, norms and patterns as well as the virulent awareness of the contingency, uncertainty, incalculability and unpredictability (Schäfer/Wimmer 2004, p. 9) of life. Thus the question of the cultural sustainability of educational processes of cultural knowledge sharing and appropriation becomes a crucial challenge. An educational concept of sustainability formulated or to be formulated against this background would therefore have to refer to the configuration of transformation processes which by way of transforming preservation produce continuities. In turn, these continuities enable the configuration of one s own future, based on a historical awareness of the construed nature of (cultural) identity and subjectivities. Finally, against the background of current cultural-theoretical approaches (see e. g. Reckwitz 2012), education would thus have to be understood as a specific cultural practice with two functions. The first is the dual function of stabilising processes of cultural passing on and of enabling the follow-up generation to cope with the future. The second is to generate meaningfully structured and meaning-structuring possibilities for understanding the world, while on the other hand, however, itself being prefigured by systems of cultural meaning. Accordingly, education would have to be understood both as the mechanism of those symbolic orders [...] against the background of which humans provide the social world and thus also themselves with meaning (Reckwitz 2012, p. 16) and also as a system of practices which is itself characterized by historically contingent symbolic codes and interpretative schemes (ibid.). After

15 Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformation 15 all, it is this mutual interwovenness of education with cultural codes, interpretation schemes, knowledge orders and practices that demonstrates the particular cultural relevance of education both for processes of tradition and for the constitution of specific subject formations (e. g. realising transformation orientations or transformation resiliencies) which, in the sense of certain technologies of the self (Foucault), would themselves also require critical reflection. Given the value debates, the political proclamations of a guiding culture and growing nationalist trends seen today, all of which may be read as reactions to the experience of the structural conjunction of needs for orientation and the pressure to make choices (see Ziehe 1992), the task Mollenhauer attributes to education once again seems strangely up to date. Understanding traditions, stabilisations, contingencies and disruptions not as contradictions but as constitutive, interwoven dimensions of transformation processes is thus crucial to the transformation-theoretical perspective unlocked here. Or, in other words: there are always specifications [...] without which it would hardly be possible to speak of contingency. Yet these specifications [...] may not be [understood] as conditions limiting the possibilities of events, but are themselves the result of coincidences and thus both changeable and disruptable while at the same time stubborn and robust, however not arbitrary. And thus traditions, too, may no longer be understood as stable, normative specifications whose reasons for validity are not even invalidated by contingent events but may at best be replaced. Rather, even traditions are contingency-contaminated 2, and unpredictable events may only happen against the background of a perhaps allegedly stable structure (Schäfer/Wimmer 2004, p. 10). If we pursue this idea further, from a perspective of an educational interpretation of the mutual connection of cultural traditions and stabilisations on the one hand and of cultural contingencies and disruptions on the other, it becomes obvious that education itself as a socially institutionalised practice of stabilising processes of cultural tradition that links the past to the present and refers to the future (see Sünkel 2011) must be understood as both an effect and a factor of transformation processes. Although the semantic range of the concept of education 3 or the historical changes and traditions of educational ideas, concepts and realities cannot be discussed in detail 2 Given the perspectives and positions elaborated here, the negative semantic level generated by the concept of contingency would require a more detailed analysis. However, here the hint may suffice once more that transformations must be understood as hybrid, event-like processes constituted by the melting together of lines of tradition and contingencies as well as disruptions. 3 According to Tenorth (2010, p. 16), education means, among others, the older generation influencing the younger generation, the process as well as the result of the process, the actions of educators as well as the purposes they pursue, however also the effects affecting the children, the influence of institutions and groups of society or societies on adolescents.

16 16 Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki here, what is clear is the extent to which education as a cultural-social fact or practice and as a cultural-social function and task (see Tenorth 2010) is not only a mechanism of content selection (representation), content articulation (presentation) and content transformation (generating contents as contents of cultural tradition and education), but must most of all be understood as a mechanism of the presentification (see Gumbrecht 2004, p. 115 ff.) and enforcement of cultural and social norms, values, power constellations and knowledge orders as well as the possibilities and limitations of subjectivation. In this case, educational practices would have to be understood not only as practices of communication but most of all as practices of the presentification of patterns of meaning and order that have grown historically and which themselves (pre-)dispose those processes of cultural learning happening in and by educational situations. Education as a trans-historically necessary condition for the possibility of history is thus at the same time always historical, insofar as it appears in historical varieties and under historical conditions (see Sünkel 2011, p. 26). Education is thus a historically tied, culturally and socially generated network of relations which itself creates and predisposingly shapes relations or possibilities of relationing between people, between people and the world, and between people and history. Educational situations thus not only communicate contents by humans to humans. Instead, educational situations specifically constitute both the contents as far as they are articulated as specific symbolic (and logical) orders and passed on as such by way of educational practices and people as far as the people participating in educational situations are socially addressed as subjects of communication or appropriation/learning and thus take specific subject positions or are classified under specific horizons of possibilities of subjectivation. This fact now appears fundamentally significant to the analyses compiled in this volume, insofar as the goals, ideals, ways of proceeding, postulates, approaches, concepts and programmes etc. of arts education make arts education itself appear as a social-cultural educational actor that can only be described against the background of its specific cultural ties and contingent historical developments. Arts education is thus at the same time itself an effect of historical processes of tradition and transformation that generate both certain ideas of arts and education and ideas of those subjects that are supposed to experience aesthetic-cultural educational processes in contexts of arts education, or are supposed to participate in (specific forms of ) art and culture. From this perspective, arts education appears most of all as a dispositif originating from and tied to the educational and artistic logics of the European modern age, within or by which the idea of the aesthetic education of a subject within or by way of art and culture or by way of artistic practices as well as the idea of subjective participation in art and culture is still passed on today. At the same time, however, given a fundamental change in the understanding of art and aesthetic practice as following the tradition of Eurocentric-high culture paradigms towards that which may be called post-art (see

17 Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformation 17 Meyer 2016, p. 243), as well as against the background of post-colonial and post-migrant transformations of globalised lifeworlds and thus given an all-encompassing re-arrangement of cultural guiding ideas (see Schimank/Volkmann 2017, p. 61) this dispositif experiences itself in the area of conflict between stabilising attempts of passing on, self-legitimation or self-identification constraints and disruptive-contingent dynamics of change. Against this background current forms of arts education should be questioned e. g. if or to what extent they provide possibilities to critically reflect on the age of digitalized globalisation and thus on hegemonial aspirations of a neoliberal and neo-colonial production of culture. References Bergmann, Lutz et al. (2011): Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen Wandels. In: Böhme, Hartmut et al. (Eds.): Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen Wandels. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp Böhme, Hartmut (2011): Einladung zur Transformation. In: Ders. et al. (Eds.): Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen Wandels. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, S Düllo, Thomas (2011): Kultur als Transformation. Eine Kulturwissenschaft des Performativen und des Crossover. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Gumbrecht, Hans-Ulrich (2004): Diesseits der Hermeneutik. Die Produktion von Präsenz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Meyer, Torsten (2016): What s next, Arts Education? Fünf Thesen zur nächsten Ästhetischen Bildung. In: Ders. et al. (Eds.): Where the magic happens. Bildung nach der Entgrenzung der Künste. München: kopaed, pp Mollenhauer, Klaus (1983): Vergessene Zusammenhänge. Über Kultur und Erziehung. Weinheim und München: Juventa. Reckwitz, Andreas ( ): Die Transformation der Kulturtheorien. Zur Entwicklung eines Theorieprogramms. Weilerswist: Velbrück. Schäfer, Alfred/Wimmer, Michael (2004): Tradition und Kontingenz. Anmerkungen zu einem verschlungenen Verhältnis. In: Dies. (Eds.): Tradition und Kontingenz. Münster: Waxmann. Schimank, Uwe/Volkmann, Ute (2017): Das Regime der Konkurrenz: Gesellschaftliche Ökonomisierungsdynamiken heute. Weinheim und Basel: BeltzJuventa. Sünkel, Wolfgang (2011): Erziehungsbegriff und Erziehungsverhältnis. Allgemeine Theorie der Erziehung Teil 1. Weinheim und München: Juventa. Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar ( ): Geschichte der Erziehung. Einführung in die Grundzüge ihrer neuzeitlichen Entwicklung. Weinheim und München: Juventa. Ziehe, Thomas ( ): Zeitvergleiche. Jugend in kulturellen Modernisierungen. Weinheim und München: Juventa.