 TLC Home 
Background  Conversations 
Timeline  Resources 
Vision Plan 
Site Map
|
Stefan
Smagula S: ...almost sort a "core curriculum" that people would pass through (M: like a "course path") yeah, that could be a good idea, especially.. (M: could you imagine, for instance, a class following PLP?) you know I think.. I've thought about that, because one of the things we worried about, was that "Design By Numbers" was too limiting, and that people would be frustrated because of the ... "Oh I really want to spread my wings and take off from DBN, I don't want to be limited totally in this little 100 pixel canvas" and, so probably the next step would be to use ...and it's kind of a big step... would be to use more of a "real" programming language, that would be less limiting, more complex. I mean that's the step I'm at now. That's where I am. I'm trying to learn... I just got two books today (makes "big" gesture) that were gifts, but I'm trying to learn some JAVA, so that I can go to that next level, and start doing 2D graphics in JAVA. It seems like that would be a logical next step from the point of view of programming, but perhaps there are other next steps in other dimensions (makes "fanning out" gesture) like the design angle, and a next step in other kinds of design languages... M: Well I guess we could think about - what was the goal, and we talked about this before when I was doing the other project - what were the themes - S: The themes were - one of the themes was, trying to reunite art and science. And I think we were inspired by the DBN interface - you had the canvas on one side, and code on the other (gestures two things next to eachother). And the code and the canvas are together in one and visible at one time. So I think part of the - one of the things we had in mind was - art, and programming - there are connections. And, we were trying to help people make those connections. And another theme was that, creativity doesn't come from being free to do anything you want, anywhere, anytime, that it really comes from setting very strict limits, and deciding which limits to set in one of the paths that you want, as well as in the programming - you know - problem "solving" is one thing, but problem "setting" is another. You know, coming up with what problems to solve, that's a difficult task, and that's a design task. So, we were looking at problem setting, problem solving, mostly problem solving, but, the final project was more of a problem setting problem - what are the problems you're going to solve, what are the tasks... So, creativity comes from limits, art and technology have links, and another one relates to both of those things, which is the "craft" within the tool-using. Trying to find ways that the digital medium may be helping craft, helping to re-create craft. And there's a... tenous beginnings of craft, but, they're all beginnings. And, I'm sure there were other sub-themes, but those were the main themes. M: OK, just within the context of yourself teaching at the University, with computers in the classroom, and also working where there's - I'm not really familiar with CIT's stuff, but, you said that while you've worked there, you've encountered a lot of issues that - (S: yeah, I'm - yeah.) what are some things that come to mind? S: What I've seen too often, when people use technology in the classroom, I've seen them teach people to play the stereo, rather than teach them to play the piano. The result is music, but in the one case, when you learn to play the stereo, you're merely just passive, you're just clicking switches. When you learn to play the piano, you're interacting with it, you're using it at a much deeper level, you're creating things, and that's much more... And, I don't know how many times I've seen people teach people to play the stereo. And it's just so short-sighted. It's training, not education. And that bothers me, and it kind of bugs me out because I was encouraged to teach people to play the stereo, rather than teach them to play the piano. And it kind of bugged me out because... "Is this the culmination of all my years of schooling, to teach people to play the stereo?" No, that's what bugged me out. And so that is the main problem. People devolve, as soon as you introduce technology, people devolve into this sort of "well let's just teach them which buttons to push. Let's just tell them which buttons do what. And that's enough. I think that's bunk. (M: sort of like being an operator) yeah, it's creating technicians rather than artists and craftsmen, and I think that's a disservice to the teachers and students. When I went to school, we did not have classes on "How to use Microsoft Word 0.1" We had classes on writing - how to write, and we just happened to use word processors, because it provided us with the ability to edit, and save, and print, and all that. And so I think that that's a good lesson to learn - be sure that you're not teaching people to play the stereo - not teaching the word processor, teaching people how to write, teaching people how to create. And it's tough because it is easy to devolve into "training." Just like, "OK - here's 'File' 'New' OK, Now - " (gesturing computer mouse movements) I don't know. That's really degrading. M: What are some of the scenarios you have in mind, in education, that creates (S: that teaches people to play the piano) piano players. (nodding) S: Well, I think it's one that emphasizes concepts alongside practice. I think that maybe the architecture school model is the best, perhaps, where you have 4 years, like as an undergrad, as you're studying architecture you study, you start with very, sort of elements of design, you start with lines, shapes, planes, you start with letterforms, and you do 2D design before you do 3D design. And, typically you never talk about the software you're going to use when you graduate. Maybe you'll have a summer session on that, but it's definitely not the core of what you're learning. You'll learn that on the job, basically. That's their assumption - "When you get out, whatever software is currently being used, you'll learn that - but we're teaching you stuff-" and I think their attitude is "We're teaching you things that are 'timeless.' There's no version on this." And, if you get those timeless concepts, you'll always be ahead, and it's this kind of learning skills that you develop through interacting with ideas that will serve you well when it comes time to learn that software. You'll pick it up much more quick, you'll be more adaptive. And the software comes and goes, the software will be gone in six months, all that stuff...rapidly. M: What are some of the timeless concepts - I know that in PLP you were teaching, in some of the discussions about ethics of computing -- S: I would say, yeah, if you want to get liberal education with an emphasis in how technology fits in. Just on the place of technology _in_ culture, I guess it would be - oh, it's a tough one, because it's not, it's really - could - (M: like what kind of questions would a program like that ask?) Yeah, I know! M: It might not be something that's so much on a model of students being taught something, but finding answers together on some of these questions... (S: yes) and that's a totally different model, I guess. You don't have a body of knowledge to bestow on... (S: so that, alright, right.) cos they are questions, there are a lot of questions. S: There are more questions than answers. Well... (long pause) Well you could look at other schools that have programs that are similar to TLC's goals, and talk to them, and how they structure their curriculum, that'd be one, that'd be the first step, would be to analyze what other people have done already in this area. And I really don't know much about that. M: There's going to be a "sixth college" at UCSD (S: really?) called the College of Art, Technology, and Culture (S: cool, sounds like a great idea) yeah, so we're looking at that. S: yeah, so I'm sure that they're struggling with the same things, like "how do we structure this curriculum, what core offerings..." yeah, look at what's already been done, and maybe look at, you might - I think Technology, Literacy, and Culture - you have sort of beginnings of some divisions there, and maybe, you could have core courses that would emphasize each of those three subfields. But you wouldn't ignore the other two entirely but you would emphasise maybe technology in one class, literacy in another (laughing), and culture in another, but each of them would be within the context of the other two. That's one way you could divide it - M: one thing we could think about is, not in schools but just past technologies and how they effected culture. When you think of the 20th century, how do you see technology effecting culture - S: like a history of technology and its effect on economy and culture. Yeah! I mean there are many things that have been written along those lines. I know that. But I know that there aren't a lot of college departments that are based on them (laughing). So - but there are people here at UT who are doing technology, and design, and culture related work, like Jeffrey Meekle in American Studies. He's written a book about plastics, and its effect on American culture, and - a multi-faceted study of plastics, from the point of view of design, culture, economics, probably even ecological, and he's very interested in technology and design. And I know, if you searched out, other departments will have people like him, you know, so maybe you could build up a core group of professors who have those kinds of interests and get them to cross-list into TLC. And that'd be one way to, again, to broaden the offering. But I think you do need some kind of core curriculum - that would be the basis for furthur studies. And everybody'd have that common understanding, common knowledge, that would be a good thing. It's tough to figure out what it should be, though. Very tough. Like, what would have been good for people to know before they came to Pixel Line Plane? Well, there were some people who needed to have a little bit more familiarity with manipulating symbols. And then there were some people who had plenty of experience with symbols and mathematical notation, or algebraic notation, but had never tackled a conceptual problem, like "express the concept of time without using numbers (laugh) or in some organic way, express time in an organic fashion." I mean there were some people who were just like "what the hell kind of programming problem is that? That's not programming." And then on the other hand there were people who were like "I can't handle it. I can handle the concepts but I cannot handle all the mathematics. The algebraic notation's killing me." So maybe if you could have had something that - well - but then again Pixel Line Plane's I think a pretty good introduction. It's pretty basic level on all areas. Although some students thought it was way too hard. The algebraic notation was - they were in the minority, so. I think that Pixel Line Plane would be a good entry-level. What would come next? Maybe classes like - you know, I would look at the Aesthetics and Computation Group as MIT because they teach, I mean John Maeda's courses - he was really our role model for Pixel Line Plane, and we looked - (M: that is mostly grad-level?) yeah, that's all graduate level, and we looked at his courses and we kind of cobbled them together and some of his ideas, a lot of his stuff, but I think where he doesn't match the TLC program is he's almost solely concerned with aesthetics and computation, and more - he doesn't really cover information, or cultural facets. Not that he should, but those might be - if you looked at those courses you'd get a good idea of aesthetics and computation and how to teach that, but you'd have to look somewhere else for the culture and literacy part. Well... (pause) I would approach this as a design problem. First step is usually, you know, brainstorming - just throwing out everything you can think of, whether it's good, bad, dreaming, whatever, and then start looking at the competition, so to speak - you know, the other people out there who have done similar things, like UCSD, the ACG group at MIT, maybe classes that are taught in different fields. M: We're also looking at how people feel about technology, what do they enjoy, what are they afraid of, what are they experiencing day-to-day - S: Oh! Well, I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. Well, I'll tell you, there are things that, cos now I'm about to leave the University, and go into the private sector. I'm about to build - "making the world safe for e-commerce"... And, I guess that one of my fears is that I'll get sucked into sort of like playing the stereo, a very complex stereo - I'll be learning to do that rather than learning to play the piano. And when that happens, basically, you're not controlling the tool, the tool is controlling you. Your life is meshing with the tool but the tool is coming towards you. And so I'm afraid of (M: So you mean e-commerce as a phenomenon) yeah, I guess I'm afraid that I'll get sucked into this, I don't know what, workplace lifestyle, and I'll forget what is more important... things that I, I don't know, I guess I'm afraid that I'll leave behind the things that are really important and I'll just get sucked into this sort of superficial world of e-commerce, I'll just forget that there ever was another world. M: Well, what are the things that, the important things, the benefits - S: Well in general I think people fear that the tools will define what they can do, rather them defining what the tools can do for them. And I think that's one of my fears, that I'll be defined by the tools, rather than me defining the tools. So I'm gaurding against that by learning more programming so that I won't be stuck using tools somebody else's created (laughing) and, you know, forced into that mentality. That's my approach. I think in general that's what people are afraid of. That the tools will control them instead of vice-versa. But if you teach it as tool-building, and not as tool-using, I think that allays people's fears, and they're like, "I'm in control of the tool! I made the tool. And I build things that I like, with the tools that I made. M: And that's specifically technology-focused, tool-building, (S:tool-use, yes) yeah. What sort of conversations need to take place about that? Is it just a matter of teaching the creative uses of technology, or creative approaches to technology, or - S: I think the basic, if you have, if you take the approach - the difference between a technologist and an artist - I read this, once - is that an artist is interested in what kind of things you can create, whereas a technologist is primarily interested in tools, not the things you create. So that's why if you're in a room with technologist-types, typically you'll hear them talking about versions and features; what the new version is, and what the new features in that version are. And what platform it runs on and doesn't run on, and all of the tech stuff that goes along with that. Whereas if you're in a room with people who are maybe more of the artist-type that use technology, you'll hear them talking about the things that they've made or could make through those certain tools. And I think that's the main difference between approaching it - it's an approach - you know, if you approach it as a technology thing, you're teaching what versions and features there are, and how to use them. Whereas if you approach it sort of as an artist, you're teaching what can you make with these things. And the tools are important in this, you know, the tool - I mean that's the thing about computing - it's the beat that grips itself. Because it's both the tools and it's the medium in which you create. So it's not like a wood lathe, where you've got the tool on one side and the wood on the other and the motor that spins the wood and then you alter the wood, it's more like the wood alters itself. You manipulate the wood to alter the wood. So that's what makes computing very different from other media. M: Sounds like it's a different approach to the affordances of it. An artist's approaching it in terms of stretching the limits of what the medium can do - even approaching it like a medium, but a technologist is, affordances, efficiencies, making it work better - S: Well, you know, the Bauhaus, they had two categories of professors. There were masters of form, and there were masters of technique. And I think that - you know, Bauhaus would be a great - the masters of form and the masters of technique - and today, I think that's maybe that's what we need to do! Is combine form and technique and create a new sort of "Infohaus" that would allow people to find craft in digital media. Because the Bauhaus was a reaction against industrialization, and it was like "Well how are we going to put craft back into these industrial production methods, industrial materials and methods. And I think that if we took some lessons from Bauhaus and thought about how are we going to inject craft into digital media, and I think that the division between masters of form and masters of technique would still be a useful distinction. Ideally, you would have some people who were masters in both - it's very difficult. But that would a great, wouldn't that be a great course, like, "Lessons from Bauhaus and How they Apply To - " (laugh) M: One of the things that, a common theme has come up - has been exactly that; a lot of times in terms of... the College of Liberal Arts is something that's - sometimes not enough about technique, not enough, or that there should be no technique (S: Ah, "there should be no technique at all" - well everyone places that - ) An emphasis on value knowledge, that kind of thing, at the expense of people graduating - and not knowing how to use computers. And then, on the other hand, people in Natural Sciences, (S: All technique... or much, much of it is technique, yeah.) A grounding in sciences, a grounding in technique. I think it's been so, but it doesn't seem like it necessarily has to be that way. S: The division in - yeah, I think the program - that would be a great emphasis for TLC, in my opinion. Is that it would - you would come out and you would say, "I've got a strong foundation in form _and_ technique." Whether that form means concepts, ideas, or it could be actually, the design - you know, how to design. It could be any number of things. But the technique could be any number of things too, but try to emphasize the connections between and across those boundaries. Form and technique, art and science, technology and literature, all of those boundaries. If you can create those connections between more and more, I think, that would be a great program. And the kind of thing that people would love to study, I think. (pause) One of my other, I don't know what you'd call it, catch-phrases or watchwords, is that people and ideas are always - it's from McCullough, _Abstracting Craft_, in the preface, there he said, "People and ideas are always going to be more important than any technology." And people have hopes, dreams, desires, and they have curiosities, and the technologies can only serve those hopes and dreams and desires. It can't have any of its own, like - who was it that said that "Computers are useless, all they have are answers"? All they can provide you with is an answer. They can't provide you with any questions! So, yeah, we're here for the questions. Computers are here to come up with answers. M: You know McCullough's going to be at the _Doors of Perception_ ... S: I know, I know, I'm hoping I can go. I'll have a few months on the job so maybe they'll let me go. M: I guess a lot of these questions (holding notes) are more for background, but I have a lot. A lot of these are pretty big questions. (S: yeah.) In this "cultural moment" - not necessarily technology, though that will probably play into it - if you were telling your grandchildren, in about 70 years from now, about this time, how would you describe it? S: I think it's pretty clear now that there has been a break from an industrial economy to an information economy. And that coincides with the introduction of computers and networks. And so I think, assuming that things continue as they have, or even continue to change more rapidly, if they continue to change at least at the same pace, I would say that I was there roughly (laughing) at the start of the information revolution or information economy. And that it was a great time to be a student, and to be taking part in creating new means of communication, new means of creating transactions, of finding information; so, I guess I would describe it as the start of the "information age." You know, it started before I was born, but, I was there during the boom. That's what I would say. I was there during the information boom. Probably the boom will last, at least another ten years, I would guess. M: What are the things that aren't quite happening, or are happening in a way that you'd - S: You know, it's weird! That changes over time. You know, when I first started using the internet, I remember thinking - and, oh, I remember seeing the first banner ads, the first fee-based websites, and I was just furious! I was just like, "This is so wrong! How dare they do that?" and now I'm - in three days I'm going to be working at the mother of all e-commerce builders. And - my attitude towards e-commerce has totally changed over the last six years. I used to feel like this was sacriligeous, you should not try to make money off of the internet, that's not what it's there for, it was an abuse of this resource. And then I sort of shifted to this stance where I was kind of felt like, "Well, the internet is so amazing because not only can like, a 13-year-old kid create a site that is just as easy to get to as IBM's site, but, both of them can co-exist on the same network." And they have equal footing. More or less, equal footing. It's not like IBM has any kind of super-duper advantage (gesturing towards a space on his left) over the 13-year-old (gesturing towards his right) kid, you know, you still have to type in the URL. So, I started thinking, well, that's a strength, that this internet can support both forms of life. A total amateur, outsider, underground, occult, freaky, fetish person as well as the IBM's of the world. And I think that's still the way I feel. That, "OK, it's great that both can happen. On the same network." But maybe - I know that for years I felt dismayed. I thought the commercialization of the internet and -- maybe it's because now they're giving me a paycheck, you know! (laugh) Now I don't feel as dismayed. M: sort of sounds like it's a strength, though - (S: it could be) A strength of networks that there's a sort of equality... (S: yes) of access... S: So the question was "what are the things that dismay me, what are the changes that are not happening that should be"? (M: sure. for instance, accessibility.) Well, yeah, accessibility is a big problem. You know there's an anarchic sort of situation where even if you have the $3000 computer, that was just brand-new yesterday, there's still millions of accessibility problems. Everything from platform to browser to plug-in, to whether you can see well, or hear well, to what kind of connection, but beyond that, you know, there are people that don't have computers. And they're locked out. I think that's a big problem, that we don't have enough public access workstation, public access networks. To me, it's obvious you have to do that. M: (garbled question... how do we do that?) S: The libraries are a start, but I think I would like to see them put out beyond libraries. I think it'd be cool if we could figure out a way to say, retrofit telephone booths with old machines, or something - I don't know, I'm just fantasizing (M: like a token-run Hotmail) yeah, 25 cents and you can use any free e-mail service you like. You know, at the phone, that'd be pretty cool. So that anybody could have some access. I don't know that subsidizing individuals, like giving them computers, like a lot of government programs talk about that, I don't know if that's such a good idea, because, well, I think people should sort of - well, you could just throw computers at people and I worked at a public high school and they just threw computers at the students - there was one program that did that and they gave everyone a computer, and some of them, you know, they didn't use it at all. (M: for their homes?) yeah, at home. And they just didn't use it at all; I think it would have been better if they'd just sort of shown their interest somehow. And then those students got the computers. (pause) But yeah, distributing computers would be one thing, to people who need them, to increase accessibility, but there's always going to be a gap between the affluent and educated, the less affluent and less educated. M: You know there's a - it's still an idea - of issuing laptops to all the freshman class - S: I know, I went to a University where they did that, Wake Forest. (M: how did it work out?) Well, I was opposed to it before I went there. Cos I thought, "Whoa, that's such a burden on the students. If you don't have a lot of money, you need to go out and spend $2000 on top of tuition, and then some people are going to get nice ones, and some people are going to get crappy ones - " Well, I went to Wake Forest and I saw how they implemented that system, and in the end, I thought, well, it's a good system. They subsidized, people who were on financial aid, get subsidies for their laptop, so it's not totally - it's not a total burden. So they get the wealthy students to subsidize the less wealthy students. The wealthy students pay for the whole thing. And the people on financial aid get some kickbacks for that purchase. Everybody had the same machine, so there was no heirarchy of - everybody had the same exact machine, and, there were benefits to that too, because, everybody knew how to use them. So you could ask someone, "Hey, how do you install the modem? I can't figure out where it goes," or you know, and everybody would now. And also the networking, they had ethernet jacks right at the tables in the classrooms so you could plug in, do that kind of thing. I think it encouraged the professors to start thinking, "Well, how could I leverage this resource in the classroom?" Or outside the classroom, more importantly, if you ask me. How can I leverage this outside the classroom (laugh). There were some pretty innovative uses of computers. But when I went there it was still in the initial year or two of the program, so they were still figuring out how to do it. That might be a good idea for TLC, you know? M: What do you think about K-12, preschools, kids - (S: Kids that age getting - ?) S: I think it's important tool, and the more exposure you have to good tools, the better. But I think that no matter what age, you should emphasize learning to play the piano over learning to play the stereo. My first computer was a PET; I don't know if you ever heard of - (M: Commodore PET?) Yeah, it was a PET, and I had a little tape deck. You know, I didn't think it was any kind of great big deal. We played around with that in school, we wrote little programs. It was fun! Fantastic. I got a VIC-20 soon after and then I stopped using computers for ten or fifteen years. But I think that early exposure predisposed me to jumping in, just saying, "Oh yeah, I know how to use this program! No problem!" (laugh) So yeah, I think early exposure is definitely a good thing. (M and S talk about Commodore computers) M: Yeah, that's a program that's been proposed. (S: Giving all the students - ) And there was recently a full-page ad in the _New York Times_, that seemed like it was against that - no computers in school - but it was really like, "What kind of assumptions are being made, are the computers just going to sit there and gather dust - " S: Yeah, well that's exactly what happened where I taught. There was a - when I was a high school teacher, there was a room that had a network of 35 computers, and at the time I was just a rookie teacher - well, still am - a more rookie teacher (laugh) - and so I was given the worst schedule on earth. I would go from one side of the school to another to another to another to another, every period. So, every 45 minutes, I was walking a half-mile to the other classrooms, carrying 25 books, plus graded papers, plus this and that, and it was impossible. So I saw - every day I walked past this room, with 35 computers in it, just completely empty. It was locked! So I went to the vice-principal, I said, "You know that room? You think I could use that?" and she said, "Oh...! You don't want to use that! That's the computer room. Oh, what a nightmare! Don't even get involved with that!" And I said, "Oh no, I want to get involved with that; I need a single room," and she said, "Okay, but I'm telling you, just take the keyboards _off_." That's what she said, just take the keyboards right off, so they don't mess around with them. I went in there and I saw why - every computer had at least 2 or 3 viruses, none of them worked, the network was down, the printers didn't work. So I spent Christmas break fixing the thing up and got it running. M: So they had no one to actually take care of the - S: No, they just had computers. They just thought, "Well, they're done. They're installed." M: What you said just made me think of how you're going into the professional arena (S: yeah.) - what links to the UT, or educational community would benefit you, or other professionals - (S: Oh! I think people) like, if you felt like doing the work that you're doing at Scient was limiting to you somehow (S: You know - ) how would links to UT enrich - (S: There are - There is definitely some synergy that could be created between private industry and public) like, salons, studios - S: Because there are two reasons why that would work. Well, on the one hand, people in academia - the students, the professors, what have you, have a sort of different perspective coming from the classroom - slightly more pragmatic, maybe. And that's a good perspective, sometimes, and also students probably would like to see (side ended) S: ...expected of me. That my bonus was based on whether I taught and learned. And I thought, "You're talking to the right guy - I got that bonus made!" So, I think that if a company thought that - Like, I know that Scient - I went to Scient and said, "There's a class, and they're presenting their final projects on this topic, and it relates to something that we do all the time, but these new ideas - " I'm sure they would love to send people over there, to get these new ideas, because, how else do you get new ideas, except from other people? Yeah, that would be neat - I think that it's an excellent idea - especially because of where, physically where the school is. It's become a total hotbed of industry. So yeah, definitely take advantage of the locale. And maybe set up - if you set up field trips - you know, you could visit this office or that office, this office, and then set up also, "reverse" field-trips, where they come to your place, and they see the work that you're doing - like, you know, having people come to final exhibitions, or to discussions, presentations, or panels. Panels would be great, too. Oh! You know, I'd really look at the way the architecture school works. Or, typical architecture methods; becuase, one of the things that architeccture schools do, is they usually have a series of evening lectures by guest professionals who are working - sometimes in the city, but sometimes from outside - they'll fly them in - they'll have a fund to fly them in. If you schedule them in the evenings, then students, as well as local professionals can come and take part in the discussion or the lecture. And that would be a great idea - if you could get - little mini - like say, once a month - the last Thursday of every month, you'd have a guest lecturer. You'd need to write a grant proposal to get funding for this (laugh). But I think it'd be easy. Yeah, get funding for guest lecturers from local and from national, hopefully nationally prominent lecturers, would be fantastic! And maybe sponser a conference - you know, a two or three day conference that would relate. That's pretty - that's a lot of work. A guest lecture series is probably easier. M: Well, the CWRL is really not too old, (S: yeah) and they're already having - they've just had their 3rd annual colloquium and it was 3 days long, about - plenty of guests, jurors - S: Yeah, I went to - What's his name - Jonathan Hollahan? Yeah - Hollahan from UC-Davis? No, UC-Santa Barbara. He's the guy who wrote PAD++ I think. (M: exactly.) yeah. I really enjoyed that keynote, that was excellent. (M: it's cool stuff) Yeah! It is! (M: (garbled)) You know what, what about getting professors from different fields collaborating? Wouldn't it be cool if you had a class, where you had like, somebody from transmedia like Bogden Prazinsky, alongside say, Alex Clugy, uber-JAVA programmer; and you know, Prazinsky could be teaching what he teaches, and Alex Clugy could be teaching, you know, how to do these things in JAVA. I don't know, I think there'd be potential for - (M: Alex -) Alex Clugy, he's in CIT. I'm just saying - a technologist, and an artist, together - I think there'd be a lot of potential for that. But it's tough teaching together. Very tough. Not easy. Because when you're solo, you don't have to worry about interrupting yourself (laugh). When you have two people in the room, you have to worry about interruptions, things like that. (M: That's classes on a semester basis -) S: I don't know, it's hard to encourage that. I know the University is interested in encouraging cross-disciplinary collaboration, because I've heard that ever since I've been here, and there's probably grant money somewhere (laugh), that would encourage that cross-disciplinary work. M: What kind of research that would not necessarily be limited to the semester teaching schedule, would be cross-disciplinary research - S: Well, what about having a project that's required - like a project that would be completed over the summer, or something like that, that you would do on your own - is that what you mean? M: Well I don't think it's necessarily that, but on the graduate level, the students aren't so limited by finishing a course in a semester. (S: yeah) Or even, professionals working with somebody from the art department and somebody from the English department, then somebody from CIT, all working on some project (S: ahh..) with people coming in and out of this - S: Ahhh...! Do you know I actually proposed that? I actually proposed almost the same thing, about two years ago. There was a bunch of money from, I don't know, Intel, or Microsoft, like, jillions. And they're asking for, "How do we spend this?" and the guidelines were: it had to relate to technology, and the use of a classroom. I proposed setting up teams of people from engineering, science, art, humanities; getting them to collaborate on creating materials, or resources that could be used as part of teaching a regular course. But that's not I think what you're saying; you're talking about having students collaborate? You're talking about an extra semester? M: Something we can use for something like a studio, that would have people come in and do their work, do their research, with others when they needed to - (S: ah, yeah) It'd be almost like the project would be constantly changing, (S: ah, I think I know what you're talking about) but the place would be the same S: That's very crucial. Yes, you need a place, you need to have a center. You're right. You need to have a place where people gather together in proximity. That's really crucial. And, I would say that should goal number one. If you get a place! No matter how crappy, but just a place that belongs to the TLC, and then create something like an architecture studio there, where people have - a little area there that's yours. And, everyone will go there together, and they'll work on their projects, and they'll learn all kinds of things even without trying, just be overhearing - "Hey, how do you do that? What is that about?" You know, and then there's all that interaction that takes place at 2 a.m. arguing about different ideas that were discussed yesterday, or something like that. Yeah, I think that's crucial. (M: with a lounge...) Yeah! A lounge would be good, a room where people could work together, I think it'd be really terrific. Oh yeah, I'd be totally into that. If I were a student, I'd just be like that. You know, that's the thing that this school lacks. Looked at as a whole, it has fantastic resources. Physical resources are really good; there are some of the top professors in many many fields are here. And, where it lacks, where it falls apart, is that there's no center. There's no center - either an intellectual center or a social center. Where people gather and discuss ideas - there's no community. People live ten miles away; they drive alone in their cars with the AC on. They park in underground lots. They walk alone to class; they sit, they don't interact, and then they walk back to their cars and they drive ten miles, twenty miles; they get out, and they eat alone, and they read their books alone. And it's incredibly lonely. And that's just not how humans were meant to live and learn. And, I mean, I was struck by that because I came from a school where you could never be alone (laugh). I mean it was just - you had to go to the steam tunnels to be alone. (M: Wake forest? Yale?) No, I went to Yale, as an undergrad, and I mean, you just couldn't be alone. You had roommates, you had hallmates, you had suitemates, you had entry-way- mates, you had college-mates, you know. You were a part of a suite of rooms, and that suite of rooms was a part of a floor, and that floor was a part of an entry-way. You shared your bathroom with the floor! You shared your entry-way with everybody in that entry-way. And then, but the biggest group really was the college, which was about 200 people. So you had a 200-person unit. That was who you ate dinner with, breakfast with, everyday. And that was - that dining hall was the social and intellectual center of my whole experience. (M: were a lot of you doing some of the same academic work?) No, no, totally different. They were not necessarily classmates. My roommates were - there were physicists, or East Asian studies, or History, or Political Science, Economics, and so, you had all these cross-disciplinary ideas. And if you could duplicate some kind sense of social and intellectual community by having a space where people can come, and be, and interact with eachother, that would be a huge step ahead. M: I don't know if TLC will be focusing so much on "student life," or, that kind of thing - S: Well, you don't have to think of it as "student life," think of it as a place where they can - a studio, where they can work. I mean it's not necessarily a place where they can party, but it's a place where they can work. Like architecture studios. If you go over to, whatsit, Sage, no, Russel, oh, I can't remember the name - well, if you go over to the Architecture school and go up to the studio, you'll see that there's kind of a wild atmosphere - they're working, but they're also kind of blabbering, and, you know - interacting. (M: It's really hard to build something like that without a place.) Yeah, I think this is more than studying - like, if you want to study concepts and technique - form, and technique, together, you probably would benefit from a place where people gathered. Because technique is really - I think that technique is passed from person to person. If you don't have that proximity to other people who know technique, it's pretty tough to teach it yourself, and not as efficient. You can do it, people do it all the time, but I don't know if that's the best way. M: I think that was a big aspect of your class - S: yeah, I think the - obviously, you always learn more from your peers than you do from the teacher. And the more the teacher can facilitate the peer-to-peer learning, the better the teacher's doing. (M: some teachers are really afraid of that - ) Yeah, I know. They want to do all the talking. (M: letting go of that, you know, lecturing) Right, right, it is - I think that's true. They don't want to do that. (M: I think there's a fear with computers that the students - ) They know more than I do! Right! M: The inherent interest of the subject is in doubt, but they have to not worry so much if they don't know as much about computers. S: I would look at how architecture - the physical layout, or physical plans of architecture studios, and model it after that. From what I've seen, or heard about the way architecture is taught, seems like a good analogy for this interdisciplinary field, whatever it might be called (laugh). Technology, literacy, and Culture. Architecture's very interdisciplinary. It's partly engineering, you know, you have to know how much load that these materials can bear; stress, tortion and tension; it can be very technical, very scientific, very mathematical, but it's also aesthetic concerned, primary, and understanding design is not technical. And so architecture's a field that really binds those - the rational with the irrational. M: I've visited once, and I got that feel for what you're talking about. Do you think that this stuff ties into the way that undergrads - does using technology change the way a person gets a degree? S: Well, if the administration has its way, it certainly will, but not for the better, if you as me. The portal push is misguided and - yeah, it - I don't think that they consulted the people who will actually be using it, because it doesn't appear to have any of their interests in mind. And I know that it's sort of a last minute consideration - now they're thinking, "Oh maybe we should show it to a few students, and see what they think." (laugh) It's like, "Uh, is it too late?" It is, it's too late. Don't even show it to them. (laugh) Because they're not going to be able to change a thing. M: It's just like user testing for software - S: I know - they did it last (M: They did nothing like that) yeah, nothing. They hired a usability firm at like, hour eleven. And the firm said, "You know, you should have talked to us about six months ago. We're not sure what we can really do for you. But we're willing to bill the hell out of you." (laugh) Naw, they didn't say that (laugh). M: That effects the way students - people can already register for classes that way, but, it doesn't fundamentally change the way it's set up, still - we still have semester hours, for instance, and people grade the same way - like we were talking about OLRs - that sort of thing. S: yeah, I think that these information systems are gaining more and - they're more and more pervasive, more ubiquitous, and more powerful to make decisions, in effect. And if you don't have really skilled and intelligent people doing the design of those systems, and making mistakes, and - so yeah, there's an ethics of information systems, right? M: What would you say to the people who design technologies that we use? S: What would I say to them? I'd give them a list of books to read (laugh) Starting with _Design of Everyday Things_. (laugh) like, there were - you know, the online job - what do they call it - UTejas, I think it was called - (M: right, yeah) I mean it took like 20 hours - 20 hours to push all those radio boxes - "Do you know how to use a keyboard" Yes. "Do you know how to use a calculator" Yes. "Do you know to hold a pencil" Yes. "Can you get up on time" Yes! They're asking me these questions, like thousands of them! And then, you know, the jobs that I matched for were based on those questions, so I felt like I better answer them all. But it took me about - it took me three or four days of trying. And I did it over the space of two or three weeks, it got so frustrating. But a lot of people refuse to do it, and so, UT ends up losing. A lot of my friends, I tell them, "yeah, this is a good job, man, you should go for it-" and they'll say, "Oh, and fill out that webform? Forget it!" (M: you have to do it?) You have to do it. So, and then they realized, "OK, this is a terrible system." And then they instituted a two-tier system, one in which the "Professionals" can submit a resume', and all of the "low-status" (gestured quotations) people still have to fill out the hundred-thousand radio boxes, check boxes. Which to me is even worse. Why not just make it equal - bad for everyone. I'd rather have it bad for everyone than to have it - great for the "professionals" and then sucky for everyone else. Which it's making that distinction - but you know when I - they came and talked to me and Andrew about the system, because, we kind of pointed out how sucky it was (laugh) and they were like, "Oh, so you think there's an ethical component to this? Oh, what is that?" I - you know, "What does does ethics have to do with web design? No - nothing. Forget it - next problem." They didn't want to hear about it. They were totally nonplussed by it, by that aspect of their design. Because they haven't been trained to think in those terms. Same way that we had a certain student (who won't be named) who thought that we were wasting his time by reading Bill Joy's article about the Unabomber and - M: Well, like there's a disconnect between the - it's almost like an assumption that if technology works, then it's good. (S: yeah, it just needs to work. It doesn't matter what end it's serving, or how it works, it's just good enough, that's what you're doing) It's really transparent, but it's there. S: It's a superficial way of thinking. Writing code to spec, rather than setting a problem yourself. M: Do you think that a connection with the CS department - things of that kind - S: Sure, yeah! I think that the CS department should have a requirement - now that I have some experience with this aspect of computing, I would say that the CS department needs to have a single course that is a requirement for everyone that should be, the ethics of technology. And maybe that's a course for TLC. You could study the Unabomber manifesto, for example. And you could study other ethical reactions to technology - maybe, you know, the Luddites, and I'm sure there are many others that I don't know about. But reactions to technology that are based on ethical, political, objections. I think that would be a really fascinating class and would be extremely interesting to Computer Science Majors who - from what I can tell, have been trained to think that there is no such thing as an ethical aspect to computing. And, it would be a - you'd serving the overall good by teaching that class. And I think that seems like TLC's realm, to bridge that gap. Maybe that would be one of the more preliminary courses that could be taught. And it would a core course. I think it's a fascinating course myself. I would take it. M: I wonder if, in a way, it'd be something like in the way an English major would look at taking a required math class - (S: yeah, yeah) "Oh, what do I need math for? what do I need the ethics for?" S: "why do I need math for - right, what do I need the ethics of programming for?" But it's those things that you think you don't need that you really need! usually! (laugh) I mean, I can name three or four of my favorite classes, in college, were classes that I thought I really didn't need. And I was just pissed off that I had to take them. "I can't believe they are forcing me to take 14th century English poetry! This is crap! I don't want to do it!" And then I thought, OK, I have to do it - I sign up, and by like the third class, I tell all my friends, "Man, this is amazing! The Gawain poet! Did you know --?" (laugh) You know, and I'd just be going on and on about it. So, yeah, sometimes the things you really think you don't need, that's the thing you need the most. M: And that comes back to what you were saying in the very beginning about playing the stereo, or playing the piano (S: yeah, yeah.) Particularly like playing the piano, but it's still work - before doing the crafting, you have this - S: or in conjunction with learning technique, you might also want to think about some of the ramifications, or associated ideas or concerns. Like the ethics of computing, of technology. Yeah, I mean ethics, aesthetics, technique, and I guess, maybe more general than aesthetics would be form - those are all things to keep in mind. I would really recommend looking at the ACG offerings. I didn't know about UCSD - Also, Stanford has a program at the graduate level, which I think, is called something like - it's basically about - I can't remember the title, but, it relates to speed, and futurism, and modernism, as themes that shaped the 20th century. I just remember taking a look at the course listings, and thinking, "Oh, that's really interesting!" Some of them were technology - like literature and technology courses, and that might might be - there might be a lot of good ideas there. That was in the graduate school of -- humanities? I don't know. Yeah, do a survey of what else is out there, and I think that will sprout all kinds of ideas, and people to talk to. I mean, if this were a website, that's what you'd begin to do - brainstorm, and then you do a survey of who's already done it, (M: I've kind thought of it as building the soil and you don't really know what'll grow out of it) right! right! Do a survey - what's already out there, and see how they're good, and how they're - where they're lacking, and then take what's good, and add what they're looking, so that you become the "Best of" everything that's out there. And then, start to structure it, into beginning, middle, end, and try to develop those cross-listings with Art, American Studies, Sciences, Engineering; try to get them into thinking about you cross-listing with them, too. So that the Computer Science guys will get ethics - (laugh) M: Well, I'd be pretty interested in hearing what you'd have to say after after a couple months at Scient (S: Oh yeah (laugh)). What your perspective having - (S: I'm curious to know myself. (laugh)) What are some things - because that's one of the glaring absences - there's this huge (S: You need to develop connections with the private sector, yes.) It doesn't need to be (S: right, right.) But it's right in the middle of - S: It's right there, yeah. I mean, you know, UT has a impressive reputation at, you know - companies want to - they want to know what's going on! Cos I think they - if you look at most of the really radical advances the last, you know, 5, 10 years, they all came from universities. Microsoft didn't invent - jack, basically. I mean, they didn't invent the browser. They didn't - you know, it's all university projects. Almost, until '97 or so, '96, it's all public stuff. And, e-commerce - (M: Wasn't GUI Xerox?) That was Xerox, you're right. But a lot of the more recent stuff - (M: They probably had some people from the UC System - ) Yeah, same principle. Yeah, maybe even have visiting professorships of some sort. You know, like, people who are working might enjoy taking a sabbatical. Like, I know that my employer gives me a sabbatical (M: yeah.) after I've been there three years, and then after I've been there for five years. (M: And that happens with schools all the time.) Yeah. So, I wouldn't be surprised if people would be interested in spending their sabbatical teaching. Like, a one-semester deal. I think a lot of people would be into it. That might be a good way to bring sort of, new blood in. M: Yes! Well, I've taken a lot of your time - S: Yeah, I've got to get back, and, I've got some good-bye e-mails to send.
|
|