I apologize for the rambling. I have an open house to prepare for tonight, and the discussion post on short notice….

I loved this web quest. The interdisciplinary nature of these questions really speaks to one of the paths of art making that fascinates me deeply. These resources raise questions that are beyond the Pinterest teacher boards for “iPads in the art room,” or the debate (important in a different way) on how to deal with cell phone use in the classroom. Looking at some of these stories, which are not about art making, but about future making, sheds light on the real world problems and possibilities that we are facing with advances in technology. 

The more artistic exploration of these issues explored by artists like Ron Muek, who cross the uncanny valley and take the idea of the wax museum to another level. The aesthetic possibilities for AI are here. What kinds of emotions does that create? Tim Hawkinson’s art is almost like Future Fluxux. I’ve always loved his self portrait, which uses the information from the black and white TV to control his facial movements. Giving up control is something that Sterlac does with many pieces, like his most recent piece Re-Wired/Re-Mixed, where different senses are controlled via internet control from people around the world. Conceptually, how is technology making life easier? How are we controlling it, or is it controlling us? What are we losing or gaining through technological advancement? How does it help or hurt the personal connections we experience? How does it help or hurt us learn and grow?

I’ve recently discovered a very clever podcast called, “Robot or Not,” which looks a variety of things, from the hosts of the new show Westworld, to  Siri, to the band Daft Punk and determines if they are a robot, or not. I also heard on the radio this week that Carnegie Mellon (my crush school) just received $10,000,000 to explore the ethics of artificial intelligence. In the NPR article they quote Asimov’s three laws of robotics from the story “Runaround.”

Law One: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Law Two: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Law Three: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I could keep listing amazing examples of how pop culture and science fiction reference the tension between technological advancement and the destruction it leads to, but I am a big Science Fiction Nerd, so I better stop now.

My job at Iowa BIG is unique because each project is connected to the real world and is interdisciplinary. I have one class who are working on designing assistive technology devices for the elderly with 3D printers. Aimee Mullins TED talk is very relevant to this group’s task. With that group, their community partner has recently bowed out, so I’ve challenged the class to think about the project more conceptually. Aimee’s comment on augmentation is inspiring.

I come from a sculpture background, and have been learning about the world of CNC machines, 3D printers and I’ve been, reluctantly at times, drug into the world of graphic design. My goal this year is to learn some basic coding. I took a class in Java in college and absolutely hated it, but if I have a reason and goal attached to learning it becomes less grueling. I also want to play with electronics. My point is that as teachers, we should be showing students for possibilities of their future. Contemporary art is often interdisciplinary, social justice inspired, and created to initiate change. If I can find it in myself to challenge myself and learn new skills that can help students connect with the educational possibilities, then I’m not only current in employable technical skills, but I may be helping inspire future science fiction teacher!