Excerpt from the title: > A 1969 Experiment in a Locked Room Changed Art History And some quotes from the article: > The project doesn’t have much of a legacy > [...] it may well have inspired shifts in art education and art-making. > It’s unlikely that Locked Room had an impact on larger shifts in art education Well what is it? Did the experiment have any lasting influence, or did it not? The article is all over the…
For instance, just trying out a quick recollection of the thing from memory, I have:
"Teachers, upset with fixed pedagogy, decided to run a performance art project on students which they called the Locked Room. Students would show up to class at 1000 and leave at 1630, allowed to leave only for tools. The content of the room would be varied and sometimes students would show up only to find their stuff moved around. Some students didn't like this, and some remember it as having been a bonding experience. Eventually that class was split into streams with one being traditional, something that a filmmaker called Tony Hill took. It overall didn't have much impact. They did have outdoor sections, one of which had students blindfolded or something."
Reminds me of a comment on HN which I saw where someone said "If I were to start a class on X I would first tell students 'X is the most important thing you will learn'" and my first thought was that students would instantly /dev/null that because it's like a telomere for knowledge. A signal that information is about to follow but that the signal itself is not meant to be recorded. So no student would conclude that X was the most important thing they would learn. But all students would have exited alternate thoughtstreams and the length of that sentence gives them time to sync to the lecturer.
I'm sure linguists have some obvious term for these header/footer bookends. Sometimes you get a long article in The Atlantic and it's almost all header/footer and you suddenly notice but otherwise you just bite through the bun to the meat without even noticing.