Viewing page 25 of 35

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

25

information so loudly that there would be no place for the response of the viewer. We dealt with the importance of the conversational tone, and the interactional mode in graphics. Each did her own solution, her own piece, and what was shared was time and space; the values and form were a result of interaction between all member of the class.

The projet-oriented class, as Sheila de Bretteville described it,  came out of the realization during the 1960's that students were entirely dissatisfied with their isolation from any real life situation during their studies and that they were in fact eager to locate real problems in the world and figure out solutions for them. Because in the project-oriented class students are not told how to do it, but rather learn by doing it themselves, they often fail to realize that they have learned in the process.
A positive [[strikethrough]] good [[/strikethrough]] aspect of the project-oriented class is that "the belief that you have to know everything is shaken, when your [[strikethrough]] are [[/strikethrough]] focus is [[strikethrough]] invested in [[/strikethrough]] the project, and you learn what you need to by doing it the project. That in itself is a powerful thing to learn; learning from others in the group, including the authority, decentralizes authority and knowledge. In an all female group, the project-oriented class resulted in a much more exhuberant participation compared to the male/female group (at Cal Arts). In the latter we tended to find more defined jobs for each, whereas in the all female context, we worked more closely together, and often women changed jobs. This was good, on the one hand, though it also caused confusion about individual responsibility, authorship and identity."13

The learning about feminist theory took place in The Issues Class. This class was also a training ground for leadership. Women