Every year, each professor invites a guest to give a lecture. One professor organized an online lecture by Claire Bishop, where there were 50 students and a public audience of 1000. (Note: There was also a lecture for internal students only.) He reasoned that making the lecture public "would be a good promotion of this faculty.) This is not a safe place for students to learn. Is it a place for a promotion? Really?
Of course, the radicalism of Bishop is nothing compared to the 'radicalism' of the professor. (Her criticism of research-based art was very interesting.)
The professor who I regarded also invited guests every week in June. Topics are not directly related to each other. There’s no discussion, just Q and A only. Well, this whole lecture seemed to me that the teacher was putting on a show of connections for the students, rather than allowing them to learn systematically.
Learning doesn't always have to be systematic, even more so in graduate school, but even so, there seems to be no intention or system there to develop students' projects. I've been working here for three months now and I don't know anything about each students’ project except for the one I'm talking to directly.
The topics were too risky to touch in a two-hour lecture and Q and A. They were Black Lives Matter and Afro-futurism, gender studies, and so on.
I felt so bad for the mostly Techno Music - Black Lives Matter lecture, but I would like to write about that after a few days. Anyways, I told my doubt to the professor, then he said “Students know incredibly little about anything. All I can do is cover a reasonable number of topics that seem to be relevant, package the students well, and get them jobs.”
We are an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.