For some reason I was never interested in becoming a teacher, the thought of building up a specific deep knowledge that I could pass on to someone else, never crossed my mind.

Of course I experienced myself the wonders of good inspiring teachers, and they are for me like pillars in this many architectures made for learning that are schools, festivals, communities and at large, the world.

I think of learning as an unescapable destiny (or curse), that is happening all the time, whether you want it or not. We observe, compare, we're attracted to something - or not, we're pushed, pulled, touched. We discuss, we imitate, we ride waves of enthusiasm for a while, we crush.

That's why I'm not so much interested in direct transmission of knowledge, but rather in looking at the architecture of how learning happens.  When I think of teachers I first think of people, but places are teachers too, objects can be teachers. If you would encounter an object you've never seen, you'll eventually find a use to it - even if it wouldn't be the use the object was initially designed for.

So, maybe I would like to think of teachers as lost travelers that step into unknown worlds (contexts). They are the kind of travelers that keep a journal, or at least have a notebook, as they try to figure out how the place works. And as they start to inhabit  and interpret that world, they build new places. I'm not sure if they know better than the others, the only difference might be that they take the risk to make an interpretation, to test it, to make it available.

Anyway, romantic images of lost teachers aside. TTT, with its loose coexistence of different approach to teaching, made clear my interest in context-derived learning.

How did I learn from the specific context of TTT?

Basic architecture:

10 participants - 1 week - a personal research to be carried on - a 2h meeting everyday with the whole group.

This kind of architecture does not allow to think together about education at large or in depth, it proposes instead to focus on individual interests and practices, which can then be shared in these 2h meetings.

There was never time in these meetings to really discuss what the others were doing, but you would get an idea of the projects and a rather clear understanding of each other's position towards education.

This kind of 'architecture' put me in the situation of observing and comparing the different proposals and the different positions, rather than digging in and getting involved with a specific one.  And that's the level on which my learning process happened.

I started to compare and differentiate, which brought me even further away from the role (or person ) of 'teacher'. I became curious about what the 'students' already know, as in the context of Impulstanz they largely outnumber the teachers. I gathered written scores of practices that students (and teachers) do and find relevant. In other words, what they would like to teach the teachers.

And that brought me back to a practice I had started in the summer, Fake Therapy, which met Jennifer's Fake Art Therapy!

I was very important for me, as this shared interest produced one of these small waves that pushed me to realize very quickly a first version of the Fake Therapy Cards.

And now, with some months of distance, this deck of cards has become my teacher!

Since TTT I kept using the cards, in a tarot-like manner, when giving Fake Therapy to people.  It proved to be a very effective tool for learning, as the randomness that the cards introduce in the therapy does not allow me to come to quick solutions or understanding of how/what the 'Fake Therapy' should be. The instructions written in the cards are growing and changing, while they keep me in a state of not knowing what I'm doing.... which is the principle n°1 of Fake Therapy.

«« back