Art as Agent: A Posthumanist Musing over Teaching and Learning Music

Abstract Agency, according to posthumanist theories, is not a trait possessed only by human beings. All things, beings, and concepts bring drive and desire to an event. A pencil or a piece of music will in other words do something in their involvement with other agents. While this at first glance may seem far-fetched, any artist or musician will recognize that creating with tools is a negotiation with the tool or that playing a piece of music is a negotiation with the piece. This negotiation can feel like a battle of wills between the artist, the tool, and the material or between the musician, the instrument, and the work of music—to pick two examples. A classic model of what constitutes education is the relational triangle from the German Didaktik where education is constituted through the relations between a teacher, a learner, and some agreed-upon content. This article explores what happens to a view of education in the arts when all three participants in this triangle are considered active participants with agency. We muse over issues we have encountered in music teaching and learning and attempt to make sense of these from a posthumanist perspective. The aim being to help ourselves and the reader to make sense of what a posthumanist perspective might imply for music education. We explore the implications of viewing art as an active participant in teaching and learning. We argue that when we view art as an agent, we open ourselves up to new possibilities for education. We recognize that art is not simply a passive object to be consumed but is rather an active participant in our learning and development. We also invite an artificial intelligence into the discussion so that it is not only humans with agency who get a voice. The article will be a contribution to knowledge about teaching the arts when we acknowledge that planning a learning outcome is futile and that everyone and everything involved in the educational process affect each other. In accordance with the posthumanist apprehension that there will always be different possible outcomes to any event, the article ends with a diffractive conclusion by all three writers simultaneously.