Prior to the conference a Facebook page was established to allow attendees to post ideas for discussion (http://www.facebook.com/events/266966853375459). Posts indicated an interest in discussion about current conceptual work including virtual identities, performative aspects of code and the boundaries between New Media Art and entertainment. Working with new platforms such as game engines, augmented reality and art apps was another interest. Other suggestions were visualization as art and new media pedagogical concerns. The variety of posts indicated the interest for conversations among artists and theoreticians.

“The NMC unconference gathering was a great opportunity to meet like-minded collaborators from the arts practice community connected to CAA. I really enjoyed learning about how people think about and organize their projects, especially those that involve collaboration across disciplines. I came away with some ideas about how to make my work better, as well as with tips on whose work I should be getting to know further.”

Victoria Szabo

The format that evolved was the entire group discussing a variety of themes of common interest, generally centered around practice-based pedagogy in code studies, physical computing and location-based media. Conversation was both theoretical and practical.

“I was enthralled by a fantastic conversation in which a number of members could share information and thoughts with one another on a wide variety of topics that otherwise might not have been able to happen.  I know personally, I learned about a few new artists, software tools, and venues – in addition to finding out more about some of the teaching practices that my colleagues are using in the field, especially with regard to coding in the context of art practice.” Paul Catanese

Another thread was the ways New Media Caucus could become a more effective force within and outside CAA. One idea was to raise the profile of the group at other conferences and events such as the Society fro Literature, Science, and the Arts (SLSA). The group brainstormed ways to get the word out and make events more accessible. Past events such as student blogging, conference focused projects such as the hotel room installation (2011) were reconsidered. We all agreed that the opening night event at the LA Center for Digital Art was a great success, and that we’d like to provide more opportunities for people to share their work.

“The New Media Caucus is a great forum for providing both overall and detailed views of circumstances, events, programs, technologies, projects, questions, and more…all happening within this rapidly and always changing field. It was very useful to come away with a snapshot of where we are now, and possible future directions.”

Paula Levine

Participants voiced an interest in creating opportunities for conversations through the year through virtual meetings and online forums.

The New Media Art Camp Unconference was a stimulating and informative session where participants discussed current issues related to research, art, and teaching.

“The New Media Caucus Unconference offered the opportunity to talk with other practitioners and professionals about a number of topics from research and studio questions to issues of teaching new media during a recession.  The panorama theater and the garden out back were perfect for meeting new people, catching up with old friends, and enjoying the LA sunshine.”

Victoria Bradbury

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Pia Myrvold presenting her work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

As with past years, members were asked to nominate themselves for a lottery that was held in the fall of 2011. From an initial group of over fifty submissions, the program included presentations by Nadav Assor, Margarita Benitez, Xtine Burrough, Michelle Graves, Reese Inman, Jeanne Jo, Chris Kallmyer, Robert Martin, Gail Rubini & Conrad Gleber, Brittany Ransom, Joyce Rudinsky & Victoria Szabo, Jesse Seay, Kris Schomaker, Daniel Tankersley, Marc Tasman, Gordon Winiemko and Chi-wang Yang. In addition, LACDA had already scheduled a solo exhibition by Pia Myrvold, a Norwegian artist (and NMC member since 2005) who has been working in a highly interdisciplinary manner with various materials including painting, media, performance, clothing and textiles for over twenty years. Therefore, to complete the lineup, Myrvold was invited to deliver the opening presentation. With the entire LACDA space filled with her paintings and the audience sitting within and surrounded by one of her large-scale media installations, Myrvold captivated the audience with a discussion of her work – an impressive launch for the evening.

A true reflection of the NMC Membership, the group of presenting artists is not easily summarized. Emerging and established artists within academia, as well as practicing artists independent of institutions, presented alongside graduate students and faculty (full-time, part-time, tenure-track, tenured).  Some presenting artists joined the NMC recently, some within the last few years, and others with a history of service to the organization that rooted in its beginnings ten years ago; there were officers, board members, and individual members. This cross-section of members revealed an expansive range of working methods, varied conceptualizations of new media (as material, process, environment, language, etc.) and diverse orientations such as performance, fashion, fine art, photography, the intersection of art & science, design and engineering.  But perhaps you already know this – because this is a real-world snap-shot of the field of artists practicing new media today.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Michelle Graves presenting her work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

It was invigorating to learn about the work of graduate students studying new media, including Jeanne Jo, a PhD Student in the Media Arts and Practice Program at the University of Southern California who delivered a presentation outlining an expansive number of her artworks including my first punch to the face and Roulette – challenging and provocative works that use video as a site for performance. Or consider the work of Michelle Graves, an MFA Candidate in the Interdisciplinary Arts Department at Columbia College, Chicago, who focused on a detailed discussion of her forthcoming thesis project transgression through your breath, describing both the conceptual and technical underpinnings of this lyrical interactive artwork in which the breath of participants activates the space of her installation. A compelling feature of the NMC Showcase is the interspersion of presentations by artists emerging into the field presented alongside those with established careers. For example, among the presentations of the evening, curator, professor and artist Robert Martin presented excerpts from a exhibition he curated entitled 15 Second of Fame, in which he invited artists to create work that “explores the potential of using the smart phone as a tool for creating and viewing fine art, digital photography, video and music” that was subsequently exhibited at the Luckman Gallery of the California State University at Los Angeles. Later in the evening, a co-presentation by Conrad Gleber and Gail Rubini, who are both board members of the NMC, addressed how they have collaborated for years on a number of conceptual, artistic, curatorial and collective projects that advance new media practice. Gleber and Rubini spoke about their work with Video in the Built Environment (v1b3) – an artists collective of which they are members – and some of the outcomes of that collective including the A Room to View exhibit during the 2011 CAA Conference in NYC, as well as the Scan2Go Catalogue produced in conjunction with the CAA Services to Artists Committee. In the latter, QR codes were published in the context of an exhibition catalog and distributed at CAA, linking to online artworks that intentionally change throughout the year, using new media’s inherent form shifting nature to defy the fixity of the catalogue and the printed artifact.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Chi-wang Yang presenting his work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

In addition to Jeanne Jo’s artwork, a significant number of presentations were delivered by artists investigating connections between new media and performance-oriented practice. For example, Chi-wang Yang gave an excellent presentation about a number of theatrical as well as musical and sonic productions in which new media plays an important role (as set piece, media element, instrument, etc.). He consistently supported his message that the use of media in his work is inherent, but that the degree to which it is high-tech is always dictated by concept – that there is a conceptual gravity that pulls towards lower-tech solutions when possible. Meanwhile, Kristine Schomaker’s presentation was delivered by Gracie Kendall – a Second-Life based persona that the artist created as a foil to her identity. From a pre-recorded virtual room, Gracie articulated the project in conceptual and practical terms, which included a real-world transformation of Schomaker into Gracie. Mark Tasman also focused on presenting a single project that stems from his own personal history, featuring an actual news report from the early 1980’s on a young Tasman depicting him as a “whiz kid” that he posted on Youtube, and which has elicited a dramatic range of reactions. From that vantage, Tasman went on to deliver a presentation, which became apparent was a performance, using the original video and the Youtube comments as a scripting device.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Xtine Borrough presenting her work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Gordon Winiemko presenting his work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Marc Tasman presenting his work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

Continuing a theme of artists creating works activated by the integration of new media and performance, Xtine Burrough discussed a number of her artworks including Mechanical Olympics, which leverages the potential of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to engage crowd-sourcing as a generator for video-based performance.  Her presentation included a candid outline of the some of the dimensions of success of this project (55 performances created via crowd sourcing), but also addressed the unanticipated issues surrounding the difficulties of spam interference within system, as well as the difficulty of motivating individuals to transition from viewer to participant (4500 unique visits, but only 200 votes on the largest poll). The audience was also treated to learn about the work of Chris Kallmyer, who presented a number of exceptional projects, including work he has created in conjunction with Machine Project, as well as projects he has created on his own.  Several of the artworks he presented examine sound as an ambulatory element to otherwise banal environments, or utilize custom electronics for sonic excavation or site-specific intervention, whereas others, such as the american lawn, and ways to cut it, presented at the Walker Art Center, included diverse elements such as a herd of amplified sheep grazing the grounds of the museum.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Daniel Tankersley presenting his work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

Third Annual New Media Caucus Showcase, Feb 2012.  Nadav Assor presenting his work during the NMC Showcase. © Paul Catanese.

The interdisciplinary nature of artists working with new media was quite apparent within many of the presentations.  For example, Gordon Winiemko presented a series of works created in collaboration with Jeff Foye under the name Jeff&Gordon.  These include video works that function almost as “still films” where social customs are exposed in uncomfortable and unsettling ways.  For example, in Temporarily Embarassed, what first appear as photographs of iconic surburban action (two men barbequing, mowing the lawn, washing the car, etc.) over time reveal themselves as extremely slowly performed but real time simulations of these events told on the doorsteps of foreclosed properties. Whereas Winiemko’s relationship with new media, photography and performance is intertwined, Reese Inman showed a number of works in which the moving image, software analysis, the gesture of drawing and painting are conceptually and technically fused. Inman’s video works, such as Discovery Channel Super Mario and Times Square Garden, utilize image resynthesis to construct moving landscapes that are at once symbolic and painterly, whereas her acrylic paintings and drawings formally reference the bitmap and the vector line respectively. The moving image was equally critical in the artwork of Nadav Assor, who presented several projects including the ongoing Strip Series – a large-scale video installation with a highly exaggerated horizontal format that presents a photographic landscape unfolding in time. Other artists were highly focused on sound and the sculptural. In Jesse Seay’s presentation of her artwork Mechanical Tide, we learned about a project in which the artist constructed a kinetic sculpture that generates acoustic sound through the gentle rolling motion of an enormous table covered with tiny steel ball bearings. Compare this to the work of Brittany Ransom, who showed her sculpture We Are All Pests, in which the sounds of termites sequestered within a her artwork are amplified as they consume human paper waste and subsequently create hydrogen gas. Contrast these with the practice of Margarita Benitez, who describes herself as a fashion technologist (working with fabric, custom software/soft computing, interaction, and CAD/CAM). Her projects include custom software for coded fashion as well as OSLOOM, an open-source Jaquard Loom, among others.  Or consider the work of Joyce Rudinsky and Victoria Szabo whose research inhabits a space of experiment at the intersection of art and science as presented through their immersive 3D interactive environment Psychasthenia 2, which “operates allegedly as a psychological diagnostic environment.”.In terms of crossovers of science, engineering and art, Daniel Tankersley’s fascinating artwork from 2010 entitled Riddle combined personal MRI data from his own body, including his brain, to create rapid prototyped 3D sculptures.

The incredibly diverse cross-section of artwork created by the membership presented during the NMC Showcase was most certainly one of the highlights of the conference. After the presentations, the evening transitioned into a reception in the gallery.  Special thanks to Mat Rappaport for his assistance during the evening, as well as Frank Tamez, Sarah Brin, Chi-wang Yang, Chris Kallmyer and all the other individuals who helped with cleanup of the space. We are especially grateful for the generosity of the Los Angeles Center for Digital Art and would particularly like to thank Rex Bruce for all his help in supporting the NMC Showcase and reception.

The digital dome (also known as fulldome) is not just another immersive high resolution environment; it requires the artist, or producer, to completely reshape the way he or she develops and produces content within a multidimensional space and immersive soundscape. It’s as if the brain needs to be trained to awaken synapse connections to activate parts of the mind that have yet to be activated. It is as complicated as it is fascinating, and that is what continues to hold my interest and drive my research and artistic work.

Mandella, 2006, Louva Hartwell, still image. Photo by Ethan Bach. (Used with permission.)

Since beginning my work in the digital dome just a year and a half ago, I have become completely engrossed in furthering the development of this amazing digital landscape.  I have a strong commitment to giving artists and producers access to this spherical theater. The primary ways I promote creating for the dome are: creating accessible documents online, working directly with artists and researching and developing user-friendly tools for creating interactive works for it.

This article is to share information about the digital dome, show examples of work that students at the Institute of American Indian Arts have created and provide you with some resources on how to get started as a dome artist.

What is the digital dome?

Historically, geodesic theaters have been used for exploring the stars in the planetarium. It has not been until recent years that these theaters have become capable of presenting digital media.

This innovation brings new life to the medium providing artists endless opportunities for creation. Exploration of the digital dome as a medium for fine arts expression has just begun.

Digital Dome @ IAIA in “stored” position. (Used with permission.)

The digital dome goes beyond a three-dimensional space and works beyond high resolution digital media. The digital dome immerses the viewer in high-resolution spherical imagery and surround sound, creating a physical and emotional response. The environment engulfs the full range of human vision and sound creating a unique immersive experience like none other for the viewer.

Recent advances in technology allow for multiple projectors to blend together one high resolution image on the spherical screen and an artist can now use consumer-grade equipment to create a piece with enough high resolution works to present in this format. (Dome theaters range from 1k up to 8k resolution with the majority falling in the 2k or 4k range.)

Not only do recent advances in technology allow for multiple projectors to blend together one high resolution image on the spherical screen, but an artist can now use consumer-grade equipment to create a work with enough high-resolution works to present in this format.

There are over 600 (non-portable) digital domes throughout the world most of which are housed in science centers. The majority of content being produced and shown is primarily science-based and primarily intended for a fourth-grade audience. This use is beginning to change. More artists are seeing the digital dome as an opportunity for exploration within this immersive environment.

Zuni, 2011, Aaron Natewa, still image. Photo by Ethan Bach, (Used with permission).

Here at the Institute of American Indian Arts, we have the world’s first fully articulating digital dome. Our dome is 24 feet wide by 12 feet high and hangs from the ceiling. This 8,000 pound structure is held up by four chains each connected to a motorized hoist. This one-of-a-kind construction allows us to place our dome at any angle from 0° to 90° and allows us to accurately create work for any dome in the world, as well as create unique works specifically for our movable dome.

What is a dome artist?

When I was first approached about directing the Digital Dome @ IAIA, I had no idea whether I would like creating works for the dome or if it would hold my interest. Turns out that the dome is so fascinating and dynamic that I have become rather obsessed with my work and it has changed the way I view immersive media work overall.

The fulldome offers a unique and challenging way to expand the boundaries of one’s own digital repertoire. I would not suggest any artist restrict their work to only creating in the fulldome environment. There simply are not enough opportunities at this time to sustain a career unless you want to do fulldome production for science centers. Creating dome-specific work is an expansive and challenging new way to conceive of multidimensional space, interactivity, and the human response.

Indigenous Students Working in the Dome

One of the biggest rewards from my work in the digital dome comes from working with the Indigenous students at the Institute of American Indian Arts. As a transgender person who was part of the Queer movement of the 1990’s and began making my own video work during that time, I know how important it is for an individual or people in an under-represented group to own their own images and to tell their own stories. Too often people who are part of the dominant group co-opt stories or identities within under-represented groups because they think it would make an interesting story. Often times, the story is represented inaccurately or in a way that is offensive to the under-represented group.

Beginning in spring 2011, students at the Institute of American Indian Arts began creating their own work for the digital dome through a four-week course, “Creating for the Dome.” In fall 2011, I taught “Digital Dome Production I,” a three-credit course where students produced their first dome shorts. Their work is significant not only in addressing the potential of the digital dome, but in the empowerment of Indigenous people working in new technology and taking ownership of their own unique voices. Below are three examples of the work to come out of this course.

IAIA student work samples

“Echo Canyon” by Bryan Akipa

Bryan Akipa is a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, a digital media artist, champion traditional dancer and an award-winning traditional Native American flute player. His performances and artwork inform others about his history and heritage. In “Echo Canyon,” Akipa captures his experience in the natural acoustic environment with original photography and original flute music to create a beautiful soothing landscape for the digital dome.

Echo Canyon, 2011, Bryan Akipa, still image. (Used with permission.)

NOTE FOR WEB EDITION:  INSERT VIDEO- FOR WEB

04- Bach_Akipa_01_Echo_Canyon_2011.mov

Echo Canyon, 2011, Bryan Akipa, movie, (Used with permission).

Akipa describes his experience as follows: “I hiked into the canyon with my quiver of flutes. The grandeur and intense hues of the canyon walls were awe-inspiring. I could feel the pure color from the steep rock faces, pouring into my eyes… I wanted to share the beauty of this place…”

With this project, Akipa and  I, along with the help of another student, Louva Hartwell, developed a new technique for navigating spherical panoramas using Apple’s Motion software. This work was inspired by xRez Studio’s (xrez.com) dome show “Crossing Worlds,” which uses high-resolution panoramic imagery integrated into 3D software.

“Nanabush” by Joseph “Seph” Turnipseed

Seph Turnipseed is an Indigenous Latin American media artist. His work re-purposes pop culture media and stories to create new concepts ultizing his sarcastic sense of humor. In Nanabush, Turnipseed animated various found images from the web to tell just one of the many Indigenous stories of Nanabush (or Nanabozho), a trickster character that is the main character in many creation stories, particularly in Objibwa culture. In this story, Nanabush creates the Milky Way.

Nanabush, 2008, Seph Turnipseed, still image. Photo by Ethan Bach. (Used with permission.)

Nanabush called together all the birds and animals so he could give them their duties.  He told the beaver to build dams, the bees to make honey and the woodpeckers to play forest music.  And so it went until all the animals had been given their duties.  However, Nanabush forgot to give anything to Turtle for while the animals were all together, Turtle was swimming far below the lake surface and could not hear.  When Turtle found out that he was forgotten, he sank beneath the surface of the lake to sulk.  As days passed, Turtle grew angrier. One day upon seeing a passing canoe, he shot to the surface, upset the canoe and ate the surprised Ojibwa. The Ojibwa was very tasty and Turtle continued attacking canoes for many days.  Nanabush, upon hearing the strange events, suspected Turtle was angry with him, and decided to stop the strange behavior by making turtle do something useful. Nanabush took a bow and an arrow and, seeing Turtle, fired at him. Turtle dove into the water and was narrowly missed.  When diving, Turtle flung his tail up in the air shooting great a spray of water high into the sky.  Nanabush, using his magic, turned the spray of water into thousands of stars, thereby creating the Milky Way. [1]

Turnipseed used Adobe After Effects to animate the still images. With this project, Turnipseed researched and developed new techniques to format rectangular flat-screen landscape images into dome images. Not an easy feat.

“Behind Glass Doors” by Jessie Bennett

Jessie Bennett is a Navajo new media artist who is a full-time mother and full-time student. In “Behind Glass Doors,” Bennett grapples with her own parenting style and how to teach her toddler to learn by interacting responsibly with his surroundings.

Behind Glass Doors, 2011, Jessie Bennett, still image, (Used with permission).

Bennett tackles the subject using live-action footage. In the world of dome production, live-action footage is, for the most part, almost completely avoided. With the limited resolution of video cameras and with low contrast ratios, live action tends to look washed out and lifeless on the dome. However, Bennett successfully created her dream sequence scene using live composited images of video including stop-motion animation.

Digital video cameras with higher resolution on the prosumer level will expand of the types of work that can be shown on the digital dome. In the near future there will be even greater improvements in technology that will assist in dome production. In the coming months, I will be blogging how to create HDR (High Dynamic Range) video. This technology will greatly facilitate the use of live action footage for the digital dome.

The future of the digital dome

The number of digital domes around the world has increased from 200 in 2006 to over 600 today (not including portable domes). [2] [3] Domes have begun to attain popularity in the art world at least as an immersive performance space. An example of  artistic use of the dome can be found on YouTube: http://youtu.be/tLBoAfqYR-M. Nicolas Jaar and collaborators perform a live DJ, VJ, and dance performance at MOMA’s PS1 on February 15, 2012. [4] Although portable domes maybe used for various purposes that are different than non-portable domes, they still reflect the artist’s desires to work within this type of environment. I will focus on non-portable domes and where they are headed in the future.

The Digital Dome @ IAIA hangs from the ceiling and is the world’s only fully articulating dome. Photo by Ethan Bach, (Used with permission).

In just a short period of time, I have witnessed the beginning of a shift in the way dome managers think about of their domes. There is an opening for artists and students in higher education and k-12 to begin to work in the science centers and utilize their fulldome facilities. I see a future of these spaces being open to workshops, art shows and live interactive public performances.

This immersive environment is just at the beginning of actualizing its potential as a medium for artistic expression. IAIA recently received a substantial grant to make the fulldome interactive by integrating sensors and developing custom-made software into the environment. The research is an extension of the University of New Mexico ARTS Lab’s (Art, Research, Technology & Science Laboratory) NSF funded research. Instead of the 6 projector fulldome running on 8 networked computers, it runs on one 12-core computer using two triple monitor adapters, high end graphics cards and custom-built software for warping and blending.

This research has already allowed for use of the dome as a gaming environment and we hope to open up the dome for more possibilities. We would like to create a dome video player that acts as a plug-in for multiple applications to include Max/MSP/Jitter, Unity game engine, Modul8, Vidvox and other interactive software applications. They would allow for interactive media artists to create in the dome without limitation.

Currently, one of the limitations in the dome is the process of slicing. Slicing is the process of taking an image sequence dome master and slicing each frame into 6 sections – one for each projector. Each individual computer assigned to a projector has just one piece of the entire image allowing for high resolution 30fps playback. This process of exporting a 4k image sequence and running through the slicing software, which could take days to process, is very tedious, to say the least. Even now, artists do not have to engage in this process as dome operators run all slicing for the dome, but a major problem with this process is that each dome has a different configuration, so every dome needs to be sliced separately. These differences make distribution very difficult. We hope to develop a system that can run a full 2k – 4k .mov file and not require slicing, which would save hours – even days – in the processing of programs for the dome.

How to Get Involved in Dome Work

If you are an artist interested in getting involved in creating work for the digital dome now is a great time to get started. It is my goal to bring the digital dome into the hands of fine artists and storytellers. Anyone can get started by taking a dome production course, soon be released in online workshops, apply to be an artist-in-residence or show work at one of the Digital Dome @ IAIA public art shows.

Steps for getting involved:

1. Get yourself to your local digital dome theater. Be aware that many planetariums still operate with older equipment. Go to the theater’s website to see if it runs any shows that use animation. To find a theater near you or to see the specifics of the equipment of a theater check out:  http://www.lochnessproductions.com/lfco/lfco.html
2. Follow my blog at  http://www.myiaiaonline.com/digitaldome/ . I list some great tips and tools and will continue to make this a useful resource for artists, educators and producers. You will also receive updates on courses, online workshops, artist-in-residence opportunities and open calls for dome art shows.
3. Don’t be afraid to experiment and submit to art shows even if you don’t have access to a dome.  There are ways to previsualize how your work will look on the dome. I have seen some very successful dome art created by artists who have never stepped foot in a dome.

References

1.  Baie D’Urfe’ Mohawk Wolf Cub Pack official Web Site, “How the Milky Way Sky Was Created”. [n.d.] http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/gorge/1066/513ojibwa.htm#HOW%20THE%20MILKY%20WAY%20WAS%20CREATED (accessed February 12, 2012)

2. Ed Lantz “Digital Domes and the Future of Large-Format Film,” LF Examiner, Vol. 9, No. 8, (Summer 2006).

3. Loch Ness Productions official Web Site, “Fulldome Theaters”. [n.d.]

http://www.lochnessproductions.com/lfco/lfco.html (accessed February 12, 2012)

4. “Nicolas Jaar +1,” 02/17/2012, video clip, http://youtu.be/tLBoAfqYR-M (accessed March 8, 2012)

Panel members: Joseph DeLappe, Robert Lawrence, Ceci Moss, Lee Montgomery and EI Janet Lin.

REPORT

Spontaneous Combustion Panel Chair Preston Poe, 2012, photo credit Paul Catanese.

Spontaneous Combustion! proved to be an exciting and energizing experience for the audience and participants. Panelists included Joseph DeLappe, Robert Lawrence, Ceci Moss, Lee Montgomery and EI Janet Lin.

The topics ranged from an inside view of critical practice in contemporary methodologies and interventions regarding political viewpoints on current culture, the identification of social space and new modalities of integrating social media, the historical application of internet art through anagrams and references between the physical and virtual, broadcast technology and open-source experimentation, and ultimately the role of misperception and hyper-reality in online streaming and live media.

The artists submitted their work as initial abstracts and then shared the following reports on their research, in this way integrating their own reflections on the experience.

Special thanks should be made to John Cates for his technical support, in addition to the administration and staff of the Velaslavasy Panorama, as well as Paul Catanese, who provided the still images that accompany this chair’s report.

Still Image from Joseph Delappe’s Chatroulette: Discipline and Punish, 2011, © Joseph Delappe.

HEAD SHOT!  Performative Interventions in Mixed Realities.

Joseph Delappe, Forector, Digital Media program, Department of Art, University of Nevada, Reno.

Through description and analysis Joseph DeLappe contextualized an approach to creative activities in computer games and online communities as locations for interventionist performances and/or sites for data extraction for the creation of artifacts.  DeLappe traced a history of performative agency in computer games starting in 1997 when he first engaged with creating abstract drawings while playing “first person shooters” with an Apple mouse reconfigured as a drawing tool.  Since then, he has engaged in a series of performances in online shooter games using the in game text chat that combine aspects of political protest, historical reenactment, and street theater.   DeLappe’s presentation focused on several of his most recent projects engaging in activist oriented performance and Internet based art projects.  dead-in-iraq (2006 – 2011) was an in-game protest/memorial taking place in America’s Army, the popular Defense Department funded recruiting first person shooter, wherein the names of fallen United States military are typed by the author into the game’s text messaging system.

Still image from Dead in Iraq, 2006, © Joseph Delappe.

DeLappe spoke about the ongoing project, http://www.iraqimemorial.org.  The work is an online call and exhibition of memorial concepts and projects dedicated to the many thousands of civilian casualties in the Iraq conflict.  He further described the creative reenactment of aspects from the life of Mahatma Gandhi in the online community.  These include, The Salt Satyagraha Online: Gandhi’s March to Dandi in Second Life, (2008) which involved the creative reenactment of Gandhi’s famous 240-mile, 1930 protest march in what was a mixed reality durational performance work involving a specially converted treadmill.

Joseph Delappe performing at Eyebeam, 2008,  © Joseph Delappe.

This performance was followed by a continuation of the reenactment entitled Twitter Torture, in which MGandhi was imprisoned 24/7 in a recreation of Gandhi’s jail cell where he was interred by the British following the Salt March.  While in prison in Second Life, MGandhi engaged in daily readings of the Bush era “torture memos,” word for word, in a three-tiered performance feeding the text chat from SL automatically to DeLappe’s Twitter and Facebook updates.

Graphite drawing by Joseph Delappe, 2007, © Joseph Delappe.

Further discussed were ongoing projects to engage contemporary shooters – including Medal of Honor and Call of Duty – both of which depict aspects of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.  They included new projects involving the extraction of 3D gaming based data and the construction of polygon sculptures of Taliban fighters and graphite drawings created from screen shots.  The latter works reflect an interest in depicting the slippage between computer-based war gaming and the battlefield artist as re-imagined for the age of simulation.  In presenting and discussing these works and others, DeLappe argued for the continued expansion of such online contexts as sites for transgressive, creative and political content.  As a performance artist operating in online gaming contexts, one is uniquely situated as an ontological explorer through the promulgation of political agency, critical mischief and hacktivist positioning.

Robert Lawrence presenting during the panel “Spontaneous Combustion!” 2012, Velaslavasay Theatre, photo credit Paul Catanese.

Any Here & Now Whenever: Projects, Tools and Practices for Hybrid Real/Virtual Investigations of the Real/Virtual Construction of Indentity…

or: Deploying Internet and Mobile Media to Interpret and Lampoon the Contradictions That Are We.

Robert Lawrence

Associate Professor; Coordinator of Electronic Media; School of Art and Art History; University of South Florida, Tampa.

The renaissance invented the individual.

Modern industrial culture prioritized and isolated him [sic].

Postmodernism fractured him/her.

Internet culture amplifies all these tendencies.

While reducing us to demographic market targets, the Web facilitates mass indulgence in perversely individual interests. The Internet makes ‘virtually’ ‘real’ an unlimited menu of identities for us to choose from. Most individuals using the Internet are living double, or extravagantly multiple, and likely contradictory virtual lives.

For 14 years Lawrence’s projects have offered hybrid constructions of physical elements and accompanying web components that contradict likely readings of the corresponding physical forms. Through this hybrid practice Lawrence examines the way we now construct identity fluidly across the real and virtual planes.

Lawrence’s 1998 work, The Way Things Grow, was the first exhibition to link each gallery object to a web page, which in turn linked to a geographic location. Later works Location Sequence and Beginning/Middle & End, innovatively initiated decades-long series of site-specific installations investigating the confluences of sitedness, personal and historical narratives, and lived and chronological time; all nuanced as an evolving critique of the culture-of-the-instantaneous that the Internet propagates.

His Tango Intervention series resensualizes public space through public dance actions while its web components reveal hidden histories and social issues at intervention locations. Tango Panopticon addresses video surveillance of public space, using Lawrence’s open source software Vupango to coordinate live simultaneous streams of video from worldwide actions. Requiring only cell phones and the free software, Vupango represents a significant step in the democratization of media.

Innovation in live streaming video from synchronous actions worldwide will continue in 2012 in Lawrence’s upcoming Horizon. Video from live actions in direct engagement of the actual horizon line will be added horizon to horizon on an ever-widening web page. Following this will be gallery and urban screen projections of HD footage edited from actions around the world.

www.rolawrence.com

www.tangointervention.org

Ceci Moss presenting during the panel “Spontaneous Combustion!” 2012,

Velaslavasay Theatre, photo credit  Paul Catanese.

Within the last 5 years, two terms have cropped up in discussion of contemporary internet-based art – “internet aware art” and “post-internet art.” The term “internet aware art” stems from an interview with artist Guthrie Lonergan conducted by curator Thomas Beard, published on Rhizome in March 2008. In the closing section of the interview, Beard asks Lonergan to elaborate his move toward “offline art.” Lonergan responded that he was researching “objects that aren’t objects” and characterized the new offline works as “Internet Aware Art.” Lonergan’s statement regarding “Internet Aware Art” can best be understood as works that depend on the internet for their transmission, and in some instances, reflect on that process itself, but do not need to reside completely within that environment, and often go offline. Unlike older internet-based works that could only be viewed and experienced online, these artworks are not predicated on their immateriality, but are seen as always having the potential to become material. The dispersed nature of many of these works also allows multiple forms of engagement, across a number of different contexts. One prime example is OMG Obelisk (2009) by the art group AIDS-3D. The work originally existed as a temporary installation, whose photo was then translated into a widely-blogged animated gif, which was then the basis for another, larger sculpture presented in the 2009 exhibition at the New Museum, “The Generational: Younger Than Jesus.” The other term – “post-internet” – was coined by Marisa Olson to describe her own work, and then became a central focus of the blog “Post Internet” by Gene McHugh.1 Artie Vierkant, in his essay “The Image Object Post Internet,” describes “post-internet” in the following way:

Post-Internet also serves as an important semantic distinction from the two historical artistic modes with which it is most often associated: New Media Art and Conceptualism. New Media is here denounced as a mode too narrowly focused on the specific workings of novel technologies, rather than a sincere exploration of cultural shifts in which that technology plays only a small role. It can therefore be seen as relying too heavily on the specific materiality of its media. Conceptualism (in theory if not practice) presumes a lack of attention to the physical substrate in favor of the methods of disseminating the artwork as idea, image, context, or instruction.

Post-Internet art instead exists somewhere between these two poles. Post-Internet objects and images are developed with concern to their particular materiality as well as their vast variety of methods of presentation and dissemination.

Graphic  Representation of Lee Montgomery’s Park, Park, Revolution, 2012, photo credit Paul Catanese.

Networks, Collaboration, and Experimentation

Lee Montgomery, Assistant Professor of Electronic Art in the Deptartment of Art and Art History at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Lee Montgomery presented his work as a collaborative process developed

with other artists, as well as his students at the University of New

Mexico.  Lee talked about his 8-year ongoing collaboration with the

Group, Neighborhood Public Radio (which he founded in 2004, and who were

featured in an article by Sarah Kanouse in a recent issue of CAA’s art

journal), and described performances like “Park, Park, Revolution” and

“Picnic Revolution” that involved remote students and artists in

collaborative participation.  For his discussion of the performance

“Radio Net Remix,” Lee presented a collaboration that was developed with

students in his “The Art of Transmission” class. “Radio Net Remix” used

readily available technologies to replicate and imitate the expensive

and relatively inaccessible NPR national network used by Max Neuhaus for

his original 1977 “Radio Net” piece.

Most recently, for “ABQ/OSLO Hole in Space,” students in Lee’s class were

paired with students at the Oslo National Academy of the Arts to create

an international link through Skype. This piece was modeled on the work

“Hole in Space” by Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz with influences

from Nam Jun Paik, specifically the video piece, “Global Groove.”

Students performed “ABQ/OSLO Hole in Space” with live improvised mixing

of YouTube videos selected by students at each institution that were

shared live via Skype. Skype streams from each institution were merged

into a single compressed and chaotic swarm of video which somewhat

surprisingly synchronized perfectly for about a minute in the middle

around the theme of domesticity.

9-Oslo_map

Graphic representation of ABQ/OSLO Hole in Space project by Lee Montgomery, 2012, © Lee Montgomery.

This piece and “Radio Net:Remix” both demonstrate how using freely available software allows performative and conceptual pieces from the past to be re-imagined and experimented with as a contrast to their original presentations where technical and financial access limited the conceptual and experimental  possibilities.  In his presentation of both “Radio Net:Remix” and  “ABQ/OSLO Hole in Space,” Lee pointed to the ways that the re-imagined  pieces were effected by and developed new possibilities through the greater access that we now have to tools that were relatively inaccessible and thus rarified in their earlier analog incarnations.

Ceci Moss, Robert Lawrence, and Janet Lin at Spontaneous Combustion! Panel, Velaslavasay Theatre, 2012, photo credit Paul Catanese.

CAA Spontaneous Combustion!

Ei Jane Janet Lin, Independent artist. Based in Chicago, Illinois.

Cam4 describes itself accurately as “Free Live Sex Webcams” and chat-space featuring amateur webcam pornography. Cam4 generates expectations of domestic spaces/locations, dim lighting and close-ups of bodies. By transgressing Cam4 community expectations, I perform confrontation, intervention and critique in my work Collaborations 1 – 6.

Janet Lin critiques and juxtaposes virtual and analog worlds, staging performances online to engage the Internet’s original purposes of communication and networking. Through supposedly actual realities and fabricated fantasies, I present ‘dualities’ of: reality and fantasy, masculinity and femininity, control and disruption, convention and transgression in the context of pornography.  Following Collaboration 4, my collaborator Miao Jiaxin and I started selling my assprints on eBay as suggested by a Cam4 viewer.  The wide spread re-posting of the eBay listing opens a critique on commodity fetish and valuation in Capitalist markets.  Incorporating the earliest mass-production technique of printmaking (“with my own ass”), my performance complicates both commodity and fetish. With its subversive qualities and consumer context, pornography is the best playground for such critique.

Collaboration 4, work in progress by Janet Lin, 2012, © Janet Lin.

As an artist who engages her audience in a participatory process, Lin questions  “critical distance.” Virtual and analog experiences are both experiences. Differences between these decrease every day.  We now live in a much more inclusive technological system of information exchange. This condition gives voice to individuals but also produces exclusivities.  It is almost impossible now to not be somehow involved online. Involvement has always been necessary to investigation and critique.  To maintain classical critical distance is neither possible nor practical.  Virtual reality is at times far more real than reality.

In her performances, Janet Lin weaves male gazes, complicated by socially-constructed gender roles. Performed, gazes come from voyeurs. Online, gazes are remote. In galleries, the audience’s gaze merges both, side by side. While reading live comments from Internet voyeurs, gallery art audiences rewatch gazes produced during performances and experiences interactions between performers, Internet users, and themselves.  Her performances also play with the expectations and limits of Cam4, often being falsely accused of violating the rules of Cam4. This tension between expectations, realities and performativity underscores complex human relationships and power exchanges in art and pornography.  Her performances are not only Collaborations between Jiaxin and herself, but also between the Cam4 users and ourselves. Meaning lies in the juxtaposition of interactions between performers and viewers, determined neither by the Cam4 alone or by us as artists, but rather by all of our human interactions.  It is, truly, humanity at its best.

Collaboration 3, “Two perspectives create a full picture of Janet Lin”, 2012, © Janet Lin.

“Code as Craft” Panel Presentation, Victoria Bradbury, speaking. (Used with permission.)

For many new media artists and educators, coding and teaching are mutually exclusive, ever-evolving crafts. Whether through computer languages or software, we are continually learning and employing new tools. While programming structures enable computers to form a large part of our lives, to most art students, the notion that the medium of code can give form to their work, is a new concept.  As a professor, I give students the confidence to approach computing in a new way. I ask them to think beyond the convenient veneer of daily social and academic computer use by drawing their attention to the limitations of pre-packaged software and the graphic user interface.

Here, I will mention ways that I introduce coding concepts in my introductory computer art classes and discuss a set of special courses that I created in the spring of 2011.  In these workshops, students explored the creation and implementation of custom software to make art.  With the objective of creating an interdisciplinary, large-scale collaborative work, students learned to embrace code as an expressive and craftable medium.

Code and craft are central to my own work, as I often use sculptural materials in tandem with electronics or coded interaction. These images are of my recent Electronic Ginseng project that incorporates sewn drawings, Arduino, and blown glass.

Electronic Ginseng, 2012, Victoria Bradbury, silk, thread, electronics, © Victoria Bradbury.

Growing up in the 1980’s with a COBOL coder parent, I didn’t perceive a difference between making with digital or physical materials.   I have always found the transition between the sewing machine and computer code to be a particularly fluent one in my studio. As a teacher, I strive to understand where my students fall on the timeline of digital progress and how this fits into their understanding of craft and new media.  While I have memories of computers before the graphic user interface (GUI), my earliest new media works were made on my family’s first GUI computer, the AppleIIGS (using Fantavision software).  For my current introductory art students who were born around 1993, code has been wholly hidden for their lifetime of computing.

On day one of my Intro to Computer Art course at Ball State University, I introduce the concept of “code as craft” by discussing the origin of computing as problem-solving through object.  Showing the class a woven rug, I discuss the ancestor of the modern computer, the Jacquard loom. Jacquard’s 1804 loom mechanized the weaving process, allowing designers to program patterns with punched cards that would “control [the] system automatically so that the loom in effect continually feeds itself with the information it needs to carry out the next row of weaving.” [1] Jacquard’s loom was a direct inspiration to Charles Babbage, credited as the father of the modern computer.  Babbage used Jacquard’s punch card concept in the design of his Analytical Engine; “the first calculating machine that was capable of being programmed.” [1]

My first Intro to Computer Art project continues to situate the computer as a visceral and performative medium not far removed from the art materials that the students have used before.  We begin the course by “live-scanning” objects on a moving scanner-bed.  This introduces students to the variability and chance inherent to performativity while a connection is made between physical objects and the final digital work.  As the semester continues, we move to projects in Photoshop, After Effects, and html/CSS (later in tandem with Dreamweaver).  This sequence stems from the need for art students in this required course to develop skills using the software models that have become ubiquitous in art and design.  Andrew Richardson, in his thesis, Truth to Material: Moving from Software to Programming Code as a New Material for Digital Design Practice, discusses the changes that software brought to the field of design. He emphasises the difference between artists using software packages verses programming to create custom works. Richardson writes, “The development of software as a core part of creative and cultural practice within a single computing environment dominated and unified the approach and process across the creative spectrum, and brought about massive changes to the field of design. Although not universally liked, the influence and ubiquity of [the] shift towards ‘cultural software’ cannot be underestimated, and the impact of software on culture in general and on graphic design in particular cannot be overemphasized.” [2]

Pre-packaged software mediates our work and translates our analog thoughts and creative actions into the limited range of possibilities offered by the interface. Software dictates what we do, where we click and how we create.  Richardson discusses designers at the onset of computing who were open to incorporating digital tools into their practice, but resisted the primacy of software, saying: “These designers actively involved themselves directly with the nature and material of digital technology by using programming as part of their practice.” [2]

To open students to new ways of approaching the computer as art, they should be taught to peek under the hood of their digital tools (or at least know there is a hood to peek under).  In an ideal future, computer programming will be taught in early education in tandem with native languages, but the idea that students will arrive in art programs as fluent coders is still far off.  Given this environment, as new media educators, we need to find ways to insert concepts of code into the curriculum. Once student artists learn the basics, they can expand their repertoire and skill sets to shift their practice with evolving semantics. Casey Reas, creator of the Processing language, has said, “Mastering programming takes many years of hard work, but understanding the basic principles of the medium is within everyone’s grasp.” [2]

Coding concepts can begin to enter the classroom in tandem with software. In an After Effects animation project I emphasize concepts of nesting and parenting.  In web art projects we hand-code html and CSS in a text editor, moving into software only when the students are comfortable with the idea that a website is nothing more than a series of files in folders.  Learning that rich interactive experiences can be created outside of the bounds of pre-packaged software gives the students the confidence to create without it. Reas’ Processing and other programming languages for artists, including openFrameworks, Arduino and MAX/MSP/Jitter, have made it more manageable to incorporate coding concepts into the classroom.

Metabellum students, 2011, © Metabellum.

There are current examples of undergraduate art programs where programming is central to the curriculum, but for many teaching in new media, the infrastructure to teach code in a full-semester course is not fully realized.  In the spring of 2011, my colleague Maura Jasper and I had the opportunity to create several one-credit elective workshops at Ball State that would allow the topics of performativity and code to be explored and practiced in some depth.  Jasper’s course was “Live Art: Action, Participation and the Everyday” and mine were titled “Video Live! and Collaborative Electronic Performance with Max/Msp/Jitter.” Our students were drawn from three areas—some from our “Introduction to Computer Art” courses, others were Jasper’s advanced video majors, and a few were PhD students in electronic music. In my workshops, students practiced programmatic structures and began to think of coding as a choreography of components. The project that developed became an immersive learning collaboration called Metabellum.

Metabellum evolved from a project that was originally developed with glass artist Mark Hursty to coalesce the mediums of video and inflatable sculpture and to mimic hot glass on a grand scale. To begin the collaboration at Ball State, I approached dance instructor Audra Sokol, who had been looking for ways to introduce working with electronic artists to her students.  Sokol invited two other dance faculty, Jenny Showalter and Susan Koper, a musician, Adam Crawley, and five student dancers into the project. In initial discussions we divided the piece into four sections of choreography. We discussed the shape of the air sculptures that each choreographer would use, built prototypes of the forms using plastic sheeting and sewed them in ripstop nylon fabric. The choreographers began to generate movement on the four themes while the coding workshops commenced.

Metabellum Ball Gym Studio, 2011, © Metabellum.

In dance, the liveness of bodies onstage creates variability in each iteration of a performance.  We wanted this same flux to be present in the code, so I chose to teach Max/Msp/Jitter as the tool to create the software. Jitter offers “a set of building blocks for creating programs… the user manipulates graphical symbols (called ‘objects’), and the embedded, hidden mathematical code moves with them… The user can immediately see… the results of a particular congregation of objects, and accept, reject or modify as appropriate.” [3] The building blocks of Jitter articulate concepts of programming including parenting, nesting, loops, objects and modularity.  It gave us the flexibility to program modules that could be edited as the movement was coded and the piece evolved.

In the workshop classroom, the Jitter platform was introduced and the students began building patches.  Two students were assigned to each of the four choreographic movements. Their approaches were varied; some used web-cams to create a recursive process projecting the dancers’ and audience’s images back on to the scene, some used open GL to generate live 3-D forms, some manipulated their patch using physical buttons and sliders, and others used live-processing on pre-recorded Quicktime videos. We kept the performance loosely scored and many elements wouldn’t be resolved until we were in the performance space.  This modular approach can be likened to object-oriented programming, which Alexander Galloway defines as a “series of simultaneously generated entities, with each entity possessing its own qualities and actions.” [4]  Alexander Richardson says, “Defining objects with their own behaviours which can act upon and interact with other objects… offers important and influential ways of thinking about and structuring code.” [2] And I would add to this, performance. Like the modularity of object-oriented programming, the structure of our project challenged each collaborator to resolve his or her part of the piece so that the elements could come together and still leave room for variability and chance.

Metabellum Ball Gym Studio, 2011, © Metabellum.

Metabellum was first performed on April 1, 2011, at Ball State’s KDS dance studio. We wanted the audience to identify the relationship between the liveness of the code and the liveness of the dance and inflatable forms. It was important to avoid the perception that the projections were pre-created stage effects or scenery. To make this obvious, the programmers were situated at a conspicuous table downstage.

The group worked on their collaboration over the course of six months.  In the early improvisations, as the choreographers built movement, the electronic artists, sculptor and musician reacted to the dance unilaterally. The interaction between the groups became more conversational as the modularity inherent to the piece allowed it to be presented in two venues outside of the university.

At Ball State, Metabellum’s one-hour format fell between a stage performance and an installation.  The second iteration was presented at Hallwalls Gallery Artists and Models in Buffalo, NY, in May, 2011. This version included two of the four choreographic sections and half of the electronic artists and dancers. The show was in a disused warehouse and the performance lasted for five hours.  This format allowed for a more improvisational mode than the four-part Indiana piece. The third performance was in October, 2011, when part of the group traveled to Brooklyn, NY, for the Triskelion Arts Dance Festival.  In Brooklyn we performed two of the four original sections on consecutive nights.  The small theater setting was different from the Indiana and Buffalo performances.  Here, the electronic artists sat directly on the stage instead of behind a table that separated their bodies and code from the dancers and audience. This difference was experienced as a more reciprocal mode between sound, movement, object, and image.

Metabellum Ball Gym Studio, 2011, © Metabellum.

In Buffalo, the impact that this code-meets-performance project would have on the students became clear. Because our university is away from a major city, most of the artwork students see is through documentation. Rarely do they get the chance to experience a live performance or installation in a museum or gallery. Despite our classroom efforts to expose them to contemporary practice, nothing can replace first-hand participation in a community of like-minded digital artists.  Buffalo’s Artists and Models put the students among professionals working in the medium of code. They participated in Punch Option 4, a mixed reality fighting game and performance by Timoth Scaffidi, Alice Alexandrescu, Kevin O’Keefe, and Marc Tomco. [5] They saw videos that emerged from custom Jitter patches by Jason Bernagozzi and Eric Souther, and many other programmatic, installation, and performance works. [6] [7] Experiencing these works and meeting the artists moved my students forward in their comprehension of the field and the medium. One student commented on what it was like to be surrounded by people who, in his words, “think and do exactly what I think about every single day.” He was validated in his aesthetic interests and goals in a way that could not happen in the classroom. The variability of the performances also challenged my students to set up, perform and break down their installation in a professional setting—honing the essential crafts of drills, gaff tape and firewire cables. Video major Kelsey Ebbert said, “I’ve been so lucky to be a part of three very unique interpretations of Metabellum; each involving a different set of challenges and possibilities for exploring new creative avenues. Travel, troubleshooting, creating and interacting have been just a few of both the stimulating and demanding aspects of this project.” [8]

Metabellum student Kelsey Ebbert, 2011, © Metabellum.

Those who participated in my workshops or took my introductory computer art class didn’t walk away as fluent programmers, but they did see what could be accomplished, artistically, with code.  Code as craft transformed their relationship to the digital medium and provided tools for them to continue learning.  As an artist and professor, I maintain that a more versatile and rewarding approach to computing lies beneath, behind, under, and around the façade of proprietary software in a domain where we engage with code itself.  The tools in new media may be constantly changing, but the basic concepts are established.  It’s not Jitter as craft, C++ as craft, Photoshop as craft or html as craft, but code as craft that challenges us to re-present and re-consider the range of media that inform our process.

References

1. Essinger, James. Jacquard’s Web: How a Hand-Loom Led to the Birth of the Information Age. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004).

2. Richardson, Andrew.“Truth to Material: Moving from Software to Programming Code as a New Material for Digital Design Practice” PhD thesis, (University of Sunderland, 2010).

3. Dixon, Steve, and Barry Smith. Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation. (Cambridge, MA: Leonardo, 2007).

4. Galloway, Alexander R. Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization, (Cambridge, MA: Leonardo, 2004).

5. Timothy Scaffidi’s official Web Site, “Punch Option 4,”

http://www.timothyscaffidi.com/collaborations/punch-option-4/ (accessed February 17, 2012).

6. ,” Jason Bernagozzi’s official Web Site “I Believe it is a Signal,” http://seeinginvideo.com/Believe.html (accessed February 17, 2012).

7. Eric Souther’s official website “Impermanence,” http://www.unseensignals.com/unseen/impermanence.html (accessed February 17, 2012).

8. Ebbert, Kelsey, 2011, e-mail message to author, (sent November 23, 2011).

“Code as Craft” Panel Presentation, Rachel Beth Egenhoefer, speaking. (Used with permission.)

Introduction

The rise of digital arts programs within academia has caused a dramatic growth in the number of artists who are learning how to program and write code. Within the digital arts, programming is most often taught through code samples, tutorials, modification and adaptation. But this practice can become problematic if it fails to address the complexity of locating intellectual property and authorship within code. Additionally, these pedagogical methods carry their own ideological biases and assumptions. Frequently, instructors are shocked when students turn in projects that are largely copied with slight modification, but isn’t this ostensibly what we often teach them to do? As a result, instructors rely on regulatory practices designed for natural language, like plagiarism, but this reliance creates its own difficulties as assumptions regarding governing these practices in natural languages exhibit certain failings when applied to non-natural, or computational, languages.

Within the humanities, there are numerous and highly-detailed methods for citation (MLA, Chicago, etc.), yet within programming, there is a lack of standardized citation practices beyond leaving comments. This lack raises the question, how should originality and intellectual property be located within computational languages? There has been ample dialogue surrounding appropriation and Fair Use of imagery, but again, code operates at a different semantic and cultural level than traditional artworks do. For code – what is original – how should authorship be defined and demarked, and what concepts fall under the auspices of Fair Use?

This paper seeks to ask questions and raise awareness surrounding the complexities behind using, teaching and learning code within artistic contexts. The scope of this paper includes theoretical perspectives on the differences between natural language and code, legal perspectives on Fair Use and Intellectual Property as it relates to both digital and analog code examples, and pedagogical perspectives on teaching computer programming in the digital arts. It is our hope that raising the awareness of these issues will be beneficial for both instructors and students.

The practice of concern is how we teach programming to digital art students. Within most digital art programs, students learn programming through adaptation. An instructor may teach the basic fundamental concepts, but then students are encouraged to take existing code, and extend, modify or “play” with it as a method of learning and creativity. The Processing application (which is commonly taught in digital arts programs today) encourages users to learn through creative exploration of their reference, code examples and tutorials: “Learning how to program with Processing involves exploring lots of code: running, altering, breaking, and enhancing it until you have reshaped it into something new.” (1) Creative exploration of programming is a hallmark of pedagogy within the digital arts, and this practice stands in contrast to traditional methods, as employed within computer science, of teaching programming from the ground up. Creative adaptation is encouraged, and a result, digital arts programs can often struggle more with issues of intellectual property

Teaching programming through adaptation comes with its own set of complexities and ideological implications. For example, if we teach students that it is acceptable to take and modify code while learning, at what point can we definitively say that this practice is no longer acceptable? We can agree that a student copying several dozen lines of code, changing some variables, and submitting it as their own work is unacceptable. No matter what ideological beliefs we espouse regarding copyright or copy-left, most agree that turning in someone else’s program as your own isn’t appropriate for a class where the goal is to learn how to program. But then when, and how, do we articulate the point at which adaptation of found code is no longer acceptable?

Natural Language vs. Computer Language

It may seem logical to look to rules regarding plagiarism for clarity, but it is important to understand that natural languages do not operate according to the same rules and structure as computer languages. Specifying what may qualify as “original or creative thought” in computer languages, and therefore deserving of intellectual property protection, comes with its own set of complexities.

Despite the best attempts of some, we cannot claim intellectual property over a word or phrase. It is only when combinations of words and phrases becomes significantly complex and unique that one can claim intellectual property. It is silly to try to claim intellectual property over structural elements, phonemes, phrases and syntax that are the building blocks of language. But at the same time the line at which a thing becomes “significantly complex” is not clear, as many legal cases regarding plagiarism have shown.

In her book, My Mother was a Computer, theorist N. Katherine Hayles has written about the critical differences between natural languages and computer languages. She writes, “…code differs from speech and writing in that it exists in clearly differentiated versions that are executable in a process that includes hardware and software…”. (2)Alex Galloway defines code as “the only language that is executable,” which stands in contrast to natural languages that are not executable, or descriptive in nature. (3) This contrast is significant as the systems designed to prevent the miss-appropriation of ideas (plagiarism) are based on the conventions of locating authorial ownership with natural language. It is problematic to use a system oriented towards natural language to locate intellectual property within a non-natural or computational language. Representation in natural language is radically different from representation in computational languages, and therefore different methods for defining ownership/authorship must be employed.

Where is the “idea”?

Hayles definition of computational languages as “clearly differentiated versions that are executable” raises the question of where, if at all, an “idea” exists within code. (4) Is the idea in the code, the execution of that code, the output or visualization of that code, or some combination thereof? If two people arrive at the same exact outcome using different code to get there, are these copies? Which “differentiated version” takes precedence over another?

Recently digital artist Robert Hodgin published images of flocks of birds made in Processing to his Flickr account. (5) Several months later these same images were reproduced on high-end clothing designer Paul Smith’s line of shirts. Did Smith take Hodgin’s image from the code or did he use Hodgin’s original code to generate his own images? Hodgin admitted, in full disclosure, that he did not produce his images by himself, but borrowed bits and pieces of code from others. What intellectual property was appropriated by Smith and on what grounds does Hodgins have legal recourse if any? Hodgins published the code on his website, so did this only become unacceptable when Smith started to make money off the t-shirts?

Knitting patterns is another area where questions of authorship are raised (and there is an interesting historical relationship between textiles and computing in general).

As with computer code, some might question where the work exists in a knitted pattern. Is it in the pattern (or code) itself, or in the physical manifestation of that pattern (output)? Currently, written patterns, step-by-step instructions, photographs, charts, and diagrams are all copyrighted, in addition to the finished piece. Therefore, if one knits a hat from a pattern, he or she technically cannot sell it or claim it as his or her own. In knitting, the argument can be made that the way one executes the code (or knits the pattern) can produce a wide range of variation based on the yarn choices, technique, how loose or tight the stitches are done, and other variables. Knitting patterns raise the same question as computer code: how much does one have to change something to make it one’s own?

Author and Ownership

When we talk about the problems surrounding intellectual property and code we are really talking about the problems of authorship and ownership. As Barthes stated in his seminal essay from 1977, “The Death of the Author,” the function of author as owner, both of property and of meaning, has ceased to exist as it was once understood. (6)

When Barthes pronounced the “Death of the Author” he was articulating the death of the author function, not of authorship as the practice of writing. Foucault makes this more explicit in his 1977 essay “What is an Author.” Especially within New Media, much has been made of remix and appropriation, which are contingent upon Authorship/Ownership as a legitimizing structure. There would be no remix or appropriation without the author/owner function, and as such reify the ideological paradigms upon which they are based. That is not to say that there isn’t a significant and culturally important body of work that employs remix as an artist methodology, just that it relies on (and perhaps reifies) the very structures it attempts to critique. So perhaps the “Death of the Author” has merely been replaced by the birth of the “Owner” in today’s remix culture. It’s not about who made it; it’s about who owns it, or perhaps who last retweeted it.

How much mix to Re-mix?

Appropriation and re-mix culture has a rich history. Duchamp famously proclaimed that he was not the sole creator behind the objects in his Readymades. Warhol used countless images that were taken from advertising and popular culture in his screen prints. Sherrie Levine famously photographed Walker Evans photographs and presented her work as “After Walker Evans.” While most of these works are seen to have created something new (especially when viewed through the lens of history), other artists have been called into question for similar practices. Most recently was Richard Prince, when a federal court ruled that his appropriated images were in in violation of copyright. (7) One might argue that the difference with Prince’s work is how the images were appropriated and if his sources were “properly” attributed. Duchamp didn’t invent the wheel or the urinal, and Warhol used brands and logos in his work that obviously were not his. Levine named all her works after the Evans originals. So was the “mistake” on Prince’s part to neglect attributing the images to photographer Patrick Cariou, or was the omission something related to his method in general?

While legislation continues to attempt to address the slippery slope of intellectual property, it is clear that remix and appropriation is an important and increasingly accepted part of our culture. “Locking down” and copyrighting every image, word, note, letter, and function will not solve these problems, and would also take away the rich creative production that remix offers. Appropriation and remix allows people to raise questions in, create parody and introduce new ideas.  As a methodological frame, remixing allows artists the opportunity to engage, and thereby critique, the ubiquitous practice of remix that networked technologies have facilitated.

But younger generations do not understand remix in the same way as previous generations. Our students don’t see using images from the Internet as a “subversive or critical remix practice.” They simply see it as the de-facto way to produce creative work. Appropriation is now the norm, and as a result, words like “appropriation” and “remix” are losing cultural relevance.

Open Source Doesn’t Solve the Problem

“But it was from Creative Commons.”… “I used open source code.”… “It was royalty free.”… These are all phrases we’ve heard from students, or maybe even ourselves. The Open Source movement tends to come to mind as a possible solution to proprietary and “for-profit” approaches to locating intellectual property within code. However, the Open Source movement doesn’t solve the problem; it merely shifts the value system that is attached to authorship. Just because someone isn’t paid for specific programs, or segments of code, doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary to attribute code to specific authors. For example, when working collaboratively, it is necessary to attribute code to its programmer so inquiries can be made about certain programming and design decisions and so that responsibility can be taken if something isn’t working. All of these things take place in both the for-profit and non-profit (open source) programming structures. While Open Source practices are important as a collaborative model of production, and as an alternative to capitalistic commodification, they do not fully address the question of locating intellectual property in code.

Pedagogical Implications

There are many clear advantages to teaching, learning and creating through the act of modifying existing code. One can quickly see how examples work, save time not having to repeat small tasks, collaborate and share with others, and contribute to an open dialog in a creative environment. The practice of sharing code fosters learning and creative thought and presents alterative ways of teaching code beyond right or wrong solutions. However, there are pedagogical implications to be considered. How can the appropriation of code be used in a way that teaches and informs, while creating something unique and creative? How can we ensure that our students are giving proper credit where credit is due? As people who are called to teach programming, often to non-technically minded students, it is imperative that we as educators ask ourselves what ideological implications our pedagogical practices promote.

Most universities have strongly worded policies regarding plagiaristic practices. But few universities or art schools have robust policies regarding the improper use of code. There are programs that can detect copying in code. MOSS (Measure Of Software Similarity) (8) is a program often used in Computer Science classrooms that detect copied code in twenty-five some coding languages. This could be useful in detecting large amounts of work that already exist elsewhere. But this solution doesn’t address the larger question of how to define intellectual property in code. Some code is simply structural and is fine to be copied. Other code exhibits unique and creative thought and should be considered intellectual property. Distinguishing between the two is difficult.

Regarding citation, what would a standardized code citation system look like? Should every source be cited? Should code works include an annotated bibliography of the sources, ideas, and images that influenced each new work? These are all complex questions given the fluidity and multi-layered nature of code.

Younger generations have radically different understandings of authorship and ownership, especially when it comes to digital media. Our students’ lives are saturated with social media that is built upon the methods of appropriation and remix, even though they may not define their practices using those terms. Images posted to Facebook walls can instantly sprawl onto millions of other walls. Tweets are retweeted, and Tumblr images are tumbled. Appropriation and remix are the inherent ideology of social media. When pictures of cats with inspirational quotes or political figures with Photoshopped images are posted, liked, re-posted, retweeted no one seems to question, “Who made the original?” The origin of a thing isn’t nearly as important as it once was, so how do we teach our students the foreign concept of attribution when they are living in a sea of digital mashups?

There are times when this naiveté toward authorship and ownership works against younger students. A student in one of our classes received a cease and desist letter from BMW after creating a website for her design portfolio. While the website had nothing to do with cars or motors and in no way appeared aesthetically the same as BMW, her crime was simply having the same initials as the car company.

Outside of the realm of digital art, we see this happening more frequently. Recently it has been revealed that the Susan G. Koman foundation, who’s main goal is to raise money for breast cancer awareness, has also spent millions of dollars on lawsuits going after other charities (of all kinds) for using the words “for a cure” which they hold ownership over. (9) There will always be cases of the giants going after the little guys, but how do we prepare students for this world encouraging them to be creative and crafty, but cautious of those who don’t share their sensibilities. Our students may not be concerned about authorship and ownership, but the world they are about to enter does.

Additionally, and perhaps this is the most important question: How can instructors assess learning when so much of the work turned in is appropriated code? How do we know if a student spent hours figuring something out, or if she simply adapted something found online? At the heart of this discussion is that we as instructors, are supposed to be teaching, and students are supposed to be learning. There is real value in being able to integrate various bits of code together, but at what point are students avoiding learning outcomes by simply copying and pasting? How can we truly assess learning, understanding and growth when teaching how to program?

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have no conclusion. Our goal was merely to bring these questions to light. As educators, it is our responsibility to ask these questions and to understand the histories, structures, and ideologies that surround them. Beyond teaching software and technical tools, we also need to teach students to be critical of what they are making and how they are making it. Ultimately, it will be up to our students to answer these questions for themselves.

References

1. “Getting Started \ Processing” accessed March 11, 2012, http://processing.org/learning/gettingstarted.

2. Hayles Katherine N, My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts (University of Chicago Press, 2005), 52.

3. Galloway Alex, Protocol: Or How Control Exists After Decentralization (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2004), 65

4. Hayles Katherine N, My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts, 52

5. “Its like I made it myself!<< all manner of distractions” accessed March 11, 2012 http://www.flight404.com/blog/?p=135.

6. Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” Aspen, no. 5-6 (1967).

7. “Apropos Appropriation,” accessed March 11, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/design/richard-prince-lawsuit-focuses-on-limits-of-appropriation.html?

8. “Plagiarism Detection,” accessed March 11, 2012 http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss.

9. “Susan G. Komen Foundation Elbows Out Charities Over Use of the Word ‘Cure’”, accessed February 22, 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html

“Code as Craft” Panel Presentation, Keon Pettiway, speaking. (Used with permission.)

The graphic design profession is facing an identity crisis regarding the role of technology in education. The impact on professional practice is undeniable, but design education is perplexed, misguided and constantly challenged when it comes to maneuvering ever-changing technologies into a curriculum that balances a “proportion of technology instruction to problem-solving, visual studies, and theoretical issues.” [1] John Maeda equates the process to the mixing of oil and water as the profession experiences dramatic changes to traditional graphic design education. [2] Some design programs are severely challenged by the rapid advances in technology that demand a response to “incorporate these new dimensions into graphic design curricula.” [3] Resistance is exacerbated by misconceptions of technology as a detrimental additive to graphic design practice and education. As Maeda states “most of the parties involved do not realize that computers, as they are used today, have nothing to do with design skill, or design education, for that matter, but the computer industry strives to convince us otherwise.” [4]

I’m New Here, 2011, Keon Pettiway, programming and inject print based on utilizing  the automation computing principle, © Keon Pettiway.

We must shift our mindset about the role of technology in graphic design pedagogy. Educators should focus on competencies that equip students with an understanding of how to critique, choose and learn the most effective and efficient technologies according to the need. A balanced pedagogical model can empower designers to extend experimentation, problem-finding and solution-finding beyond the limitations of hardware and pre-packaged software. How is/can computer programming transform the role of technology in design education and practice? Graphic design has a timely opportunity to further include programming as a major component of design education and practice. However, barriers that prevent the cultivation of inquisitive design students capable of applying programming to various situations should be interrogated. Moreover, a principles-oriented and practice-oriented model of computer programming uniquely tailored for graphic design should be explored.

TEACHING TECHNOLOGY IN GRAPHIC DESIGN EDUCATION

There is a trichotomy of thoughts regarding teaching technology in design education, which results in a loosely defined consensus about the importance of programming in graphic design. Educators teach technology as a sole practice, within a larger scope of other graphic design methods and issues, or disregard it altogether. Al Wasco, a faculty member at Cuyahoga Community College, challenges the notion of teaching “design, not software” and problematic advice suggesting that students attend a community college if they want to learn software for graphic design production. [5] As Wasco states, design educators should be “exploring ways to integrate learning technology with exploring the design possibilities it presents, not continuing to deny the need for such integration.” [6] According to Meredith Davis, educators should develop a model that “keeps technological resources current with the demands of the curriculum, responsive to the profession, and consistent with student needs.” [7]

Making the Case for Programming in Graphic Design

Full dependency on pre-packaged software sterilizes graphic design’s pre-digital computer skills [8] and creates a knowledge acquisition bottleneck when computer systems are relied upon to represent expert knowledge and craft. [9] Programming may be a solution to relinquish more control over computer systems for graphic design practice. Programming enables designers to “conceive new categories of solutions” and provide the “technical ability to realize them.” [10] However, the current relationship between programming and graphic design must be reexamined.

Graphic design is misinterpreted as a “visual and creative activity, while programming is a technical and mechanical exercise in simply getting the computer to do something (and with some archaic tech-language) .” [11] Programming is debased to a tool rather than a creative activity, process, problem-solving mechanism or experimentation with endless possibilities. Graphic design and computer science are commonly treated as separate entities, but they have more similarities than are credited. Graphic design and computer science use disciplinary knowledge to communicate information, problem-solve by using more than a single method or process, and measure a successful solution by how it is accomplished with creativity, efficiency and innovation given any limitations.

WEB DESIGN AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN GRAPHIC DESIGN AND PROGRAMMING

Web design is perhaps the most closely aligned programming activity in current graphic design education and practice. As David Reid and John Davies note, the separate function of computer science and graphic design is blurred with the “emergence of the World Wide Web as a publishing and programming medium.” [12] But designers with a non-programming background face challenges in web design due to HTML, CSS, PHP, JavaScript and other programming activities that are not commonly addressed in traditional design education. As a result, designers focus on their inadequacy of programming rather than understanding the salient issues that govern how and why programming interfaces with graphic design.

17, 2011, Keon Pettiway, RSS feed, programming and inject print based on utilizing the automation computing principle, © Keon Pettiway.

BARRIERS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN EDUCATION

Programming syntax seems to be a major barrier in graphic design education, but the principle-oriented and practice-oriented offerings of computer science could benefit graphic design pedagogy. Many institutions offer introductory computer science courses that teach concepts germane to programming, and graphic design students may be encouraged by faculty, mandated by curriculum requirements or self-motivated to partake. However, preconceived ideas about computer science may enforce misguided notions of learning outcomes or discourage students from taking introductory courses. In a study about the computing perspectives of web designers, researchers found that the participants commonly refrained from taking computer science courses because they perceived the discipline as focused on learning programming languages and developing code rather than the total front-end experience. [13] Other common falsities about computer science relate computing concepts to keyboarding, being antisocial, sitting in front of a computer all day and performing an uncreative activity. [14] [15] [16] Contrarily, some of the participants in the research study expressed a desire to become proficient in applying underlying principles and concepts beyond singular programming languages and their practice of “cut-and-paste” code. [17]

Equally, the main challenge for graphic design educators is not teaching new programming languages or tools – even though it can certainly be an arduous task. The greatest challenge is devising an effective curricula model that intertwines programming as a foundational component of graphic design education. A possible remedy is teaching computer science fundamentals through computational thinking methods situated within a context of graphic design.

SHIFTING PEDAGOGICAL MODELS

Technology in Graphic Design Education, 2011, Keon Pettiway, illustration of graphic design pedagogical model, © Keon Pettiway.

What should be taught as fundamental computer science concepts in graphic design curriculum? How and when should it be introduced? In what contexts should programming be used? Computer science curricula models could possibly provide a roadmap, or at least a lens. Recent efforts have been established to make introductory computer science courses more relevant to non-computer science majors. [18] [19] However, computer science educators are similarly revisiting computer science courses in lieu of a decline in student enrollment. [20] [21] Moreover, “majority of institutions continue to focus on programming in their introductory sequence.” [22] Even successful programs that have a unified introductory computer science courses fall short of meeting the needs of students with varied backgrounds and intentions. [23] These issues illustrate why educators should teach programming through computing concepts within the context of graphic design to provide a more relational and transformative approach.

TEACHING PROGRAMMING IN A GRAPHIC DESIGN CONTEXT

Contextual learning has great potential to decrease the barriers between abstract programming knowledge and practical application to address the interdependence of cognition and situation. [24] Computing concepts can be used within the contexts of social, economic, political, functional and formal aspects to map interrelated concepts to a range of situations. Contextual learning is not new in graphic design education, but applying social learning theories to new practices can engage and establish new design principles and practices.

The “Piloting Pathways for Computational Thinking in a General Education” project is among other initiatives that use computing concepts within the context of discipline-related situations. [25] For example, the “Computational Thinking and the Humanities” course orients computing concepts to the study of cultural artifacts and literary texts. In particular, one of the course objectives is to “Grasp how abstractions, algorithms, indexes and lists (arrays), models, and a range of textual analyses, methods and tools can be used to complement and further humanistic inquiry.” [26] Similarly, Liz Danzico, chair and co-founder of the MFA in Interaction Design program at the School of Visual Arts in New York, explains her approach to programming in the graduate design curriculum:
The coding class doesn’t actually touch a screen or any kind of device for three or four weeks.… So they learn about variables and loops and the logic of code programming in paper format. Among humans. That way, they learn about decision making. And so when they go to actually design for a mobile device or a website, that foundational knowledge they have about how things work gives them a much richer sense in terms of larger systems. [27]

COMPUTING CONCEPTS BEYOND SYNTAX: COMPUTATIONAL THINKING

Danzico’s and the “Piloting Pathways” pedagogical models highlight an underlying approach: Teaching computer science through computational thinking. The breadth of computer science as a field reflects the mental tools of computational thinking. [28] According to Jeanette Wing, computational thinking is about “solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on concepts fundamental to computer science.” [29] As a result, computational thinking facilitates deep learning that endures beyond the latest technology.

It is important to note that computational thinking is not exclusive to computer science. Peter Denning attempts to historically correct the conversation about computational thinking by noting that it is a way of doing computing as a science, which stemmed from the physical and life sciences. “Computation is present in nature even when scientists are not observing it or thinking about it. Computation is more fundamental than computational thinking,” says Denning. [30] For example, the practice of computing can be seen in everyday interactions, such as prefetching and caching when you put items you need for the day in your backpack. [31] Computational thinking involves a range of approaches and skills that can be applied to many disciplines. Denning articulated the fundamentals of computing principles in “Great Principles to Computing,” in which one of his motivations is “To establish a new relationship with people from other fields by offering computing principles in a language that shows them how to map the principles into their own fields.” [32]

Programming, engineering systems, modeling and application represent the core practices shaped by the seven core computing principles. Denning suggests that computational thinking is a style of thought that can permeate the other four computing practices as a fifth element.

Responsive Web Design AND COMPUTATIOnAL THINKING

Like many other design educators, I once believed that graphic design education should not focus on teaching technology. However, I began to understand that teaching principles with little direction for practice with technologies presented missed learning opportunities. Denning warns against teaching a principles-oriented only approach: “Students need to see from the beginning how to connect abstractions to actions. There is little joy in worlds of pure abstractions devoid of action. The practices of programming and systems make this connection.” [33]

I utilized computational thinking as a framework to teach responsive web design. [34] The objective of the assignment was to apply typography principles to web design viewed on desktop monitors, mobile devices and tablet devices. One of the learning outcomes was to equip students with the ability to understand, critique and question the necessity of dynamic typography and content viewable on multiple devices. Students were introduced to the range of screen typography issues that differ from the print medium.

Fault tolerance, an algorithmic method part of the computation principle, was used to describe the phenomena of typography in responsive web design. In computing, fault tolerance is the “ability of a computer system to continue operation despite minor hardware faults.” [35] In responsive web design, typography must respond and adjust to multiple devices and maintain integrity of readability and form regardless of hardware, software and browser settings. Students were asked to address typographic issues that arise from accessing Web content on multiple devices. Questions were posed to encourage solutions that extended beyond simply resizing text. For example, should the type be a different font, color or position? Or does the actual content need to change according to the device? The computational impetus of the assignment was to engage students to examine how programming screen typography relates to formal and functional design principles to develop an abstract and practical foundation.

Conclusion

John Maeda stated that he once believed that programming was the “critical skill for any developing digital artist or designer,” but, in retrospect, he now believes that knowing the technology is not sufficient to achieve greatness.  [36] Design educators must not shun the need for teaching technology. Addressing the relation between graphic design and principles of computing is paramount to embrace integration as an opportunity for innovation. Programming custom and modified technologies allow designers to push the boundaries of practice and theory. Computational thinking is certainly not the only method to apply computing principles, but it does provide a gateway to combine practice-oriented and principle-oriented learning within the context of graphic design.

References

1. American Institute of Graphic Arts and National Association of Schools of Art and Design (n.d.). Technology thresholds in graphic design programs. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from http://www.aiga.org/resources/content/3/7/4/2/documents/technology.pdf.

2. Maeda, John. Design by Numbers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

3. McCoy, Katerine, “Education in an adolescent profession,” in The Education of a Graphic Designer, ed. Steven Heller (New York: Allworth Press, 2005), p. 11.

4. Maeda, John. Design by Numbers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, p. 19.

5. “Massaging Media 2: Graphic design education in the age of dynamic media,” retrieved December 2, 2011 from http://www.massagingmedia2.org/teaching-design-teaching-technology-time-rethink-our-approach.

6. Ibid.

7. American Institute of Graphic Arts and National Association of Schools of Art and Design (n.d.). Technology Thresholds in Graphic Design Programs. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from http://www.aiga.org/resources/content/3/7/4/2/documents/technology.pdf, p. 3.

8. Maeda, John. Design by Numbers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

9. Lieberman, Henry, “The visual language of experts in graphic design.” In Visual Languages, Proceedings., 11th IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 5­–12, 5– 9 Sep 1995.

10. Yound, David, “Why designers need to learn programming,” in Education of an E-designer, ed. Steven Heller (New York: Allworth Press, 2001), p. 64.

11. Ibid., p. 65.

12. Davies, Joel, and Reed, David. “The convergence of computer programming and graphic design.” Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21, no. 3 (2006): 179.

13. Dorn, Brian, and Guzdial, Mark, “Discovering computing: perspectives of web designers”, Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research, 9–10 August 2010. Accessed January 5, 2012. doi:10.1145/1839594.1839600.

14. Association for Computing Machinery IEEE Computer Society. Computer Science Curriculum 2008:An Interim Revision of CS 2001. Retrieved January 7, 2012 from http://www.acm.org//education/curricula/ComputerScience2008.pdf.

15. Foster, Andrea. 2005. “Student interest in computer science plummets.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 27, 2005. Accessed December 20, 2011.  http://chronicle.com/article/Student-Interest-in-Computer/10912.

16. Bruckman, Amy, and Yardi, Sarita, “What is computing?: bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences,” Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research, 15–16 September 2007. Accessed December 20, 2012. doi:10.1145/1539024.1508899.

17. Dorn, Brian, and Guzdial, Mark, “Discovering computing: perspectives of web designers,” Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research, 9–10 August 2010. Accessed January 5, 2012. doi:10.1145/1839594.1839600.

18. Huang, Timothy, and Briggs, Amy, “A unified approach to introductory computer science: can one size fit all?,” Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 6–9 July 2009. Accessed January 5, 2012. doi:10.1145/1562877.1562956.

19. Wong, Yue-Ling, Burg, Jennifer, and Strokanova, Victoria, “A unified approach to introductory computer science: can one size fit all?,” Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 3–7 March 2004. Accessed December 29, 2011. doi:10.1145/971300.971444.

20. Foster, Andrea. “Student interest in computer science plummets.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 27, 2005. Accessed December 20, 2011.  http://chronicle.com/article/Student-Interest-in-Computer/10912.

21. Bruckman, Amy, and Yardi, Sarita, “What is computing?: bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences,” Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research, 15–16 September 2007. Accessed December 20, 2012. doi:10.1145/1539024.1508899.

22. Association for Computing Machinery IEEE Computer Society. Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science, p.24. Accessed January 3, 2012 from http://www.acm.org/education/education/education/curric_vols/cc2001.pdf.

23. Wong, Yue-Ling, Burg, Jennifer, and Strokanova, Victoria, “A unified approach to introductory computer science: can one size fit all?,” Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 3–7 March 2004. Accessed December 29, 2011. doi:10.1145/971300.971444.

24. Herrington, Jan, and Oliver, Ron. “An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments.” Educational Technology, Research and Development 48 no. 3 (2000): 23–48.

25. “Piloting Pathways for Computational Thinking in a General Education,” Towson University, accessed July 15, 2011, http://triton.towson.edu/~compthnk.

26. “Computational Thinking and the Humanities,” by Towson University, accessed July 30, 2011, http://triton.towson.edu/~compthnk/wp2/?page_id=44.

27. May, Tom. “Liz Danzico on web design education.” .net Magazine, January 10, 2012. Accessed January 10, 2012.  http://www.netmagazine.com/interviews/liz-danzico-web-design-education.

28. Wing, Jeannette. “Computational thinking.” Communications of the ACM 49 no. 3 (2006): 33–36. Accessed August 1, 2011. [doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215].

29. Ibid., p. 33.

30] Denning, Peter. “Great principles of computing.” Communications of the ACM 46 no. 11 (2003). [doi:10.1145/948383.948400].

31. Wing, Jeannette. “Computational thinking.” Communications of the ACM 49 no. 3 (2006): 33–36. Accessed August 1, 2011. [doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215].

32. Denning, Peter. “The profession of IT: Beyond computational thinking.” Communications of the ACM 52 no. 6 (2009). Accessed September 22, 2011. [doi:10.1145/1516046.1516054].

33. Ibid.

34. Marcotte, Ethan. “Responsive Web Design.” A List Apart, May 25, 2010. Accessed December 23, 2011. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design.

35. Collins Dictionary of Computing. London: Collins, 2000. s.v. “fault tolerance,” accessed January 9, 2012. http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hcdcomp/fault_tolerance.

36. Maeda, John, and Burns, Red. Creative Code. London: Thames & Hudson, p. vi.

As a video and new media artist, I am highly aware that what I know today will change tomorrow. As an educator, I understand that despite the endless pursuit of the new, there is a range of principles from the history of media as a creative form that should be addressed in order to guide students away from mimicking the most common uses of technology. This is in no way an easy task. Digital media is intoxicating and deceptive in how it is used by popular culture, especially in an age where people are willingly participating in the commodification of their own personal identities through social networking. (1) At the same time, in order to become effective makers of media, students have to be engaged with the technical and conceptual realities of how that media has been integrated within the greater consumer culture.  Therein lies the paradox that media artists need to understand the form and function of the medium and transcend its common use, which in turn brings into question some serious issues on how to approach programming in the fine arts in an age where immediacy and automation have increasingly captured the focus of the technological landscape. (2)

Numerous books and articles have been written recently chronicling some of the serious issues surrounding the effectiveness of contemporary fine arts pedagogy. Students seem increasingly more likely to take shortcuts and seem to be focused on content rather than technical skill. Perhaps in reaction to the perceived truth of these observations, many media art programs across the country are teaching students to use consumer-grade media software such as iMovie to streamline the creative process so that students can focus on their ideas without being bogged down with technical issues. While this pedagogical approach may have some merits, I believe that the fast and loose nature of these prosumer applications does not teach the fundamental vocabularies needed to understand and sustain a technical and conceptual evolution of media practice.

A similar attitude towards learning technique can be found within the plastic arts as well. In the race for the new, sculptors do not sculpt, painters do not paint. While this de-structuralist approach within art was and is absolutely necessary to combat the tyranny of modernist essentialism, some have seen the pedagogical struggle behind educating a new generation of artists rising from the over-determination of postmodern theory almost completely dissolving the importance of craft. (3) Students cannot “think outside of the box” because they can’t identify what the box is, how it works and what functions it can possibly serve. In other words, can you render an abstract image without first understanding what the structure of the source is in the first place?

Yet there is no rewind button. New software interfaces seem to be inevitably moving away from the necessity of computer literacy for most people. So where can I begin? I do not believe that I have any specific method or answer, rather I want to propose a series of observations that will hopefully provide a direction for the ever growing dialogue between the problems surrounding professional and consumer technology and creative practice. I believe that now more than ever we should be teaching students to hone their sense of craft throughout their conceptual development so that they are more “maker” and less “user”. Yet maybe by developing a balanced method that takes the realities of current uses of technology into consideration, we can also address the changing ways in which new generations are learning while encouraging them to focus on creating work that is technically sound and historically relevant. (4)

I have found that despite the general difficulty in learning the software, Max/MSP/Jitter in particular has proven to be an effective interface for artists. Max is a graphical programming language, meaning that the process of building the program is modular in nature; the code itself is never seen, boxes representing lines of code are interconnected throughout the workflow or patch. Even though the code is encapsulated within graphical icons, you still have to understand how that particular object works, what arguments and messages it accepts, and how each object can integrate with other objects in the workflow. The program itself is a hybrid between old and new ways of thinking about software in that it still requires research, trail and error and some programming knowledge to run while being approachable enough for a generation of art students who are used to using programs that automate the technical details for them.

Because Max can literally be applied to anything, it becomes difficult to teach in a linear fashion because the workflow and object choices will vary depending on the specific project. Therefore, as I teach my students the basic vocabularies involved in programming, I am also teaching them how to research the parameters of each object and how to look for other objects that are complimentary in their function as it relates to some of the conceptual ideas behind their work. Throughout this process, I try to encourage them to think of failure as a part of figuring out how to let their concept “speak” through the programming language. To promote this idea, my students are given semi-functional Max patches in which a message, attribute or operator is causing the program to not function properly; either something is misspelled, the wrong kind of operator is placed in the workflow, or the value of an argument is making the system shut down.

Patch Problem, 2011, Jason Bernagozzi (Used with permission.)

This lesson forces the student to play with and to try out various modifications based on their research into each object’s reference files in order to get the patch to work. In the process of doing this, students will look at the help file patches, try out various messages and parameters, and see processes that come about through play and failure that they may not have found through a more linear approach.

I believe that in order to effectively teach programming as a creative medium we must first address that there is a preconception that programming requires a lot of non-art related exercises. I believe that introducing students to graphical programming as the first step in their media practice will help solve some of these assumptions by integrating “readymade” or modular applications into the introductory curriculum. Students will, of course, have to learn the readymade applications by learning the basic vocabularies associated with programming and use problem-solving and research to make those modules work correctly. When the patch finally works, they can use it as a building block from which they build a media instrument that they use to create their first art pieces. This is different from borrowing code or patches they find online because, through the process of researching the parameters associated with each object, they have to “look under the hood” and explore what the object can and cannot do, and as a result, they will learn how to customize and improve those modules when building a program for another project.

Shader Example, 2011, Jason Bernagozzi. (Used with permission.)

As students move on to more complex processes, they will have the foundational knowledge to begin incorporating other languages into their workflow. As an example, for a more effective video processing system in Max/MSP/Jitter, it makes sense to work in openGL by embedding shaders within the jit.gl.slab object rather than using multiple objects so that students can route some of the heavy lifting away from the processor and onto the graphics card. If they want to become even more efficient, it makes sense for them to create their own shaders by combining several lines of code from the max shader library into one. Even though the students will not have worked with lines of code before, they can draw upon their skills as researchers to look into the code, see that there is integer, floating integer, vec1, etc., values attributed to various named parameters. Once they upload the shader into the openGL slab, they can reference the code and use the prepend parameter message to figure out through play and failure how the shader works within their media instrument.

Shader Example, 2011, Jason Bernagozzi. (Used with permission.)

In many ways this approach is inspired by early media art pioneers who worked with various custom-made video synthesizers in order to play with the medium in ways that explored the potential of video beyond the most common modes of representation found during that time. (5) The Experimental Television Center, for example, brought together various instruments made by artists, engineers and enthusiasts because at that time the economic and technical difficulty in making such instruments was hard to bear alone. In the spirit of exploration and experimentation, people involved with the ETC worked to create larger video processing and editing systems from which one could pick and choose various instruments to combine. As video came into the digital age, artists found ways to combine the new with the old as a part of a community-based effort leaving notes and programs to include in the overall system from one residency to another. Teaching students to program collaboratively and to research together in this fashion not only places their newfound practice within a historical context; it also promotes the idea of perpetual re-evaluation through community-based dialogue.

My experiments in finding new ways to approach teaching programming to artists hopefully illuminates several key ideas that can be used as part of a sustainable media practice. First, I believe they teach students to be vigilant researchers and to see the process of trial and error in programming as analogous to the repetition of techniques they practice in traditional foundations classes. Secondly, it encourages students to see smaller programs as modular units that can be used to create larger systems, reinforcing a sense of play when they something out “just to see what it does.” This method is also in sync with the project-based pedagogy of the art school where history, technique and concept come together as a unified practice where students don’t have to wait to make the work they came to art school for. Finally, and most importantly, by learning to become artists and researchers within the ever-expanding field of digital media, when it comes time to figuring out new coding languages that go beyond the capabilities of current graphical programming software, they will be prepared with the fundamentals necessary to move on to the next big thing.

References

1. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_40/b4197064860826.htm

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

3.  Juli Carson and Bruce Yonemoto, “Curriculum and Practice in the Age of Post-Studio Art Production,” in Rethinking the Contemporary Art School, ed. Brad Buckley and John Conomos, (Halifax: The Press of Nova Scotia College, 2009), 90.

4. Marc Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” in On The Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001

5. Chris Meigh-Andrews, “A History of Video Art: The Development of Form and Function,” (New York: Berg, 2006). 112-126.

“Code as Craft” Panel Presentation, Ashley John Pigford , speaking. (Used with permission.)

The term postdigital has been used to describe an evolution in the way people perceive and use digital technology, from an abstract relationship established by the digital revolution of the late twentieth century, based on one’s interaction with a mouse, keyboard and display screen, to a deeply human-centered, direct and simplified relationship, based on intuition and common sense. Our postdigital society is not concerned with processing speed and programming. We want technology to be extensions of  ourselves – to do what we want, when we want it, and without complication. Postdigital technology is developed to adapt to the way people use it, sometimes offering multiple ways of doing the same thing, rather than people being forced to adapt to the way it is designed to operate. Further, postdigital technology is not relegated to exist behind the ‘glass’ of a computer screen; it is increasingly embedded into physical things—a part of our corporeal experience of life—creating a fully sensual experience that is greater than the sum of its technological parts.

As a new generation of people grow up in a world mediated by digital technology, digital media become implicit in the paradigm with which that generation understands and contributes to our ever-increasing global culture. Children born today are becoming indoctrinated into a postdigital ethos as children born in the early twentieth century were to the industrial revolution. My parents, representing the post-industrial paradigm, implicitly understand and accept that machines and mass production mediate our lives. My child, evident by how quickly he took to the iPad™, will grow up in a world that is heavily mediated by discrete, human-centered digital technology and will not know life without the human-computer interconnectedness of the internet. The children of today will have even more opportunities to shape the digitally-mediated, global society of tomorrow, and embracing the postdigital paradigm is essential for a student of design if he or she is going to design solutions and experiences for the next generation of  “users.”

A designer’s role in the shaping of our culture and society is without question—consider how intrinsically commercial art has affected human values over the last few decades, (I want my MTV!). However, design schools cannot continue to educate designers for a culture and society of the past. Schools needs to embrace the postdigital ethos of today’s students and provide them with not only applicable skills to serve the creative industry, but a fundamental understanding and a working knowledge of the relationship between humanity and digital technology. This education must be a cornerstone of their studies in any design discipline; it must be deeply connected to one’s creative process, if one is to make any significant contribution to the human experience.

In this paper I present why I believe it is important that physical computing be taught as a fundamental education of digital media for a student of design, to prepare young people to take an active and participatory role in the shaping of our postdigital society. My position is illustrated with the results of teaching a course I created called “Artist’s Machine” at the University of Delaware. This hands-on, experience-based learning art course introduces students from across the university to electronics, open-source software and hardware and an interventionist’s approach to creative process. I developed this course as an evolution of my research in design education (specifically graphic and interaction design), and advanced digital systems to serve society’s ever-increasing need for left-brain lateral thinkers who can apply a creative process to whatever  “real-world” challenge they are faced with. This, I believe, is the ultimate goal of any design education.

An Interventionist’s Approach to Digital Media

The availability of well-documented open-source hardware and software has led to the proliferation of a D.I.Y. approach to solving problems across the technological and cultural spectrum. Specifically, the creation of the Arduino electronics prototyping platform and Processing programming language, supported by a vast, online code-sharing community, has simplified and accessorized digital technology and electronics—empowering creative people to take digital technology into their own hands and serve their own technological desires (Pepperal and Punt 2000, 7).

The first assignment of my course introduces students to the D.I.Y. approach and open source hardware/software by having them hack a simplified piece of digital technology: a children’s toy. The process of hacking, in this case, is described as repurposing digital technology to achieve an alternate user experience. Hacking is a significant component of the course curriculum because it offers a behind-the-scenes understanding of what most digital media are: wire, switches, lights, speakers and a circuit board containing an integrated circuit (IC). I explain to students how the IC is essentially the  “brain” of the toy and they are going to replace (or augment) this brain with their Arduino, essentially intervening into the toy’s central logic system. As an introductory assignment, the hacking is kept minimal—basically activating the toy’s contact switches with Arduino pins, (via a 4066 analog gate)—yet, through this simple modification students fundamentally alter an experience of digital technology.

The process of hacking a cheap plastic children’s toy is analogous to how a designer operates in the larger context of our postdigital society: as an interventionist between humanity and technology. A fundamental understanding of how digital technology works, combined with an understanding of the relationship humans have with it, allows designers to alter, modify and create new relationships, and therefore affect how meaning is communicated and interpreted through digital media.

Hacked Toy: Student Work Examples

Hacked Keyboard, 2011, Amy Batog, Electronic Keyboard, Arduino and Electronics. “Arduino” is a trademark of Arduino team. (Used with permission.)

Hacked Bulldozer, 2011, Christine Cha, Electronic Bulldozer, Arduino and Electronics. “Arduino” is a trademark of Arduino team, “Caterpillar Job Site Lights & Sounds Motorized Bulldozer” © Caterpillar, Inc.

Fig. 3 – Hacked LeapFrog™, 2011, VirginiaHall, “Phonics Radio” © LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.

Fig. 4 – Hacked Toy Video Montage, 2011, Ashley Pigford. (Used with permission.)

An Expanded View of Material Exploration as Part of the Creative Process

The Bauhaus curriculum, (see figure below), originally developed by Laslo Maholy Nagy and now deeply entrenched in most U.S. design curricula, begins with teaching students the value of material exploration/experimentation towards developing one’s applicable skills to serve the creative industry. According to the Bauhaus manifesto, “manual experience of materials is essential to the student of design–experience at first confined to free experiment and then extended to the practical workshop,” (Iten, 1963, 99).

Bauhaus Curriculum, 1963, Walter Gropius (Used with permission).

Material exploration/experimentation will always be an integral component to a design education that instills in students applicable skills and knowledge about the world around them, yet the world that a Bauhaus-inspired education was designed to prepare students for no longer exists. Considering the dynamic and interactive nature of information and experience that the digital revolution created, students need to consider digital technology as raw material that can be used within one’s creative process.

Digital components, like a lump of clay or a piece of wood, are raw materials with specific characteristics and functions that can be shaped by the hands of a creative person. As Nam Jun Paik famously said, “Some day artists will work with capacitors, resistors and semiconductors as they work today with brushes, violins and junk,” (Rosebush, 1975, 120). Postdigital designers (and artists) consider sensors, switches, motors, speakers, lights and display screens as a kit of parts with which they experiment and ultimately design user experiences.

Input-Logic-Output and what Makes an Engaged Experience?

The way we use digital technology is through some form of interface that receives input and delivers output. Between these two actions is the logic layer, or the program, that translates user input into data, processes it and then translates the resultant data back into sensual (visual, aural, etc.) information for the user. This process of input-logic-output is the creation of a designer that understands the relationship between form and function—between sensation and utility—and knows how to manipulate this relationship to affect meaning.

Some interfaces with technology are highly practical (I push this button and get this thing), yet as technology becomes more deeply embedded into our lives, we expect more human characteristics of technology. We want technology to remember, expect, interpret and entertain, and understanding how to serve this need with explicitly non-human technology is a skill of the postdigital designer.

For the second (and final) assignment of my course, students are introduced to two basic electronic components: the Parallax Ping)))™ Ultrasonic Distance Sensor and a HiTec servo motor. Student are instructed to connect these to their Arduinos and are challenged to experiment with creating a simple relationship between the data produced by the sensor and the controlled output of the servo motor. Students soon realize that these components have a specific function and it is up to them to use coding to create some form of logic that translates the input into output.

Input Output Diagram, 2011, Ashley John Pigford.  Arduino Logo is a trademark of Arduino team. “Processing” logo is a trademark of Processing team. (Used with permission.)

Manipulating materials to create an engaging, human experience is analogous to what all designers do as a creative practice. This is fundamental to the creative process. Postdigital designers must not only understand the traditional, analog materials of our lives, they must also understand the digital.

Shy, 2011, Andrew Czudak, Styrofoam Head, Parallax Ping )))™ sensor, Servo Motor, Arduino and Electronics. “Arduino” is a trademark of Arduino team, Ping))™ is a trademark of Parallax Inc. (Used with permission.)

Piggy Gimme Bank, 2011, Christine Cha, Plastic Piggy Bank, Parallax Ping )))™ sensor, Servo Motor, Arduino and Electronics. “Arduino” is a trademark of Arduino team, Ping))™ is a trademark of Parallax Inc. (Used with permission.)

Inflatable Orb, 2011, Kevin Bielicki, Rubber Toy, Parallax Ping )))™ sensor, Electronic Air Inflator, Arduino and Electronics. “Arduino” is a trademark of Arduino team, Ping))™ is a trademark of Parallax Inc. (Used with permission.)

Fig. 10 – Input Output Video Montage, 2011, Ashley Pigford. (Used with permission.)

For the Real World

My reference to the title of Victor Papanek’s book Design For The Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change is intentional. In 1971, Mr. Papanek stated; “Design must become an innovative, highly creative, cross-disciplinary tool responsive to the true needs of men,” and “Design can and must become a way in which young people can participate in changing society,” (Papanek, Preface: XXVI). This human-centered, need-based approach to design practice is fundamental to the postdigital reality to which students are now being taught to contribute.

Students need to look at humanity as not only their audience and potential customers, but as the source of ideas to fuel one’s creative process. Students need to ask questions about what people really need, contributing their own life experiences as inspiration, in order to design real-world solutions to problems and situations. This philanthropic approach to design is not intended as a way for a teacher to promote their own ideas or agenda; rather, a human-centered approach to design places the benefits to the human condition as ultimate judge and jury of all steps of one’s creative process, with digital technology created solely to serve this purpose.

Conclusion

My course is, and will always be, in flux. As most teachers do, every time I teach a course I learn how to make it better next time. However, the core curriculum and content of this course is essential for a postdigital designer. I believe that open source programming and electronics (in conjunction with a D.I.Y. spirit) provide a platform for design students to invent new relationships between digital media and humanity and provide an opportunity to contribute positively to society and culture.

Works Cited

Iten, Johannes. 1963. Design and Form: The Basic Course at the Bauhau and Later. New York: Wiley.

Papanek, Victor. 1971. Design For The Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. New York: Pantheon Books.

Pepperell, Robert and Punt, Michael. 2000. The Postdigital Membrane: Imagination, Technology and Desire. Oregon: Intellect Books.

Rosebush, Judson. 1974. Nam Jun Paik: Video ‘n’ Videology 1959-1973. New York: Everson Museum of Art.

Panel members: Ashley John Pigford, Jason Bernagozzi, Keon Pettiway, Rachel Beth Egenhoefer and Joel Swanson, and Victoria Bradbury.

INTRODUCTION

“Code as Craft” Panel Presentation, Mike Salmond speaking. (Used with permission.)

On Friday, February 24, at 5:30 pm on Level 2 of the Los Angeles Convention Center in California, a New Media Caucus panel was held to discuss methodologies for integrating coding as part of the art and design curriculum. The discussants were Ashley John Pigford from the University of Delaware, Rachel Beth Egenhoefer from the University of San Francisco (co-authoring a paper with Joel Swanson from the University of Colorado), Keon Pettiway from East Carolina University, Jason Bernagozzi from Alfred State College, State University of New York and Victoria Bradbury from Ball State University.

The blueprint and focus of the panel came from my own personal experience of writing a book, The Fundamentals of Interactive Design (AVA Publishing 2012), and my resulting examination of my own methodologies for teaching coding within an interactive media curriculum. Then the media push surrounding the book Program or Be Programmed, by Douglas Rushkoff in 2011, served as a synthesis for how we as educators and artists should be centralizing the teaching of code as a craft in the art and design curriculum.

Fig. 01

Author Douglas Rushkoff, 2 April 2009, Photo by Paul May, Creative Commons Licence.

Rushkoff argues that coding is now, more than ever, a vital tool for activists, artists, designers and students. We live in an increasingly digital world, so being able to talk to the computers and devices we use every day becomes vital for society and especially for creative people. The digital world is all about code. Those who know how to code have access to creative freedoms with an eye firmly fixed on the potential of the future. Coding enables great realization of expression within the digital space as well as the physical space. Code runs airplanes and traffic signals; it runs theme parks and kitchen appliances. Those who are not able to talk to digital machines, those to whom coding is an anathema, are increasingly at the whims of those who do. [1]

To define the terminology I am using in this introduction, I use the word ”coder” instead of “programmer,” as deliberate language. It is generally considered that programming is a denser and deeper skill than that of a coder. Programmers write operating systems and applications, for example, whereas coding usually implies someone who is adept or expert in languages attached to other technologies. For example Adobe Flash has Actionscript, or the Javascript that runs in web browsers. Coding is very focused on learning the syntax and application of a language and adopting a very logical, problem solving thought process. Coding takes time to learn, and the challenge for most visual artists, students and designers is it does involve a lot of very accurate writing.

The challenge of the panel was to posit that we, as educators, artists and designers, adopt Code as Craft as an ethic or ideology within the classroom environment. In the sense of esprit de corps we should adopt common methodologies to make coding an inclusive, fun and engaging core to every interactive/digital media curriculum. Code as craft is about creativity. It’s not about creating business applications or creating the next corporate app; it’s about engaging with coding as a form of expression and knowledge. The world outside of fine art and design has begun to embrace coding; 2012 has been defined as the ”Year of Code,” following a media push after the success of Rushkoff’s book. The campaign is an effort to persuade everyday and creative people to learn to code as a survival trait as we move into a fundamentally digital world. [2] Within the ideology of Code as Craft, educators need to approach learning to code as they would any other craft skill. Coding has life-long learning curves equal to that of painting, sculpting or dance; it’s not going to go away, so it needs to be embraced as widely as possible.

Student in classroom learning Actionscript for the first time, 2011, © M. Salmond.

Student in classroom learning HTML for the first time, 2011, © M. Salmond.

Code as Craft is empowering for activists, hackers, crackers and revolutionaries. Software art, although not really a movement, already has sub-cultures and energetic participants who create from command lines and patches, from cut-and-paste and grinding with words. The demoscene, algorithmic art and their ilk are cultures and movements that embrace the code. The letters and numbers are the art form. The expression is in the ascii.[3][4] We must examine and set up discourses surrounding coding as a form of craft in itself, separate from the externalized interface or visuals. Code has had little place in the fine art and graphic design lexicon until very recently (or in some cases, still not at all). This has to change as we move forward.

How do we approach coding as a craft? In my own studio and educational practice I have begun to reflect on how difficult it has been to persuade (or cajole) art and design students to learn code. The resistance is palpable and the barriers to creativity are very real. The best analogy I have is that of a car; many of us can drive but few of us can fix a car beyond changing oil or adding air to the tires. So it is with the digital world, the term ‘digital native’ much used in the media, has become commonplace and is a misnomer. [5] Just because a student can use a computer does not make him or her literate in its workings. I drive a car, but I’m not a mechanic or ”automotive native.” Code as Craft sets out to align digital natives with the digital realm, to embrace it and to learn fundamentally how it works.

Code as craft is set to empower the creative mind, to look behind the digital curtain of pre-packaged software and shrink-wrapped ideas and get a sense of what goes on beneath the interface. We ignore the coding aspects of our curriculums at our peril and risk diminishing the level at which our students can operate.Code as Craft is an aesthetic, an ideology and an ethic. If we ignore the code, we reduce the palette, we reduce the colors and brushstrokes available to students and ourselves. Rushkoff again opines: “Programming is the sweet spot, the high leverage point in a digital society. If we don’t learn to program, we risk being programmed ourselves. The irony here is that computers are frightfully easy to learn. Programming is immensely powerful, but it is really no big deal to learn.”[6] So why don’t more people learn to code?

The papers that follow showcase the successful integration of coding into a variety of classroom and collaborative projects. As more interactive or new media courses are offered at universities, tools are being developed to aid students in becoming comfortable with the craft. Recent examples are Codeacademy.com (created by Zach Sims and Ryan Bubinski), which was started because Zach and Ryan wanted to start an online business but didn’t know enough to be able to code it. [7] They created a website that would help others in the same situation and created, “an online tool designed to give computer science newbies a crash course in the basics.” [8] As part of the push behind Codeacademy the idea of coding has begun to take hold outside of the classroom; New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg signed up for online coding classes in 2012.[9] This is a start but it’s not deep enough, as it doesn’t ingrain itself into the everyday as it should. Code as craft aims to bridge the gap between the ‘fine arts’ and media arts through collaborations, experimentation and exploration.

As an example of the success of coding as craft process, when I was program leader of the Interactive Design Program at Northumbria University in the UK, the senior show took on a very code-oriented framework. In the second and third year students are introduced to coding, as well as a raft of possibilities and outcomes. Students learn to code in a variety of environments, and as seniors, they were able to create truly unique artifacts. Jack Merrell created a digital seismograph from a hacked inkjet printer and the coding environment of Processing. The machine monitored topics trending on Twitter, and when something ‘big’ occurred (such as the death of Bin Laden), the pens would activate in much the same way as recording an earthquake. Working with Processing, a Twitter API and motors, Liam Viney created a kinetic structure that animated based on wave data information and was instigated by audiences who tweeted specific hash tags to the machines’ Twitter account. The slats of wood and motors mechanically adopted the wave patterns of a sea around the UK. It is code that elevated the profile and impact of these projects at the annual design exhibition, D&AD in London. These projects would not have been achieved without access to programming in some form. The students have no trouble coming up with ideas, but an ideas need to become operational, even in prototype form. Coding enables and fires the imagination because with it the possibilities are only restricted by imagination and the application of code and technology.

Student project, “Twitograph – A Digital Seismograph,” © Jack Merrell.

Student project, “Data Driven Sculpture,” © Liam Viney.

Digital and interactive media is ideally situated at the crossroads of the creative arts and design and to grow we must embrace the expressive and vocational aspects of our medium. John Maeda’s book Creative Code (2004) brought together many physical computing and code-based art works and experiments and served as an inspiration to many students and academics. One of the artists, John Simon, Jr., sums up what it is to code. “When I have finished typing, it is the writing itself that starts to create,” This is at the heart of the code as craft ethic. Words have power and code creates experiences, engagement, wonder and amazement.[10]  Coding is a myriad and diverse affair, but at its heart all programming languages have one thing in common: they offer the ability for the individual or group to create deeper, richer artifacts and express concepts and ideas in the digital realm that come as close to magic as natural physics will allow.

References

1. Rushkoff, Douglas talking at SXSW conference 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imV3pPIUy1k

2. Rushkoff, Douglas “Learn to code, get a job” 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/opinion/rushkoff-write-code/index.html. Reuters

3. http://www.demoscene.info/the-demoscene/

4. Rachel Greene, Internet Art (Thames & Hudson, London 2004), 52.

5. Marc Prensky,  Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001), 1.

6. Douglas Rushkoff, Program or be Programmed (OR Books NYC USA 2010), 185.

7. MSNBC.com, Thomson Reuters, “Entrepreneurs bring Internet coding skills to everyday users”, January 24, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46120461/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/entrepreneurs-bring-internet-coding-skills-everyday-users/#.T14IkfW6-0I ,(accessed January 26th 2012)

8. Jenna Wortham, New York Times http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/codecademy-offers-free-coding-classes-for-aspiring-entrepreneurs/ (accessed January 18, 2012)

9. Laura June, “Codecademy Offers Free Coding Classes for Aspiring Entrepreneurs” January 6, 2012.  http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/6/2688172/mayor-bloomberg-resolves-to-take-a-coding-class-in-2012 (accessed January 26th 2012)

10. John Jr Simon. “Authorship Creativity and Code”, in Creative Code ed John Maeda (Thames and Hudson NY,2004). 46

Resources

Codecademy.com Offers Free Coding Classes for Aspiring Entrepreneurs

Google’s code academy (code.google.com/edu),

Lifehackers.com has a ‘beginners guide to coding’

Stanford University Computer Science 101 at cs101-class.org.