Extending Manual Drawing Practices with Artist-Centric Programming Tools

CHI, pp. 1-13, 2018.

Cited by: 11|Bibtex|Views62|Links
EI
Keywords:
common programming modelmanual drawingmanual artistProcedural artmanual processMore(13+)
Weibo:
WORK Motivated by conversations with artists, we created Dynamic Brushes, a visual programming and drawing environment for blending manual and procedural production through personal tool creation

Abstract:

Procedural art, or art made with programming, suggests opportunities to extend traditional arts like painting and drawing; however, this potential is limited by tools that conflict with manual practices. Programming languages present learning barriers and manual drawing input is not a first class primitive in common programming models. We...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • Throughout human history, artists have used their hands to express themselves. Traditional arts like painting rely on the expressive power of manual tools to preserve traces of human movement and gesture [42].
  • Art instructors often encourage students to learn technique through direct material engagement when visual demonstration and verbal instruction are insufficient [46]
  • This suggests that tools that limit manual engagement, like many programming platforms may hinder the learning of manual artists.
  • 2 artists were frustrated, stating that after investing significant time and effort, they were still only able to produce trivial outcomes
  • This experience aligns with the sharp learning thresholds encountered by learners of generalpurpose programming languages.
  • These frustrations suggest a disconnect between the primitives of common programming models, which focus on manipulation of simple geometric forms, and the concerns of manual artists who, in the interviews, emphasized stylistic and aesthetic diversity
Highlights
  • Throughout human history, artists have used their hands to express themselves
  • We make the following contributions: First, we introduce Dynamic Brushes, an integrated visual programming and stylus-based drawing environment
  • The artists felt Dynamic Brushes provided greater flexibility compared to other digital art tools, though it was better suited to the McGill’s illustration than Tritt’s painting, and both used motion graphics software to convert their Dynamic Brushes drawings to animations
  • The procedural artists we interviewed described how building effective tools required them to think in general terms and consider multiple scenarios that could interfere with making specific artifacts
  • WORK Motivated by conversations with artists, we created Dynamic Brushes, a visual programming and drawing environment for blending manual and procedural production through personal tool creation
  • Our evaluation demonstrated that tool development can be engaging for manual artists while providing opportunities to extend their established practice and style
Methods
  • Design Goals

    The authors used the themes from the interviews to generate design goals for procedural tools that support manual practice: Learnable for new programmers: The system should allow people to make interesting things with simple programs and scaffold learning through multiple entry points.
  • Her work is characterized by symmetric repeating designs with organic curves
  • She works by sketching elements of a pattern with a pencil and uses software to copy and repeat her hand-drawn forms.
  • Taylor wants a tool that automatically repeats and transform her hand-drawn strokes while she draws and in the manner she specifies
  • Such a tool would allow her to rapidly generate ornate patterns and explore variations, without sacrificing her drawing style
Results
  • The artists found the DB model challenging at first but developed competency and demonstrated a grasp of primary concepts by the end of the study.
  • Tritt had greater difficulty learning some of procedural concepts
  • He initially struggled with the semantic difference between transitions and mappings.
  • In spite of these challenges, Tritt had moments of insight while using the tool.
  • He described his feeling when he first understood the power of property mappings: At first the author's brain didn’t really understand being able to use [stylus] force for multiple things .
  • The force could control two things or even three . . . lightness AND the diameter!
Conclusion
  • The authors motivated DB with the idea that tool creation could help artists combine manual and procedural expression.
  • Aligning Procedural Models with Practice Both artists created personal brushes during the study, yet McGill was more satisfied with the results of his brushes than Tritt.
  • In part, this may reflect McGill’s prior experience with web programming; it suggests that DB’s model was better aligned with McGill’s process.
  • The authors are excited about the potential of domain-specific programming languages to foster broader participation in creative system development
Summary
  • Introduction:

    Throughout human history, artists have used their hands to express themselves. Traditional arts like painting rely on the expressive power of manual tools to preserve traces of human movement and gesture [42].
  • Art instructors often encourage students to learn technique through direct material engagement when visual demonstration and verbal instruction are insufficient [46]
  • This suggests that tools that limit manual engagement, like many programming platforms may hinder the learning of manual artists.
  • 2 artists were frustrated, stating that after investing significant time and effort, they were still only able to produce trivial outcomes
  • This experience aligns with the sharp learning thresholds encountered by learners of generalpurpose programming languages.
  • These frustrations suggest a disconnect between the primitives of common programming models, which focus on manipulation of simple geometric forms, and the concerns of manual artists who, in the interviews, emphasized stylistic and aesthetic diversity
  • Methods:

    Design Goals

    The authors used the themes from the interviews to generate design goals for procedural tools that support manual practice: Learnable for new programmers: The system should allow people to make interesting things with simple programs and scaffold learning through multiple entry points.
  • Her work is characterized by symmetric repeating designs with organic curves
  • She works by sketching elements of a pattern with a pencil and uses software to copy and repeat her hand-drawn forms.
  • Taylor wants a tool that automatically repeats and transform her hand-drawn strokes while she draws and in the manner she specifies
  • Such a tool would allow her to rapidly generate ornate patterns and explore variations, without sacrificing her drawing style
  • Results:

    The artists found the DB model challenging at first but developed competency and demonstrated a grasp of primary concepts by the end of the study.
  • Tritt had greater difficulty learning some of procedural concepts
  • He initially struggled with the semantic difference between transitions and mappings.
  • In spite of these challenges, Tritt had moments of insight while using the tool.
  • He described his feeling when he first understood the power of property mappings: At first the author's brain didn’t really understand being able to use [stylus] force for multiple things .
  • The force could control two things or even three . . . lightness AND the diameter!
  • Conclusion:

    The authors motivated DB with the idea that tool creation could help artists combine manual and procedural expression.
  • Aligning Procedural Models with Practice Both artists created personal brushes during the study, yet McGill was more satisfied with the results of his brushes than Tritt.
  • In part, this may reflect McGill’s prior experience with web programming; it suggests that DB’s model was better aligned with McGill’s process.
  • The authors are excited about the potential of domain-specific programming languages to foster broader participation in creative system development
Tables
  • Table1: Mapping Input Types creating procedures that respond to manual drawing requires significant effort and expertise. Furthermore, programming environments present manual artists with unfamiliar interfaces and interactions that can prevent artists from incorporating their existing skills [<a class="ref-link" id="c23" href="#r23">23</a>]. The creative opportunities of combining manual and procedural art, and the challenges manual artists encounter when attempting to do so led to our research question: How can we develop programming environments that support the integration of procedural and manual art?
  • Table2: Brush outputs. Brushes draw whenever mappings to active outputs are updated. Passive outputs are referenced when drawing occurs
Download tables as Excel
Related work
  • Our research is inspired by creative coding tools, learnable programming systems, and procedural direct manipulation.

    Creative Coding Frameworks Our research was galvanized by the study of specialized textual programming libraries for procedural and interactive art [50, 37, 6]. These libraries are powerful and expressive [51, 36], yet they retain many of challenges of general-purpose programming languages. Visual programming can address some of the challenges of textual programming while retaining expressiveness [44]. We noted that visual languages for artists often use a dataflow representation. Programs are structured as directed graphs that filter and operate on three-dimensional models, audio, images, and video [13, 49, 14, 17]. Dataflow systems are expressive, but often ill-matched for describing cyclic systems [25]. We therefore chose a visual state-based paradigm for DB so that artists could create behaviors that cycle through different functionality on discrete drawing events.
Funding
  • Developed Dynamic Brushes, a programming and drawing environment motivated by interviews with artists
  • Develops programming environments that support the integration of procedural and manual art?
  • Interviewed professional artists and examined manual and procedural practice
  • Makes the following contributions: First, introduces Dynamic Brushes, an integrated visual programming and stylus-based drawing environment
  • Provides insights for developing learnable and expressive procedural tools that are compatible with manual creation
Reference
  • Robert Aish. 2012. DesignScript: origins, explanation, illustration. In Computational Design Modelling. Springer, 1–8.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine Bias:There ’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it ’s biased against blacks. ProPublica (May 2016). https://www.propublica.org/article/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • C. Appert and M. Beaudouin-Lafon. 2008. SwingStates: Adding State Machines to Java and the Swing Toolkit. Softw. Pract. Exper. 38, 11 (Sept. 2008), 1149–1182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/spe.v38:11
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • John Berger. 2008. Drawing. In Selected Essays of John Berger, Geoff Dyer (Ed.). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. https://books.google.com/books?id=dYIUiSrKVccC
    Findings
  • Alan F. Blackwell. 2014. Palimpsest: A layered language for exploratory image processing. Journal of Visual Languages Computing 25, 5 (2014), 545 – 571. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.07.001
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Michael Bostock, Vadim Ogievetsky, and Jeffrey Heer. 2011. D3 Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (Dec. 2011), 2301–2309. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.185
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Joel Brandt, Mira Dontcheva, Marcos Weskamp, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2010. Example-centric Programming: Integrating Web Search into the Development Environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 513–522. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753402
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Leah Buechley and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2010. LilyPad in the Wild: How Hardware’s Long Tail is Supporting New Engineering and Design Communities. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 199–207. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858206
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Ravi Chugh, Jacob Albers, and Mitchell Spradlin. 2015. Program Synthesis for Direct Manipulation Interfaces. CoRR abs/1507.02988 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02988
    Findings
  • Cinder. 2017. Cinder:About. (2017). https://libcinder.org/about.
    Findings
  • Cecile Crutzen and Erna Kotkamp. 2008. Object Orientation. MIT Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2009. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Collins.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Cycling-74. 2016. Max. (2016). http://cycling74.com/products/max.
    Findings
  • Scott Davidson. 2007. Grasshopper. http://www.grasshopper3d.com. (2007).
    Findings
  • Nettrice Gaskins. 2017. Machine Drawing: Shantell Martin and the Algorist. (2017). http://magazine.art21.org/2017/07/06/
    Findings
  • Emily Gobielle and Theo Watson. 2010. Here to There: Poster Series for Children. (2010). http://design-io.com/projects/HereToThere/.
    Findings
  • Experimental Media Research Group. 2004. NodeBox. (2004). http://www.nodebox.net.
    Findings
  • Björn Hartmann, Loren Yu, Abel Allison, Yeonsoo Yang, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2008. Design As Exploration: Creating Interface Alternatives Through Parallel Authoring and Runtime Tuning. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91–100. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1449715.1449732
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • B. Harvey. 1991. Symbolic Programming vs. the A.P. Curriculum. The Computing Teacher 56 (February 1991), 27–29.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Brian Hempel and Ravi Chugh. 2016. Semi-Automated SVG Programming via Direct Manipulation. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 379–390. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984575
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Raphaël Hoarau and Stéphane Conversy. 2012. Augmenting the Scope of Interactions with Implicit and Explicit Graphical Structures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1937–1946. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208337
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Jennifer Jacobs and Leah Buechley. 2013. Codeable Objects: Computational Design and Digital Fabrication for Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1589–1598.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Jennifer Jacobs, Sumit Gogia, Radomír Mech, and Joel R. Brandt. 2017. Supporting Expressive Procedural Art Creation Through Direct Manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6330–6341. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025927
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Jennifer Jacobs, Mitchel Resnick, and Leah Buechley. 2014. Dresscode: supporting youth in computational design and making. In Constructionism. Vienna, Austria.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Wesley M. Johnston, J. R. Paul Hanna, and Richard J. Millar. 2004. Advances in Dataflow Programming Languages. Comput. Surveys 36, 1 (March 2004), 1–34. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1013208.1013209
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Sergi Jordà, Günter Geiger, Marcos Alonso, and Martin Kaltenbrunner. 2007. The reacTable: Exploring the Synergy Between Live Music Performance and Tabletop Tangible Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Matthew Kay, Cynthia Matuszek, and Sean A. Munson. 2015. Unequal Representation and Gender Stereotypes in Image Search Results for Occupations. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3819–3828. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702520
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Fanny Chevalier, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2014. Kitty: Sketching Dynamic and Interactive Illustrations. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Tovi Grossman, Nobuyuki Umetani, and George Fitzmaurice. 2016. SKUID: Sketching Dynamic Drawings Using the Principles of 2D Animation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 Talks (SIGGRAPH ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 84, 1 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2897839.2927410
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Scott R. Klemmer, Björn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama. 2006. How Bodies Matter: Five Themes for Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Andrew J. Ko, Brad A. Myers, and Htet Htet Aung. 2004. Six Learning Barriers in End-User Programming Systems. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing (VLHCC ’04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 199–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2004.47
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Golan Levin. 2003. Essay for Creative Code. (2003). http://www.flong.com/texts/essays/essay_creative_code
    Findings
  • Golan Levin. 2010. Yellowtail. (2010). http://flong.com/projects/yellowtail.
    Findings
  • Golan Levin. 2015. Foreword: For Us, By Us. In EYEO: Converge to Inspire. 2011-2015.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Zach Lieberman. 2009. Drawn. (2009). http://thesystemis.com/projects/drawn/.
    Findings
  • Zach Lieberman. 2014. Philosophy. In ofBook, a collaboratively written book about openFrameworks. http://openframeworks.cc/ofBook/chapters/of_
    Findings
  • Z. Lieberman, T. Watson, and A. Castro. 2015. openFrameworks. (2015). http://openframeworks.cc/about.
    Findings
  • Hugo Loi, Thomas Hurtut, Romain Vergne, and Joelle Thollot. 2017. Programmable 2D Arrangements for Element Texture Design. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 3, Article 27 (May 2017), 17 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2983617
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Maryam M. Maleki, Robert F. Woodbury, and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. Liveness, Localization and Lookahead: Interaction Elements for Parametric Design. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • M. McCullough. 1996. Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • W.J. Mitchell. 1990. The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • L. Mumford. 1952. Art and Technics. Columbia University Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Brad Myers, Scott E Hudson, and Randy Pausch. 2000. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 3–28.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Brad A Myers. 1990. Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 1, 1 (1990), 97–123.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Erik Natzke. 2012. Cloud Art Process. (2012). http://vimeo.com/69323991.
    Findings
  • C. Needleman. 1979. The work of craft: an inquiry into the nature of crafts and craftsmanship. Arkana.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Stephen Oney, Brad Myers, and Joel Brandt. 2014. InterState: A Language and Environment for Expressing Interface Behavior. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • S. Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Miller Puckette. 1988. The patcher. In Proceedings of the 1988 International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco. International Computer Music Association.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • C. Reas and B. Fry. 2004. Processing. (2004). http://processing.org.
    Findings
  • C. Reas and B. Fry. 2007. The Processing Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • C. Reas, C. McWilliams, and LUST. 2010. Form and Code. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Jasia Reichardt. 1969. Cybernetic serendipity: the computer and the arts. Praeger.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: Programming for All. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (nov 2009).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • M. Resnick and E.O. Rosenbaum. 2013. Designing for Tinkerability. In Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, M. Honey and D. Kanter (Eds.). Routledge.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • David Roedl, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2015. Sustainable Making? Balancing Optimism and Criticism in HCI Discourse. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 22, 3 (June 2015).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • R. Roque, K. Lin, and R. Liuzzi. 2016. “I’m not just a mom”: Parents developing multiple roles in creative computing.. In 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Toby Schachman. 2015. Apparatus: a hybrid graphics editor / programming environment for creating interactive diagrams. In Strange Loop.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ivan E. Sutherland. 1964. Sketchpad a Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation 2, 5 (1964), R–3–R–20. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003754976400200514
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • S. Turkle and S. Papert. 1992. Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 11, 1 (March 1992).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • B. Victor. 2011. Dynamic Pictures. (2011). http://worrydream.com/DynamicPicturesMotivation.
    Findings
  • B. Victor. 2012a. Inventing on Principle. In Proc. of the Canadian University Software Engineering Conference.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • B. Victor. 2012b. Stop Drawing Dead Fish. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2012 Talks (SIGGRAPH ’12).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • B. Victor. 2013. Drawing Dynamic Data Visualizations (Talk). (2013). http://vimeo.com/66085662.
    Findings
  • E. von Hippel. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Amit Zoran and Joseph A. Paradiso. 2013. FreeD: A Freehand Digital Sculpting Tool. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2018
Tags
Comments