ABOUT
The History & Development of Computer Art Therapy

Historical Overview

Since the 1980s, computers have been incorporated into various settings to help children cope with illness or do better in school. Although these computers were not used to make art, the simple introduction of computer games and activities facilitated peer relationships and increased the child’s self-esteem and attention span (Kleiman & Humphrey, 1984; Levenson & Signer, 1985). Despite these benefits and even after the development of art creativity software, computer art met resistance in the art education and art therapy fields. Questions such as “Is it art?” and hesitance over the cost of developing a space to create computer art inspired a collection of articles that defend digital art and outline how to develop computer art studios.

Pioneers of Computer Art in Education

In art education, Deborah Greh (1986; 1991) outlined how to incorporate computers into the art education curriculum and classroom while Kerry Freedman (1989; 1991; 1997) investigated the social dynamics of her students while they created computer art. Although Greh and Freedman focused on different aspects of computer art in education, what they found in their respective studies formed an insightful foundation for art educators and art therapists alike to build upon.

Deborah Greh
In 1986, Deborah Greh offered suggestions for the creation of an inclusive art curriculum. After outlining the issues of space, hardware and software, she relayed the information she gathered from a one-year classroom trial. Her students discovered that “artists create images, computers assist artistic talent, but do not replace it” (p. 7). Greh noticed a period of adaptation and experimentation that was notably more valued by the students in computer art than in any other media. She observed that her students were more prepared to take risks and drew a parallel between her students’ openness to peer input and the computer’s ability to undo any suggestion. While concluding the results of her trial, Greh noted that the computer enticed students into the art room and encouraged a cooperative effort to provide art classrooms with this new tool.
In 1991, Greh teamed up with Guy Hubbard to summarize an initiative to educate teachers about the use of computers in their art classrooms and empower them to use the tools available. However, they claimed that computer generated images looked significantly different than conventionally made images and questioned the artistic merit of some qualities in computer art. Although this point may have been valid in the early nineties, it is not so today. Computer software has made tremendous leaps in what can be artistically achieved that it is often difficult to differentiate between a computer image and a one that is traditionally produced.

Furthermore, what does artistic merit have to do with what is creative or personally meaningful for the artist? Creativity is recognized by the characteristics of fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality (Rubin, 1984). By these definitions, the time clients invest in exploring choices and problem-solving within today’s image-making software, qualifies as demonstrations of creativity.

Kerry Freedman
Complimenting Greh’s research, Freedman (1989; 1991) conducted a study in two public elementary and one public high school art classrooms. She and her assistant observed approximately 40 students over 160 hours. Because of time constraints, all of the students were selected because they had some previous experience working on the classroom computers. Freedman (1991) found that these “students prefer to work on a computer more than to use other media because it is easier to make changes, or “correct” mistakes” (p. 41). From this study, Freedman’s most valuable contribution evolved as she observed the students’ social dynamics while they engaged with the computer. She described these findings as cooperative learning. Within her students’ cooperative learning, Freedman (1989; 1991) outlined four common forms of collaboration: consultation, spontaneous direction, cooperation and resistance, and image transferal.

First, consultation refers to the process of students tutoring their peers about an aspect of the computer or the creativity software. This type of interaction facilitated quicker acquisition of computer skills in both the tutor and the student. In my experience, the student is clearly gaining by learning a new skill. Less obvious is that often the student is less intimidated by their peers and is thus more willing to ask questions. The tutor, by having to explain what he has learned, is further able to synthesize their knowledge from the kinesthetic to the intellectual.

Second, spontaneous direction occurs when a peer finds interest in a student’s image and offers unsolicited advice or critique, which is willingly tested by the artist. In spontaneous direction, the artist’s openness to trial and error is greatly influenced by the option to undo any intervention they find unsatisfying. Freedman (1991) suggested that the uprightness and the brightness of the computer screen stimulated the increase in peer attention over traditional media. Although this may play a part in the interaction, it is more likely that the willingness of the artist to listen to suggestions and try them out without hesitation creates an atmosphere that is safe to offer critiques.

Freedman’s (1989; 1991) next form of collaboration resembles what we know today as working hand-over-hand. What she noticed was how two students having difficulty controlling the movements of the mouse resolved their problem. After taking turns trying to get more comfortable, one student placed their hand over the hand controlling the mouse and together they manipulated the mouse’s movements. The results of this interactive process were described as cooperation or resistance.

Finally, image transferal is the recycling or transformation of one person’s image by another. In Freedman’s (1989; 1991) study, the original images included stock images, completed artistic compositions, and scanned images. Since these images were sometimes used without the originator’s knowledge, she described a conflict over who owned the images. Regarding scanned images, she asked “whether the scanned image belongs to the student who scanned it” or “whether anyone should have access to it” (1991, p. 44). I place great emphasis on respecting each artist’s work. Maintaining this respect would require that permission be granted before a personal or private image is used in another’s composition. Stock images, on the other hand, can be provided to all as a resource and springing-off point for what will become their personal images.

Pioneers of Computer Art in Therapy

Shaun McNiff (1999) has “always perceived art therapy as the inclusive discipline for…varied media” (p. 197). For this reason, many art therapists have incorporated computers into their spaces. However, they have not all included its therapeutic tools into their repertoire. Some therapists are unwilling to understand or are unable to utilize the computer’s tools to benefit their settings. While defending the therapeutic use of computer art to her supervision group, A. Rios (personal communication, February 5, 2005) described how her fellow supervisees breathed sighs of relief whenever a child chose to work on the computer. Typically, these therapists would launch the application the child was interested in and leave them alone to play. Whenever Rios would attempt to discuss a specific therapeutic intervention with computer art or a child’ computer art process, her supervisor and peers alike would lose interest and quickly change the subject. These therapists comfortably perceived a child’s request to use the computer as an opportunity to take a break from their active roles as therapists. They have openly been resistant to learning about the therapeutic tools they have the ability of making available to their populations. Luckily, a handful of authors keep advocating for the beneficial uses of computer art in therapy. This literature spans the last eighteen years and is slowly still being produced.

Richard G. Johnson
In 1987, Johnson’s first exploration of incorporating computers into his counseling sessions resulted in the opinion that offering children the opportunity to create art on the computer facilitated the therapeutic alliance more rapidly than verbal counseling alone. He and the counselors of the Michigan State University Learning Clinic purchased a graphic table that allowed children to paint on the computer using their fingers or a stylus. Johnson (1987) and his associates were willing to explore this new medium because they felt that the computer had “a special relevance and excitement for today’s children” (p. 263).
In 2002, Johnson detailed the Learning Clinic’s progress in incorporating computers into their counseling sessions. Their first step was to begin using turtle graphics and the computer language LOGO to create designs of complex shapes and colors. The success of this moved his group to purchase the graphics tablet mentioned above. The images that were created were then used as a springboard for dialogue. Johnson (2002) described an increase in the child’s motivation to attend their counseling sessions and concluded that computer painting “is a way of enhancing communication between the child and the counselor and offers a projective assessment tools as well as a medium for looking at new ways of perceiving the self and exploring new and more adequate coping behaviors” (p. 367).

This last statement is not very different from how we would now describe art therapy as a whole. Except for the substitution of counselor with therapist, the same statement could be said about any artistic medium. The value therefore of Johnson’s articles is that it alludes to the idea that using computers to make art is, for many individuals without prior art experience, less intimidating than traditional methods of art making.

Peter Hartwich & Rolf Brandecker
Hartwich and Brandecker (1997) continued on this theme by focusing on how their patients with schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder responded to painting on the computer as opposed to conventional means. Their trial computer painting program was conducted within the creative art therapy program in the psychiatric unit of a hospital in Frankfurt, Germany. They found that “many people feel inhibited when they are asked to paint in a traditional way. They do not feel able to transfer their feelings and experiences onto paper. They argue that they are not artists” (p. 372).

In the same article, Hartwich and Brandecker (1997), noticed that for some of their patients, painting would trigger a switch into a psychotic state and cause a breakdown of ego boundaries. The authors theorized that the strict logic and distance between patient and picture inherent in computer painting could be more capable of keeping and protecting one’s defense mechanisms. For instance, when a patient became anxious or felt threatened while painting on the computer, the act of erasing or undoing parts or whole images could physically parallel the repression of their psychic material. In addition, the authors felt that intellectualization was probably activated while computer painting because of the distinct physical space separating the image and the patient. In closing, Hartwich and Brandecker (1997) found that “even though dangerous energies emerge [while painting on the computer], the patient succeeds in keeping ego boundaries firm” (p. 371).

Devorah Samet Canter
The concept of maintaining ego boundaries may also have played a part in Canter’s (1987; 1989) research with school children and adolescents diagnosed with behavioral and emotional problems. However, Canter attributed her results to the computer’s ability to deliver the right level of success. Thus, in her 1987 and 1989 articles, Canter focused on the positive behavioral changes she noticed in the children with whom she worked. At an Illinois state inpatient psychiatric facility, Canter worked as a part-time consultant where she observed child abuse, drug-related issues, suicide attempts, and depression as common problems. Many of the youth at this facility were from low-to-middle class families and single parent homes.

Within the facility, Canter offered the children and adolescents an open art studio where she worked with individuals and groups. The patients described in her 1987 article were diagnosed as having learning and developmental disabilities and anti-social personality disorders. In her studio, she provided them with all the traditional two and three-dimensional art making materials as well as computer painting, music, and animation applications. Canter felt that certain software packages could bring out her patients’ creative talents and reduce the behavioral problems of clients with learning disabilities. The results Canter (1989) noted after working with these children included: “increased attention span and development of visual expression, music expression, self-confidence, creativity, and communicative skills” (p. 314).

The key elements Canter focused on were the ability to undo any artistic action and the real-time or WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) capabilities. These elements encouraged the young person’s mastery and willingness to try, err, and retry while facilitating trust in the art therapist and the therapeutic space. By providing the children with “new kinds of creative learning experiences, positive interpersonal communication, and state-of-the-art technological tools,” Canter was able to provide the residents of the psychiatric facility with a sense of normalcy, which is necessary in any inpatient unit (1987, p. 25).

The inpatient unit typically exists in a bubble where the rules differ from the outside world and are focused on speeding the process of recovery. To achieve this, the individual’s choices are greatly restricted and regimented. Daily activities are determined by what facilities are available on the unit and food is typically pre-selected by the health care provider or from a limited menu. Even the choice regarding an invasive procedure like a blood test is not whether or not to have one, or when to have one, but which room to have it done. Art offers these clients a safe space where they can have infinite choices and re-establish their ability to make independent decisions. Computer art, with its dynamic colors, sounds, and novelty quickly engages clients and invites them into the holding environment of art making.

In 1989 Canter paralleled the computer to “a teacher who does not get mad about mistakes, but gives individual attention, and lets clients work at their own pace” (p. 302). Although my bias is that the therapist is responsible for these actions as well, her statement alludes to the holding environment that the computer is able to maintain. The computer is an interactive medium on many levels and because of this interactivity, it is able to engage individuals in ways that traditional materials cannot. Like conventional art, there always exists a conversation between the artist’s psyche and the image being created. Unlike drawing, painting, or sculpture, the computer program that holds the image and the artistic tools has the ability to “speak” to the artist. Literally, it can warn the artist about its incapabilities and can provide suggestions through dialog boxes or help bubbles and menus. This is useful, as Canter has described, in facilitating the individual’s self esteem by the possibility of mastering the computer program without additional aid. However, it is dangerous if therapists rely too much on the computer’s automatic aid and become unable or unwilling to find a comfortable space between the computer and their client where therapeutic intervention and interpersonal dialog can be possible.

- Sairalyn Ansano Thong, BFA, MA, ATR-BC