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.