skip to main content
10.1145/3526114.3558527acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Extending Computational Abstractions with Manual Craft for Visual Art Tools

Published:28 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Programming and computation are powerful tools for manipulating visual forms, but working with these abstractions is challenging for artists who are accustomed to direct manipulation and manual control. The goal of my research is to develop visual art tools that extend programmatic capabilities with manual craft. I do so by exposing computational abstractions as transparent materials that artists may directly manipulate and observe in a process that accommodates their non-linear workflows. Specifically, I conduct empirical research to identify challenges professional artists face when using existing software tools—as well as programming their own—to make art. I apply principles derived from these findings in two projects: an interactive programming environment that links code, numerical information, and program state to artists’ ongoing artworks, and an algorithm that automates the rigging of character clothing to bodies to allow for more flexible and customizable 2D character illustrations. Evaluating these interactions, my research promotes authoring tools that support arbitrary execution by adapting to the existing workflows of artists.

References

  1. Edwin L Hutchins, James D Hollan, and Donald A Norman. 1985. Direct manipulation interfaces. Human–computer interaction 1, 4 (1985), 311–338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ivan Illich and Anne Lang. 1973. Tools for conviviality. (1973).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tim Ingold. 2010. The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 1 (2010), 91–102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jennifer Jacobs, Joel Brandt, Radomír Mech, and Mitchel Resnick. 2018. Extending Manual Drawing Practices with Artist-Centric Programming Tools. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174164Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Alec Jacobson, Ilya Baran, Jovan Popović, and Olga Sorkine. 2011. Bounded Biharmonic Weights for Real-Time Deformation. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4, Article 78 (July 2011), 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2010324.1964973Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jingyi Li, Joel Brandt, Radomír Mech, Maneesh Agrawala, and Jennifer Jacobs. 2020. Supporting Visual Artists in Programming through Direct Inspection and Control of Program Execution. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376765Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jingyi Li, Son Kim, Joshua A. Miele, Maneesh Agrawala, and Sean Follmer. 2019. Editing Spatial Layouts through Tactile Templates for People with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300436Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jingyi Li, Wilmot Li, Sean Follmer, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2021. Automated Accessory Rigs for Layered 2D Character Illustrations. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474809Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jingyi Li, Wilmot Li, Sean Follmer, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2021. Automated Accessory Rigs for Layered 2D Character Illustrations. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474809Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Pablo Stanley. 2020. Open Peeps. https://www.openpeeps.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. 2022. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125(2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C. Reas and B. Fry. 2004. Processing. http://processing.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Donald A Schon. 1968. The reflective practitioner. New York (1968).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Snap Inc.2021. Bitmoji. https://www.bitmoji.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Bret Victor. 2011. Dynamic Pictures. http://worrydream.com/DynamicPicturesMotivation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Extending Computational Abstractions with Manual Craft for Visual Art Tools

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        UIST '22 Adjunct: Adjunct Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
        October 2022
        413 pages
        ISBN:9781450393218
        DOI:10.1145/3526114

        Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 28 October 2022

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • extended-abstract
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate842of3,967submissions,21%

        Upcoming Conference

        UIST '24
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)81
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format