Generative Systems: The Art and Technology of Classroom Collaboration
Kathryn T. Farley, Ph.D.
Marion L. Brittan Postdoctoral Fellow
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Introduction
In 2006, I was awarded a Researcher-in-Residence grant by the Daniel Langlois
Foundation to chart the history of the Generative Systems, a groundbreaking
instructional program founded in 1970 by Professor Sonia Landy Sheridan at the
School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and trace its seminal impact on the
development of technological arts education My project aims to investigate the
program’s founding ideology, core curriculum and organizational structure in
order to chart the ways in which Sheridan’s methods of instruction gave rise to a
new pedagogical framework from which to explore the implications of emerging
communications technologies on art production. Drawing on diverse archival
resources in the Sonia Landy Sheridan fonds (course syllabi, lesson plans,
administrative documents, photographs of class sessions, student assessment
questionnaires and copies of assignments, video and audiotape documentation
of instructional activities) and recent interviews with Professor Sheridan, the
study attempts to offer a comprehensive account of the evolution of Generative
Systems and link its development to the emergence of art and technology studies
at the post-secondary level.
Working in close contact with Web designer, Ludovic Carpentier, and archivist
Vincent Bonin from the Daniel Langlois Foundation, we conceived of an interface
that illuminates the complex matrix of ideas, processes and practices that
Generative Systems gave rise to, drew inspiration from and transformed during
its lifespan. Information is arranged within the matrix in a way that emphasizes
the interconnected components of the program, helping to demonstrate it’s
collaborative, experimental and process-oriented features in real-time. To
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 1
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
navigate the map, you are encouraged to begin on any point on the grid. It might
help to know that the categories located in the center of the matrix (marked in
blue) provide detailed information about a central aspect of the program, while
the subjects appearing in yellow and red positioned on the outer perimeters refer
to specific subjects within a category.
During the initial phase of research on the project, I traveled to Hanover, New
Hampshire in order to conduct interviews with Professor Sheridan. Upon meeting
her for the first time in person, I was struck by her mischievous spirit and joyous
nature-qualities that played an integral role in crafting the ethos and operational
structure of Generative Systems classes. It is my hope that this digital
presentation will help to spread the word about Professor Sheridan’s important
contributions to arts education as a whole and to the emergent field of
technological art studies. In keeping with her innovative and insightful approach
to teaching, the project has been designed to highlight the importance of play
and creative exploration in devising experiential learning opportunities for
students.
Founding Ideology
There was no single action, event or decision that triggered the sudden
emergence of Generative Systems. Rather, the program evolved in an organic
and spontaneous manner over a ten year period. The impetus for creating the
first class introducing students to the inner-workings of high-speed
communications instruments grew out of Professor Sheridan’s childhood
experiences, educational background and beliefs regarding the responsibilities
of artists vis-a-vi society. Her upbringing and educational training had
emphasized the importance of political participation and creative expression in
combating social injustice and economic disparity. 1 Professor Sheridan’s life-
1
Art historian Diane Kirkpatrick has written extensively on Professor Sheridan’s
background, teaching career and artistic work. A recent paper, “Sonia Landy
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 2
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
long commitment to civic involvement and her experiences teaching in public
schools reinforced the idea that creative production was inextricably linked to
social activism: artists were responsible for redressing political imbalances and
responding to the scientific and technological contexts of their time. When
discussing the impact of the anti-Vietnam war movement and space exploration
on the development of Generative Systems, for example, Professor Sheridan
noted, “It originated in my personal quest for an art process appropriate to the
technological and societal context of that era. It seemed to me that an
awareness of genetics, time and motion had to be as crucial to art as it was to
science.”2
In light of her beliefs concerning artistic advocacy and the importance of
scientific/technological investigation, the term “Generative Systems” that
Professor Sheridan elected to use to identify the program beginning in its
formulative years (1970-73) was particularly meaningful. The phrase, suggested
by Ian Roberston, director of the Good Lion Press, recognized a generative
approach to art production and a mode of investigation closely associated with
scientific discovery. Applying principles of biology, physics and chemistry to the
examination of mechanical processes, Professor Sheridan’s classes offered new
methods and tools for art making, as she asserts in this excerpt of a recent
interview. SLS Interview w/kf File 1 #C “founding narrative of GS.”
Besides unifying different classes under a single name, the moniker served to
underscore the process-oriented and experimental nature of classroom activities.
“Generative Systems” also encapsulated the program’s multidisciplinary features
and myriad operational objectives. In addition, the name pointed out the
Sheridan and the Evolution of her Generative Systems Program,” appeared in
Visual Resources: an International Journal of Documentation, vol. XXII, no. 4
(December 2006) p. 343-361. The article provided an overview of the influence of
Professor Sheridan’s upbringing and education on her approach to teaching and
philosophies regarding art instruction.
2
Sonia Landy Sheridan, “Generative Systems at the School of the Art Institute of
Chicago, 1970-1980,” Ibid, p. 315.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 3
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
program’s diverse functions, its ability to serve as “a research center; a resource
and energy-bank; a self-generating center where communication tools came and
went while people remained.”3 A strategic report prepared by Professor Sheridan
in 1973 reveals the scope and range of early program activities.
Seeking a way to support student involvement in anti-war demonstrations,
Professor Sheridan began to work with new communication instruments that had
been designed primarily for commercial applications. Experimentation with
diverse imaging systems led her to discover different commercial devices that
afforded students the ability to generate protest banners and distribute signage in
a timely manner. Ultimately, experimentation with emergent media tools in a
classroom environment shaped Professor Sheridan’s view that “An approach to
art education was required that would place modern communication tools in n
their proper place as an adjunct of the human mind and senses.”4 Generative
Systems offered a progressive alternative to standard art school curriculums, a
subject that Professor Sheridan discussed in this excerpt of a recent interview.
SLS interview w/KF File 1 #D “premises and first years of GS.”
From its inception, the program assumed an international flavor and composition.
Participants in Generative Systems classes represented a wide array of origins,
languages and creative traditions. Together, these students contributed a
multicultural dimension to classroom dynamics and a variety of approaches to
producing art within a global context.
The ideologies governing the early years of Generative Systems classes were
shaped in large part by Professor Sheridan’s residency experiences. In this
document, she explains how exposure to the inner-workings of 3M’s
experimental Color-in-Color laboratory gave rise to innovative thinking about art
3
Sonia Landy Sheridan, “Mind/Senses/Hand: The Generative Systems Program at the Art Institute of
Chicago 1970-1980,” Leonard: Journal of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology,
vol. 23, no. 2/3 (December 1990) p. 175.
4
Ibid., p. 317.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 4
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
education and the value of high-speed communication tools in teaching creative
production.
Generative Systems began as an “embryo project” in 1970, involving
experimentation with diverse imaging technologies and collaborative modes of
discovery. From the start, the project assumed a fluid and open-ended dynamic,
providing participants direct access to a wide range of industrial equipment,
personnel and production techniques that had traditionally remained off limits to
academic study.
Core Curriculum
Generative System’s unique curriculum, promoting hands-on exploration of
diverse high-speed communication tools, aligned engineers, scientists, industry
representatives and arts practitioners with a unique body of undergraduate and
graduate students. Primarily, Generative Systems classes sought to provide
participants with collaborative art making opportunities and access to a vast array
of industrial equipment, personnel and techniques that had traditionally remained
off limits to academic inquiry. The commercial equipment that Professor Sheridan
elected to employ in her courses ranged from a thermo fax machine (a prototype
of the modern copier) to the more complex Color-in Color copy system, Haloid
Xerox technology, video imaging and, eventually, computer graphics software. 5
Functioning as an experimental learning lab, Professor Sheridan’s classroom
balanced the needs and interests of students with the skills and expertise offered
by visiting scientists, industry executives and engineers, an approach to
instruction that Professor Sheridan describes in this excerpt of a recent interview.
Ultimately, interactions between students and guest lecturers gave rise to
innovative ideas about the relationship between scientific inquiry and
5
To learn more about the equipment used by students and Professor Sheridan in
the Generative Systems classroom, please visit the “Process” section of the
interface.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 5
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
technological advancement on art production, as well as the discovery of hybrid
mediums of expression that blended traditional elements of photography,
drawing and textile design together with cutting-edge advancements in image
processing.6
Like many other aspects of the program, the core curriculum of Generative
Systems evolved incrementally over time. Expanding from a single class
centering on “reproduction” technologies to a formal program of study focusing
on complex imaging processes, the content of individual courses was shaped in
large part by the availability of technical instrumentation. For example, an integral
component of early Generative Systems classes was the Color-in-Color copy
machine, an instrument produced by and made available to students of the
School of the Art Institute of Chicago by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company. As an instructional tool, the photocopier provided an accessible way to
examine the inner-workings of mechanical apparatuses and to gain practical
experience mastering art/science integration techniques. Exploring the creative
functions of machinery allowed students to discover non-traditional uses of
technology, meaning the ways in which technical devices could be utilized for
purposes other than they were intended. How might a Color-in Color copy
machine, for instance, be used as a sophisticated imaging device, not just an
instrument for basic reproduction? In this interview excerpt, Sonia Landy
Sheridan comments on the role of technology in early Generative Systems
courses.
By the seventh year of the program, Professor Sheridan had designed certain
Generative Systems classes to “give the student a range of experience, from the
artist’s vantage point, in reexamining energy for imaging manually, mechanically,
electronically and photonically, and to pull apart and examine dozens of
6
The “Processes” section of the site offers details about hybrid art making
techniques in relation to classroom activities.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 6
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
communications machines.“7 The courses, titled “Process I and Process II,”
introduced students to the transformational and interactive properties of high-
speed imaging systems using a practice-based mode of inquiry. These
exercises, part of a “Process I” class, for instance, granted participants the
opportunity to understand electrostatic image transfer without the assistance of
mechanical instrumentation. In-class activities and take-home assignments, such
as lessons involving magnetic production techniques, allowed participants to
grapple with complex scientific principles within a practical and participatory
context.
Towards the end of the 1970s, a course called “Homography” was added to the
Generative Systems curriculum. The class, analyzing the relationship between
two objects or subjects, emphasized art making using both traditional and
emergent instruments and production techniques. Students worked with a wide
array of technologies in the course, beginning with pens and paintbrushes and
progressing to video cameras, photocopiers and computers. As Professor
Sheridan explained, “It was an attempt to find the aesthetics and meaning
underlying the shift from tools of one kind to tools of another kind of time.” 8
“Homography” aimed to build upon the practical exercises, activities and
assignments presented in Process I and II classes.
Although Generative Systems courses contained improvisatory and fluid
features, in-class activities were guided by a pre-determined organizational
structure and individualized lesson plan. Time was allotted to diverse subjects,
such as technical training, one-on-one consultation with instructors and critique
7
Sonia Landy Sheridan, “Mind/Senses/Hand: The Generative Systems Program
at the Art Institute of Chicago 1970-1980,” Leonard: Journal of the International
Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology, vol. 23, no. 2/3 (December 1990)
p. 176.
8
Ibid., p. 178.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 7
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement
sessions involving group feedback, as this calendar from the spring of 1972
attests.
The cooperation of businesses involved in the creation of new communications
tools designed for commercial use was integral to the development and success
of Generative Systems classes. By making industrial instruments, personnel and
techniques available to students of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, the
program offered a viable model of education/industry collaboration, a partnership
that challenged traditional approaches to art instruction and analysis.
Public workshops and exhibitions of projects produced in Generative Systems
classes served an important role in disseminating information about the program.
Professor Sheridan recognized that technical demonstrations and student
exhibits would help to spread the word about her unique instructional methods
and increase the level of participation of members of the School’s community in
program activities. Video snippet of workshop from 1980.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\449e36e4-baf4-410d-b0d7- 8
50984d7afd75.docInsert AutoText Nom de fichier et emplacement