My research inquiry is to explore student’s feelings of success when engaged in digital art making. In this literature review I will be covering a selection of peer reviewed research articles related to my research this inquiry. The three recurring themes in these articles relevant to understanding student relationship with digital art are:
Bolstering Creativity Utilizing Digital Methods
Digital Interaction can bolster creativity in artistic endeavors
Digital vs Traditional
Comparative studies of Digital art making to traditional methods
Permissions in Art Making
Studies seeking to understand how students make creative decisions especially as it relates to the use of digital media
I identify with the A/R/T-ographer profile of artist, researcher and teacher which put me down the path of using an action-based ABR methodology. I actively practice digital and traditional methods and I am excited by both options and blend the two factions together for the best articulation of my own art. Teaching the importance of these traditional methods and harnessing the excitement of the wide spectrum of what can be quickly accomplished and explored in the digital art realm is what lead me to my research inquiry. Students quickly forget their sketchbooks and abandon them if not reminded that spit-balling ideas in thumbnail fashion is still one of the best ways to creatively brainstorm and rotate ideas. My initial research uncovered the idea of perceived cheating by students and the need for permissions. For instance, students often require permission to use some basic techniques, such as tracing and use of image referencing, especially in digital media. Following this planned research inquiry, will create a more effective artist, researcher, and teacher.
Bolstering Creativity
One of the themes that is recurring in research into the digital art education field is inquiry into whether creativity is enhanced with technology. Several studies have been conducted such as the 2017 study by Hung and Young. Studying college students in an art appreciation course, a qualitative and quantitative study was conducted by the researchers and authors of this study to explore the effects of technologies’ ability to effect student motivation in the art appreciation class. Studying two college groups of students, one given digital multi-touch tablets and the other traditional resources such as printed literature and notebook computers. The study followed these research questions:
(1) Are there any differences in students’ motivation with or without adoption of tablets? How can the use of tablets motivate students?
(2) Do the multi-touch screens featured in tablets facilitate college students’ learning of art appreciation? If so, how do learners interact with the digital content via the multi-touch screen?
Using a system called ARCS, developed by Keller (1987) they compared the motivation of students to the subject matter prior to and after taking the course. Keller (1987) synthesized existing research on psychological motivation and created the ARCS model which stands for Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. This model contains strategies for promoting and sustaining learners’ motivation (Keller,1987). (Hung, Young, 2017).
Learners cited convenience, ability to cross reference and investigate detail a major advantage with the tablets. Compared with the conventional approach, the multi-touch gestures support student's annotation skills, such as graffiti, for creating visual comments that could be shared easily among peers. Multi-touch technology could play an important role in art appreciation learning to (1) change the view of learners on the art materials; (2) listen to lectures at a flexible and personalized pace; and (3) create efficient and intuitive annotations (Hung, Young, 2017). Also, the ability to annotate on the content at hand further added to the “investment” into the subject matter. In conclusion, statistical data and qualitative interview data supported the conclusion that students were more motivated using multi-touch methods rather than notebooks computers and paper. The approach of learning art appreciation with tablets and multi-touch technology has a greater ability to motivate student involvement and art appreciation learning (Hung, Young, 2017).
Hung and Young’s study spoke to the ability to motivate college students in art appreciation utilizing multi-touch input by allowing creativity, but many studies have been conducted investigating early childhood education and creativity using iPads and similar technologies. Sakr wrote in the International Journal of Education & the Arts in 2019 on this topic. Her article, Young Children Drawing Together on the iPad Versus Paper: How Collaborative Creativity is Shaped by Different Semiotic Resources, (Sakr, 2019) very specifically investigated this arena.
Sakr and her fellow researchers sought to investigate if touch screens and iPads facilitate more collaborative and creative drawing activities in young children over traditional paper and pencil drawings. She considered the preconceptual notions of drawing on both paper and with iPads. She organizes her findings into three themes: 1) attitudes to space 2) momentum of the line and 3) pathways to representation. Citing this and another study, also performed by Sakr, she notes that multiple factors impact a child’s creativity and their interaction with others. As theorists of possibility thinking have found through observations of learning environments and child-adult interactions, making choices about the physical environment in which activity unfolds, including the resources that are given to children, is a fundamental part of successfully facilitating collaborative creativity (Cremin, Burnard & Craft, 2006; Kucirkova & Sakr, 2015).
She continues in her support of the media and its semiotic resources and affordances. This idea of what a material is used for, who, or by and how the individual interacts with that material is important. She suggests that, according to Gibson (1961) we perceive the world in terms of how we will potentially interact with it (Sakr, 2019). She gives the example of block crayons, typically associated with children’s drawings, while pencils are seen as tools used by both adults and children; these associations will shape how the drawing unfolds (Sakr, 2019). Hence, these preconceived notions might incline the student to draw a simplistic rendering with the crayons but a more detailed and careful drawing with a pencil, because they perceive it as an adult’s tool.
Overall findings suggest that the children in the iPad study felt a looser creative experience with the iPad as compared to the paper and pencil comparison. The ability to quickly change color and media representation allotted for a more loose and creative style of play than when presented with paper and traditional artistic tools.
Students in modern school settings are increasingly more likely to relate creative activity to digital activities and behaviors. Studies that support this, like those conducted by Hoffmann, Ivcevic, and Brackett, show quantitative data of students self-reporting on creativity. The researchers in this study created a measure for self-reporting creativity in the digital domain, the Creative Behavior Questionnaire: Digital (CBQD). The study was compared to other creative self-reporting measures and results were aligned. 230 students participated in the study and self-reported and nominated peers to give a measure of digital creative experiences. Descriptive statistics for the CBQD items showed that many students participated in a range of digital creativity activities: 91% of students reported having made a video for class, 75% created a multimedia project for a class, and 70.6% of students have made a podcast. Other creative behaviors were less frequent. For example, 14% said they created unique content for a video game, 14% indicating they had won a digital art contest, and 10% of students reported writing an app for a mobile device (Hoffman, Ivcevic, Brackett 2016). If this data holds true, one could logically expect with the current post-pandemic and advent of widespread remote and mixed learning in schools globally, that creative activity related to digital behavior would be even higher today.
In the school art classroom, digital behaviors and creative activities are also becoming more influential and making new creative possibilities. Fahey and Cronen wrote on the impact of the digital student art portfolio and how it allows for deeper understanding in art making. They explored the benefits of digital portfolio creation and how it can add to the benefits of the traditional portfolio building experience. With the addition of digital referencing and archiving, students can better understand the process of how they arrived at a current state of artistic ability and production. This arose from the value placed on assessment by Senate Bill 191, requiring states to regulate a system of quantifying performance. By requiring students to document and reflect on their art making process, the instructor can better understand the students’ creative process and how to provide the best feedback for each individual student (Fahey, Cronen, 2016). From their research, students using a digital portfolio were better able to provide an organized way to document their processes of creation, rather than simply providing a final product. In this fashion, students in turn can see a visual progression of idea generation and progression of skill, technique, and artistic understanding.
Traditional vs Digital
The second theme that garners attention in the arena of exploring efficacy of digital art and art education is the discussion and debate over traditional styles and media of artmaking versus digital alternatives. Upon delving into research in the early 2000’s, I found many articles touting how the digital tablet would be in the hands of every student and would revolutionize learning and improve students’ ability to learn because of limitless apps and global education collaboration. With over three decades of touch technology such as Wacom tablets and styluses in effect and major landmarks such as the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 and iPad in 2010, these devices have most assuredly changed the art and education landscapes, but they have not been the silver bullet some researchers predicted.
In 2018, Wang wrote in Art Education about the iPad and the device’s pros and cons. Since the launch of the iPad in 2010, the author of the study cites multiple studies toting the benefits of the device as a multimedia learning tool. Coupled with multiple available art programs, it can be a powerful digital art tool. She explores strengths and weaknesses of the tool in art education through interviews with 15 art educators in k-8 schools.
Touch screens and interactive frameworks offer many benefits to the art classroom. The versatility of apps and media that react to pressure and sensitivity help to mimic the fluidity and reactions of media. Use of layers and transparency in multiple uses helps to problem solve and increase trial and error learning. The interface is so user friendly, it expedites the experience of art making while keeping art educators current and proactive to recent technologies (Wang, 2015). Any art teacher will tell you the loss of class time spent setting up and then cleaning up a project in the aftermath of creativity with traditional media which is avoided using digital creation methods. She continues with the praise of the device citing the mobility, easy access to the system, touch screen, variety of resources and applications, and the feature of forgiveness that allows trial and error, they offered ideal platforms to learn digital art (Wang, 2015)
Additionally, the tool allows for and can energize learners and promote cooperative learning. Not only did this allow versatility, but students also created co-learning and co-teaching environments along with the teachers. This allows struggling students to utilize the entire class to catch up and carry out tasks (Wang 2018). Rather than solely depending on the teacher’s help, students themselves would support each other with trouble shooting, thus creating collaborative teamwork (Wang 2018).
However, there are some caveats to iPads and similar devices. Some downfalls to the device as a learning tool included the overwhelming number of programs currently available for the iPad platform. Teaching with software requires teachers to be familiar with the specific platforms being utilized, and often, can be overly complex to roll out to a class of students. Classroom management, especially for younger students, is also a huge hurdle as they try to keep students on task. Any teacher who has guided multiple students all using open platform digital devices, be it phones, tablets, or laptops, will tell you that having 100% of students on task and not wandering around the internet is always challenging.
Wang concludes that an art program that integrates both traditional and digital methods is the best route for art education. They (traditional and digital art practices) can operate to advance and complement each other. An integrated and balanced art curriculum that includes iPad art as a complement to traditional media is the most effective way for introducing iPad art. iPad art can be the final product, or it can be just part of meaningful artmaking processes (Wang 2018). Wang also touches upon the idea that digital art somehow devalues traditional methods. This pertains to this research inquiry directly and will be addressed in the last theme, considering permissions in digital art.
This idea of a complementary scenario with digital and traditional artmaking techniques is supported in other research as well. Souleles wrote on this complementary relationship of digital art, specifically the iPad, and traditional methods and tools in the British Journal of Educational Technology in 2017. This study investigates the claim that the iPad is a superior learning tool and that there is a distinct dichotomy between digital and traditional art making.
Art making should not be seen as a distinct divide where an artist needs to choose either traditional or digital methods. Souleles concludes that the main inference is that the relationship between digital and traditional tools can be better understood as complementary rather than as a dichotomy (Souleles, 2017). He goes on to supply implications for practice and/or policy
The paper emphasizes the need for faculty to understand what each set of tools can and cannot bring to teaching and learning.
The perceived affordances of the iPad are mediated by the individual and varied preferences, knowledge, and attitudes of individual students.
For the foreseeable future, there is a role for both sets of media in art and design instructional practice (Souleles, 2017).
This study is valuable to this research comparing traditional methods and digital methods in art and design. Souleles discusses the research put forth supporting a superior learning tool and challenges the idea of a one-or-the-other approach to traditional/digital. Disadvantages of digital tools are in line with early educational studies showing potential for distraction and off task behavior. However, traditional design skills are still needed to implement the software and input, thus, the two sides are needed to work in complement to each other.
Multiple sources repeated this need for traditional skills in digital platforms to insure successful execution, such as the 2012 article in Art, Design & Communication by Appiah and Cronjé. This study, in Ghana, looked at the comparison of idea creation done traditionally (thumbnail sketches) vs digitally (computer generated images) in the graphic design education environment. Following the ideas of traditional design creation presented by Wallas (1926) in the analysis of design, the process goes as follows: Problem Identification, Brainstorming/Thumbnail sketching, Preparation of Rough Thought, Execution of Finished Roughs, Final Design (Appiah, Cronjé 2012).
This study proposes educators adopt a blended approach for idea development that will also demand a clear pedagogy that will align with the principles of students developing ideas, be it from scratch or from influences of other sources (Appiah, Cronjé 2012). This study also suggests that students will receive help from both traditional and contemporary methods, and both should be embraced in a successful design program. Digital drafting and architectural programs, such as CAD (Computer Aided Design) currently have become integral to careers in design since this study was published. However, these programs are still based on the traditional rules and techniques of design in both practice and in the understanding of their effective use.
The authors of a critical study in the Canadian Art Education journal tell a cautionary tale of the tightrope of balancing the traditional with contemporary views on art and how it reflects upon a community and society. Curtis and McLeod presented a study that reflects a view that, although small, the art educator plays a role in the self-promoted myopic view of the region allowing the art educator to play a somewhat subversive role to the larger historical, political, and social agenda (Curtis, McLeod, 2019). The study involved an art education program and an interconnected gallery and the conflicts the two had in relation to traditional vs digital art making processes. The art gallery challenged the visual arts program to which it was attached, whose curricular design was more conservative. While no allowances had been made for schooling in video art, installation, or performance art classes in the design of the art program itself, over time exhibitions at the gallery exposed the students to these media (Curtis, McLeod, 2019). Again, supporting an ideal that contemporary systems of art creation and development should work alongside traditional studies and use a critical eye to create a visual art education system that allows exposure to a multiple range of artistic careers and outlets, both traditional and technology driven modern methods.
Digital media has been advancing at an accelerated pace for years now. The choices for an artist looking to explore traditional art making will find multiple options to explore digitally as well. These digital options can aid in design processes, help in visualization of difficult to manage materials, or in some cases even replace the final art product altogether. The crowd sourced content available for the industry standard of graphic design, Adobe’s Photoshop, is staggering by itself before you even consider the wide array of options available. Collage, oil painting, watercolor and even sculpture have digital options that rival their real-world counterparts and offer a whole new list of assets and endless adaptability.
In Computer Graphics Forum, Stuyck, Da, Hadap, & Dutré 2017 described one such software and the abilities and benefits it had to offer artists. The authors of this paper in the computer graphics forum put forward a study on the effectiveness of the oil painting simulation software they had developed, allowing for the peculiar traits and bold colors of oil painting in a tablet environment. Complex algorithms seeking to mimic the viscosity of oils and their relationship to the brush and canvas are described in detail. However, they write that the software is not designed to supplant traditional oil painting, but rather to compliment and work in a cohesive fashion with the artist to allow for flexibility in the media, as seen in the following exerts from their article.
We propose our system as a reliable tool to quickly try out ideas and perform preliminary paint studies and to aid artists complimentary to their traditional workflow to obtain faster convergence towards the desired outcome (Stuyck, Da, Hadap, & Dutré, pg. 21, 2017)
The proposed system offers natural physical paint behavior to improve the virtual painting experience and has proven to be successful in aiding artists to create new work whether it be digital or traditional (Stuyck, Da, Hadap, & Dutré, pg. 21, 2017)
Written in 2017, this tech-heavy article presents a legacy of digital software designed to support, not replace, traditional media and give artists more support in their endeavors. Integrating grit, gravity, flow, viscosity, texture, and lighting into the equation of software development creates a robust and realistic experience on a digital platform. This experience can be had digitally, and it is proposed that it will further enhance an artist's scope of the painting experience.
Permissions in Artmaking
The last theme explored in this research is the concept of art students seeking permission to use certain techniques in creating art. The idea of digital art somehow devaluing the artmaking process or cheapening the experience shows itself in several ways, sometimes perceived by the student, other times brought into the experience by the instructor. Other times, it is simply the unfamiliarity of the media or results itself and a market or system that has not proven a value for the public.
Sakr explored the ideas of fixed images and creativity in early childhood education. This study explores how creativity is affected in the use of ready-made images, such as graphics students can “stamp” on or repeat multiple times easily in digital creative software environments. The researchers note that multiple studies have been conducted on both sides of the argument. From their analysis, some state that it inhibits creativity (McLennan 2010; Szyba 1999), while others conclude that it enables remix capability in the child (Lankshear & Knobel 2006) (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018). This study looked to examine how the child incorporates these graphics into their creations using a semiotic lens.
Children and students will bring their own experiences to an artwork. Through episodes of children’s digital artmaking showed a range of ‘child agendas’ at work including making aesthetic choices, experimentation, initiating conversation, storytelling and as part of coherent representation (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018). The study showed that educators should be aware of and respond to the separate ways in which students are working and creating. In the viewpoint of permissions, these artworks would look completely different if the child were in the belief that, either by direct information or inference, that use of certain items was not allowed. Thus, permissions and allowances are necessary for students to feel comfortably creative (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018). One can note that building blocks are usually of limited predetermined shapes, however children create and play with them in several diverse ways. This same logic is not applied in a digital art realm, where predetermined images are used. Often, the instructor may discourage the use of or devalue the image created with these images as somehow less than. The art instructor should be receptive to the individual creative experience of their students.
Marner and Ortegren also considered using pre-existing artifacts in art creation and how they affect creativity and educational buy-in in 2014 in the International Journal of Education through Art. This article explores the “mash-up” versatility of digital media, although the term is not used in the article...opting instead for “digital paraphrases and blended production.” Providing a useful way to move students into familiarity with software and indulge creative expression.
They noted an added onramp to creativity with the allowances of combination of existing media and pictures. Different ways of working with pictures digitally exposes multimodal ways
for pupils to appropriate picture-making for their own purposes (Marner, 2014). In the observations of the teachers, they mentioned the special circumstances that give room for pupils to explore new possibilities to make pictures without needing to have manual technical skills. They also noted that pupils who do have these skills often also use the traditional methods to a large degree (Marner, 2014).
Black wrote about the changing balance involved in adopting digital technologies into the classroom (Black, 2009). Black concludes that teachers and students need to work and focus on an embracement of a learner centered approach, developing student problem solving, creative and critical thinking skills, and the employment of co-learning, collaboration, and teacher-student partnerships. Furthermore, these partnerships are strengthened by the acceptance of a new power sharing between students and teachers (Black, 2009).
This is important research in relation to digital creativity and empowering student artists in the digital classroom. Striking a balance of power and giving students permission to utilize digital tools in creative activity and benefit from the use of them is necessary to allow creative freedom. It is within the power of the art educator to define this power balance of permissions, either positively or negatively. Given the recent pandemic and drastic shift to remote learning, a new set of studies will undoubtedly be unleashed to explore this extreme shift to the student in a vastly unbalanced form, giving students more permissive digital behavior than ever before.
Resistance to change and clinging to traditional methods can also be involved in the perceived need for permissions in art. Whalen wrote in the Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America in 2009 about the reluctancy of change in art historians and the missed opportunities of electronic publishing. This Mellon-funded study explores the long-standing relationship between art, art historians and a reluctance towards digital media. It argues that these holdouts jeopardize the long-term efficacy of the field (Whalen, 2009). Arguing legal rights and practices with image production and reproduction regarding galleries and museums, this article highlights the opposition to progress in the digital field. Securities must be proven and upheld, but they may look different. Digital technologies raise questions and concerns among art historians about whether electronic publishing is good for art history and whether it is good for them professionally (Whalen, 2009). Issues of legality and security have always, and will continue to be, of concern in educational institutions as innovative technologies emerge and challenge past practices with new ideas.
In another article, Sweeny (Sweeny, 2020) looks to reveal artistic tactics: the provocative, playful, and probing ways that new media art deals with various forms of dysfunction. In this unusual perspective, permission is looked at from a different angle, harnessing the unique power of frustration and failure caused by modern technology failings. Art educators at many levels can learn much about how digital technologies can be used to make art by studying how digital technologies fail. In a way that digital media is extremely capable of providing failure and frustration, that can be utilized for art creation (Sweeny, 2020).
As a digital arts teacher, I have experienced firsthand, as Sweeny describes the ability of networks, digital media, and computers to come together to create (what he calls new media art) but they also amplify the frustration and devastation that can occur when such networks fail (Sweeny, 2020). He goes on to suggest that even that failure can be harnessed and manipulated in new ways to discuss power, control and efficiency (Sweeny, 2020). To embrace failure, to acknowledge moments of overload, or to listen for noise in contemporary communication networks might result in a new media art education—one that acknowledges the poor image, the in-between, and the glitch as it also reflects the unique qualities of our digital, dysfunctional times. (Sweeny, 2020). This new media arena of permissions is an example of yet unseen possibilities that may present themselves to artists where they are unsure of its usefulness.
Looking at the collected data and analysis, it exposes the presence of the themes discussed in this review. Digital art creation is exciting to students, and it is especially evident in early classes when students can harness the ability to explore multiple options of creativity without necessarily needing to master media. This bolstering of creativity helps to advance my students efforts. There is a continued struggle in the balance of traditional versus digital media for art educators, having to show the value to students of useful and effective design practices that start outside of the digital platforms and will attain better results. Finally, students come into the classroom with preconceived notions of what is allowed and what is “cheating” in the art room. As with so many other supposed rules in design and art, guidelines are blurry at best and there are many, many roads to creative success. It is up to the art educator to show how creativity can be explored and give permissions and positive feedback to students to find multiple paths to personal feelings of artistic success.
References
Hung, H.-C., & Young, S. S.-C. (2017). Applying multi-touch technology to facilitate the learning of art appreciation: from the view of motivation and annotation. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 733–748. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/10494820.2016.1172490
Sakr, M. (2019). Young Children Drawing Together on the iPad Versus Paper: How Collaborative Creativity is Shaped by Different Semiotic Resources. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 20(17–20), 1–26. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.26209/ijea20n20
Hoffmann, J., Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2016). Creativity in the Age of Technology: Measuring the Digital Creativity of Millennials. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 149–153. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162515
Fahey, P., & Cronen, L. (2016). Digital Portfolios in Action: Acknowledging Student Voice and Metacognitive Understanding in Art. Clearing House, 89(4/5), 135–143. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00098655.2016.1170450
Stuyck, T., Da, F., Hadap, S., & Dutré, P. (2017). Real-Time Oil Painting on Mobile Hardware. Computer Graphics Forum, 36(8), 69–79. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/cgf.12995
Wang, T. W. (2018). Empowering Art Teaching and Learning With iPads. Art Education, 71(3), 51–55. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00043125.2018.1436353
Souleles, N. (2017). iPad versus traditional tools in art and design: A complementary association. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 586–597. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/bjet.12446
Appiah, E., & Cronjé, J. C. (2012). Thumbnail sketches on idea development: The drawing board vs computer generation. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11(1), 49–61. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1386/adch.11.1.49_1
Curtis, G., & McLeod, H. (2019). Tradition and the Contemporary Collide: Newfoundland and Labrador Art Education History. Canadian Review of Art Education: Research & Issues, 46(1), 37–43.
Tan, L., Peek, P. F., & Chattaraman, V. (2015). HEI-LO Model: A Grounded Theory Approach to Assess Digital Drawing Tools. Journal of Interior Design, 40(1), 41–55. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/joid.12036
Sakr, M., Connelly, V., & Wild, M. (2018). Imitative or Iconoclastic? How Young Children use Ready‐Made Images in Digital Art. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(1), 41–52. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/jade.12104
Black, J. (2009). Necessity is the Mother of Invention: Changing Power Dynamics Between Teachers and Students in Wired Art Classrooms. Canadian Review of Art Education: Research & Issues, 36(1), 99–117.
Whalen, M. (2009). What’s Wrong With This Picture? An Examination of Art Historians’ Attitudes About Electronic Publishing Opportunities and the Consequences of Their Continuing Love Affair with Print. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 28(2), 13–22. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1086/adx.28.2.27949518
Sweeny, R. (2020). “Investigate the misusage of technology as a gesture of freedom”: Glitch Dysfunction in New Media Art and Art Education. Visual Arts Research, 46(2), N.PAG.
Marner, A., & Örtegren, H. (2014). Education through digital art about art. International Journal of Education through Art, 10(1), 41–54. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1386/eta.10.1.41_1