UCLA Design Media Art History

While I was chair of the UCLA Department of Design Media Arts, I commissioned Casey Alt to interview former faculty members and department chairs. These documents, along with decades of department review reports and memos, formed the basis for my short history of our academic program. Johanna Reed sensibly edited the document and she cut about half of the text in the process. The result is now online at the DMA History page and I’ve included the text below:

A General History of the Department of Design Media Arts

The Department of Design Media Arts is within the School of Arts and Architecture at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), a public university within the larger University of California system. The rough history of how this came to be follows:

  • 1919. UCLA was founded.
  • 1929. UCLA moves to Westwood.
  • 1939. The College of Applied Arts was established with six departments: Art, Music, Business Education, Physical Education, Home Economics, and Theater Arts. The Department of Art included history and studio, pictorial arts, and design.
  • 1960. The College of Applied Arts was reestablished as the College of Fine Arts with the goal of balancing theory and practice. During this time, the Department of Art included history of art, history and studio, pictorial arts, and design. The Business, Physical Education, and Home Economics departments were removed from the College.
  • 1965. The Dickson Art Center building is completed.
  • 1988. The Department of Design and Department of Art were established as separate academic units as the College of Fine Arts was restructured. Art History also moved to the College of Letters and Science.
  • 1991. The School of the Arts and School of Theater, Film, and Television were established out of the College of Fine Arts.
  • 1994. The School of Architecture and Urban Planning joins the School of the Arts to become the School of Arts and Architecture.
  • 2000. The Department of Design was renamed the Department of Design | Media Arts.
  • 2002. The department moves down to Westwood while the Dickson Art Center is repaired after worsening damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
  • 2006. The remodeled Dickson Art Center opens as the Eli and Edith Broad Art Center.

Origins

From 1939 to 1960, design education at UCLA was one aspect of the Art Department, along with history and studio and pictorial arts. Emeritus Professor James Bassler wrote about the role of design at UCLA during this era:

During the 1950s and 1960s, the history of Design on the UCLA campus generally reflected the interests and values of the University and the society at large. Working within a traditional Department of Art, Design responded to the educational mission of the University by offering a variety of studio fundamentals, graphic, craft and methods courses, constructed to prepare future teachers.

Emeritus Professor John Neuhart told us, “probably the most outstanding area of the department at that time [early 1950s] was in ceramics.” Ceramic was led by Laura Andreson (1902–1999), who taught at UCLA from 1933-70. In an interview for the Smithsonian, Emeritus Professor James Bassler recounts how Andreson would dig clay on campus:

And this was the time when Laura was still—they were still digging clay on campus. They would go down—well, right in front of where Perloff is now and the music department, but there’s that bridge—you’ve heard that story about the bridge. Well, there used to be that big canyon there, which is still essentially there. And Laura would take the students down and dig clay on campus. And that’s the clay they’d use to make mostly slab pieces and mold pieces….

When the UCLA College of Fine Arts was established in 1960, it included departments for Art, Music, and Theater Arts and Dance. The Department of Art included the areas history of art, history and studio, pictorial arts, and design. Bassler summed up the end of this era as follows:

…during the 1970s and early 80s, individual area disciplines in Design flourished, due largely to the talents and energies of the faculty and students. Under the pioneering vision and spirit and Professor Kataoka, graphic design explored image making with video and computer. The craft areas of ceramics and fiber/textiles, realizing greater confidence and stronger conceptual footings, began to blur and challenge the line separating them from Art.

The Department of Design

In 1988 the Department of Design was established with a focus on four areas: ceramics (Adrian Saxe), fiber/textiles (James Bassler), industrial design (Nathan Shapira), and graphic design (Mits Kataoka, Bill Brown). The mission of the department was defined in the 1991 department self-statement:

The primary goal of the design curriculum is to produce technically well-prepared and conceptually experimental designers who can challenge conventional design standards and accepted design practice. This includes the ability to originate new forms and expressive possibilities through creative research.

In addition to the focus on traditional craft media, the Department of Design has a long history of fostering new technologies, including computer animation, photography, and video. For example, Professor Kataoka hosted visits from Nam June Paik and computer graphics pioneers John Whitney Sr. and Robert Abel were affiliated with the department.

The Restructured Department of Design, Enter Computation

After the department’s 1991 review, admissions were suspended pending a substantial restructuring and approval of a new curriculum based on the lack of a “coherent educational framework.” A proposal for restructuring the Bachelor of Arts degree was submitted in 1994, followed by a proposal for restructuring the Master of Fine Arts degree in 1996. The restructured department began admitting new BA students in fall 1995 and new MFA students in fall 1996. The basis of the restructuring came from the point of view of the “role of the computer as a universal design tool and a universal form of communication and expression.” During this time, Rebecca Allen was recruited back to the department in 1996 (she had taught at UCLA from 1986 to 1992) to serve as Chair. In 1998, Allen wrote:

The traditional distinction between two- and three-dimensional design has evaporated. Today’s digital designers must be facile in two-, three-, and even four-dimensional design principles. They must be able to create non-linear designs that integrate two- and three-dimensional visual elements with sound, movement, time, and space. Unique forms of interactive art and design are emerging from an ever-expanding spiral of media experimentation. The Internet and its offspring such as the World Wide Web are spawning new forms of community, often blurring the traditional distinction between creator and user. The new forms of media art and design raise profound theoretical and societal issues about media technology and visual culture.

At the same time the department was moving aggressively toward digital technologies, it was also putting an increased emphasis onto the importance of design history, theory, and methodology in both lower- and upper-division undergraduate classes. The restructuring created a new energy in the department. As the 1999 department review states, “The design majors exhibit an extraordinary esprit d’ corps.”

From Design to Design | Media Arts

The critical event in forming the current Department of Design | Media Arts was the Design Review Committee initiated by Dean Daniel Neuman and led by Robert Winter, then the Associate Dean for Technology, Curricular Innovation, and Research. The committee was Rebecca Allen, Mits Kataoka, Sylvia Lavin, and Peter Nabokov. The “Design Review Committee Report,” written by Allen and revised by Winter in November 1997, set the groundwork for the current direction of the department. There are many statements in the report that still ring true 10 years later. The goals outlined for the department’s students, are still accurate:

To prepare students for a life’s work of creativity and imaginative problem solving; to stimulate students to a self-reliance that unleashes creativity within themselves; to encourage a sense of experimentation, vision, and curiosity essential in an increasingly unpredictable world; to foster the ability, through awareness of major theoretical issues, to navigate fluidly through technological and social change; to emphasize procedures and conceptual thinking rather than narrow skills that can become instantly outmoded; to prepare students who can emerge as leaders in the rapidly expanding new media community.

This shift was formalized in 2000 as the name of the department was changed to the Department of Design | Media Arts and Victoria Vesna was brought in as the Chair. In an essay published in the School of the Arts and Architecture Newsletter Spring 2001, Vesna discussed the meaning of the | in the department’s name:

That is a | not /. A slash denotes and/or, which is not what we had in mind. The symbol “|” is called a pipe, and comes from computer science; it is not yet part of the literary vocabulary. Indeed, it is difficult to find it on your keyboard unless you are a programmer. To us it represents communication technologies; it is the line that blurs the boundaries between disciplines and creates new hybrids yet to be defined and named. The pipe symbol also marks the goal of moving beyond the idea of working between disciplines, the traditional interdisciplinary approach that in the end simply reaffirms the existing delineations. Instead, it points to an active collaboration of people who willingly let go of their roots and work together to develop more complex ideas of how culture operates.

The newly formed Department of Design | Media Arts grew quickly. In 2000, Professors Erkki Huhtamo and Christian Moeller joined the faculty. Jennifer Steinkamp and Rebeca Mendez joined in 2003, with C.E.B. Reas following the year after. After three years of lecturing within the department, Willem Henri Lucas joined the faculty in 2008.

2007 to the Present

Professor Vesna stepped down as the chair in 2007, following a successful department review. Professor C.E.B. Reas started as the Chair in Fall 2007 and, with the faculty, refocused the goals of the department. In a response to the 2007 review, Reas wrote:

We see our department as a hub for interdisciplinary education and creative work. Rather than focusing on Design or Media Art, the department is putting its energy into joining these areas. The fields of contemporary Design and Media Art are broad and share many common areas of historical, theoretical, and practical focus including visual and mass communication, interactivity, and using the computer as the primary tool and medium. Using the careers of our faculty as examples (we all have experience in two or more subfields that bridge Design and Media Art) we are positioning ourselves as a unique program that reflects the eroding boundaries between these areas within contemporary culture.

Reas served as the chair of the Department until spring 2009 when Willem Henri Lucas became the chair. During that time the department pushed forward in a number of areas. Peter Lunenfeld was hired to teach design and media art history and theory courses. Video games were further integrated into the department with the hire of Eddo Stern, followed by founding the joint School of Arts and Architecture and School of Theater, Film, and Television Game Lab, directed by Stern. The Fabrication and Electronics Lab was established from the former shop and SenseLab to enhance the department’s fabrication and electronics capabilities.

Interviews

In Spring 2008, to learn more about the history of the Department of Design | Media Arts (DMA), then Chair Professor C.E.B. Reas asked DMA graduate student Casey Alt to interview five people: emeriti faculty Mits Kataoka and John Neuhart, our current senior faculty member, Vasa Mihich, and the two most recent department chairs, Rebecca Allen and Victoria Vesna. These interviews were transcribed by Brenda Williams, and Professor Reas further edited each. The result is hours of audio and over 100 pages of history, stories, and opinions about the past, present, and future of the department. These interviews were cross-references with Web searches and internal departmental documents.

References

The foundation of this document was a series of interviews with John Neuhart, Mitsuru Kataoka, Vasa Mihich, Rebecca Allen, and Victoria Vesna. Department records, obituaries, and several online histories of UCLA provided more details.

  • 1985 Academic Senate Review of the Department of Design.
  • 1999 Academic Senate Review of the Department of Design.
  • 2007 Academic Senate Review of the Department of Design | Media Arts.
  • Design Review Committee Report. Submitted by Rebecca Allen. Chair, Department of Design, 4 Nov 1997. Revised by Robert Winter, 15 Nov 1997
  • Internal document written by James Bassler.
  • Oral history interview with James Bassler, 2002 Feb. 11 and 14, April 9 and June 6, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.
  • Thomas Jennings: In Memoriam. John Neuhart, Mitsuru Kataoka
  • Archine Fetty: In Memoriam. Mitsuru Kataoka, Jon Neuhart, Nathan Shapira
  • Interview with John Neuhart by Casey Alt, transcribed by Brenda Williams
  • Interview with Mitsuru Kataoka by Casey Alt, transcribed by Brenda Williams
  • Interview with Rebecca Allen by Casey Alt, transcribed by Brenda Williams
  • Interview with Victoria Vesna by Casey Alt, transcribed by Brenda Williams
  • Interview with Vasa Mihich by Casey Alt, transcribed by Brenda Williams
  • UCLA Arts History. http://www.arts.ucla.edu/about_ucla/history.php

I.R.L. UCLA DMA Senior Show 2010

Exhibition of work created by the graduating Design Media Arts students. The students say:

Watch in amazement as UCLA’s Design Media Arts students emerge from their collective chrysalis. I.R.L. features the work of DMA’s graduating seniors, the culmination of a broad and cohesive curriculum in print, form, programming, video and sound.

The participants are: Leigh Anne Palazzesi Abiouness, Sheriah Fatima Altobar, Tanya Avelar, Cristofer M. Bernabe-Sanchez, George Michael Brower, Joseph Scott Bryars, Joseph Chow, Vincent Cordero, Jonathan Walter Dallas, Aleksandra Druzhinina, Tiffany Huang, John Kim, Kayo Kurume, Allen Lee, Corinna Nicole Loo, Elora Lyda, Matthew Alexander Manos, Katherine Tomiko Miyake, Alice S. Mongkongllite, Alexis Nelson, Courtney Olsen, Everett Daniel Pelayo, Jr., Alexander Potmesil, Jing Qian, Cathy Qu, Johanna Reed, Herman Rosiles Rodriguez, Gregory Samuel Ruben, Keiko Sakurai, Jessica Rojas Salazar, Alex Edgar Abrams Schleider, Zachary Taka Scott, Slovin, Katherine Ann, Stephen Adrian Sulistiawan, Kristian Calso Tumangan, James L. Turner, Christopher Brett Tuyay, Garret Anthony Verstegen, Elizabeth Anne Wallace, Alyssa Wang, Qian Susan Wang, Man-Hsuan Wei, Steven Rand Wilson, Katherine Wu, Brian J Yoon, Brett Pon Young, Jessica Eugene Yun.

Hello World, UCLA DMA MFA Exhibition

UCLA Design Media Arts presents Hello World, a group exhibition featuring the graduating MFA candidates: Christo Allegra, Madeleine Gallagher, Yoon Chung Han, Gautam Rangan, Melissanthi Saliba, and Eric Siu. I’m the chair of Yoon’s thesis committee and a member of Christo’s. Opening Reception 13 May from 5-8pm. Open until 25 May, 10am-5pm.

E-volve exhibition at [DAM]Cologne

The Network A software is featured in the E-volve exhibition at Gallery [DAM]Cologne from 24 April – 24 June 2010. This is the first exhibition at the new gallery extension of [DAM]Berlin. This group show includes work by Eelco Brand, boredomresearch, LAb[au], Manfred Mohr, Mark Napier, C. E. B. Reas, and Marius Watz.

Process as Paradigm exhibition at LABoral

The Process 18 software, prints, and objects are a part of the exhibition el proceso como paradigma at LABoral in Gijon, Spain from 23 April – 30 August 2010. This exhibition was curated by Susanne Jaschko and Lucas Evers. They explain:

Before the background of unforeseen global processes, credit crash and climate change, the exhibition el proceso como paradigma researches the nature of processes and self organising, processual systems on a cultural level and in the arts. el proceso como paradigma puts forward the idea that today processes have become one of the major paradigms and creative strategies in contemporary art and design across the disciplines. The show reveals the elementary shift from a culture based on the concept of manifestation and the final product to a culture of process resulting from a networked society. Consequently, the show introduces a new understanding of process-based art which goes beyond previous definitions. el proceso como paradigma suggests that the new process-based art is the art of the 21st century.

The exhibition features work by Jelte van Abbema, Ralf Baecker, boredomresearch, Gregory Chatonsky, Adrián Cuervo, Ursula Damm, Driessens & Verstappen, Peter Flemming, Isabelle Jenniches, Roman Kirschner, Allison Kudla, Manu Luksch & Mukul Patel, Aymeric Mansoux & Marloes de Valk, Luna Maurer, Marta de Menezes, Henrik Menné, Leo Peschta, Julius Popp, C.E.B. Reas, RYBN, Warren Sack, Antoine Schmitt, Ralf Schreiber, and Jan-Peter E.R. Sonntag.

UCLA Design Media Arts website

After nine months of discussion and building, we’re happy to announce the re-launch of the UCLA Department of Design Media Arts website. The team is Chandler McWilliams, myself, and DMA undergraduates Vincent Cordero, Greg Batha, and Johanna Reed. The site uses the same database, but re-organizes the content with different groups (undergraduates, graduates, faculty, alumni) as the primary categories.

i/0 360 digital design

I’m not sure why I’m compelled to write this, but I am. (It’s probably because I’m cleaning out my studio for the first time in six years.) I’ll keep it brief.

In summer 1996, I graduated from the University of Cincinnati and moved Brooklyn (Greenpoint) the following week. I worked at Two Twelve Associates for three months under David Peters. Cait and I came back to Ohio to get married in the fall. When we returned to New York, I worked for Abbot Miller at Design Writing Research for a few months. While there, I learned about i/o 360 on page 59 of the January/February 1996 issue of I.D. magazine (thanks Janet and Chee). These were the stats:

Firm: i/o 360 digital design
Location: New York
Principles: Dindo Magallanes, Arek Banasik, Nam Szeto, Gong Szeto, Robert Clyatt, Ralph Lucci
Ages: 29, 24, 23, 28, 35, 23
Staff: 7

The first paragraph of the one-page feature captures the time and place:

In the back of i/0 360’s New York studio lurks the Monster: hard-drives individualized with given names like Elvis and Yoda, snaking cables and Houston Mission Control-style colored lights blipping in sequence aloft a console whose monitors are arranged side by side. It’s emblematic, like the firm’s title, of i/o 360’s modus operandi: Input/Output, all-rounders, around the clock.

After an interview with Gong Szeto in winter 1997, I started making websites (the information architecture and visual design) at i/o 360 as my profession. As we started taking on more ambitious projects for companies like The New York Times, J.P. Morgan, and Microsoft I shifted into design direction. i/0 360 was an amazing place at a pivotal time. It mixed energy, experimentation, and humor with rigor and excellent design. I worked with fantastic people including the principles, my fellow designers (Judith Park and Jeff Piazza), and Joshua Davis at the start of Praystation; I later worked with Khoi Vinh and Chris Fahey after the unfortunate dot-com-style merger with Rare Medium in fall 1998. With the merger and the dot-com crash, i/o 360 disappeared and Behavior rose from the ashes. i/0 360 is not well archived or known today, but it was exceptional while it lasted. I have the best parts of the website on a hard drive and I expect others probably do too. Maybe it will escape back onto the web one day, but not today.

In spring 1998 I met John Maeda through Gong. (I was obsessed with Maeda’s The Reactive Square.) At the meeting John demoed Design By Numbers. That started the series of events that led to my resignation in Winter 1999. I starting at the MIT Media Lab during the summer of that year. And that’s another story.

UCLA DMA 28 Exhibition

The Interactivity class for winter 2010 has finished. This class is a ten week introduction to writing software within the context of visual design. The students write programs to learn about interactivity (from basic response to designing a simple game) while learning the basics of computer programming.  Some great work was produced within each of the six projects.

Visit the course website
Visit the course exhibition at OpenProcessing

Here’s a partial list of projects that impressed me:

Project 6: Play
Michael, Ola, Matthew, Thomas, Mayura, Hugo, Grace, Gina

Project 5: Transform(er)
Ola, Michael, Heather, Jimena

Project 4: Narrate
Gina, Michael, Patricia, Mayura, Adrienne,

Project 3: Collage
Jimena, Heather, Michael, Grace, Mimi

Project 2: Respond
Ola, Grace, Heather, Michael, Ryan, Matthew

Project 1: Draw
Brianna, Ola, Hugo. Michael, Alexander, Matthew

I changed the assignments significantly from the previous version of the class and anytime that happens, there are some hits and misses. I feel good about the hits and I have clear ideas about how to improve the project briefs that were less successful. In the spirit of information exchange and self-critique, here are my thoughts:

Project 6: Play
The decision to limit the visual elements to 2 lines and 2 circles was a good move. The students focused more on the interactivity than in the past when they could spend more time creating elaborate graphics. Future: limit the project to 4 elements total rather then 2 lines, 2 circles. Each of the elements can be a circle, line, or rectangle.

Project 5: Transform(er)
This was the first time for this assignment and the brief didn’t lead to the kind of learning that I had intended. For many students it became an illustration project with very simple moving components. Future: Rename the project to something like “Transform(er) SuperMega” and turn it into a branding/logo/ID design project (can be earnest or a parody). Restrict all graphics to Processing geometry to encourage maximum formal flexibility. Instead of using mouseX as the input, use controlP5 library and have around three scrollbars change different parameters such as width, height, color, quantity, etc. Make a presentation of generative ID design (Karsten, Gadget OK!). This might be a good time to introduce bezierVertex(), curveVertex(), sin(), cos().

Project 4: Narrate
I think Alice in Wonderland was a great text to select, but not enough of the class read it closely, leading to generic narratives: “Oh no! Alice is being attacked by the cards.” The source material is amazing, it should be used. I think it’s important to formerly review the early steps of the process on this project, they should spend at least a week working on the story and images before starting the program. The decision for everyone to use the same story as the starting point was good. Future: Be a stickler for the diagrams and paper prototype, find another appropriate text with illustrations, constrain the text in the software to found elements within the  story. This leads off the Collage project well.

Project 3: Collage
Future: Too many of the projects were slight variations of the sample code, so explain the project is about setting up relations between elements, not simple giving them random values.

Project 2: Respond
This was the first time for the “eye” exercise and I was happy with the results. Future: encourage more variation (there were too many generic cartoon eyes), encourage more fluid response.

Project 1: Draw
This quarter, I limited the graphic elements to point(), line(), triangle(), quad(), rect(), ellipse(), and arc() and this was a good decision. I removed curve() and bezier() as options and didn’t discuss them in class. In the past working with bezier() was extremely frustrating to students and I don’t want to start them off frustrated. (Working with Bezier curves directly with coordinates is not pleasant for anyone.) I also made it clear that only integer numbers should be used as parameters to the drawing functions. Future: need to emphasize comments as a way to organize the code, emphasize variables.

Also, starting in Fall 2009, we started hosting the class at OpenProcessing.org. This has been great; Sinan has my sincere gratitude for creating a wonderful system.

I’ve taught for ten years now, but I’ve not written about my teaching or curriculum ideas. I’ve written extensively (too much?) about Processing, but not specifically how I use it in classes at UCLA and workshops elsewhere. This post is a start.

To throw a few more thoughts in…
I’ve been thinking more lately about how tools used for education are often different from tools used by professionals/experts. I think there’s substance to writing about how Processing relates specifically to education. How it fosters sharing information, how it limits the initial technical complexity of programming but details can be revealed to provide more flexibility in time (the training wheels come off to reveal a new experience), and how it is also simple at the core to give learners the experience of doing things the long way before they move to a higher-level library to give the same result with less effort. These factors encourage exploration, reduce frustration, and can lead to a deeper understanding of the software medium.

Anderson Ranch Summer Workshop

I’m teaching a one-week workshop at Anderson Ranch this summer from 26-30 July. The audience is total programming beginners and the topic is Drawing with Processing: An Introduction to Coding. The description follows:

Writing code to draw is a fun, easy way for artists to learn computer programming. We focus on the basic elements of programming and apply them to making digital prints. Processing is an open source programming language and environment for creating images, animation and interaction.

Students write code to create images for high-resolution digital prints using the Processing environment and print on digital printers. No programming experience is necessary, but participants should be very comfortable using computers. Too much programming experience is discouraged.

Short presentations on technique and concept are mixed with studio work sessions. The instructor tutors students individually during studio time. New techniques are introduced in the first three days with concentration on a final project during the last two days.

The details are available on the Anderson Ranch Website.

Decoding the Digital Conference, London

I’m looking forward to being in London next week for the Decoding the Digital conference at the Victoria & Albert Museum. The two-day event is held in relation to the Decode exhibition, a collaboration between the V&A and onedotzero. The program follows:

Decoding the Digital
Thursday 4 & Friday 5 February
Hochhauser Auditorium, Sackler Centre
10.00-17.30

Day One: Thursday 4 February
10.30 Joseph Watson (Learning & Interpretation, V&A)
10.45 Charlie Gere (Lancaster University)
11.15 Frieder Nake (University of Bremen)
11.45 Roman Verostko (independent artist and historian), “Sixty Years: from brush in hand to brush in machine”
12.15 Discussion and questions from the audience
13.45 Honor Beddard (V&A), Douglas Dodds (V&A) and Patric Prince (independent art historian and collector), “Collecting as an Amateur”
14.30 Anne Morgan Spalter (independent artist and writer) and Michael Spalter  (independent collector), “Creating, Critiquing and Collecting Computer Art”
15.30 Paul Brown and Daniel Brown (independent artists)
16.30 Discussion and questions from the audience

Day Two: Friday 5 February
10.30 Joseph Watson (Learning & Interpretation, V&A)
10.45 Edward Shanken (University of Amsterdam/Donau University)
11.15 Casey Reas (University of California, Los Angeles)
11.45 Karsten Schmidt (independent artist)
12.15 Discussion and questions from the audience
14.00 Louise Shannon (V&A) and Shane Walter (onedotzero)
14.45 Beryl Graham (University of Sunderland/CRUMB)
15.15 Hannah Redler (Science Museum)
16.15 Julius Popp  (independent artist)
16.45 Panel discussion and questions from the audience
Chair: Charlie Gere
Participants: Honor Beddard; Douglas Dodds; Beryl Graham;
Julius Popp; Hannah Redler; Louise Shannon; Shane Walter