Development of a BasicTwo Dimensional Design Course: A Comparison Between Traditional and Computer Generated Methodologies Rosalyn Muskovitz Grand Valley State University Basic two dimensional design has been one of the first courses offered in art and design schools. This course has been and remains the basis for learning about composition and is the foundation for all subsequent work in design. Since the development of the basic course at the Bauhaus, this beginning course has had two major objectives: ¢ It teaches fundamental design theory. ¢ It introduces and teaches basic techniques. Traditionally, two dimensional design has been taught by developing design theory, applying these solutions to a specific number of universally accepted principles of design and producing solutions to these principles using traditional techniques such as cut and paste, paint, draw and collage. These techniques, by their very nature, take a large amount of time. Because of the emphasis on learning craft and the amount of time involved in producing hand crafted work within a given teaching calendar, less time can be spent on actually developing the designs. This also means that less time can be allocated to discussion of theory. In the beginning class, with students having many different levels of aptitude and basic studio skills, a great deal of time must be devoted to perfecting these basic skills.These skills or crafts must be learned sufficiently to allow the student to produce the projects that have been presented. It does no good to understand theory and develop a cognitive solution, yet be unable to fabricate that solution so that others can see it~ Because of this basic need, students must spend a great deal of time learning to cut straight lines, using ink or paint to render shapes, practicing simulating textures, learning to paste elements and all of the other skills necessary to produce their projects. My observation, over the years, has been that beginning students might take from 20 to 40 percent of their time in beginning classes to learn and perfect these skills. Today's computer technology allows us to draw straight lines by just clicking the beginning and the end of the line. We can change the thickness of that line with a mere tap or two on the keyboard. By adding a filter, we can change the texture of a design element instantly. In traditional methodology, the line would have been drawn using a ruling pen and a ruler ¢ Changes in thickness of line would have necessitated redrawing. Changing textures would require redrawing the original design and adding the new texture to it. Or, of even more significance, redrawing the original design, thus obscuring 46 August1996Computer Graphics what was there originally.The computer allows the designer the ability to save the design at any stage of development and then to be able to go back and compare the new design with previous solutions. Now that the computer has provided us with the means to bypass many of the laborious craft operations for completing actual designs, the questions that arise are: ¢ W h e t h e r two dimensional design can be taught using this technique in a more efficient manner. ¢ Whether the time allowed can be used for more consideration of theory. ¢ Whether the end results are comparable or different and if so, how different. ¢ Or, if bypassing craft as a major portion of basic design produces poorer results. Recognizing the necessity of learning craft, the question of whether craft would be taught to beginning students is not an issue of whether but of where. All beginning students also take courses in drawing, beginning painting and three dimensional design. These courses can and should teach many of the skills that are needed. Learning to use a computer is also a skill a n d should be treated as such. Acquiring this skill will free the beginning student from much tedium and allow more time to be spent on theory and the development of ideas. In order to test my hypothesis that computer generated two dimensional design can be taught more efficiently in less time and that the quality of the final project will be as good or better than if taught in a traditional manner, I developed a course in basic two dimensional design using the traditional course already in place as a base. Both courses were offered at Grand Valley State University in the fall of 1995. Both courses used the same text, similar glossary and the same slides as examples.To help in formulating data, all projects were similar and both groups were asked to complete their assignments in the same size, mounted in a similar fashion. As each group completed each project, the students were asked to answer a short questionnaire that asked them about time spent on each project from the beginning through formulating ideas to completion of the final mounting. They were asked to estimate their time to the quarter hour and also were asked to eliminate time spent in individual or group critiques, When each set of projects was completed, it was sent to a photographer to be made into slides. These slides were then numbered randomly and sent to three outside sources, two in Michigan and one in Ohio, for evaluation. The outside evaluators were not told that others would be evaluating and also were not told how the projects were done. They were asked to evaluate each project for: ¢ The ability of the student to meet the criteria or goal of the project. ¢ The success of the projects aesthetically. When all of the data had been compiled and statistically evaluated, I found that there was a significant difference in the amount of time spent on the projects.The computer class finished their work in 13 weeks while the traditional group took the full 15 weeks. In looking closely at the data, it became clear that the first two projects took about the same amount of time. I attribute this to the need for the computer class to learn the program. In this case it was Adobe Illustrator. Having mastered the program, the computer group spent much less time on projects three and four.When we did project five, the computer group took more time than the traditional one but, again, I attribute this to the need to learn the scanner and also the Adobe Photoshop program. Having learned this program in project five, the computer group finished in less than half the time when they did project six. The outside evaluators found that the quality of the projects were comparable with one exception. In project two which was a linear interpretation of a photograph, the computer group scored significantly higher in both meeting their goals and producing an interesting and exciting composition. In comparing the work in both of these groups, it is clear to me that two dimensional design can be taught on a computer efficiently and with excellent results. Figure design design on the I: Student work on project two in two dimensional courses at Grand Valley State University. The on the left was computer generated. The design right was created in a traditional manner. Rosalyn Muskovitz Dept. of Art/Design GrandValley State University Allendale, MI 4940 I Tel:+ 1-616-895-661 I Email:muskovir@gvsu.edu

/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/development-of-a-basic-two-dimensional-design-course-a-comparison-gYUVUz6GbV