you will create an artwork that exists in two layers at once: a set of instructions that someone can follow like a computer program, and a digital documentation work that becomes its own separate artwork. the gap between what really happened and what can be known afterward is the artistic center of this project.
01: overview
this project lives in two layers at the same time. first, you will write a set of instructions that another person (or you) can follow like a computer program, except written in plain human language. then you will perform those instructions and create a digital documentation work that becomes its own separate artwork.
most people who ever encounter your project will never see the live performance. they will only know it through your documentation. that gap, between what really happened and what can be known afterward, is the artistic and philosophical center of this project.
only the performer and any witnesses know it from direct experience. it is temporary, embodied, and can never be fully repeated.
everyone else knows the work through this. you control what gets recorded, what gets left out, how it is presented. it can carry meanings the live event never had.
the computer or digital platform should not just be a recording device. it should be part of the logic of the piece, shaping what happens, when it happens, or how it gets known.
02: vocabulary
this project uses some big philosophical words. here is what they actually mean.
the study of how we know things. not just "what is true?" but "how do i come to know something is true? what evidence do i have? who do i trust? what might i be missing?" in this project, you are making art that forces viewers to ask those exact questions.
a step-by-step set of instructions for completing a task. usually we think of algorithms as code inside computers, but they can be written for humans too. a recipe is an algorithm. a choreography score is an algorithm. your instruction-piece will be an algorithm.
in programming, a subroutine is a small, reusable chunk of instructions that can be "called" (run) inside a bigger program. in this project, your instruction-piece is a human subroutine: a short repeatable procedure that different people could run in different situations.
when part of a system is left open to chance, environment, or personal choice. the outcome is not fully decided in advance. a coin flip is indeterminate. so is "do this action until you feel uncomfortable." indeterminacy is what makes each performance of your piece unique.
evidence is raw proof something happened (a photo, a timestamp). documentation is when you make deliberate artistic choices about how to present that evidence. documentation shapes what viewers believe about the original event. it can reveal, hide, frame, or reinterpret what happened.
your attitude about what your documentation is "telling the truth" about. is it totally honest? selectively edited? intentionally misleading? your epistemic stance is a deliberate artistic choice.
art where the idea is the artwork, not the object, not the materials. the concept or instruction matters more than any physical thing. many of the artists in this project are conceptual artists.
following a set procedure or process. procedural art is made by following rules or instructions, often repeatedly or with variation. your subroutine is procedural.
03: inspiration
these artists are your references. before you start making work, look up at least two of them. each one asked a slightly different version of the same question: how do we know an artwork?
ono wrote short instructions for imaginary actions, like "painting to be constructed in your head." the artwork existed purely as an idea in the reader's mind. no performance required.
lewitt wrote instructions for large wall drawings that other people executed. he often never saw specific realizations of his own work. the instruction was the "real" artwork.
brecht wrote extremely short "event scores," like "drip music: a source of dripping water and an empty vessel." every performance is different. none is more "correct."
kaprow organized large events with loose scripts. participants experienced different versions. documentation was fragmentary. no one knew the whole work, not even kaprow.
hsieh performed extreme durational works, like punching a time clock every hour for a year. most viewers only encounter photos and contracts.
piper performed subtle disruptions in public without announcing them as art. many people who witnessed the events never knew they had seen a performance.
kosuth placed a real chair, a photograph of that chair, and a dictionary definition of "chair" side by side. which one gives you the most knowledge?
calle followed strangers and built narratives from surveillance and speculation. her documentation deliberately blurs the line between fact and fiction.
kawara painted only the date of each day on plain canvases. no images, no stories, just the fact that this day happened. he destroyed any painting he did not finish by midnight.
weiner's artworks are text statements describing actions that may or may not ever happen. the language is the artwork. nothing needs to be built.
the direct inspiration for this project. machine-generated instructions that humans can perform: procedural, strange, oddly literal. read them here
04: timeline
each week builds toward your final documentation artwork. tags show which technical and conceptual skills you are developing.
look at varnelis, yoko ono, sol lewitt, and george brecht. read the vocabulary section on this page. start a sketchbook or notes doc: what do you want to know about? what is something you do that could become a procedure?
we look at reference works together and talk through what makes an instruction clear enough to follow but open enough to be interesting. come with questions and curiosity.
decide if you are working solo or in a group of 2 to 4. start narrowing your concept: what is the subject or situation your subroutine will engage? what technology or platform might be involved? sketch out a few possible directions before committing to one.
bring three rough instruction-piece ideas. pitch them to a small group and get early feedback. what is the most interesting? what has the most potential for both live performance and documentation?
draft and refine your instruction-piece. it must be clear enough for someone else to follow without you, include at least one constraint, and include at least one open or chance element. think of it as writing human-readable code.
workshop your draft instructions with a partner. can they follow your instructions without asking you any questions? revise based on what breaks down or becomes unexpectedly interesting.
before your final performance, you will run a trial version of your subroutine during class. this is your chance to find out what works, what breaks, and what surprises you before it counts. come with your instructions finalized and your technology ready to use.
the class will be divided into random groups. you, your participant, or your whole group will perform a version of your subroutine for the others. after each trial, the group gives in-progress feedback: what was clear? what was ambiguous? what did the technology actually do? use this to revise your instructions and rethink your documentation plan before week 5.
execute your final, revised subroutine outside of class. the technology should be structurally involved: randomize decisions, trigger timing, constrain location, generate mutations, or shape what the platform makes visible. gather everything you need for the documentation artwork.
share your raw documentation material. we will talk about what you are choosing to keep, cut, or reframe, and why those editorial choices matter for the meaning of the final piece.
assemble your documentation into a finished digital object. it should stand on its own: someone who was not there should find it interesting, not just informative. write your 300 to 500 word reflection. all deliverables due at critique.
present all deliverables. be ready to talk about the relationship between your instructions, your live performance, and your documentation as a second artwork. what did each layer of the project know that the others did not?
05: project phases
write a short, repeatable procedure for humans that can be executed like code.
choose a format and commit to it as an artistic choice, not just a practical one.
decide your epistemic stance: is the documentation faithful? deliberately unreliable? does it reveal or withhold? does it create new meanings that were not there in the live event?
the computer or network must be structurally involved, not just a camera. choose at least one:
ask yourself: what does the system "know" that i do not? what does the audience know that participants did not?
run at least one full execution of your subroutine. your documentation artwork should:
06: what to turn in
solo: you write and execute the subroutine yourself. you may involve others as "unwitting participants": people in public, online contacts, etc. focus on the relationship between your internal decision-making, the algorithm, and the documentation format.
group (2 to 4 students): divide roles clearly: writing, performing, and documenting/editing. embrace the division of knowledge: writers know the whole system; performers know it through their body; documentarians control what future audiences can see. make this asymmetry visible in your final documentation.
07: writing
your reflection should be 300 to 500 words. you do not have to answer every prompt. pick the ones that connect most to what you made. but address all four main themes somewhere.
08: resources
use these to research your artists and deepen your understanding of the concepts. many are free and do not require a library login.