I’ve recently started moving my practice towards using fabric and stitching to develop what can only be called, quilting. As evidenced from earlier posts, this has been borne of making visual analogues of my reading about identity and practices in communities in the US who are ancestors of enslaved people. Specifically this interest has come from the woman of Gee’s Bend and then the later American vernacular and folk art. As a detour, I’ve transferred this interest to readings of the Japanese tradition of folk art, Mingei, and the Japanese philosophy of beauty, but more of that another time!
In this post I’d like to explore the connections between a long held interest in System Art, and my new interest in quilting. At first glance, systems art and quilting may appear unrelated—one emerging from the conceptual, often technologically-infused avant-garde movements of the twentieth century, the other rooted in domestic, traditionally feminised textile practices. But these two modes of production intersect in various and interesting ways, particularly through their shared engagement with structure, repetition, collective authorship, and encoded symbolism and context – more on the nature of the medium being the message in another post. When examined through a critical and intersectional lens, quilting can be viewed not merely as craft, but as a sophisticated system-based practice—aesthetic, conceptual, and political in its own right.
One of the most apparent points of convergence lies in the use of pattern, structure, and modularity. Systems art is characterised by rule-based processes, often constructed through modular units or instructions that determine form. Pioneers often drew upon cybernetic theory to build systems that challenged authenticity, the authority of the art world, and materialisation of art works that would eventually be sold. Instead, artists like Ben Laposky, Gordon Pask, Edward Inhatowics and numerous others (mentioned in earlier posts) built systems, often interactive, demanding participation from the viewer, that iteratively built artworks that were often ephemeral and time based, and without a finished art work. Soon after the advance of computer art and cybernetic art artists who adopted this systems way of thinking, like Sol LeWitt, argued that ‘the system is the work of art; the visual form is the by-product of the system’ (LeWitt, 1967, p. 54). His wall drawings, composed via written instructions and realised by assistants, exemplify this principle of delegating visual outcomes to an underlying logic. Similarly, Hans Haacke’s work interrogated political and ecological systems by foregrounding feedback loops and interdependent networks (Haacke, 1971).
Quilting, particularly within American traditions such as patchwork or the Gee’s Bend quilts that I’ve become interested in, also depends upon modular repetition—squares, blocks, or strips and these adhere to a design system. These geometric forms often conform to logics such as symmetry, alternation, or rotation, transforming the act of sewing into a process of visual iteration (Knauer, 2016).
This leads directly to the second connection: the role of rule-based making and algorithmic thinking. Systems artists frequently adopt algorithmic approaches, using instructions or generative constraints to shape the work’s production. LeWitt’s instruction-based pieces and Vera Molnár’s computer-generated drawings are clear examples of such algorithmic aesthetics (Molnár, 1990). Quilting, too, embodies algorithmic logic—traditional blocks such as the Log Cabin or Nine Patch are constructed through step-by-step processes that resemble the logical instructions of computer programs. Contemporary quilting software such as Electric Quilt and long-arm digital machines extend this logic further, enabling the design and execution of complex patterns through coded commands (Hicks, 2020). These digital tools blur the boundaries between handcraft and computation, placing quilting within the realm of cybernetic aesthetics.
A third area of overlap concerns collective processes and distributed labour. Systems art often foregrounds procedurality over authorship. For instance, LeWitt’s wall drawings were not executed by the artist himself, but by teams who followed his written protocols—highlighting distributed labour as a creative methodology (Buchloh, 1990). Quilting’s communal traditions, especially in the context of quilting bees or family-based sewing circles, reflect similar values of collaboration. These social processes are central to the cultural role of quilting, especially among African American women, where quilting becomes both a material and social practice of identity-making and resistance (Freeman, 1996).
Temporal and iterative dimensions also unite these practices. Many systems artworks are designed to unfold over time—kinetic sculptures, evolving installations, or climate-responsive environments. Haacke’s Condensation Cube (1963–65), for example, invites viewers to witness the environmental transformation of water droplets within a sealed system. Quilting, while materially static, evolves through layers of labour and cultural transmission. Quilts are frequently passed down across generations, with each stitch and fabric remnant encoding stories, identities, and familial lineages (Parker, 1984). In this sense, quilting performs temporality through sedimented memory, echoing the evolving systems of conceptual art.
Both quilting and systems art engage with material systems and ecologies, albeit from different angles. Systems artists such as Haacke addressed ecological interdependence directly, while quilting engages ecology through reuse, sustainability, and material inheritance. Patchwork traditions often incorporate remnants of worn clothing or domestic fabric, rendering the quilt an archive of lived experience (Lippard, 1997). This embeddedness in everyday materials positions quilting as a site of intimate, yet systemic, memory.
The advent of coding, cybernetics, and digital quilting has further deepened the affinities between these forms. Cybernetics—a central influence on early systems artists—foregrounds control, feedback, and system regulation (Pickering, 2010). Quilting software introduces precisely these logics into textile practices, transforming pattern-making into programmable systems. Artists such as Libs Elliott use programming languages like Processing to generate quilt designs, effectively translating code into cloth (Elliott, 2018). I’ve started to experiment with Processing based composition too with pretty fabulous results. Using coding to author the design, in full or in part, quilting becomes a medium for algorithmic aesthetics, merging the hand-made with the computational.
Finally, the feminist and conceptual intersections between quilting and systems art raise critical questions about art, labour, and visibility. While systems art has historically been dominated by male artists and framed within high modernist discourse, quilting has been marginalised as a domestic or decorative craft—its conceptual depth often overlooked (Parker, 1984; Adamson, 2010). Feminist artists such as Faith Ringgold and Miriam Schapiro have reconfigured the quilt as a vehicle for political commentary and conceptual engagement, using textile to critique systems of race, gender, and class (Ringgold, 1995). These works expose the latent conceptualism in quilting, positioning it as a counter-system to the rationalist, depersonalised logics of canonical systems art.
To conclude, systems art and quilting both rely on structural methodologies, iterative processes, and often collaborative labour. However, their confluence also opens critical space for re-evaluating the boundaries between art and craft, the digital and the domestic, the systemic and the embodied. Quilting can be reframed as a systemic art form, rich with computational logic, material ecology, and social critique—particularly potent when used to visualise and resist structural inequality through the lens of identity.
More Processing experiments (the code is included below)
Refs
Adamson, G. (2010) The Invention of Craft. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Buchloh, B. H. D. (1990) ‘Conceptual Art 1962–1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions’, October, 55, pp. 105–143.
Elliott, L. (2018) Code Meets Cloth: Generative Quilts. [Online]. Available at: https://www.libselliott.com (Accessed: 12 July 2025).
Freeman, R. (1996) Art and Identity: African American Quilts in the South. New York: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Haacke, H. (1971) ‘Systems Aesthetics’, in Burnham, J. (ed.) Systems Esthetics. Artforum, pp. 31–34.
Hicks, M. (2020) ‘Digital Quilting and the Politics of Stitch’, Textile: The Journal of Cloth and Culture, 18(4), pp. 425–441.
Knauer, K. (2016) The Patterned World: Quilting and Mathematics. Princeton: PUP Press.
LeWitt, S. (1967) ‘Paragraphs on Conceptual Art’, Artforum, 5(10), pp. 79–83.
Lippard, L. (1997) The Lure of the Local: Senses of Place in a Multicentered Society. New York: The New Press.
Molnár, V. (1990) ‘Computer Imagery in Art’, Leonardo, 23(3), pp. 267–271.
Parker, R. (1984) The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine. London: Women’s Press.
Pickering, A. (2010) The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ringgold, F. (1995) Dancing at the Louvre: Faith Ringgold’s French Collection and Other Story Quilts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
int cols = 12;
float squareSize = 800.0 / cols;
int rows = int(1200 / squareSize);
float gridWidth = cols * squareSize;
float gridHeight = rows * squareSize;
float xOffset = (800 - gridWidth) / 2;
float yOffset = (1200 - gridHeight) / 2;
// Define colours
color black = color(0);
color yellow = color(255, 255, 0);
color orange = color(255, 165, 0);
color grey = color(130);
// Class to store chevron inheritance
class InheritedChevron {
boolean hasChevron;
boolean leftToRight;
color c;
InheritedChevron() {
hasChevron = false;
}
}
InheritedChevron[] prevRowInheritance;
void setup() {
size(800, 1200);
noLoop();
noStroke();
background(255);
prevRowInheritance = new InheritedChevron[cols];
for (int i = 0; i < cols; i++) {
prevRowInheritance[i] = new InheritedChevron();
}
for (int row = 0; row < rows; row++) {
float y = yOffset + row * squareSize;
InheritedChevron[] currentRowInheritance = new InheritedChevron[cols];
for (int i = 0; i < cols; i++) {
currentRowInheritance[i] = new InheritedChevron();
}
float greyChance = map(row, 0, rows - 1, 0.0, 1.0);
for (int col = 0; col < cols; col++) {
float x = xOffset + col * squareSize;
boolean leftToRight;
color c1, c2;
if (prevRowInheritance[col].hasChevron) {
leftToRight = prevRowInheritance[col].leftToRight;
c1 = prevRowInheritance[col].c; // inherited top triangle
c2 = weightedRandomColor(greyChance); // random bottom
} else {
leftToRight = random(1) > 0.5;
c1 = weightedRandomColor(greyChance);
c2 = weightedRandomColor(greyChance);
}
// Draw triangles
if (leftToRight) {
fill(c1); // top
triangle(x, y + squareSize, x, y, x + squareSize, y);
fill(c2); // bottom
triangle(x, y + squareSize, x + squareSize, y + squareSize, x + squareSize, y);
if (c2 != grey) {
currentRowInheritance[col].hasChevron = true;
currentRowInheritance[col].leftToRight = true;
currentRowInheritance[col].c = c2;
}
} else {
fill(c1); // top
triangle(x, y, x + squareSize, y, x + squareSize, y + squareSize);
fill(c2); // bottom
triangle(x, y, x, y + squareSize, x + squareSize, y + squareSize);
if (c2 != grey) {
currentRowInheritance[col].hasChevron = true;
currentRowInheritance[col].leftToRight = false;
currentRowInheritance[col].c = c2;
}
}
}
prevRowInheritance = currentRowInheritance;
}
// Save file with timestamp
String timestamp = nf(year(), 4) + nf(month(), 2) + nf(day(), 2) + "_" + nf(hour(), 2) + nf(minute(), 2) + nf(second(), 2);
save("chevron_" + timestamp + ".jpg");
}
// Function to get a colour, with increasing chance of grey
color weightedRandomColor(float greyChance) {
float r = random(1);
if (r < greyChance) return grey;
float pick = random(3);
if (pick < 1) return black;
else if (pick < 2) return yellow;
else return orange;
}
andrewwelsby 
Leave a comment