Month: February 2024

The main point from this lecture that stood out to me was the balance between randomness and order which has been central to the development of interactive art over time.

Prior to learning about the technical process behind coding, I never considered that conceptualization and randomness can coexist within the same work. I was vaguely aware of algorithmically generated art, especially with the rise of AI generated images in the past few years, and I had been exposed to contemporary art which puts conceptualization at the forefront. However, the merging of the two is something relatively new to me and definitely an avenue which I would like to explore in the future to expand the scope of my personal work beyond traditional photographic practices.

One of the examples of this presented in the reading was a project by Reas entitled Chronograph in which he algorithmically generated visuals to be projected onto the New World Center in Miami. What stood out to me from this work was the intentionality behind it as the visuals were created using images of the neighborhood surrounding the center and later manipulated and collaged through coding. This defied my preconceived notion of digital, coded art to be nothing more than a display of technique and skill as it offered a very tangible ‘why’ to the decision making process behind the work. I have included it below.

Another point which stood out to me from the lecture was the effectiveness of simplicity. This became apparent to me as Reas did a live demo of a very basic Commodore 64 program. Despite only using two basic symbols, Reas’ introduction of randomness allowed the program to produce an interesting visual. As someone who is inexperienced in coding, I would like to combine the aforementioned intentionality with the effective simplicity of this C64 program in order to get the most out of my work.

In his Eyeo lecture, Casey Reas explores the relationship between art and chance, emphasizing how order and chaos interact in creative expression. He presents the idea of “controlled randomness,” in which artists set guidelines while leaving room for unexpected outcomes, providing a novel viewpoint on the process of creating art. Reas presents the idea of “ordered randomness” to show how artists may retain control while offering unpredictability in response to worries that digital art is stifling artistic creativity. In addition to promoting investigation into digital art and coding, this conversation challenges preconceptions and heightens appreciation for the deliberate use of unpredictability in creative expression. It also improves awareness of the link between order and chaos in art.

Furthermore, he highlights how programming languages become vital to the creation of art, drawing connections between code determinism, creative expression, and controlled unpredictability. This point of view encourages a deeper exploration of the creative possibilities inherent in code by showing how straightforward code may result in patterns that are both visually pleasing and meaningful artistically. These insights provides a new previously untapped avenues for artists to explore the interplay of chance, intention, and order, greatly expanding their artistic canvas.

The implementation of algorithms showcased in the video intrigued me, particularly the simulations where algorithms breathe life into meaningful constructs. Witnessing the utilization of body and tissue geometries to craft clothing was especially striking, demonstrating the fusion of art and technology in multiple ways.

The portrayal of randomness in Reas’s presentation was particularly interesting to me. Each pattern, stemming from a singular algorithm, unfolded into multiple distinct artworks with subtle alterations in speed or character selection. This showed us the ways in which randomness has the capability in generating diverse artistic expressions, raising questions about the nature of creativity in algorithmic art.

However, in a previous course I  attended the debate of when does an algorithm is allowed to be credited for the work it creates popped a lot. Especially when AI can generate images using solely a prompt. Of course, in Reas’s case it is completely different due to the fact that code is being used as a tool, but, what does it mean for artists now when using a prompt?

Looking into Computer Graphics and Art, two artist’s style caught my eye. It is specifically Charles Fritchie and Robert Morriss  where their style consisted of free form lines and a sense of chaos, blending circles and lines – some straight and some aren’t. (Page, 32)

The concept of this code is to tell the tale of how we as humans have become entrapped in a fast-paced life of constantly having to work that sometimes it is hard to break free of that mindset. The circles, which eventually aren’t visible represent us, and the lines represent every aspect of our work lives – assignments, jobs, social life, etc.

As a person who is new to p5.js I found that it was easier for me to start coding without an initial concept but a loose inspiration, it took me quite a bit of time because I wanted to implement some of the ideas we learned in class, the code ended up being simple however very impactful.

function setup() {
  createCanvas(600, 600);
  background(255);
  noFill();
  stroke(0);
  frameRate(4);
}

function draw() {
  for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    let x1 = random(width);
    let y1 = random(height);
    let x2 = random(width);
    let y2 = random(height);
    line(x1, y1, x2, y2);
  }

  ellipse(mouseX, mouseY, 20, 20);
}

function keyPressed() {
  background(255);
}

The first thing about Casey Reas’ speech that caught my attention was his collaboration with Ben Fry, which focused on visualizing biology data from MIT and the way that proteins communicate back and forth – positive or negative signals within a cancer cell (randomness was used but in a slight manner). This example proved to me that an artwork truly becomes a piece of art when it is shaped by the story it holds, something to which we can relate.

Another project I found interesting was his creation of conceptual vehicles and software, each color-coded based on their wiring, which was influenced by anatomist Valentino Braitenberg’s hypothetical vehicles, whether inverse or positive, straight connection or cross-connection. A quote that then stood out to me was “a little bit of randomness and a lot of decision-making” (11:43), which showed the complexity in art that many see as “simple.”

Further in the video, the reference to random graphics reminded me of Skip Lists in Data Structures where the reliance is on a 50/50 chance serves as a technique to ensure efficient performance. This validates the deep integration of math, computer science, and physics in art. Further, Reas broke down the barriers between these disciplines, emphasizing how randomness, far from being blind, is a planned element that adds an unexpected dimension to the artistic output, an argument with which I completely agree!

Personally, this speech has solidified my belief in the interdisciplinary nature of art. The combination of several distinct disciplines showcased in the work Reas displayed challenged preconceptions that even I had about the simplicity of digital art. That being said, the speech left a question surrounding the impact of technological advancements on art: Is there ever a line to be drawn as to the art is no longer by the artist but rather a computer, and have we reached that age yet, especially with AI generative art, although different from the work displayed in the video?

Inspiration and Concept

I was looking through some of the works in ProgrammInformation21_PI21 when I came across the sketch below. I immediately thought about the curves I used in last week’s assignment and how noise could be introduced to create this effect of slightly vibrating circles. Essentially, if I drew a circle with curves and then introduced controlled deviations in the vertices’ x and y-coordinates away from the perfect circular path, I would then be able to recreate this piece. In the process of conceptualizing the animation, I also imagined that drawing a curve in each frame would give the illusion of a blossoming flower and add some character and movement to the work. That latter thought effectively lingered in my mind and I found myself experimenting with symmetry, eventually creating an expanding flower animation.

Embedded Sketch

Implementation and Code Highlights

The animation was created by a for loop that creates the curves, nested within another that symmetrically partitions the curve lines to generate petal shapes. I used the Perlin noise() function to allow the curves to wiggle a bit utilizing the iterating variable in the nested for loop and an auxiliary control variable to set the x and y-coordinates in the noise space. This elicited the pattern of organic folds of a flower existing in nature. I referred to the way I created my hair in the last assignment and the examples of using Perlin noise in this article to create the curves. The number of partitions (petals) of the flower is determined by a number that is randomly generated from a finite set of integers. Additionally, the stroke color of each curve is also randomly generated. When set against a black backdrop, the eccentric fluctuations in stroke color produce a glowing effect, which I loved. The animation is replayed when the flower expands to the width of the canvas. Additionally, the animation is repeated with a different number of petals when the mouse is clicked for added interactivity.

// partition the circle based on the variable, petal_partitions_control, to create flower petal effect 
for (var j = 0; j < petal_partitions_control; j += 1 / petal_partitions_control) {
  beginShape(); // draw curves 
  for (var i = 0; i < 30; i++) {
    // map angle based on current partition iteration
    // inner loop implementation inspiration: https://genekogan.com/code/p5js-perlin-noise/
    var ang = map(i, 0, 30, j * PI, j * PI + PI / petal_partitions_control);
    // generate x and y coordinates using noise for organic shapes
    var x = radius * cos(ang) * noise(i * 0.1,  perlin_noise_control * 0.05);
    var y = radius * sin(ang) * noise(i * 0.1,  perlin_noise_control * 0.05);
    
    // draw curve
    curveVertex(x, y);
  }
  endShape();
}

The outer for loop, I would say, is the one I am most proud of as it creates the emergent pattern of flower petals. Admittedly, I do owe Casey Reas and his talk some credit for helping me get inspired to add the symmetry needed to pull this animation together.

Reflection and ideas for future work or improvements

I really enjoyed the process of expanding upon my earlier work and integrating the concepts we discussed in class in the making of this piece. I also loved the process of experimenting with different noise values and stumbling upon the often happy surprises that come with working with randomness and geometry. In the future, I would like to perhaps add more of these flower shapes and give the user some more control in defining the parameters that control the randomness behind the shape (by adding a slider, for example). Additionally, I would love to exploit the same concept to recreate other symmetric shapes – like butterflies – in nature.