I’m the most impressed by Casey Reas’ ability to code art from the easily overlooked details in life and how some of his works can find their roots in art history. Every piece he presented contains multiple layers of meaning, with deep consideration before arriving at a final artwork. Those works draw from scientific concepts, like that neuro model, or something as simple as the characters on a keyboard. They start with such tangible concepts but lands in somewhere abstract.
What sets coding art apart from traditional forms of art? I believe it’s the ability to accept constant changes. Reas references artists like Duchamp, the Dada movement, and John Cage to illustrate the concept of ‘chance in art.’ These works embrace improvisation as part of the creative process. Coding takes this a step further by having randomness at its core, demonstrating how randomness can have a certain intentionality. It shows how meanings can shift and layer as the program runs. These added-up layers can be endless, not just limited to one canvas and small changes in a code can result in something drastically different from before. Another key distinction is accessibility. Traditional art often requires specific skills and techniques, while creative coding lowers that threshold and provides the public with the tools to easily replicate a great piece of creative coding.
Two artists have caught my eye for my concept: Vera Molnár and Dr. Bill. Vera Molnár’s use of grids and squares with small touches of randomness was something I thought of as cool and want to bring to my own piece, especially after watching Casey Reas and learning how randomness can create unique art pieces. Her piece “(Dés)Ordres” shows an example of balance between order and chaos by introducing little changes in color and shape within a structured grid (Molnár, 1974). I want to do something similar by using a grid of squares and making each square unique, creating a sense of predictability within the order. The second artist’s art, Dr. Bill’s, has inspired me to incorporate interactive elements into my artwork (Kolomyjec, n.d.). I plan to incorporate an interactive element where the colors of the squares shift as the viewer moves their mouse across the screen, making it engaging.
To be more specific about my design, I will use the loop function to add squares all over the canvas. However, like Molnár’s designs, I’ll also add squares within the squares, but I’ll be using randomness to change either how the square moves or how big it is inside the square, or the colors of the square. Also, I wanted to make it more interesting by picking one color on one side of the canvas that changes with the user and the mouse interaction with it. In addition to that, I wanted to make it a vibrant piece by adding random colors, but as I said, I’ll be choosing one specific color that changes within the interaction of the viewer and the mouse. Hopefully, by combining Molnár’s structured randomness with Dr. Bill’s generative interaction, I am aiming to create a dynamic and engaging piece, by working with order and unpredictability, to make something that evolves with each viewer’s interaction.
The images below are Vera Molnár and Dr. Bill’s work that inspired my piece:
Dr.BillVera Molnar
SKETCH:
HIGHLIGHT:
One part I’m really proud of is figuring out how to make the cubes “shake.” I used the “random()” function to add small random movements to the X and Y coordinates of each square. By setting “randomShakeX” and “randomShakeY to values between -3 and 3, the squares move slightly, creating a subtle shaking effect.
It took me a while to get this right and was the most time-consuming part about my code. I started out by testing different ranges for the movement and tested the effect with various square sizes. After some trial and error, I found the perfect balance where the shaking felt noticeable but not too chaotic. This part of the code may seem little, but it makes the design feel more dynamic and playful, which is something I was excited to achieve. In the end, I was proud of how it turned out because it brought my art piece together, which proved Casey Reas’s message of how small random changes can make a big difference in how a design feels.
heres a code snippet on how to do it:
// Adding random movement to create an effect of shaking (inner squares)
let randomShakeX = random(-3, 3);
let randomShakeY = random(-3, 3);
// Draw three inner squares with the shaking effect, decreasing in size.
rect(x + randomShakeX, y + randomShakeY, 30, 30);
rect(x + randomShakeX, y + randomShakeY, 20, 20);
rect(x + randomShakeX, y + randomShakeY, 10, 10);
}
}
}
REFLECTION:
One thing I learned from this assignment is how randomness can play a big role in art.It adds variety and surprises that make the piece more engaging. One thing I want to improve is to add more interactions with the user in my piece. For example, I had an idea where pressing a key on the keyboard would change the shapes, and using the arrow keys could adjust the size of the shapes. Along those lines, I’d like to eventually turn the art into a game where people can play with the shapes and make their own patterns that fit their personalities. It would be more fun to do this with the art piece.I’m happy with how the code turned out, though. It makes me feel like the art piece fits with who I am by being colorful and unique.
In Casey Reas’ presentation, he explores the tension between order and chaos through the lens of visual art, particularly how software and algorithms have allowed for a deeper engagement with these concepts. His work demonstrates how randomness can coexist with controlled systems, creating art that is both calculated and unpredictable, offering new perspectives on the artistic process. What stood out to me was how his work evolved from simple systems to complex installations, with the unpredictability of the process being the common thread between all his artworks. His reliance on algorithms and chance, combined with borders, reflects a deep connection between control (borders) and randomness(algorithms and chance), making each artwork unique yet part of an artistic collection.
But the real question on my mind is whether his work is considered art. Even though his work stood out to me and it was interesting to see what pieces were created from software, algorithm, randomness and chance, I’m still wondering if this is actually considered a piece of art. I’ve been thinking about this because my twin, who is majoring in visual art, often questions what is considered art. In my opinion, not everything can be considered art; true art is what has been made with genuine feelings, created by hand, and has a meaning or story behind it. Some might argue that it is considered a piece of art because this person programmed it to do this piece of work, but I still argue that even though the person gave the commands the person still didn’t know how the artwork will end up looking like and there isn’t any story or meaning behind this piece of work. So, the question remains: is his work considered art?
CONCEPT:
For this assignment, my inspiration mostly came from Bill Kolomyjec’s art piece ‘Random Squares’. ‘Random Squares’ Bill
However, I wanted to add a bit of a twist and make it more chaotic or trippy in some sort of way. I’ve gotten the idea of the changing shapes depending on the area of the canvas from class and interpreted it into my design, which thankfully pulled the piece together. In addition, the crazy random colours definitely added to the effect of it being trippy at least I hope so. Moreover, it still felt a bit bland, and after watching Casey Reas’s video, I knew I needed to add something to make the piece seem more alive or organic, as he says. In doing so, I discovered a growing and shrinking factor, which, after some trial and error, I realized it was just a variable that I needed to create and then just adjust the shape size accordingly, and it turned out not so hard after all. This would probably be what I’m most proud of in the whole code. Code that I’m most proud of:
/ Variable for size change
let sizeChange = 0;
// Variable for the shapes (growing or shrinking)
let growing = true;
function setup() {
createCanvas(400, 400);
frameRate(5);
}
function draw() {
background("black");
// sizeChange variable to create growing/shrinking effect
if (growing) {
sizeChange += 1;
// If the size gets too large, start shrinking
if (sizeChange > 20) {
growing = false;
}
} else {
sizeChange -= 1;
// If the size gets too small, start growing again
if (sizeChange < 0) {
growing = true;
}
}
Reflection/Improvment:
Next time, I would love to have the shapes rotate, which is something I tried doing but unfortunately failed, I did watch videos on youtube but i still didn’t understand it so i decided to scratch that until i fully understand how it works. So hopefully next time!
My design:
My code:
// Variable for size change
let sizeChange = 0;
// Variable for the shapes (growing or shrinking)
let growing = true;
function setup() {
createCanvas(400, 400);
frameRate(5);
}
function draw() {
background("black");
// sizeChange variable to create growing/shrinking effect
if (growing) {
sizeChange += 1;
// If the size gets too large, start shrinking
if (sizeChange > 20) {
growing = false;
}
} else {
sizeChange -= 1;
// If the size gets too small, start growing again
if (sizeChange < 0) {
growing = true;
}
}
for (let x = 0; x <= width; x += 40) {
for (let y = 0; y <= height; y += 40) {
// Outer stroke for the shapes
strokeWeight(3);
stroke("black");
// Right half of the canvas - enlarging and shrinking squares
if (mouseX > width / 2) {
for (let size = 30 + sizeChange; size > 0; size -= 10) {
fill(random(255), random(255), random(255), 150);
// nested squares
rect(x + (30 - size) / 2, y + (30 - size) / 2, size, size);
}
} else {
// Left half of the canvas - enlarging and shrinking circles
for (let size = 30 + sizeChange; size > 0; size -= 10) {
fill(random(255), random(255), random(255), 150);
// nested circles
ellipse(x + 20, y + 20, size, size);
}
}
}
}
}
The first time watching Casey Reas speech, I had so many thoughts. But one main point I kept thinking about is how the author focuses on artists using randomness to create art that represents history, biology, or society, but none of these works seem to connect with deeper human emotions. So then I kept thinking about this, and I asked myself. Does randomness restrict personal expression?. For example, the artist said, “We used a little bit of randomness and a lot of sort of decision-making based on how we wanted things to feel.” From my point of view, this quote shows how randomness keeps art from being predictable, leading to unexpected results that might move the piece away from personal emotional expression. So, this makes me question whether relying too much on randomness prevents personal expression since the process seems more about handling the chaos of the system than about conveying intentional emotions. The reason I focused on this part of the video is because I always thought of art as a form of personal expression that reflects the artist’s emotions, thoughts, and experiences. So, when too much randomness is involved, it feels like the artist loses control over that emotional connection, letting the system or algorithm take over, which could overshadow the personal meaning and emotional depth behind the work.
However, watching the clip for the second time, I decided to think with an open mind. For example, does the unpredictability in art lead to more innovative pieces that lead to deeper stories?. Casey Reas mentioned a few artists who used randomness to create works with meaningful messages. For example, he talks about a project visualizing cancer cell communication. “Everything is structured and ordered, and randomness is used slightly to determine the position and the scale of these individual clusters.” In the example, randomness plays a role in producing a lifelike representation. The artist used randomness to decide where the protein clusters would go and how big they would be, which reflects the natural unpredictability of real biological processes. As a viewer of this artwork, I felt as though it captured the chaotic nature of cellular interactions. So, in this case, I think that the randomness added depth in the art piece, which in a way made me feel connected with the processes of life in a way that a pure structured system or algorithm might not be able to. Overall, while at first randomness may seem to get in the way of personal expression, it nevertheless lets artists make works that reveal deeper truths about nature, society, and the human experience in ways that pure intention or structured systems might not be able to just by using unpredictability in some part of the art.
REFRENCES:
Reas, C. (2012). Form+Code in Design, Art, and Architecture.
In Casey Reas’ talk on chance operations, one of the most interesting ideas he explores is how randomness can act as a creative form in art. Reas shows how randomness can introduce unpredictability into structured digital systems, giving artificial creations a more natural and organic feel which he stated at the beginning of the video. Hence, made me think about how randomness is used in larger projects, like architectures and so on. For example, the designs of Expo 2020 or the Museum of the Future in Dubai bring together technology and creativity in a way that balances control with randomness, showing how both aspects can work together to create something that feels alive and evolving. Another thought that came to mind was how even small random changes can totally change the result of an algorithm. The “noise” is what keeps the system interesting, as he said without it, it’ll turn homogeneous and basically move in the same direction, which obviously isn’t exciting, and the system pretty much just becomes predictable. However, it also makes me think about things like how much randomness is good before it turns into chaos and when it stops adding to the art and starts taking away from it. One artist, for instance, Jean Tinguely, made “Homage to New York,” a machine that is meant to break itself. Yes, I get the idea of embracing chaos, but this amount of uncertainty makes it harder for me to connect. It’s too random for me to handle, and the lack of structure makes it difficult for me to connect personally with the piece. Still, I can see how some people might connect with Tinguely’s method, enjoying the randomness and how it shows how chaotic life is. In essence, too much chaos makes me feel disconnected, which shows that this type of art might not speak to everyone.
For this project I got my inspiration from Bridget Riley who is an artist specialized in optical illusion. She is known to use geometric shapes and patterns to create these optical illusions. Below are some of Bridget Riley’s artworks.
Getting the inspiration from Bridget Riley I decided to create my project from geometric shapes (triangles) and creating multiple loops to achieve this optical illusion that I came up with. I also added some interactivity that the user can use in my project where if the user pressed the mouse the project will change from black and white to orange and blue, and the transition between the two color schemes is supposed to create a surprising visual effect that aligns with the idea of shifting perception.
Highlighted Code:
if (mouseIsPressed){
fill('#FF783D');
rect(0,0,120,100);
// loop for blue triangles 1
for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
for (let y1 = 0; y1 <= 90; y1 += 20) {
let x2 = x1;
let y2 = y1 + 20;
let x3 = x1 + 20;
let y3 = y1 + 10;
fill('#3DC4FF');
triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3);
}
}
// loop for opposite blue triangles 1
for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
for (let y1=10; y1<=100; y1+=20){
let x2=x1+20;
let y2= y1+10;
let x3=x1+20;
let y3= y1-10;
triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
}
}
rect(0,100,120,100);
// loop for orange triangles 1
for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
for (let y1 = 100; y1 <= 190; y1 += 20) {
let x2 = x1;
let y2 = y1 + 20;
let x3 = x1 + 20;
let y3 = y1 + 10;
fill('#FF783D');
triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3);
}
}
// loop for opposite orange triangles 1
for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
for (let y1=110; y1<=190; y1+=20){
let x2=x1+20;
let y2= y1+10;
let x3=x1+20;
let y3= y1-10;
triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
}
}
rect(0,200,120,100)
// loop for blue triangles 2
for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
for (let y1 = 200; y1 <= 290; y1 += 20) {
let x2 = x1;
let y2 = y1 + 20;
let x3 = x1 + 20;
let y3 = y1 + 10;
fill('#3DC4FF');
triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3);
}
}
// loop for opposite blue triangles 2
for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
for (let y1=210; y1<=300; y1+=20){
let x2=x1+20;
let y2= y1+10;
let x3=x1+20;
let y3= y1-10;
triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
}
}
rect(0,300,120,100);
// loop for orange triangles 2
for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
for (let y1 = 300; y1 <= 400; y1 += 20) {
let x2 = x1;
let y2 = y1 + 20;
let x3 = x1 + 20;
let y3 = y1 + 10;
fill('#FF783D');
triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3);
}
}
// loop for opposite orange triangles 2
for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
for (let y1=310; y1<=390; y1+=20){
let x2=x1+20;
let y2= y1+10;
let x3=x1+20;
let y3= y1-10;
triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
}
}
The part of the code I’m most proud of is the one that changes the artwork’s colors when the mouse is pressed. Although it’s just a portion of the entire code, I’m particularly proud of it because the colors didn’t overlap, and the pattern turned out exactly as I had envisioned. I’m also proud of the overall coding process, as it was challenging to get the dimensions right, and I had to repeat it several times before figuring it out.
Sketch:
Future Improvements:
For the future I wish to incorporate some movement in the shapes and for example if I hover the mouse on the artwork it changes according to the placement of the mouse on it.
I’ve always been curious about chance, ever since I was a kid thinking about fate. It made me wonder how much we can really predict in life, and how much is just random. I explored concepts like Laplace’s demon, the nature of pseudo-randomness, and even dived a little bit into quantum physics. trying to figure it out. Casey Reas’ talk at Eyeo was eye-opening for me. He showed how randomness can make art really interesting. It’s not just about throwing random stuff together, but setting up systems where chance can do cool things. This got me thinking about my own art differently. What stuck with me was how Casey uses simple rules to make complex stuff happen. It’s like he makes a playground for randomness and lets it go wild, but with some boundaries. I find this mix of control and chaos really cool.
For my sphere project after finishing it, I’m wondering how to use some of Casey’s ideas. Maybe I could make the sphere, which represent atoms, move randomly, or shift things around in unexpected ways. I’m not sure exactly what I’ll do yet, but I want to try something new. I think the right mix of randomness and control depends on what you’re making. Sometimes a bit of randomness makes things feel more real. Other times, you need more control. I usually start with a clear idea, then add some random elements to make it more interesting. Casey’s work has definitely made me want to experiment more with letting go of control and seeing what happens.
As I reflect on my own artistic experiences, I have often tried to maintain control over my art pieces. While I do not consider myself a very skilled artist, I have been challenged by the idea of allowing a blend of randomness and planning, particularly in electronic art. Casey Reas’ idea of balancing order and chaos, with examples from various artworks, has shown me that chance can indeed add value to art. While I still believe that randomness can enrich a piece by adding layers of unpredictability, I lean more toward the idea that certain elements (if not most) should remain under the artist’s control to preserve uniqueness. Randomness should therefore complement what is already structured, rather than dictate the entire piece. A good example of how to effectively use randomness is to generate random inputs that run through algorithms the artist has defined.
While we value both the artist’s design and the abstractions from chance, a good balance between the two is necessary, especially in a time when there are so many generative options available. This balance helps preserve the value of art. Lastly, I believe the extent to which randomness is used should remain entirely up to the artist, and the way different artists apply it can also contribute to the uniqueness of their work.
Concept This work is inspired by how nature shows similar patterns at both tiny and huge scales. Think about how electrons circle around an atom’s nucleus, and how planets orbit stars or how galaxies spin. Even though these things are super different in size and controlled by different forces, they look kind of similar, “stuff moving around a center point”. It’s like nature has a favorite design that it uses over and over.
In this art work I tried to show this idea with a cool, spinning spherical shape that changes colors (It also reminded me of Tony Stark creating a new element). It is meant to make you think of both the super small world of atoms and the massive universe at the same time. The changing colors are supposed to represent the constant energy and movement in both atomic and space masses.
Code snippet
Here’s a bit of code I’m pretty happy with. It’s what creates the spherical shape using nested loops and some tricky math from geometry books:
This code makes points on a sphere, but with some extra wiggles to create cool patterns. The settings array helps easily change how complex the shape is. The colors change based on where each point is and a shifting overall color, which makes it look vibrant and always changing.
Sketch
Reflection and ideas for future improvements Working on this sketched helped to better understand 3D graphics and using math to create complex shapes. The hardest part was getting all the numbers just right to make it look good and match my idea.
For making it better next time, I have some ideas:
1. Let users change the settings array and add more interactive while it’s running to see how it changes the shape.
2. Put in some sliders or buttons to change colors, how fast it spins, and other stuff.
3. Try making multiple shapes that connect to each other, like a bunch of molecules or solar systems.
These changes would make it more fun to play with and give a better picture of how small and big things in nature can look similar.
