When Casey Reas presented on the section of the interplay between order and chaos in art, I was struck by the way geometry became a central thread in the works he showed. What first appears as random begins with a point, then extends into a line, a plane, a pyramid, and beyond. This progression made me reflect on how art can serve as a medium for visualizing different dimensions, not just one or two, but conceptually even higher dimensions that are difficult to visualize mathematically.
These pieces also reminded me of a saying that what we perceive as “fixed reality” is often the outcome of countless random events in the past. This questioned me to reconsider the very idea of randomness. In the digital world, randomness is never truly random but rather pseudo-random, generated by algorithms. If randomness is always mediated by machines, codes, and computational logics, then perhaps chance itself is never pure but always carefully curated within larger systems, or even by higher-dimensional “creatures.”
In the last works that Reas showed, randomized pixels can be flipped into recognizable icons and numbers. This reminded me that the rules and symbolic systems we rely on every day, language, notation, even code itself, are not inevitable truths but constructed layers that emerged from countless iterations, decisions, and constraints. What seems stable is in fact the result of “layered randomness,” structured into order through history and standardization. Even today, the simple random() function in p5.js, which feels effortless to call, is built upon decades of infrastructural layering: from punch cards and military research to modern standards like Unicode. Each of these conveniences conceals a history of constraints, distilling complex philosophies and technologies into modular tools that allow digital artists to create with apparent spontaneity.
To answer the question of the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control, my mind drifted toward a more philosophical side. Can there ever be an autonomous “optimal point,” or is every balance ultimately surveilled and regulated? I find myself leaning toward a more pessimistic answer, suspecting that what appears to be freedom within randomness is always already framed by invisible structures of control.