In my work, I plan to incorporate randomness as a major element, as I believe having it consist solely of order and rigid structure will yield a boring, fixed outcome. As the speaker mentions in his talk, randomness breaks the artist’s habits, and I completely agree. Randomness allows for a more lively and lifelike outcome. Reas mentions that when an artist sticks to controlling evrything they tend to repeat patterns and styles, so randomness allows the artist to break free from patterns they plan. In my own work, I tend to be more satisfied with my outcomes when randomness is a strong component, as it adds an element of surprise and spontaneity, which, in my opinion, deepens the work through the unexpectedness of the results. Reas’s speech allowed me to appreciate randomness more and helped me understand my tendency to be more satisfied with my code when elements of randomness are involved.
Although I find randomness a very important and desired element of my work, I do believe there needs to be a balance between total randomness and complete control. When working on a piece, finding that sweet spot of fixed and spontaneous is important. If the code consists of too much randomness, it becomes too chaotic or even messy. However, if it is completely controlled by the artist, there is a sense of. rigid and repeated patterns. Finding the balance between the two depends on the specific work, but for the most part, an equal share of both elements allows for a perfectly balanced piece. Reas also agrees that pure randomness alone in art is not enough to make a good piece. Sure, it may improve a very rigidly structured piece, but some control is necessary. Reas’s speech supports the idea that randomness allows for variation and a less predictable outcome; however, order and structure are what make art artistic and not accidental.