Week 2 Generative Art Post Zere

    • My concept of this week’s generative art task is an apartment building in a big city. Using the “random” function, I made the windows show different colors each time the mouse is clicked, reflecting that each resident has different stories happening to them every day.
    • I came about this idea when experimenting with functions and watching YouTube tutorials for gen. art.  . YouTuber Patt Vira created a tutorial on random smiley faces generative art, and the changing colors reminded me of lights reflected in people’s windows at night. I chose Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh as the background. I saw the original painting at MoMA in NYC, and I was reminded of New York when creating this piece of work, which is why I chose this painting as the background.
    • Piece of code that I am proud of: the changing of the window’s colors. There’s a dynamic change in art, as well as loops used, that prevented me from creating each rectangle manually.
    • Embedded sketch:

  • let bg;
    
    function preload() {
      bg = loadImage("starrynight.jpg");
    }
    
    function setup() {
      createCanvas(400, 400);
      noLoop();
    }
    
    function draw() {
      // Starry Night background
      image(bg, 0, 0, width, height);
    
      // Building
      fill(51, 0, 0);
      noStroke();
      rect(10, 20, 300, 390);
    
      // Door
      fill(255);
      rect(135, 300, 60, 90);
      //Doorknob
     stroke(0);
      strokeWeight(2);
      circle(190,345,10)
      // Windows
      stroke(0);
      strokeWeight(2);
    
      for (let y = 40; y < 260; y += 60) {
        for (let x = 40; x < 280; x += 60) {
          fill(random(200), random(200), random(200));
          rect(x, y, 40, 40);
        }
      }
    }
    
    function mousePressed() {
      redraw();
    }
    
    

     

  • Reflection and ideas for future work or improvements: I’m proud of this sketch because it creates a colorful grid of windows that changes every time you click, making it interactive and fun. In the future, I’d like to make the colors change gradually or add more shapes to make it even more dynamic.

Week 2 – Reading Response | Casey Reas @ Eyeo2012

There is often a debate about how the universe works. Are we really in control of what decisions we make, or has some otherworldly being already written them for us? Is destiny real? Are the things we deem unpredictable actually predictable, and when people say they’re unpredictable… are they really? 

These same questions can be made about artwork. Older (“traditional”)  artwork was very methodical; we could fit artwork into different “eras,” find commonalities within artworks in certain eras, understand a very specific technique that artists would follow during a certain period of time or in a certain geographical area. However, now with our unlimited access to the internet and the rise of globalization, art has branched out significantly. We have shifted from order to chaos – we have people raising questions about which artwork is better (the usual digital versus traditional artwork battle), who decides what art is, and whether that shovel in the corner can actually even be considered artwork! (For this one, we’ll have to ask Duchamp himself.)

I found this talk interesting and I found that many arguments linked to my conversations in other classes. In Understanding Interactive Media, we discussed procedural art; art that is more focused on the process, and not the end product itself. One example I want to discuss in relation to this video is Sol Lewitt’s “Wall Painting”. In this artwork, the same set of instructions are given to everyone – draw 50 points anywhere on a continuous stretch of wall, and then draw lines connecting these dots. Yet, every artwork that comes from these instructions come out differently – super random! The reason I bring this up is because I feel that in this video, we discuss whether there is true randomness in artwork. Randomness allows you to remove your own egos and “preconceived notions” from creative processes (or at least, that’s what artists like John Cage and Marcel Duchamp believe). Randomness is a jumping-off point to get outside your own ideas of correctness.

The thing with algorithms, however, is that even when you code something to be random, there may eventually be a point that the code reaches where it stops being random, especially in generative art. Depending on the complexity of the code, it may become the same earlier, or may take a very long time, but Reas discovered that it eventually will reach homogeneity. Humans cannot replicate the same drawing the exact same ever, but computers can eventually. Hence, how random really is randomness? You can add some randomness to keep a system homeostatic, to keep it consistent but also remain dynamic, but even then, this is still a confusing concept to me. Even with the example of Mondrian explaining that the grid can still be used to represent pure feeling, through his physical brushstrokes being visible, that made me wonder about the difference in human and computer artwork.

In regards to making my own generative artwork, I made it before watching the video completely. Even when making it, I knew that no two artworks would be the same at the beginning, but eventually, at some point (whether it be in a thousand runs or even millions), there will be a moment where my artwork will be the same as another iteration earlier. Thus, maybe we can also acknowledge randomness depending on scale and complexity. Maybe the art we code doesn’t have to be 100% random, because maybe we will never be able to reach that certain percentage. However, within the percentages we can reach, we can play around with them and have fun.

Week 2 – Generative Artwork – Kamila Dautkhan

Concept:

let a = 0;
let b = 0;
let c = -1;
var z = 0;
var cef = 45;

function setup() {
  createCanvas(1000, 1000);
  background(200);
}

function draw() {
  
  translate(width/2, height/2);
  rotate(b);
  
  for(let i=0; i < 500; i++){
    
    let x = b*sin(i*300 + c -(a*23));
    let y = 100*a*cos(i*100 + b * c);
    
    let xx = 15*PI*cos((cef+30)*i+z);
    let yy = (45+z%10)*PI*tan((cef-30)*i+z);
    
    stroke(0);
    point(x,y);
    point(xx,yy);
 
  
}
  
  a++;
  b+=0.1;
  c-=5;
  z+=0.01;
  if(1) {
    //cefInc = -cefInc;
  }
  if(cef > 7200) {
    cefInc = -cefInc;
  }
}

 

I personally really appreciate minimalist artworks that is why I created this generative art piece. For me, this piece is about how much mood and tension you can create with almost no visual information at all, and how something that looks quiet and minimal on the surface can still feel alive and constantly shifting underneath. I just wanted to force the focus onto rhythm, contrast, and empty space. I did not use any colors other than black and white to create a sense of sophistication. Also, I think if I added other colors it might be distracting for the audience. It’s meant to be looked at slowly. The longer you stare, the more small patterns and tensions appear between the shapes. 

Code I am particularly proud of:

  let xx = 15*PI*cos((cef+30)*i+z);

  let yy = (45+z%10)*PI*tan((cef-30)*i+z);

I am especially proud of this little detail: z % 10 because it introduces a subtle pulse in the y‑movement, so the motion doesn’t feel flat or robotic. It’s a small trick, but it adds character

 

Reflection:

This generative piece that I made showed me how much I can get out of very little. With just a few evolving variables and some trigonometric functions, I ended up with two overlapping systems of points: one smoother and orbital, the other more unstable and spiky. Their interaction creates a black and white field that feels both structured and slightly out of control, which is exactly the mood I was thinking of. For the future improvements, I would like to make it more interactive for the audience by letting the mouse directly influence the main parameters in my system. For example, the horizontal mouse position could control cef, slowly changing the structure of the tan based pattern, while the vertical position could affect a or z, changing the scale. 



Week 2 – Reading reflection

Casey Reas says that instead of directly painting a picture or sculpting an object, the artist becomes a builder of systems. The final art is just the result of the system the artist built. I strongly agree with this claim. I believe that having direct control over every single detail kills the magic of digital art. Straightforward instructions that create totally predictable, controlled pieces feel useless to me.

However, the same applies to pure randomness. While we might find some meaning in things that are fully random, it’s hard to feel an emotional connection to something that has zero structure. Casey Reas mentions that he finds “white noise” or total randomness boring because it has no intent, and I can really relate to that.

I believe the perfect balance happens when the artist creates a structure that allows for randomness, resulting in art that is controlled yet creative. The artist writes the instructions, but the outcome still has some natural variation. Reas talks about algorithms like Perlin noise as a way to do this: it has randomness, but it creates smooth, “alive” motion within a set of rules, rather than just chaotic jittering.

For me, the beauty of computer art is in the power of this controlled randomness. Sometimes the best part is knowing exactly what algorithms you are using, but being surprised by the result every time you run it. Computers are much better than humans at creating something that is random but still follows a system. This reminds me of Reas’ “Process” series shown in the talk, where simple elements react to each other to create complex, organic forms.

I really want to use this kind of randomness in my work. For example, in my assignment for this week, the code is the same every time I run it, but the shape of the figures, the connections between them, and their speed are different. I can never get the exact same picture twice. I find it extremely cool to create something that looks super “mathematical” but, at the same time, never turns out to be the same thing twice.

Reading Reflection – Week 2

In Casey Reas’s talk, what interested me most was the idea that randomness can be a deliberate creative tool, I have never thought of it in that way. I like that randomness can surprise me and generate results I wouldn’t have drawn by hand, but I also feel a strong need to keep a clear structure that reflects my own decisions. For example, recently I am very drawn to space and astronomy, so I imagine an immersive, interactive “space” piece – something a bit like teamLab’s environments (which very much inspired me when I attended one in Abu Dhabi),  where I design the overall universe, but let random values control details as the exact placement and number of stars at any moment. In that sense, I realized what controlled randomness is; it opened up a new way of thinking about how I can build systems that feel alive while still being rooted in my own vision.

At the same time, I don’t fully agree with how positively Reas seems to talk about randomness, as if more randomness is always good. From my perspective, too much randomness can quickly become visual noise, and I am not comfortable handing over that much authorship to code or AI tools. My personal “sweet spot” is closer to 70% control and 30% randomness: I want the system to add variation and surprise, but I still want to feel that most of the choices especially the concept and mood come from me. This makes me skeptical of the idea that designing the system alone automatically solves all questions of authorship, but his examples still show useful ways to set rules and then allow variation inside them. His talk makes me more open to try out this new techniques for me and experiment with random elements in my own sketches.

Week 2 — Reading Response

In reflecting on Casey Reas’ discussion of chance operations, I found my fundamental assumptions about artistic intent deeply challenged. I’ve always associated “intent” with manual, top-down control, but Reas’ argument for “jitter” or “noise” as a tool to keep a system from becoming “homogeneous” offers a much more interesting path. I am particularly struck by the idea of “homeostasis” within a system — where a work stays dynamic and shifting while maintaining a consistent texture. This shifts my perspective of the computer from an “obedient tool” to a creative collaborator. By utilizing randomness as a “jumping-off point,” I want to see if I can bypass my own aesthetic biases and “logical nonsense,” similar to how Reas and Tal Rosner used dice-rolls to spark compositions for their Chronograph project.

However, Reas’ mention of Rosalind Krauss’s critique of the “grid” leaves me with a lingering, uncomfortable question: if a work is generated through chance, can it still hold onto the “pure feeling” or “humane quality” that artists like Mondrian or Malevich aimed for? If I follow John Cage’s lead and use chance to “remove myself from the activity,” I worry that the work might lose its connection to social discourse and humanity. Yet, I am increasingly drawn to Gerhard Richter’s provocation that chance is “better” than the artist because it can “destroy what I’ve worked out wrong.” This suggests that the “human” element might actually reside in my willingness to let a system disrupt my own ego.

All these connections reinforced my goal to find an “optimum balance” between total randomness and complete control. Moving forward, I want to experiment with defining “minimal structures” or constraints that allow for “surprising visual qualities,” testing whether a system-based approach can actually feel more organic than one born of purely determined geometry.

Week 2 – Reading Reflection

The video was based on the use of randomness or disorder to create art. The classical way is that art should be ordered, create patterns or should be in a certain way to represent or express something. The video taught us that controlled randomness can also be art and illustrated this with intricate examples. The randomness could be in the form of using a set of numbers, a dice roll or even biological systems. The video also drew my attention to the evolution of “random art” with the improvements in computing capabilities. As computers got better, more control and dimensions could be added to this form of art.

This video raised an interesting question. Is there true randomness? In the artworks, if the software was allowed to run long enough, there was evident convergence and patterns forming. Order could be created from the chaos of randomness and this somewhat contradicts with the message or creating disordered art as a form of expression.  Another concern is the determining the line between art created by an artist and a computer. All the examples required an artist to write some code (or give instructions) and rely on the computer to generate the art. With the onset of AI, where will this line be drawn and at what point does the artist become alien to their own work and relinquish the title of artist to the computer.

 

Week 2 – Generative Artwork

Concept:

I’m very new to the concept of generative art, and so I found myself struggling to come up with an idea for this project. Upon scrolling through some of the resources provided to us, I was inspired by this one artwork in Computer Graphics And Art (May, 1978), “Simulated Color Mosaic” by Hiroshi Kawano, and I liked how randomized the blocks were. Thus, I wanted to try and create an algorithm that would allow for a different randomized result at each run or click. No two patterns would look the same (hopefully). In order to create these blocks to be randomized, however, I needed to find an algorithm that would let me create blocks randomly, or at least have some planned out randomness (reference to the reading… haha).

Artwork:

(Click the screen to create a new pattern!)

Process:

To create this, I had to first come up with how to create a different pattern each time. Thus, I decided to create the variable blocks, so I could perform actions on it. It was an array, so it could hold many blocks that would be generated on each run. The block then had specific elements (blocks.push({ x: 0, y: 0, sz: 600, black: false })); it would start off at a size bigger than the canvas (to create bigger blocks) and then have a condition of black:false to edit the color of each block.

Afterwards, to draw the blocks, it would firstly go through every square, staring with a block and then targeting it to split it in half and so on. For this, I used this condition:

function draw() {
  background(randomColor);

  // go through every square
  for (let i = blocks.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
    let b = blocks[i];

    rect(b.x, b.y, b.sz, b.sz);

    if (blocks.length < 400 && b.sz > 30 && random(1) < 0.05) {
      splitBlock(i);
    }
  }
}

function splitBlock(index) {
  let b = blocks[index];
  let newSz = b.sz / 2;

  blocks.splice(index, 1);

  for (let x = 0; x < 2; x++) {
    for (let y = 0; y < 2; y++) {
      blocks.push({
        x: b.x + x * newSz,
        y: b.y + y * newSz,
        sz: newSz,
        black: random(1) < 0.4 ? !b.black : b.black
      });
    }
  }
}

It draws the block, and then to split the block, it checks the array and size to make sure it splits blocks of a certain size (not too big nor small boxes) and under the limit of 400 blocks in the screen (not too high to lag but also at a lower size so you can see more variation in size of bigger blocks). There’s many random possibilities for the blocks splitting to make sure that the pattern is different each time.

Then, to reset the artwork when it is pressed, I used a different function:

function mousePressed() {
  blocks = [{ x: 0, y: 0, sz: 600, black: false }];
}

Originally, I was planning on keeping the artwork black and white (similar to the inspiration). However, after creating the code, I decided to add color to it. However, instead of just having the same color each time, I added code to change color on every reset.

I added two more variables, randomColor and randomColor2. In setup(), before starting to add the blocks, I set the colors to random with this code:

randomColor = color(random(255), random(255), random(255));
randomColor2 = color(random(255), random(255), random(255));

After, I also set this condition:

if (b.black) {
     fill(randomColor2);
   } else {
     fill(randomColor);
   }

I wrote in the code earlier, black: random(1) < 0.4 ? !b.black : b.black. This was to change the colors of some blocks randomly so it wouldn’t all accidentally end up the same color. Finally, I also added the random code again in mousePressed(), so it would reset into different colors again.

This is the final code:

let blocks = [];
let randomColor;
let randomColor2;

function setup() {
  createCanvas(500, 500);
  noStroke();

  randomColor = color(random(255), random(255), random(255));
  randomColor2 = color(random(255), random(255), random(255));

  blocks.push({ x: 0, y: 0, sz: 600, black: false });
}

function draw() {
  background(randomColor);

  // go through every square
  for (let i = blocks.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
    let b = blocks[i];

    if (b.black) {
      fill(randomColor2);
    } else {
      fill(randomColor);
    }

    rect(b.x, b.y, b.sz, b.sz);

    if (blocks.length < 400 && b.sz > 30 && random(1) < 0.05) {
      splitBlock(i);
    }
  }
}

function splitBlock(index) {
  let b = blocks[index];
  let newSz = b.sz / 2;

  blocks.splice(index, 1);

  for (let x = 0; x < 2; x++) {
    for (let y = 0; y < 2; y++) {
      blocks.push({
        x: b.x + x * newSz,
        y: b.y + y * newSz,
        sz: newSz,
        black: random(1) < 0.4 ? !b.black : b.black
      });
    }
  }
}

// reset when press screen
function mousePressed() {
  randomColor = color(random(255), random(255), random(255));
  randomColor2 = color(random(255), random(255), random(255));

  blocks = [{ x: 0, y: 0, sz: 600, black: false }];
}
Reflection

The loops were confusing. I spent a a while trying to figure this out (much longer than I would have liked) and I think the outcome is okay, but I definitely want to explore creating more artworks that are more complex. The logic took more time to create than the actual code, but it was fun nonetheless. Next time, I would like to work a bit more with colors and shapes, and create a more interesting animation. It’s okay right now but it could be so much better. I really do like the color combinations I’ve been getting! Maybe I could make a color palette generator for my artworks later… or add more colors to this… we’ll see. I’m still not completely confident about loops and conditionals in Javascript, so I hope to get better with more practice.

Assignment 2: looped in love

For my concept, the repeated shapes in the attached PDFs reminded me of wallpapers and patterned backgrounds. Given that it’s February, I decided to create a static heart wallpaper using a grid of mini hearts. When the hearts are pressed, the background turns red and the hearts begin to move.

I initially started by coding the static wallpaper, but quickly realized that if I wanted to incorporate animation, I needed to plan for it early on. I also added a mouse press function so that I could toggle between the still wallpaper and the moving hearts.

For the hearts, I made them using two ellipses and a triangle, and I used nested loops to place the hearts in a grid, which created the wallpaper effect.

To add animation, I created a variable that updates every frame to move the hearts together. When the hearts are moving, this value added to their positions, which shifts the grid. I also used a boolean variable with the if statements to control when the animation occurs.

if (moving) {
    heartshift += speed;
    if (heartshift > 15 || heartshift < -15) {
      speed *= -1;
    }
  }

I’m proud of this part of my code because it controls the movement of the hearts. When the variable (moving) is true, (heartshift) updates every frame, which make the hearts move. And by adding the conditional statement, the speed reverses when the movement reaches the limit(15), so the hearts go back and forth instead of only moving one direction.


Overall, I’m happy with the sketch, and I enjoyed experimenting with different variables to see how they affect the hearts. The most challenging part was combining the animation with the nested loops and learning how to incorporate them with the boolean variable and if statements all together. For future ideas, I would like to add more interactions, or make it more intricate.

Reflection Response

Casey’s talk made a great point about randomness vs. order and the idea of losing total control. Reflecting on my past work, especially my heart wallpaper sketch, everything is very structured and controlled. Casey’s talk made me realize that adding small random elements in my sketch, like changes in color or even the movement of the hearts, could make the sketch feel less rigid. I could have created a static wallpaper of mini hearts and then, when pressed, made the hearts move randomly, but I think it is challenging to balance the randomness of the movement, given how rigid the static grid is when the sketch is pressed again.

Week 2 – Reading Reflection

Before watching the video, I assumed that randomness = messy or chaotic. I never before thought of controlled randomness, which initially sounds contradictory, but begins to make sense as the video goes on. I was fascinated by the artwork that was produced by programming randomness and it opened my eyes to different ways randomness can be used in my own work. In a way, some of the artworks Reas showed in the video, specifically the music pieces, reminded me of modern AI. The music sounded exactly what it was, random, yet also structured oddly enough. It reminded me of AI generated images and songs because AI tends to create some very messy looking images when you give it a specific prompt, and the randomly generated music somewhat mimics the idea of AI nowadays. More importantly, I was mostly impressed with the artwork that can be produced through computer graphics and code. Coming from a computer science backround, most of my coding involved creating algorithms. So, seeing a whole new world of coding to create abstract art pieces was captivating.

In my own artwork, I definitely plan to incorporate randomness by generating random colors and sizes for objects when needed, and especially for generating random positions and velocities for objects. I believe the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control is having almost complete control yet incorporating some elements of randomness when necessary. The control comes from writing the code yourself and deliberately inserting when you want randomness to be used. This helps create more complex art pieces because sometimes it is difficult to draw each element individually in the sketch and create more abstract pieces. So, the element of randomness allows for the creation of art pieces one might not have completely imagined in their mind.