Month: February 2026

Initally, I expected Casey Reas’ video to be more of a lecture-like talk about randomness and control, however, it was nice to see that his video consisted of a lot of examples as I prefer actually getting to watch, rather than just hearing about the ideas.  My favorite part of the examples was when he showed himself coding this maze-like images at the end. This is kind of where I started to find an answer to the balance between total randomness and complete control. He is in control of the shapes being drawn, but it’s up to the computer which shape is being drawn and when. However, it still created beautiful, unique pieces everytime. I’m excited to incorporate randomness into my work by kind of allowing the computer to ‘make the decisions’ for me when it’s minor things like where each box goes or what color each box is, but controlling the limits of these decisions. I also think another way of intrepreting randomness and control can be about controlling your own narratives for your work rather than following what the current trends are or what the preferred styles are. You insert randomness by being unexpected and doing what you prefer rather than what people might expect, and you gain control because you control the narrative.

While watching the video, I was just doodling on my iPad, and I feel like it’s a nice example of randomness (with a bit of control). 

Your concept

I was scrolling through the provided old computer art magazines for inspiration, and  I ended up liking the work Random Squares by Bill Kolomyjec from COMPUTER_GRAPHICS_AND_ART_Aug1977. I wanted to add my own touch to it, so I had two main goals, adding color and adding some kind of interaction with the cursor.

A highlight of some code that you’re particularly proud of

// this function makes a box dissapear when the cursor hovers over it.
function squareDissapear(xPos, yPos, size, offset) {
  
  let cellX = xPos - offset;
  let cellY = yPos - offset;
  
  // only active when mouse is within the canvas
  let mouseInside = (mouseX >= 0 && mouseX < width && mouseY >= 0 && mouseY < height)
  
  // true / false
  let hover = mouseInside && mouseX > cellX && mouseX < cellX + squareSize && mouseY > cellY && mouseY < cellY + squareSize;
  
  if (!hover) {
    square (xPos, yPos, size);
    return;
  }
  
  push();
  
  fill (220);
  noStroke();
  square(xPos, yPos, size)
  
  pop(); 
}

This is the interaction I ended up adding. When the cursor moves over a box, the box dissapears! I initally wanted to do some type of rotation but I wasn’t able to really understand how to use the functions correctly so as a comprimise, I landed on just doing dissapearing boxes as it was a bit simpler. Due to the way I did the loops to draw the boxes, it was still not very straightforward, so I did have to do some mental gymnastics to get it to work. However, I’m happy I was able to add this interaction, and it looks especially cool if you move the cursor over the preview screen quickly.

I did also add another interaction with the color changing. When the user clicks the mouse, the colors of all the boxes change!

Embedded Sketch

Click your cursor to change the color!

Reflection and ideas for future work or improvements

I enjoyed getting more creative for this work and taking inspiration from the works in the magazines provided. I would love to continue exploring generative art in my work and try to add more elements of interactivity. I definitely want to work on understanding the rotations and angles on p5.js so I can add that to my code.

• • 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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.