Month: February 2026

I hope to incorporate randomness as a touch of freedom to the well ordered code if I am intending to make a work of art, but use it as a functional tool if the work is to be of practical use. I wouldn’t want to use too much randomness, and I don’t want to make randomness the center of focus. The video mentioned randomness and chance and demonstrated it as a novel and  individual element in art, which deviates from my understanding of what art is. The speaker seems to be defining randomness using its most limited definition: true randomness generated without bias, unlike what the human brain would give, and claimed that artistis used to be responsible for order.  I personaly would like to believe that randomness is not so strictly defined, and that artists, especially the abstractionist, are probably the most random people among the population apart from psychopaths. They are the human end of randomess, and what they exhibit is a randomness enriched with meaning, emotion and expression.

This is why the way the speaker uses randomness as an artist is not something I would agree with. I believe art should be something more than the shapes and forms of the surface. The beauty ought to lie in the emotions and expression depicted through the work. There is a soul behind the cavas, whether physical or electronic. The extend to which the speaker pursures randomness is excessive. It is more a research of randomness rather than art. The lines and shapes created contain no meaning, and is a mere experiment that is goodlooking. There is no soul behind this. I don’t see this differently as a graph that may be formed from the data of a failed scientific experiment. The scale of randomness in art I would prefer is when the artist tries to express something through the randomness. For example: A work of random lines and connections that resulted from controlled code and processing afterwards that is aimed at expressing the pressure of modernlife and slight moments of relaxation people find within (I have this in my mind as a graph of crowded random lines where the gaps are bigger in some places). This would be my ideal of the scale of randomness: controlled and not covering over the emotions or the “soul”.

When I watched Casey Reas’ Eyeo talk on Chance operations, I started thinking differently about how i use control in my art. Reas explains that the computer is not just a tool that follows orders, but a creative system that can use chance in a planned way. One part that really stood out to me was when he talked about artists like Sol LeWitt, where the instructions are the artwork and the final image is just one version of many possibilities. That made me realize that art does not always need to be fully planned to be meaningful. I noticed that in my own work I usually avoid randomness, especially when I paint portraits. I like to control the faces, expressions, and details, and I feel like adding random elements could ruin the image I worked hard on. I like knowing what the final result will look like and follow the structured plan of how it’s suppose to turn out. But Reas helped me see that even when a system creates something unexpected, it still comes from the artist’s ideas and decisions. Making me realize even when mistakes are made, sometimes it still helps us see that it can turn the thing we are creating better (whether it’s planned or not).

Before watching the talk, I thought randomness mostly made things messy and out of control. Now I understand that randomness can be planned and guided by rules. Reas explains how simple systems can create complex behaviors, and that really changed how I think about art. If I use chance in my own projects, I want to start with movement. Movement creates emotion and makes the artwork feel alive, and letting it behave in a slightly unpredictable way can make it more interesting. I also think randomness can make my projects more unique instead of looking repetitive. At the same time, I believe there needs to be a balance between chaos and structure. If a project is formal or important, too much randomness can feel a bit overwhelming, confusing or disrespectful. For me, the best balance is when I control the main rules but let chance decide small details, like position or scale. After watching Reas’ talk, I see chance not as something that ruins my work, but as something that helps me explore new ideas and think differently when working with projects, art, assignments, writing and etc.

My Concept

For this assignment, I wanted my design to feel both structured and fun to interact with, while still being something I could make using the basics we’ve learned in p5.js. My final sketch creates a grid of animated squares that slowly move and respond to the mouse. When the mouse moves over the canvas, squares close to it change size and color, making the grid feel interactive and fun to play with and explore.

Snippet of the code I’m proud of:

Here’s a section I’m proud of because it combines motion and interaction:

let d = dist(mouseX, mouseY, x, y);

if (d < 80) {
  size += map(d, 0, 80, 25, 0);
  r = 255;
  g = random(100, 200);
  b = random(200, 255);
}

How I made this: 

I made this sketch by creating a canvas using createCanvas(600, 400) and then using nested loops with x and y to place squares evenly across the grid. I used a spacing variable to control how far apart the squares are. Each square changes size over time with sin(frameCount * 0.05 + x * 0.04 + y * 0.04) to make a smooth wave effect. I also used dist(mouseX, mouseY, x, y) to check how far the mouse is from each square so that squares near the mouse get bigger and change color. I added a small rotation with rotate() and used push() and pop() so each square rotates on its own. I set the colors using r, g, and b, some based on the wave and some random near the mouse, and drew the squares with rectMode(CENTER) and rect(). Using loops, animation, rotation, and mouse interaction made the piece feel alive while keeping a clear pattern.

The complete code:

let spacing = 45;

function setup() {
  createCanvas(600, 400);
}

function draw() {
  background(10, 10, 30, 60);

  for (let x = 0; x < width; x += spacing) {
    for (let y = 0; y < height; y += spacing) {

      // wave motion
      let wave = sin(frameCount * 0.05 + x * 0.04 + y * 0.04) * 12;
      let size = 18 + wave;

      // distance to mouse
      let d = dist(mouseX, mouseY, x, y);

      // angle rotation
      let angle = sin(frameCount * 0.02 + d * 0.05);

      push();
      translate(x + spacing / 2, y + spacing / 2);
      rotate(angle);

      // color
      let r = 120 + wave * 4;
      let g = 80 + d * 0.2;
      let b = 200;

      // interaction 
      if (d < 80) {
        size += map(d, 0, 80, 25, 0);
        r = 255;
        g = random(100, 200);
        b = random(200, 255);
      }

      stroke(255, 180);
      fill(r, g, b, 180);
      rectMode(CENTER);
      rect(0, 0, size, size);

      pop();
    }
  }
}

Reflection and future ideas

Overall, I’m really happy with how this piece turned out. I started with the idea of a geometric grid like the ones in old computer art magazines, and I used what I’ve learned about loops, motion, and interaction to make it come to life. Learning how to use nested loops was especially rewarding because it let me create a pattern that fills the whole canvas with very little code. I’m honestly very proud of how my code came out. I really enjoyed exploring this aspect of p5.  And i like how I made the squares change when the mouse moves over them which makes it feel alive and fun to explore.

If I had more time or knew more about p5.js, I would like to try more effects. For example, I could make the shapes respond to sound, or create more interactive features like clicking to make new shapes appear. I would also like to experiment with colors to make smoother gradients and more interesting palettes. In the future, I want to keep exploring user interaction and generative art using what I have learned so far and what I will learn next.

References

p5.js Reference: https://p5js.org/reference/