Even before watching Casey Reas’ talk, I tried using randomness in my previous assignment without thinking deeply about the balance between randomness and control. I programmed the “YOU DIED” screen to have a chance of appearing after a random amount of time between 15 and 20 seconds. The program could decide when the change happened and whether it happened, but still the outcome was controlled, albeit slightly, by me. Looking back at it, it was not completely random. I created the rules first then allowed the computer to make smaller decisions within them. I liked that because the unexpected change made my work feel more alive and a bit more personal, since it was a game reference I enjoyed including.
I’m planning to develop this further with week two’s production assignment, in which I’ll create a glitched screen using loops. I could randomize the positions, lengths, colors or timing of the glitches so the screen does not produce exactly the same image each time. However, I would still control the color range and general layout. For me, the optimum balance is when I can recognize my original idea in every result, but I still can’t predict what the result would be. Complete control might make the work feel too repetitive, while total randomness could make the glitches look meaningless. What I’m interested in is something in the middle where I design the system, but the system can still surprise me. It also makes me wonder whether deciding what the computer is allowed to change is more important than deciding exactly where everything appears.