Navigating the debate over what qualifies as art and what falls short of that definition can be a tricky endeavor. In this context, I found great satisfaction Casey Reas’ counter-argument to embark on the arduous task of justifying the legitimacy of computer art. Instead, it confidently acknowledged computer art as a legitimate form of artistic expression from the outset, leaving no room for doubt. What truly captivated me were the captivating and thought-provoking concepts introduced, which prompted me to reevaluate not only my approach to creating art but also the underlying principles guiding my design choices. One particularly intriguing idea that emerged from the talk was the concept of imperfection within symmetry. This notion made me reflect on how I employ such subtle techniques unconsciously in my own work such as incorporating an element slightly off-grid, introducing a color outside the designated palette, or employing a different shape. Perfect symmetry, I realized, may yield expected satisfaction, but it often lacks the element of surprise that truly captures one’s attention. In the case that Casey Reas discussed, where receptors are wired in three slightly imprecise ways, it not only enhances intrigue but also unveils entirely new patterns of behavior.
After listening to Casey Reas’ talk, I’ve come to appreciate the significance of incorporating elements of randomness and noise in computer art. One of the most formidable hurdles I’m facing in my journey as an artist is the ingrained belief that symmetry is the sole path to achieving beauty and aesthetic appeal. However, Reas’ talk, along with the assignments in our class, has illuminated a profound revelation: there are no fixed or rigid formulas for attaining beauty in art. While there’s certainly beauty in structured order, it’s equally possible to discover aesthetic allure in the midst of chaos and randomness, just as Casey Reas eloquently demonstrates.
Yet, as I delved deeper into these ideas, questions surfaced regarding the decision-making process regarding the degree of randomness to include: how random can it be?