One thing I really loved in Casey Reas’ Eyeo talk on chance operations was how much inspiration came from bundling architecture. Looking at real neighborhoods and constructions, and then creating them into systems of rules and geometry, made the work really interesting and intentional. That approach really resonated with me, especially because I see a lot of overlap with Casey’s lecture and what we talked about in my Understanding IM class. We talked about the Dada movement and how chance was used as a response to control and structure after WWI, and many of the artworks, like the Jean Arp piece shown in the video, overlapped with examples we’ve already studied. In both of these cases, chance is used within a structure, which allowed forms to emerge rather than be fully planned. Moreover, to me, this video felt like a short history of digital art, showing how artists moved from pure experimentation to systems where form and behavior emerge over time, reminding me of the book he showed of a million random digits with 100000 normal deviations. I also really liked the idea of making things that are clearly artificial, but still giving them an organic quality.
Before watching this video, I mostly thought of randomness as something that makes things messy and out of control. I think that came from my own experience, when I tried to make a random background for my self-portrait, and the words kept filling the space until it turned completely black. This video helped me realize that randomness is not completely random, but is intentional and planned. There is always a set of instructions and the use of precise geometry behind it. I remember Reas said something along the lines of “pure randomness with symmetry, you start to see faces, and triggering our imagination,” and that stuck with me. In my own work, I will now set clear rules first and then allow small random changes, like with the position or scale. I think that feels like the best balance between control and chaos for me because I still design the system, but do not fully control the outcome. The results can be something better than I planned from the start. I do believe the author is biased in a way by portraying chance positively, like yes, chance can open up to new possibilities, but it only works because of the structure placed around it. The video left me thinking about how much control an artist should give up. Also, I am interested in exploring ideas like a maze or a shape that grows outward from the center, similar to what was shown in the video.