The talk by Casey was truly enlightening. His opening remarks about artists and designers being the key players in maintaining order in today’s society—after the chaos (the Big Bang) that led to our creation—really struck me. The rendered animations had an element of randomness to them, but unlike the art where pieces of paper were dropped onto the floor, or the machine that caught fire (intended to destroy itself), these were post-World War demonstrations by the artist. However, hidden within that seemingly destructive surface was an element of randomness, which is what made it so interesting. Once computing became feasible, algorithmic works like those of Keith Tyson could be visualized and fabricated. Whether it’s the ‘role the dice’ algorithm or something of that sort, I believe art cannot truly exist without interpretive bias, complemented by mistakes and uncertainties. This also reminded me of how some painters splash buckets of paint onto the canvas to sometimes set the foundation for their work.
How are you planning to incorporate random elements into your work?
I’m passionate about creating practical solutions—solutions that not only integrate into existing fields but also introduce entirely new possibilities. The word ‘random’ itself is open to interpretation, but in my view, it’s a mix of an artist’s little inattentiveness and human uncertainties. Like I did in this week’s assignment, where I used random color selection, I plan to incorporate different mapping functions that produce unexpected results. It’s true that the internal ‘random’ function built into most programming languages isn’t entirely random, but the influence of the programmer’s choices still adds a layer of uncertainty. Much like Casey, I want the numerical models that form the foundation of my program and its elements to remain random and stay that way. In life, randomness doesn’t equate to mess—it’s simply how things work. The animation Game of Life also visualizes this phenomenon. So, my plan is to innovate artistically while still maintaining a degree of control, such as setting certain parameters.
Where do you feel is the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control?
I believe the balance is subjective and depends on the context. For works that involve transformation and less precision, it’s often better to let things spin out of control. The variation not only eliminates some of the artist’s personal bias, but it also allows for new ideas and inspirations to emerge when the art ‘flows.’ That said, there are also scenarios where the information being used is constrained to specific parameters, and in these cases, the balance depends on the context and how much ‘variance’ is considered acceptable.