How are you planning to incorporate random elements into your work?
Randomness is usually seen as something chaotic, but Casey Reas makes a strong case for it as a necessary ingredient in structured systems. His work shows that when randomness is completely absent, everything eventually settles into sameness—it loses vitality. That idea made me reconsider my approach. I tend to design with a clear sense of control, ensuring everything is deliberate. But maybe randomness isn’t about losing control; maybe it’s about creating space for unpredictability to enhance structure. Instead of placing every element with precision, I want to introduce rules that allow randomness to shape certain aspects—maybe through variation in form, spacing, or subtle movement. This way, my work maintains a structured framework but never becomes rigid. I like the idea of randomness making a piece feel alive, as if it’s still evolving even after it’s complete.
Where do you feel is the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control?
There’s a sweet spot where randomness and control feed into each other, and that’s where the most compelling work happens. Reas talks about how systems that are too rigid become static, while those that are too chaotic lose coherence. That really resonated with me because I’ve felt the same frustration in my own work—when something is too ordered, it feels predictable; when it’s too random, it lacks intention. The best balance depends on what the work is trying to say. If I want a sense of structure, I can set constraints but allow randomness to influence the details—like adjusting spacing, shifting colors, or adding unpredictable textures. It’s not about choosing between order and chaos but about letting them interact, so the piece always has a bit of tension, a sense that it could shift or evolve. That, to me, makes the work more engaging, both visually and conceptually.