Thinking of randomness brings the idea of disorganization and something more instinctive that is done with no purpose to me. I came to realize that this is not always the case, and that randomness can rather be a more purposeful approach when working on a piece of art. The way Casey Reas presents and discusses randomness makes it seem like a much more important element to consider incorporating, and I was surprised to find myself relating what he was saying with what I had done so far and what I could do next. I completely agreed with his point that randomness in unplanned things can in fact improve your work, especially as I reflected on my last assignment while listening. I created a looped artwork of a drawing made of shapes, and at first I was too focused on organizing how they moved. However, I ended up using randomizing code, which allowed the shapes to move around more freely and resulted in a stronger outcome.
Along with randomness, I feel that the control and manipulation of it also really matters, as I keep adjusting how random I want each code to behave, and think “how random is too random?” Casey mentioned a quote that made me think more about this concept, “the computer is a unique device for the arts since it can function as an obedient tool with vast capabilities for controlling complicated processes.” This reflects how the computer actually works in my practices, it is just “obedient,” meaning that I am still controlling what it does no matter how random it gets. I plan to incorporate random elements into my work, especially when I’m working with a complex piece, for movement or timings, but I believe there should always be a balance between randomness and control. Complete randomness can possibly lead to a messy display and an overwhelming number of actions, while complete control does do exactly what is planned, it can sometimes result in a less engaging or satisfying outcome. Therefore, when using random elements, I would control the randomness to some extent.


