I had to reconsider my approach to structure after watching Casey Reas’ presentation on chance operations and randomness. I have a background in business, so I’ve always thought that control and planning are crucial for projects, schedules, and data analysis. I assumed the same would apply to coding: clearly define the rules and follow them. The 11×11 grid of dots, one of Reas’ examples, showed how controlled randomness functions: each dot moves according to precise rules, but minor variations or “random” steps result in patterns that change from orderly to chaotic. The thought of chaotic work always scared me. He demonstrated how a system can be both rule-based and unpredictable at the same time by describing instructions like moving in a straight line, bouncing off edges, or slightly deviating from a path. It helped me understand that randomness need not imply a lack of control but can be incorporated into a well-organized framework to produce entertaining and captivating results.
I want everything to be flawlessly structured, so as a beginner coder, I frequently question my work. I enjoy doing things the “right” way and abiding by the rules. Reas’s ability to strike a balance between chance and rules has piqued my interest in trying new things. While allowing randomness to dictate specifics like placement, size, or interactions, I hope to establish boundaries in my own projects, such as establishing a color scheme, the quantity of elements, or grid positions. This method seems applicable not only to coding or art but also to business: stability is provided by a clear structure, but creativity and innovation can be stimulated by flexibility and unpredictability. Reas’ talk taught me that embracing chance within rules doesn’t undermine order; it makes it more interesting, alive, and full of potential surprises.
