I enjoyed Casey Reas’s talk more than I expected to, especially considering that this was the first time I had heard the idea of “randomness” and “chance” being used in an artistic context as compared to a math or probabilistic one. After I began to appreciate this notion of chance in art, I was struck by how even this is very subjective and can be used in countless ways.  One example of this is when Casey Reas talked about the concept of decision-making regarding the level of randomness incorporated into artwork. This means that artists sometimes also make conscious choices about how much of their work they leave to chance, creating “a delicate balance between order and chaos”. This also remined me of the quote by Gerhard Richter:

Above all, it’s never blind chance: it’s a chance that is always planned, but also always surprising. And I need it in order to carry on, in order to eradicate my mistakes, to destroy what I’ve worked out wrong, to introduce something different and disruptive. I’m often astonished to find how much better chance is than I am.

What I found extremely interesting about this idea was the intentionality behind randomness in art. It is about letting go of complete control but not entirely abandoning it, which can lead to unexpected, sometimes better outcomes than planned. This challenged my initial assumption that randomness in art is purely accidental and without thought. In the end, it made me contemplate: what exactly is the role of the artist? Is he still the creator of the work, or merely a medium that guides chance to reach the final piece? It also made me consider how we can use randomness not just to fill gaps but as a crucial tool for innovation and breaking away from mistakes.

One part of the talk that made it more interesting for me was the use of examples and actual works of art to illustrate this use of randomness. For instance, I found it very intriguing that something seemingly simple like the Table of Random Numbers could have such widespread use across several industries. I also liked the example of the piece “Fractal Invaders”. The idea of using a coin flip to generate art created very interesting results, but what was even more interesting was how symmetry and duplication suddenly sparks our imagination and makes us see figures in the art. It made me think that something that might initially seem highly structured or algorithmic can still engage the imagination in many ways. Overall, the talk made me rethink the creative potential of combining strict rules with the freedom of randomness, and helped me see that the “unexpected” is an important element in the artistic process.

Concept

sandworm – circle – sin/cos wave

I begin with wanting to create a sandworm-looking creature from Dune. During my research, I found out this B&W worm that is visually more appealing than a big yellow worm hiding in the desert.

After the initial brainstorm, I started playing around with circle() & ellipse() just to experiment with the for loop. This snippet I got from one of the readings inspired me to show more of the liveness of the basic shapes.

Keeping the shape of the sandworm and the potential movement they might have in mind, I decided to create a wave. With the help of this Youtube tutorial on sin & cos wave, i was able to create a normal wave. By adding framecount into that, I create the illusion as if this sandworm is 3D. To practice using if statement, I added a colorful background that is only triggered when your mouse is moved there.

Somehow Casey Reas came in mind, so I decided to explore a bit further. For the clarity of my worm, I removed the background interaction and replaced all cos with tan. Thi si the final result:

Code & future improvement

I am happy with how the frameCount came in handy in both the fill() & circle. In future, I would give more meaning to the background.

for (i=0; i<width+100; i=i+1){
  fill(
    178+177*cos(i/2 +frameCount/2)
  );
  circle(i, height/2  + 100 * cos(i/100+frameCount/20), 50 * cos(i/30 + frameCount/50))

}

 

View code as a tool to bring imagination to life

Reas’ website & talk.

I’m the most impressed by Casey Reas’ ability to code art from the easily overlooked details in life and how some of his works can find their roots in art history.  Every piece he presented contains multiple layers of meaning, with deep consideration before arriving at a final artwork.  Those works draw from scientific concepts, like that neuro model, or something as simple as the characters on a keyboard. They start with such tangible concepts but lands in somewhere abstract. 

What sets coding art apart from traditional forms of art? I believe it’s the ability to accept constant changes. Reas references artists like Duchamp, the Dada movement, and John Cage to illustrate the concept of ‘chance in art.’ These works embrace improvisation as part of the creative process. Coding takes this a step further by having randomness at its core, demonstrating how randomness can have a certain intentionality. It shows how meanings can shift and layer as the program runs. These added-up layers can be endless, not just limited to one canvas and small changes in a code can result in something drastically different from before. Another key distinction is accessibility. Traditional art often requires specific skills and techniques, while creative coding lowers that threshold and provides the public with the tools to easily replicate a great piece of creative coding.

 

In Casey Reas’ presentation, he explores the tension between order and chaos through the lens of visual art, particularly how software and algorithms have allowed for a deeper engagement with these concepts. His work demonstrates how randomness can coexist with controlled systems, creating art that is both calculated and unpredictable, offering new perspectives on the artistic process. What stood out to me was how his work evolved from simple systems to complex installations, with the unpredictability of the process being the common thread between all his artworks. His reliance on algorithms and chance, combined with borders, reflects a deep connection between control (borders) and randomness(algorithms and chance), making each artwork unique yet part of an artistic collection.

But the real question on my mind is whether his work is considered art. Even though his work stood out to me and it was interesting to see what pieces were created from software, algorithm, randomness and chance, I’m still wondering if this is actually considered a piece of art. I’ve been thinking about this because my twin, who is majoring in visual art, often questions what is considered art. In my opinion, not everything can be considered art; true art is what has been made with genuine feelings, created by hand, and has a meaning or story behind it. Some might argue that it is considered a piece of art because this person programmed it to do this piece of work, but I still argue that even though the person gave the commands the person still didn’t know how the artwork will end up looking like and there isn’t any story or meaning behind this piece of work. So, the question remains: is his work considered art?

Concept:

For this project I got my inspiration from Bridget Riley who is an artist specialized in optical illusion. She is known to use geometric shapes and patterns to create these optical illusions. Below are some of Bridget Riley’s artworks.

Getting the inspiration from Bridget Riley I decided to create my project from geometric shapes (triangles) and creating multiple loops to achieve this optical illusion that I came up with. I also added some interactivity that the user can use in my project where if the user pressed the mouse the project will change from black and white to orange and blue, and the transition between the two color schemes is supposed to create a surprising visual effect that aligns with the idea of shifting perception.

Highlighted Code:

if (mouseIsPressed){
   
   fill('#FF783D');
   rect(0,0,120,100);
   
   // loop for blue triangles 1
 for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
   for (let y1 = 0; y1 <= 90; y1 += 20) {
     let x2 = x1;
     let y2 = y1 + 20;
     let x3 = x1 + 20;
     let y3 = y1 + 10;
     
     fill('#3DC4FF');
     triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3); 
   }
 }
  // loop for opposite blue triangles 1
   
 for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
   for (let y1=10; y1<=100; y1+=20){
     let x2=x1+20;
     let y2= y1+10;
     let x3=x1+20;
     let y3= y1-10;
     
     triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
   }
 } 
    rect(0,100,120,100);
 
  // loop for orange triangles 1
 for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
   for (let y1 = 100; y1 <= 190; y1 += 20) {
     let x2 = x1;
     let y2 = y1 + 20;
     let x3 = x1 + 20;
     let y3 = y1 + 10;
     
     fill('#FF783D');
     triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3); 
   }
 }
  // loop for opposite orange triangles 1
 for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
   for (let y1=110; y1<=190; y1+=20){
     let x2=x1+20;
     let y2= y1+10;
     let x3=x1+20;
     let y3= y1-10;
     
     triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
   }
 }
 
   rect(0,200,120,100)
   // loop for blue triangles 2
 for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
   for (let y1 = 200; y1 <= 290; y1 += 20) {
     let x2 = x1;
     let y2 = y1 + 20;
     let x3 = x1 + 20;
     let y3 = y1 + 10;
     
     fill('#3DC4FF');
     triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3); 
   }
 }
  // loop for opposite blue triangles 2
 for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
   for (let y1=210; y1<=300; y1+=20){
     let x2=x1+20;
     let y2= y1+10;
     let x3=x1+20;
     let y3= y1-10;
     
     triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
   }
 }
 
   rect(0,300,120,100);
 
  // loop for orange triangles 2
 for (let x1=0;x1 <= 100; x1 += 40) {
   for (let y1 = 300; y1 <= 400; y1 += 20) {
     let x2 = x1;
     let y2 = y1 + 20;
     let x3 = x1 + 20;
     let y3 = y1 + 10;
     
     fill('#FF783D');
     triangle(x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3); 
   }
 }
  // loop for opposite orange triangles 2
 for (let x1=20; x1<=100; x1 += 40){
   for (let y1=310; y1<=390; y1+=20){
     let x2=x1+20;
     let y2= y1+10;
     let x3=x1+20;
     let y3= y1-10;
     
     triangle(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3);
   }
 }

The part of the code I’m most proud of is the one that changes the artwork’s colors when the mouse is pressed. Although it’s just a portion of the entire code, I’m particularly proud of it because the colors didn’t overlap, and the pattern turned out exactly as I had envisioned. I’m also proud of the overall coding process, as it was challenging to get the dimensions right, and I had to repeat it several times before figuring it out.

Sketch:

Future Improvements:

For the future I wish to incorporate some movement in the shapes and for example if I hover the mouse on the artwork it changes according to the placement of the mouse on it.

Concept:

I got my inspiration from this tree while watching my sisters play.

I wanted to create a tree that showcased the four seasons. And when you would move the mouse around the tree you would get to see the different seasons in each corner. Then when pressed, it would be dark (night). And just for visuals sake have the leaves fall automatically.

 

Sketch:

I couldn’t figure out how to include all 4 seasons without rewriting most of what I already did, so I moved on. I ended up adding apples, and when you move the mouse around the leaves they appear on the tree as well. When the sketch is pressed the autumn version appears; where instead of apples falling they are now leaves. 

Falling circles effect

Highlight:

There isn’t a code I’m proud of, I’m mainly happy that I was able to take something that I envisioned and was able to create it since I was worried about that.

But I am pleased with how easily I was able to incorporate the loop function.

//   leaves
  for (let x=0; x<=width; x+=35){
    for (let y=0; y<=height; y+=50){
      fill('#4CAF50');
      strokeWeight(5);
      stroke('#54AF4C');
      circle(x,y/2,40);
    }
  }

Improvements:

I think it would be cool to incorporate all four seasons instead of two. Also if I could actually recreate the game that originally inspired me; and be able to somehow catch the apples.

Casey Reas explored the interplay between order and chaos in art. The artworks he showed in the start intrigued me, it was simple but didn’t look like art created by code. It felt organic, having movement even through it was still. It maintained a sense of human touch and spontaneity despite its underlying systematic principles; the mix of chaos and order. 

I liked his approach and perspective. towards the end he says the graphics are underwhelming/simple. But he thinks it encourages you to look closer (his goal). I like the last art pieces he showed where it’s interactive in how the art piece ends. As you have control to create as well. He claims that each of these are algorithmically uninteresting. Except the idea of being able to expose the system, which he finds engaging. I think this explains art perfectly: the relationship between surface simplicity and underlying complexity. That the value of art lies not in its immediate visual impact but its capacity to reveal the deeper truth and meaning of it. That also viewing art and understanding the process/meaning of it gives you two very different perspectives.

For me, Casey Reas’ talk on the balance between randomness and control in artistic process appeared to be extremely motivational and spot-on. Although Reas does not provide a definitive answer on where this balance lies, the ideas he presents are still compelling and thought-provoking. For instance, I loved the way in which he highlighted the beauty of imprecision, suggesting that it stems from nature itself (which unexpectedly reminded me of the recent reading from another class on the beginning of life on Earth). To prove his point, Casey refers to the “randomness in order” seen in the artwork that demonstrates protein molecules communicating within a cancer cell. This non-obvious connection between the chaotic patterns of nature and those found in computer programming was truly eye-opening.

As I begin to work on my own creative projects using coding, I am constantly reflecting on how much I will rely on chance. For me, randomness is simply a tool to help achieve a creative goal, but it is by no means the most decisive factor. I firmly agree with Reas that artistic choices involve a little magic of chance, but they are mostly guided by thoughtful decision-making about the final result. This applies to all forms of art, as the artistic process is always shaped by stylistic choices, vision, and ideas that arise from the creative mind long before the actual craft begins. Henceforth, there is no “chance” in the foundational decision of what the work will make the viewer feel. The uncertainty only lies in the ways the effect is reached: that’s where embracing the beauty of chance and experiment becomes so handy.

Reflecting Eyeo2012 lecture by Casey Reas

Casey Reas starts with the statement that nature constituted the chaos in the world, but after, order was introduced by God. I was surprised by such an idea, because in my worldview people are the ones causing chaos in neatly ordered nature. Learning on biology classes about different systems that existed in nature, like nutrient cycling, I was thinking about humans intervening in these structures and causing disorder. But, now, looking back to Reas’ statement, I feel like maybe it is God and humanity who decided to order all the processes in our ecosystem, so that it would be easier for us to live with them. Moreover, I started thinking about how exactly artists are maintaining order with their works. Don’t they question the initial order of things to break through it? I felt like art was always about the protest, but now I do think I was partly wrong. 

Looking at the artworks that experiment with total randomness in images, I really liked how the same patterns get transformed to different mediums and it adds to the idea of a chance and minimum control of future image (07:07 about process 18). In addition, I couldn’t fully understand what’s the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control, because some works used a little bit of randomness and mostly decision making, which gets us to the point that we can control the amount of randomness, and it is a contradictory statement at its core. 

I really liked the author’s throwback to the past interactions of artists with a chance. It reflected in me in a sense that previous generations were highly afraid of chaos or anarchy, which is why destruction of an order in artworks was considered a radical gesture. But, as previous generations, we did experience different wars and uncertainties, and I think what makes us different from them and what makes artists be more confident and open about using randomness in arts, it is a sense of freedom and being okay with not knowing everything. Before I didn’t really think about historical events being influential on appealing to order and chaos, but now I do. 

In the video, the quote of Richter: “Chance is always planned, but also very surprising” resonated with me because chance is needed to introduce something different and disruptive. 

Observing Mondrian’s work, I didn’t expect to understand that order actually does not limit emotion and spirit, even in total order there is a room for interpretation and imagination. Moreover, looking at different algorithms presented by Reas, an association with the game PacMan came to my mind, since it also employed balance between order and randomness.

One thing that I, as an art history major, really enjoyed about Casey Reas’s talk on chance operations is the way he connected the topic to the Dada movement in art, referencing the desire of artists to break away from the pre-World War I  conventions of logic and reason. However, as Reas proposes applying the same elements of randomness through generative computer algorithms to create art, I couldn’t help but begin to question its compatibility with my understanding of what constitutes art.

To me, art is something birthed by human deliberation; it encompasses the story, the soul of the artist. When we leave it to chance operations to work and create independently of the intents of the human artist, can we still consider it a meaningful, artistic creation? But just as Jackson Pollock was the one waving his brushes with much force for the paint droplets to create random patterns, the programmer is the one who sets up and sends the computer programs into motion in the first place, allowing these chance operations to create the unexpected. These pieces are not possible without the programmer setting the parameters, and while I do not have a definitive answer about whether this makes them real artists or not, I think it’s nonetheless interesting to see how the role of an artist evolves over time.