Concept

This idea came from something super ordinary: looking at the lamp on my desk. I liked how objects close to it felt sharp and bright, while things farther away faded quietly into the background and into the wall. I wanted to capture that shift in attention, where one small light changes the way everything around it feels.

My sketch uses a grid of circles and a drifting light. As the light moves, the circles respond by glowing more when it’s near and dimming when it’s far. The result is a simple pattern that looks somewhat steady but comes alive as the light passes through.

Code I’m proud of

The bit of code I like most is the distance calculation, and how just a few lines of code could turn geometry into behavior!

let d = dist(x, y, lightX, lightY);

if (d < 150) {
  fill(255 - d, 200, 100);
} else {
  fill(50);
}

Reflections

If I keep developing it, I’d like to make the light follow the mouse so the viewer can interact directly. Multiple lights with different colors could overlap and create more interesting patterns. I could also vary the size or shape of the circles to add depth, so the sketch feels less like a flat grid and more like a living surface.

For now, though, I’m happy with how it turned out. It’s a small experiment, but it was indeed very fun to implement.

I think Casey Reas’ talk was beneficial in how it helped me rethink my understanding of randomness in creative work. Before watching his presentation, I viewed chance as leaving artistic control, a way in which an artist makes pieces without intent. Reas’ presentation, however, provides compelling evidence to the contrary. His determined works gave way to systems where a tiny bit of injected “noise” was the crucial element preventing the entire structure from becoming homogenous and static. To be clear, his idea that a slight, random “jitter” is what keeps a system dynamic and alive has fundamentally changed my perspective in a way. It’s not about letting go of control entirely; it’s about building a system of rules and then introducing a controlled element of unpredictability to see where it goes. The quote Reas shared perfectly captures this: “It’s a chance that is always planned, but also always surprising.” This has made me think; is the artist’s role less about being a creator of objects and more about being a designer of ecosystems, carefully balancing deterministic rules with probabilistic life? I think this point is very interesting and eye-opening to me in some way.

Moving forward, I feel like I want to incorporate randomness more into my own work as, let’s say, a subtle disruptor of stillness and rigidity. All my life, I was focused on creating art pieces that are rigid. Going forward, instead of creating a perfectly symmetrical digital pattern, I want to play with the form and introduce a slight, randomly determined offset to the position or rotation of each element. The overall structure would still be mine, but the final texture would feel more organic and less sterilely perfect. For me, the balance between total randomness and complete control will lie in intentionality. The balance is right when randomness serves the artist’s goal, whether it’s to create surprising juxtapositions or whatever the goal is. Complete control often leads to predictable, “lifeless” results, while total randomness leads to incoherent noise. The sweet spot for me is a well-defined system where chance is given just enough freedom to introduce variations that I could not have conceived of on my own, making the final output a true collaboration between my intent and the unexpected.

Concept

In many houses here in the UAE and the Gulf region, the art displayed around homes often reflect culture and faith. For this weeks coding assignment I wanted to integrate the two pieces of art found in many Arab homes that I love the most. The first being bakhoor. The burning of bakhoor is a common tradition especially when welcoming guests, filling the space with oud and mysk fragrance. It involves using mabkhara, and adding a hot piece of coal in the middle. Then we add different kinds of oud sticks as well.

The second piece I wanted to depict in my sketch is the frames of Kiswah hung in many homes. The kiswah is basically the black silk cloth that covers the Kaaba in Mecca. Once its time to change the kiswah, ususally parts of it are sold.

My program depicts a mabkhara with a hoat coal in the middle, burning with smoke rising to the top of the screen. Behind the mabkhara is just an image I pasted of the Kiswah that says “بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ” or “Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem”

Code I am Proud of:

function updateSmoke() {
  noStroke();
  for (let i = smokeParticles.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { 
//backward for loop where we decrememnt backwards, this is because we want to kill the oldest particles first then the newer ones 

    let p = smokeParticles[i]; 
//p is just there two know which particle we are currently working on 

    p.y -=5; //move particles up by decrementing y value 
    p.age+=1; //increase the age

    fill(200, 200, 200, p.alpha * (1 - p.age / p.life)); 
//coloring logic: the closer the age gets tot he life, this means that we want the particle to die off, so it would be a value/ over the same values , ultimately 1-1, which is zero, so the particle wont shpw anymore
   

 ellipse(p.x, p.y, p.size); 
//draw the smoke particle at the random x y position


    if (p.age > p.life) { //if age is greater than life, then splice the particle
      smokeParticles.splice(i, 1);
    }
  }
}

Sketch:

https://editor.p5js.org/ea2749/sketches/CBpMgmTff

Reflection and ideas for future work or improvements:

In the future I plan to hopefully start using more classes as it makes referencing so much easier and makes the process of editing certain parameters much simpler because everything is contained in a class. For future work I also plan to integrate sounds tot he skecth, for instance, which this sketch the sounds of burning wood would be very fitting!

Reading Reflection:

How are you planning to incorporate random elements into your work? Where do you feel is the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control?

I find it interesting how Casey Reas talks about order before he mentions randomness. Reas discusses how everything started with order and was associated with power in historic times. I specifically liked the part where, towards the end of the video, Reas showed art that depicted “parametrization” more than randomness, and he emphasized how much we can pay attention to detail, even when it looks underwhelming, when there is no randomness. But as Reas shows the pieces, we notice that there is randomness, though it does not overpower the overall structure of the art. This made me reflect on how we can balance structure/control and randomness. After looking at the last few pieces he showed, I found that the best balance is not when one overpowers the other, but when one complements or completes the other. With that in mind, I hope that for the next p5 sketches I work on, I focus more on how randomness can complement structure and parametrization rather than overpower it.

For me, the most significant takeaway from Casey Reas’ talk was the idea that chaos and order can coexist. Initially, I thought to myself, “This doesn’t make sense. How can two opposite ideas be used together to bring harmony and coordination? However, as I listened further to the point where he gave examples of pieces of art where randomness or chance was included to generate order and beautiful patterns in art, I was fully convinced.

Most importantly, Casey’s talk helped me realize that randomness doesn’t necessarily mean lack of control. I agree that it is essential to incorporate constraints to have control over randomness added to a piece of art. This is where I feel the optimum balance between total randomness and complete control can be achieved.  By using constraints, we can maintain intention but still have elements of unexpected and creative variations.

This understanding will be very useful to me as a learner. Although I’m not experienced in creative coding with p5.js, I plan to explore incorporating randomness into my works. For instance, I can use the random() function and set boundaries for positions and sizes so that my output is confined within a specific area, while having some variations in its properties.

As I was watching Casey Reas’ talk, I kept thinking back to the artists we’re talking about in Understanding Interactive Media. His instructions for his art reminded me of Ben Patterson’s ‘Paper Music’ and Sol LeWitt’s ‘Wall Drawing’, both are examples of art where you have a set of instructions, but each performance or art piece differs based on how the artists and performers interpret the instructions. I feel like both these works are also perfect examples of the idea of both order and chaos coming together. Elements of randomness and control are in use at the same time; you have control in the set of instructions, but you also have randomness in the way the performer will interpret these rules. Works like this make me think that a balance is essential, but what the ratio between order and chaos is rather vague. I believe it depends on the work, so the optimal balance shouldn’t be generalized, but on a case-by-case basis. You have works like Jean Arp’s collages, which are based on the law of chance, which I would say rely mostly on randomness. I don’t believe control would make much sense there. 

On the other hand, if I think of my most recent work for this week’s task, I would say randomization would make it better. I could randomize the different colors of the design on the coffee cup, but I’d need to control the color combinations and the colors to choose from. So this would be an example of where control is necessary while also maintaining an element of randomness. Ultimately, I think the amount of chaos and order that goes into one’s work depends on their intention with the work and what experience they want the watcher to have. 

Concept:

The first cup of coffee, usually accompanied by music of Fairuz, in the morning, is a staple in every Lebanese household. I knew I wanted to do something that is connected to my culture and identity, so I looked up a picture of the signature morning setup and tried my best to mimic it. 

A little bit of background, we call the coffee cup ‘finjan’ and the pot ‘rakwe’. The coffee itself is usually Turkish coffee. 

Proud of This Part(s)!
I’m proud of two parts of my code, one is where I used loops to imitate the designs on the cup.

//loop for the oval design of the cup (for)
let ovals = 2;
for (let i = 0; i < ovals; i++) {
  let x = 450 + i * 60;
  let y = 300;
  fill(" #3F51B5");
  ellipse(x, y, 20, 70);
}

//loop for the flower (while)
let flowers = 3;
let i = 0;
while (i < flowers) {
  let x = 430 + i * 50;
  let y = 275;
  stroke("#3F51B5");
  strokeWeight(5);
  line(x, y, x, y + 45);
  noStroke();
  fill("#F44336");
  ellipse(x, y, 10, 20);
  i++;
}

It was very fun to try and figure out the spacing, and using both for and while loops to get myself used to their separate structures, as I tend to be more prone to using for loops.

The other part of my code that I’m really proud of is the little animation when you press your mouse on the ‘rakwe’, it fills the ‘finjan’ and displays a welcome text. 

//little animation for when you press the rakwe
//coffee cup seems to be full
//and a welcome text
if (
  mouseIsPressed &&
  mouseX > 65 &&
  mouseX < 185 &&
  mouseY > 120 &&
  mouseY < 205
) {
  fill("#50211C");
  ellipse(480, 250, 80, 10);
  textAlign(RIGHT);
  textStyle(NORMAL);
  textSize(50);
  fill('black');
  text("Ahla w Sahla", 420,100);
}

My Work:

Reflection:

It’s really fun taking concepts we implemented in class, but actually applying them to your own creative work. You also wind up learning new things on the way, for example, this was my first time using text in p5.js. 

While I like the final result, I definitely see as we learn more, the more interactive and complex I can make it. I would like to make the ‘rakwe’ draggable, and have the user manually fill the cup with coffee. Also, maybe a possibility of under- or over-filling the cup and different display messages for each scenario. 

Creative Reading:

Watching Casey Reas’ lecture changed how I think about randomness in my work. I have always enjoyed unpredictability in art, but I tended to treat it as something that just happens rather than something I could plan. Reas’ talk showed me that even small doses of chance can generate patterns that feel intentional, making uncertainty a tool rather than a problem. For example, I want to experiment with algorithms where randomness sparks new ideas without fully determining the final outcome. The idea that the computer can function both as a precise tool and a way to explore controlled unpredictability is particularly meaningful when creating interactive pieces, where audience interactions can lead to unexpected results.

One part of the presentation that stood out to me was Gerhard Richter’s quote, which both Reas and I found inspiring:

“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.”

After hearing this quote, it made me realize that chance can improve work in ways I cannot fully plan. For me, the right balance between control and randomness depends on the goals of each project. I have found it works best when I maintain enough structure to communicate meaning while leaving space for unexpected outcomes. By setting boundaries for unpredictability, I can create work that is both deliberate and dynamic, allowing the process and the audience to reveal new directions I might not have anticipated. This perspective encourages me to trust my process more and experiment with confidence, letting systems explore themselves.

After watching Casey Reas’ Eyeo talk on chance operations, I really connected with his idea that randomness can be a powerful tool in creating art. I agree so much with him that allowing chance into a process can lead to results you might never imagine on your own. For example, in the video he shows sketches where simple rules create shapes, but each time the program runs, the shapes move slightly, overlap differently, or appear in new patterns. Even though the rules stay the same, the randomness makes every version unique and surprising. I found this really inspiring because it shows that art doesn’t have to be completely planned; the program can explore possibilities for you, almost like collaborating with the computer. I also thought about how he balances control and chance, which is something I want to apply in my own work. In the examples, he defines limits for where shapes can appear, what size they can be, or how colors can change, so the random elements stay within a certain framework. This makes the final work look intentional instead of chaotic. Watching this made me think about my own sketches. It’s exciting to see how even small random variations can make something feel more alive and dynamic.

I think the best balance between total randomness and complete control is when you set limits for the random parts but keep the main structure planned. In my own sketches, I could let things like pupils or stars move randomly in a small area while keeping the rest of the portrait fixed. This way, randomness adds fun and surprise without making the piece messy. The talk also raises some questions for me: How do artists decide how much randomness to allow without losing the overall vision? And if a program can produce interesting art automatically, does that mean anyone can make art, or is there still something unique about the artist’s choices? Also how do you design rules that are structured enough to guide the outcome but still leave space for randomness to create interesting variations? These are things I want to explore as I experiment more with random elements in my own work.

My concept: 

For my concept, I wanted to try something a little different that’s not too complicated but still has some creativity in it. At first, I was just going to do a simple circle illusion, but then I felt like that was too typical and I could push it further. I included the first work I did of the circle because I thought it represented more of a loop, while the scribbly one ended up showing more of an animation. So I used a while loop to draw 200 points around a circle, but I added randomness to their positions so it wouldn’t look perfect—it looks more scribbly and alive. I also used random colors for each point, which makes the circle feel like it’s sparkling or shifting. On top of that, I made the radius slowly grow as the frames go by, so the shape expands over time instead of just sitting still. Every 300 frames, the background resets, so the drawing starts fresh again. The result is this mix of order and chaos: a circle at the core, but messy, colorful, and always moving.

A highlight of some code that you’re particularly proud of: 

This doesn’t look like much, but it actually makes a big difference in how the sketch feels. The first line makes the circle slowly grow as the frames go by; it’s like the drawing is breathing or expanding instead of staying stuck in one size. The second part clears the background every 300 frames. Without it, everything would just pile up forever until the screen looked like a giant blur.

I had to look up how to use frameCount and the %  symbol because I didn’t know them before. It was cool to learn that % basically means “every so many frames, do this thing.” Once I figured that out, it felt like I unlocked a new trick to control time and motion in my drawing. I think this is what made my work look more interactive. 

// slowly grow radius over time
  r = r + frameCount * 0.05;

  // reset background
  if (frameCount % 300 === 0) {
    background(0);
  }
}

Reflection and ideas for future work or improvements: 

Looking back at this project, I’m really happy with how the scribbly circles turned out. I like that it’s not just a perfect circle but it feels alive and playful, and I think the motion adds a lot. I also learned a lot about how loops and randomness can work together to create patterns that look complex without being too hard to code. If I were to improve it, I’d probably try adding even more layers or different shapes, maybe some rectangles or lines that move in a similar way to the circles. I’d also like to experiment with colors that change more smoothly over time instead of random ones every frame, so it feels more like a natural gradient. Another idea is to make the scribbles react to the mouse or keyboard, so the viewer can interact with it, which is something i’m planning to experience more with the upcoming assignments. Overall, I feel like this project opened up a lot of possibilities for me to explore simple ideas in a more creative, experimental way.

After watching Casey Reas’ talk on chance operations, I realized how randomness can be a powerful tool in creative work. Instead of controlling every detail, allowing chance to play a role can lead to unexpected results that are often more interesting than what I would plan. In my own projects, I plan to experiment with random elements in small ways, like changing colors, shapes, or patterns based on a set of rules but leaving some outcomes to chance. This connects to our discussions in a different class, Understanding of IM class, where we talked about using randomness as an algorithm in conceptual art for example by letting the computer generate outcomes that are surprising but still guided by certain constraints or rules. I think the key is to find a balance between control and randomness, so the work feels intentional but still fresh and dynamic.

The talk also made me question how much control we really need in our work. Reas shows that too much control can limit creativity, but too much randomness can make a project feel chaotic. I found this idea challenging because I usually like to plan every step carefully. I kind of  think about trying a more experimental approach, even if it feels uncomfortable at first. It raises questions for me about when to intervene in a random process and when to let the algorithm or chance take over.