Category: F2026 – Mang

After giving Casey Reas’ presentation a watch on behalf of my consideration for what to try out within a coding artwork of mine, it has led me to think about how I wish to incorporate random elements into my works. Perhaps one way that I can incorporate random elements in my work is if there are certain shapes and/or colors that I find myself stuck with or wish to keep as simple as possible. For instance, if I were to try creating an art pattern of lines that I wish to be originally different but don’t know how, I would turn to my code and attempt to apply requests for random elements to be used within each line. Whether it be the shapes that shall be chosen to be featured in each alternative line or the colors randomly given a separate line to represent, the random elements at hand will still share the purpose of helping make my artwork look somewhat original in a sense. But of course, this will be after I share with the coding certain rules of what boundaries/minimum limits to respect and how to at least stay on track. I am still giving the code freedom to create each line featuring an alternate shape/color of the code’s random choice; I am simply letting the computer know the rules of what lines not to cross and how to stay in touch with the goal of creating the artwork without going off-track.

With this in mind, this is why I believe that the optimum balance between randomness and complete control is the presence of rules/expectations of you, yourself, the artist. If one technically thinks about it, without any rules/expectations set for the computer to follow and remember while writing the code for your masterpiece, the computer is going to get convinced that it is free to do whatever it believes is best, and thus create an artwork that is the complete opposite of what you could be looking for. Sure, it will score enough points for trying to be unique and original with its choices of art style on your behalf, but it will lose points in acting with such intention in a careless and rather messy manner. Not to mention that in the world of art, it is almost impossible to execute the concept of artwork that represents some sort of meaning despite its messy appearance. That still doesn’t mean that the chance to create a compelling yet kind of messy artwork can be never reached; it just needs to meet the requirements of how to not go overboard with its creation in which it all lies on your hands to place forth for the computer to take note of.

The bottom line is that any artwork is still free to incorporate random elements into their work for the sake of thrilling mystery, it just calls upon you, the artist, to monitor the workings of the computer in order to see if its random choices are going along with your plan. It can point towards checking how far in height/width the computer is expected to reach while conducting its random outcomes, or even the amount of ordinary elements that it uses and how many times they’ve used otherwise. It all comes down to the idea of being fair with not just yourself but also with the computer as well. It perhaps can be seen as an example of equal collaboration that any artist should always open towards. Overall, this is all of my thoughts in regards to the idea coming from Casey Reas’ presentation.

Concept

For this assignment, I wanted to create something that felt like rain, but also resembled microorganisms under a microscope. After watching Casey Reas’ talk, I became more interested in creating a system rather than manually designing every part of the image. I wanted to start with a clear structure, rain falling downward, and then introduce randomness and interactions between the particles.

The particles are loosely inspired by microorganisms because they have translucent shapes around them and move in groups. However, I did not want to directly draw bacteria or cells. Instead, I wanted the biological feeling to come from the way the particles behave. Each particle reacts to nearby particles by attracting, repelling, and slightly aligning with them. This means that even though I set the rules, I cannot completely predict the patterns they will create.

I also added mouse interaction so that the viewer becomes part of the system. Moving the mouse pushes nearby particles away and creates a disturbance. I liked this because it makes the artwork feel less like an animation that is simply being watched and more like an environment that the viewer can affect.

Code I’m Proud Of

The part of my code I am most proud of is the interaction between particles. Instead of giving every particle a specific path, I made them respond to their surroundings.

if (distance < 70 && distance > 0) {
  nearbyCount++;
  attractionX += distanceX / distance;
  attractionY += distanceY / distance;
  alignmentX += otherParticle.velocityX;
  alignmentY += otherParticle.velocityY;

  if (distance < 18) {
    repulsionX -= distanceX / distance;
    repulsionY -= distanceY / distance;
  }
}

This checks for particles that are nearby and gives them different behaviors depending on how close they are. They are slightly attracted to particles that are farther away, while particles that get too close repel each other. They also look at the movement of nearby particles and slightly align with them. I liked this part because a fairly small amount of code can create much more complicated movement when it is repeated across hundreds of particles.

How Was This Made?

I started by creating an array of 250 particles. Each particle has an x and y position, a velocity, and a size. I initially gave all of them a downward velocity so that the overall system would resemble rain.

After that, I added the particle interactions. For every particle, the code checks the other particles within a certain distance. Based on those distances, the particles attract, repel, and align with one another. I also added random() to their movement so that they do not behave exactly the same way every time.

The background is dark purple and slightly transparent, which allows previous frames to remain visible. This creates trails behind the particles and makes the canvas itself become part of the artwork.

Finally, I added mouse interaction. When the mouse gets close to a particle, the particle is pushed away. Moving the mouse quickly creates a stronger disturbance, so the viewer can influence the behavior of the system.

Reflection and Ideas for Future Work

I think this assignment helped me understand Casey Reas’ idea of balancing structure and randomness more clearly. I started with a very controlled idea, which was simply particles falling like rain, but then allowed the system to become less predictable through randomness and particle interactions. I liked that I was defining the rules without directly defining the final image.

One thing I found interesting was that the particles sometimes begin to move together and form patterns even though some of their movement is random. This relates to Reas’ discussion of swarm dynamics and made me think more about how systems can create order on their own.

I am fairly happy with the final result, especially because the viewer can disturb the system with the mouse. In the future, I would like to experiment with changing the rules while the artwork is running, so the system itself could gradually become more unpredictable.

In the video, Casey Reas talks about moving from total structure toward slowly introducing randomness within a controlled environment, and eventually giving up even more control to the canvas itself. I particularly liked his discussion of structured order, including the structure within his own work, as well as the way he critiques the philosophy behind each artist he presents.

When he says, “I wanna make my own reality,” and begins talking about imitating biology, I understood exactly where he was coming from. As a visual artist, he seems to move from thinking about objects to thinking about behaviors, and then to thinking about the individual elements that make up those behaviors. Once those elements begin interacting according to certain rules, they can produce outcomes that are difficult to predict, what he describes as a form of “chaos.”

I also found his discussion of swarm dynamics interesting. Even when each individual element behaves somewhat randomly, the system can eventually synchronize and settle into a pattern. That raised an interesting question for me: how do you design a system that continues to feel random and alive rather than eventually becoming predictable?

My biggest takeaway from the video was the idea of applying these concepts to multisensory artwork, especially when Reas brings up John Cage’s use of chance in music. A computer can take a simple set of rules or sounds and multiply them millions of times, creating something far more complex and extraordinary than what was originally defined. At first, I might see something like that as just noise or background. But as Reas demonstrates, that “background” can be given its own behavior and brought to life in unexpected ways.

After watching Casey Reas’s Eyeo take on chance operations and the idea of randomness in generative code, I was highly drawn to his idea of the co-existence between control and randomness. His talk particularly reminded me of a moment that I experienced when creating my generative artwork as a new coder. At first, I highly intended to create a piece that sparks a sense of realism to the audience. However, my perspective quickly changed when I typed a piece of code wrong and my entire artwork was changed for the better. The artwork now had more life and interactivity to it, which I believed was the better direction as it opened doors for varied interpretations and understandings. Reas’s particular argument that having a balance between order and chaos definitely illustrated the idea that unexpected results can spark interest and curiosity as opposed to a fully ordered and precise piece. 

Moving forward in the Interactive Media course this semester, I was highly inspired by Reas’s approach to randomness and therefore I plan on incorporating random elements into my work by looking at code as a space for experimentation and play, rather than a set of rules that must be strictly followed. This perspective challenges my previous perception of coding as something restrictive and inflexible. I already began incorporating randomness and chance into my pieces through elements such as color, speed, and space. 

After watching the video and understanding Reas’s perspective on control and randomness, I believe that the optimum balance between total randomness and total control lies in the artist’s intentions for their artwork. A big part of art is how the audience perceives it; therefore, by incorporating randomness through interactivity, artists enable the audience to approach the artwork from their own perspective. This creates and illustrates new meanings and understandings, whereas total control can limit the accessibility/opportunity to discover unexpected possibilities within an artwork. I personally believe that the percentage of randomness should be slightly higher than the percentage of control in generative art as this approach allows for more unexpected outcomes and gives the artwork a greater sense of creative meaning.

One idea from Casey Reas’s talk that stood out to me was the relationship between randomness and control when creating art with code. Since I am still new to coding, I try to make my code as neat as and understandable as possible. The ability to visually comprehend my code is something I find important, such as where an object appears, what size it is, and how it should look. However, Reas made me think differently about randomness. Instead of seeing it as something that makes a piece messy or unorganized, I think randomness can make digital art feel more alive and less predictable. Reas touched on the topic of emotion and how something as simple as randomness can evoke emotion when used with direction and intention. This idea resonated with me because I like looking for deeper meanings behind things that may not initially seem meaningful. Randomness, for example, can easily seem meaningless or accidental, but Reas made me realize that when it is used intentionally, it can contribute to the emotion or message behind a piece of art. If I were to incorporate randomness into my own work, I would probably use it on smaller elements rather than the entire piece. For example, I could slightly change the position, size, or movement of certain shapes each time the program runs. This would allow every version to look slightly different while still keeping the original idea recognizable. I especially like the idea of using randomness to create imperfections or “jitter,” because those imperfections add a human touch, and add more meaning to the artwork.

While watching the video, I came to realize that I do not think there is one perfect balance between randomness and complete control. I think it depends on what the artist is trying to communicate and how they want the artwork to feel. Personally, I would lean more toward control because I still want the message I am trying to convey to be clear. However, Reas examples made me realize that adding elements of randomness does not mean that the meaning of the image would be erased. The artist is still the one deciding what specific code, elements, shapes and amount of randomness in the artwork. This made me question whether randomness in coded art can ever actually be considered completely random if the artist is still the one setting the boundaries for it.

Concept

Before I started any part of this weeks homework, I already had a small idea for what I wanted to create. As I began going through the work, I still intented to go through with my original design. While going through the examples provided with the assignment instructions, I came across a work that was similar to what I had in mind, this ended up being my source of inspiration for the assignment.

I ended up creating a code where a random number of lines with varying colors and sizes would extend from the center of the screan, creating a kind of splatter effect. However, when I was about done with the code, I wanted to try making it so that the origin of the splatter would change with each itteration. This ended up resulting in me making it so that the code just put all the lines randomly on the screen. At first, I was annoyed but as I kept looking at it, the design began to grow on me. Additionally, it reminded me of some of the work I saw while watching the Casey Reas talk. At this point, I decided to change my porject and embrace the happy accident that occured.

Code I’m Proud Of

A section of code I’m really proud of is the while loop I created which is responsible for generating the lines. It takes the randomly selected number of lines when the code is run and for each line a eight random featues of that line are generated. These inclide two random x and y coordinates to create the line and where its positioned, three random r,g,b values allowing each line to be a different color,  and a random stoke weight from one to ten changing the thickness of each line.

while (lineCount > 0) {
  let randX = random(width);
  let randY = random(height);
  let randX2 = random(width);
  let randY2 = random(height);
  //randomize the r,g,b values, thickness, and position of each line
  let r=random(0,255);
  let g=random(0,255);
  let b=random(0,255);
  strokeWeight(random(1,15))
  stroke (r,g,b);
  line(randX, randY, randX2, randY2);
  line(randX, randY, randX2, randY2);
  lineCount = lineCount - 1;//decrease the lineCount till it hitsw zero to control the while loop
}

Sketch

• ‘How Was This Made’ section including references

I started by creating the while loop which would create the randomly chosen number of lines. To do this I watched The Coding Train’s video titled “4.1: while and for Loops – p5.js tutorial” to review how the while loops functioned in p5. When I began, I had some issues with the line count variable I added to control the loop, as I kept getting errors about it. To solve this I tried moving the variable to a few different locations, as I had a similar issue in the previous homework and moving the code was what helped resolved it then and also helped with this issue. I later changed this to randmoize both the start and end postions. Once I was able to get the lines generating properly, I started adding in the elements of the lines that I wanted to be randomizes. I started by impletening randomized colors for each line and then randomized stroke weights. After I did this, I had the idea to randomize the origin position of the lines which accidently resulted in the line positons being completely randomized, which I decided to keep in the end.

Reflection and ideas for future work or improvements

I think working on this assignment taught me to embrace the unexpected because my final project ended up being very different from what I had in mind when starting. Not this but I think my final project reflected my intention for this assignment in a clearer manner than what I had created at first. Those intention were to kind of find the right balance between the randomness and control. The way I wanted to do that was by making it so that each different interation of the generated work had elements that allowed you to tell they were connected while also having each design look unique and distict from the others.

In terms of future work, I would like to get more practice using the loops to fully grasp the capabilies they have for creating art. When it comes to improvements to this assignment, I think I would add more elements thay could change such as addition shapes as well as a implementing a feature to let users change the design by clicking.

In his Eyeo talk, Casey Reas argues that code needs a bit of “noise” for it to stay visually interesting and prevent it from becoming homgoneous.  From that part of his talk, I understood that he meant adding some kind of elements or means to differentiate different iteration of the code/art work. Reas outlook on this is similar to my plans for how I’ll make use of randomness withing my art. I intent top incorporate a few different elements within my work that will be randomized each time the code is rerun. My goal in doing this is to achieve some sort of similarity between each unique iteration while also having it so each one a some kind of distinction from the rest. 

I think there may not be one definitive answer for the optimum balance between total randomnens and complete control. Rather, it depends on each individual case and the type of art the artists is trying to make, as well as what their goals for that artwork is. However If an artist leans too heavily into either direction they could risk their art being too random to the point where there is no clear idea behind the art and the “noise”, as Reas would call it has no real meaning, or it could be too controlled where the result may be too predicable. However, this does raise a question for me, how would we as viewers be able to distinguish between these? For example, at what point does the randomness or noise become too much or lose its meaning?

My concept

After watching the video, I wanted to experiment with randomness in my artwork and discover what visual possibilities it could create.
I realised that the effect of chance would not be very clear within just one static image. For this reason, I used ‘mousePressed’ as an interactive feature: every click reruns all the random values and generates a brand‑new composition. This allows the viewer to see the wide variety of outcomes produced by one single system.
I chose two simple forms: bezier curves and circles of varying sizes. I defined their general shape, boundaries and direction, while letting random() decide their exact position, size and colour. Rather than placing each curve and circle by hand, I let the code produce unexpected arrangements. My aim is to observe the balances and relationships between curves and circles.

How this was made?

for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    let circleX = random(30, width - 30);
    let circleY = random(30, height - 30);
    let diameter = random(15, 90);
    noStroke();
    fill(random(255), random(255), random(255));
    circle(circleX, circleY, diameter);
  }

For the random circles I used a for‑loop. I wanted ten circles in total. Their coordinates are random, and so are their diameters. However, I set rough limits for these values: a range for their size and another for their position. Their colours are also random.

for (let m = 0; m < 8; m++) {
    drawCurve();
  }
function drawCurve() {
  let x1 = random(-20, width + 20);
  let y1 = random(-20, 0);
  for(let i = 0; i < 8; i++){
    let cx1 = x1 + random(-75,75);
    let cy1 = y1 + random(-65,65);
    let cx2 = x1 + random(-75,75);
    let cy2 = y1 + random(35,95);
    let x2 = x1 + random(-55,55);
    let y2 = y1 + random(65,115);

    bezier(x1, y1, cx1, cy1, cx2, cy2, x2, y2);
    x1 = x2;
    y1 = y2;
  }
}

For the lines, I was not sure at first which shape to use. After checking the p5.js reference page, I found that the bezier curve worked best for my idea. I then briefly learned how its coordinates function and how to control them, and started to build my curves.
I discovered that without startX = endX and startY = endY, all the segments would cluster near the top of the canvas and would not connect together. This created a problem. Once I noticed this issue, I adjusted my code and asked AI to help me understand why it was happening.

Reflection

I have realised that creating artwork with random() saves a lot of time. Unlike my self‑portrait project, where I had to carefully refine every single detail, randomness can unexpectedly produce really appealing patterns. I feel I could use randomness more often in my future artworks. I really enjoyed this creative process and kept experimenting throughout. Right now I have only used curves and circles, which are still quite basic and simple. I hope in the future I can use randomness to generate more complex forms.