Category: S2025 – Mang

The discussion on randomness by Casey Reas was a lot more profound than I had expected. I’m used to talking about randomness from a purely mathematical perspective, such as the use of random/psuedorandom numbers in computer security, so hearing the more artistic interpretations was a large change of pace. One point that stood out to me was how you could interpret randomness as a deviation from order, creating a sort of chaotic rebellion against the system, and yet there are countless applications of randomness that converge towards their own sort of order. Similarly, there was also some debate mentioned about whether the use of computers was draining the human aspect from art or giving birth to a brand new medium, and how introducing randomness into a strictly rational machine could impact things.
Another aspect that underscored the entire talk was the careful balance of randomness and control. Going all-in on one side or the other will often lead to either meaningless or soulless results, but the real magic comes when order and chaos come together. I have already found the importance of placing bounds on random values from my own experimentation in p5.js, which imposes some degree of order. Another programmatic aspect that interested me came from a class I took previously, where we discussed noise functions. Specifically, we discussed how one noise function creates randomness, but a combination of noise functions can create a sort of ordered randomness that can be used for things like image textures.

Casey Reas’ talk on order and chaos in generative art really made me think about the balance between structure and unpredictability in creative expression. I found it fascinating how simple shapes, when repeated using logical rules or algorithms, can give rise to patterns and symmetry. However, while order is important, embracing chaos can lead to more creative freedom. This idea stood out to me because I often feel that art involves a degree of control, where every detail is carefully placed. But Reas’ perspective made me consider the value of letting go—allowing things to take their own course rather than trying to dictate every aspect of an artwork.

Another point that resonated with me was his discussion on randomized numbers and their role in generative art. Randomness, when introduced carefully, can maintain an underlying order while also adding variation that makes the artwork more dynamic. I also found it interesting how a computer, a machine built for logic and precision, can be used to generate such diverse and expressive visuals. This is where I think human input remains invaluable—deciding what should be controlled and what should be left to randomness. While working on my own assignment, I kept Reas’ ideas in mind, thinking carefully about which elements to keep structured and where to introduce randomness to add some chaos and balance out the order and symmetry.

For this weeks production assignment of creating an artwork using animation, conditionals, loops, I wanted to create a gamified artwork based on  a slice of life of my cat Piku.

This is Piku! A cat that loves showers more than anything(strangely)!

So I quickly sketched up my plan for today’s artwork which roughly looked like this-

I wanted to implement animation, conditionals, and loops to bring everything to life. I imagined:

-Window blinds that could open and close smoothly, setting the scene.

-A background with clouds and a sun, all randomly generated to make things feel dynamic. Also, day to night transition.

-Foam filling up the bathtub, to give it some depth.

-Dirt appearing on the cat, to make it interactive

-A sponge that could move around as a cursor and detect collision when it touched the dirt, making it disappear.

-Bubbles floating around animation to show that the dirt splashes are being cleaned

At first, it all sounded doable in my head. But once I started coding, I quickly realized just how many moving parts there were. Making sure the sponge actually removed the dirt was tricky. Getting the animations to feel smooth took a lot of tweaking. And sometimes, the whole thing would just break for no reason, forcing me to backtrack and figure out what went wrong.

The Part that took the longest: Collision detection!

The dirt and sponge interaction was by far the toughest challenge. At first, I thought it’d be simple—just check if the sponge touches the dirt and remove it. Spoilers- it wasnt. What Went Wrong?

-Frames: The dirt sometimes disappeared too fast or not at all because collisions were checked every frame, making it inconsistent.

-Layering: Dirt kept reappearing because new frames kept redrawing it, even after “removal.”

-Messed-up logic: I tried so many broken approaches—checking collisions wrong, deleting dirt before drawing it, and even accidentally scrubbing the whole screen at once.

The Fix

I stored dirt in an array and only removed pieces when they were properly scrubbed:

let dirtParticles = Array.from({ length: 20 }, () => ({
  x: random(width), y: random(height), scrubbed: false
}));

function draw() {
  background(220);
  let sponge = { x: mouseX, y: mouseY };

  fill(255, 204, 0);
  ellipse(sponge.x, sponge.y, 50, 30); 

  dirtParticles = dirtParticles.filter(dirt => {
    let scrubbing = dist(sponge.x, sponge.y, dirt.x, dirt.y) < 30;
    if (!scrubbing) {
      fill(139, 69, 19);
      ellipse(dirt.x, dirt.y, 15, 15);
    }
    return !scrubbing;
  });
}

And after hours and hours of googling every function ever, here’s the final result:

What I’d Do Differently

This project was a huge learning experience. If I had to do it again, I’d plan my code structure better from the start. I ran into so many issues with layers, frame updates, and collision logic, which could have been avoided if I had mapped out how each element would interact beforehand.Also, I’d put more focus on the aesthetic aspects of the project. This project forced me to dive deep into some tricky p5.js functions and concepts, including:

• filter()
• push() / pop()
• frameRate() and frame-based logic
• Arrays and Objects
• Background Gradient
• Animation Timing

This project had its frustrating moments, especially when things wouldn’t behave the way I expected. But in the end, seeing everything finally come together was incredibly rewarding.

Casey Reas’ talk on randomness in generative artworks provided an intriguing insight into the concept of randomness not as a frightful enemy but rather as a tool to employ and utilize. As humans, we instrinsically cower away from randomness. It disrupts routines and takes away from order. It is chaotic. However, Reas advocated for randomness as an array of endless possibilities in his talk. In his eyes, it should be seen as a foundation to build upon, rather than an afterthought. He gives examples of his earlier works, where he strayed away from the chaotic nature of randomness, sticking to defined shapes and positions. However, his philosophy shifted overtime to incorporate it, albeit with rules and restrictions to give it direction. This thought process piqued my curiousity, as at what point do those constraints simply become too much, and prevent random chance from truly acting?

Personally, I found this talk thoughtprovoking, and it encouraged me to also incorporate randomness within my assignment. Reas emphasizes that randomness simulates the unpredictable nature of real life, rather than everything being carefully placed and artificial. As such, seeing as my inspiration was natural beauty, I decided to incorporate random positions within my project, as an ode to what Reas described. I did end up setting boundaries for the randomness to stray within my project, as I felt some control was necessary for aesthetic purposes, though I am interested as to what it may have looked like had I not set these restrictions.

What I found interesting about the talk is that it shows a compelling exploration of the intersection between order and chaos in art. The idea that the role of an artist is to maintain order in the face of nature’s chaos resonates with my own experiences in creative work. I have often found that the introduction of random elements can lead to unexpected and exciting results, as in the example of Reas’ tissue work, inspired by Valentino Braitenberg’s hypothetical vehicles. This approach of using biological references and physical properties as a basis for artistic exploration challenges me to reconsider my creative process. How could I incorporate more natural and chaotic elements into my work without losing a sense of artistic control?

Moreover, the concept of using randomness as a starting point, for example in John Cage’s chance-based compositions, raises questions about the nature of creativity itself. I wonder about the ethical implications of using AI-generated randomness in art: does this introduce a new form of bias or remove human intuition from the equation? Also, the observation that patterns trigger the imagination makes me reflect on how we perceive and interpret randomness. Perhaps what we see as random is simply a pattern we have not yet recognized. This talk made me want to experiment with new approaches that balance control and unpredictability in my work.

In this project, I created a flower using functions, loops, and trigonometry to achieve a visually appealing result. I researched how to use trigonometric functions (cos and sin) using Perplexity to calculate the positions of the petals, ensuring they were evenly spaced around the center. The drawFlower function generates a layered petal effect with a color gradient,  and drawGrass adds randomness for a more natural look.

The most challenging part of the code was implementing the gradient petal effect.

// Draw the petals with a gradient effect
for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) { // Three layers for depth
fill(255 - i * 40, 0, 0); // Darker red inner petals
stroke(0);
for (let angle = 0; angle < TWO_PI; angle += PI / 4) { // 8 petals
let petalX = x + cos(angle) * (size - i * 8);
let petalY = y + sin(angle) * (size - i * 8);
ellipse(petalX, petalY, size, size * 1.2);
}
}


This loop places 8 petals in a circular pattern around the flower’s center.

• TWO_PI represents a full circle (360 degrees), and PI / 4 (45 degrees) is the step between each petal, so 8 petals are drawn (because TWO_PI / PI/4 = 8).

I had to carefully adjust the loop logic to reduce petal size in each layer while darkening the color for a realistic depth effect. Additionally, balancing the size, spacing, and positioning of the petals required multiple adjustments to avoid overlapping or misalignment. Another challenge was creating a natural-looking stem and leaves, ensuring they were well-proportioned with the flower.

Concept:
I initially created the grid while experimenting with using for-loops in p5.js, and added in a single rect that could be controlled via the arrow keys. The whole thing was vaguely inspired by the genre of snake games, but I later came to think of it more as a canvas that the user would draw on at runtime once I reminded myself that the assignment was meant to be an art piece. I also wanted to see how the random() function could be applied to art, and ended up using it in a few places.

Highlight:

// // Traversed cells
for (let c = 0; c < filled.length; c++) {
  fill(filled[c].colour);
  rect(filled[c].x, filled[c].y, gridSize, gridSize);
}

// // Class for retaining pos/colour info of traversed cells
class filledCell {
  constructor(x, y, colour) {
    this.x = x;
    this.y = y;
    this.colour = colour;
  }
}
// // Add a new cell instance to the relevant array
function addCell(oldX, oldY) {
  let newC = new filledCell(oldX, oldY, mainColour);
  filled.push(newC);
}

Embed:

• Arrow keys = move
• Spacebar = move to random cell
• Click = change colour
• r = clear canvas
• R = randomize canvas

Reflection:
Overall, I’m a lot more satisfied with this piece than the self-portrait. I made sure to approach things more systematically, and achieved my goals of using variables more effectively and leaving comments in my code. One thing I would still like to improve on is ordering and grouping things together, since even though I had distinct sections (e.g. Globals, Interaction, Helpers) my code still ended up being rather messy. The section for helper functions was particularly bad, since I just threw things in there as I came up with them.

Another thing I both struggled and succeeded in was creating functions. There were a number of points where I saw an opportunity to move code from the main body into distinct functions, which was an improvement from last week, but I also had to stop myself from going overboard and creating more functions when I could just leave a few lines in the body to do the same thing. Lastly, while my work was more structured this time around, I still did not plan things out as thoroughly as I would like to. Most of what I wrote was done spontaneously, which resulted in plenty of backtracking to properly implement the new functionality in my existing code.

Reflection

For this assignment, I created a checkers board using loops and conditionals in p5.js. The program generates an 8×8 grid with alternating black and white squares, and places red and blue checkers pieces on the appropriate black squares using conditionals. The checkers pieces are drawn as circles and are positioned in the top three (red) and bottom three (blue) rows. One of the most interesting parts of the code is how (i + j) % 2 !== 0 ensures that pieces only appear on black squares, while additional conditionals determine their placement. In the future, I could improve this by adding interactivity to allow piece movement, highlighting valid moves, implementing kinged pieces with visual markers, and enabling player turns to make it a fully playable checkers game.

Code

function setup() {
  createCanvas(400, 400);
}

function draw() {
  background(30);
  let cols = 8;
  let rows = 8;
  let squareSize = width / cols;

  for (let i = 0; i < cols; i++) {
    for (let j = 0; j < rows; j++) {
      let x = i * squareSize;
      let y = j * squareSize;

      // Alternating black and white squares
      if ((i + j) % 2 === 0) {
        fill(240); 
      } else {
        fill(20); 
      }

      rect(x, y, squareSize, squareSize);

      // Placing checkers pieces only on black squares in the right rows
      if ((i + j) % 2 !== 0) {
        if (j < 3) {
          fill(200, 50, 50); 
          ellipse(x + squareSize / 2, y + squareSize / 2, squareSize * 0.8);
        } else if (j > 4) {
          fill(50, 50, 200); 
          ellipse(x + squareSize / 2, y + squareSize / 2, squareSize * 0.8);
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

One of my favorite parts of Casey Reas’ Eyeo Talk was his emphasis on how randomness should be embraced and has been embraced when creating art. He gives examples like John Cage’s experimental music compositions, where random elements influenced the outcome, and Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings, which embraced chance as a key element in the artistic process. But, he also provides examples from his own work in graphic art using generative systems and computer algorithms. I feel as if many people stray away from randomness out of fear that the chance exists of a random element ruining what they hope to achieve, but Reas welcomes that chance in his art, showcasing to others that randomness can create unexpected but fascinating art that is worth appreciating. He even states that with computer generative systems, you can create bounds or limits such as how big or small to make something in order to control some of the randomness in your art, creating endless possibilities for future computer generated art that have a guide on what to do but still have unexpected elements to them.

I was inspired personally by this talk and really tried to incorporate randomness into the assignment for this week, but with some bounds to get the desired effect I wanted for my project. I created lists with a set of elements that would be acceptable to use such as a set of colors or a set of numbers and then used the random function to have the program pick a random element from that list. This way, all my lines looked different due to the random line sizes and they were varied in color due to the random colors picked. I doubt I’ll ever be able to fully give in to total randomness as I do want some sense of control over what is created, but I am open to trying it to see what could be created since the possibilities are endless.

For this assignment, I was inspired by an artwork in the Computer Graphics and Art May 1976 magazine titled “The Cubic Limit Series” by Manfred Mohr shown below:

I wanted to create a grid like it along with similar looking shapes, but instead have the shapes/doodles be randomized and made from sharp lines that rotate in different colors within each square. The result of that looked like this:

Overall, I think the assignment did end up aligning with the vision I had in my head. When I initially made the grid, I was having trouble getting the background to be black as it seemed like the background was somehow being overwritten. It took me a bit, but I eventually I figured out that the squares in the grid had an automatically applied color fill which was displaying over the background. I also had trouble with getting each doodle to be in the center of each square before I realized I had to use translate to change its origin. I did have to create a separate function to create the doodle in each square, and while it seems complicated, it just involved picking a random number from a list I had defined in an earlier variable. I am proud of getting the result to be similar to the inspiration from the image I had in mind, and the snippet of that code can be seen below:

// Function to draw a random doodle in each square
function drawSquiggle() {
  strokeWeight(1.25)
  stroke(random(colors))
  line(random(neg_numbers), random(neg_numbers), random(numbers), random(neg_numbers)); 
  line(random(numbers), random(neg_numbers), random(numbers), random(numbers));  
  line(random(numbers), random(numbers), random(neg_numbers), random(numbers));
}

In the future, I want to see if I can make the rotation be smooth as well. Even though this kind of choppy look was intentional to seem more robotic, I feel a different shape rotating smoothly inside of the grid would also look cool. I also want to get better at navigating transformations of shapes for the best placement.