Category: Spring 2024 – Aaron (Section 001)

Doing this assignment, I did not have something in mind and I just wanted to explore and play around with creations I could make. Eventually, I ended up using a loop to make lines, which formed a rather interesting shape. I decided to go with that, but I did not want to submit a random creation of complex lines, so I started exploring what I could do to make something out of these lines. After experimenting with movement, I decided to go with an inescapable prison where the harder the person tries to escape, the faster the movement gets.

 

This is my very first time experimenting with an interactive element. It was very simple to apply. However, I am very proud of myself for adding that element.

I am proud of everything on the canvas. I did have to search up how I could have the background change colors and that took a whilr to figure out. While this creation is not perfect, I still deeply love it.

//   Lines
  for (let x = 0; x <= width; x += 50) {
    for (let y = 0; y <= height; y += 50) {
      line(lineX, y, x, lineY);
    }
  }
  //Speed up when mouse is pressed
  if (mouseIsPressed) {
    lineSpeedX = lineSpeedX + 1;
    lineSpeedY = lineSpeedY + 1;
  }
  // Move the lines horizontally and vertically
  lineX += lineSpeedX;
  lineY += lineSpeedY;

  // Reverse direction when hitting the canvas edges and change colors
  if (lineX > width || lineX < 0) {
    lineSpeedX *= -1;
    stroke(random(255), random(255), random(255));
  }
  if (lineY > height || lineY < 0) {
    lineSpeedY *= -1;
    stroke(random(255), random(255), random(255));
  }
}

Reflection:

I had so much fun playing around with code and discovering new ways to implement interaction with creations. I am excited to delve deeper and to find out what this course has in store for me.

Casey Reas initiates profound contemplation on the dynamic interplay between order and chaos within the realm of art. He talks about randomness, from changes in physics to using it on purpose in art, challenging what we usually think about in art. Reas has a way of making art through three steps: form + behaviors = elements, and he calls it “precise geometry,” which adds an interesting twist to how he creates.

In some cases, people worry that digital art messes with how artists express themselves because it’s unpredictable. But Reas introduces the idea of “controlled randomness.” and with this concept, he sets some rules but lets things surprise him, and it gives the art he produces a unique twist. In addition to this, randomness gives artists a sense of control and makes art more diverse and fun.

Thinking about it later, there’s a real rethink about assuming digital art messes up an artist’s message due to its unpredictability. Reas stresses “ordered randomness,” showing how artists control the code but also add surprise with random bits. It’s like a balance between control and unpredictability, uncovering a deeper side to digital art.

Reas’ insights on randomness in art had my mind filled with ideas. When he described the paradigm shift from order to uncertainty in physics and culture, I realized I had falsely assumed randomness was somehow “less intentional” in creative work. Tracing how artists have deliberately experimented with chance way before coding was even possible blew open my assumptions even further. 

I love how Reas constantly tries to balance structure and surprise within his algorithms for that sweet spot of organized chaos. Like how adding a smidge of noise to those otherwise uniform lines in “process 18” made the composition pop with organic energy. You could vividly see homeostasis at play. I also loved seeing the psychedelic patterns generated from the 10 Print Commodore program. I had childhood flashbacks to PC screen savers!

It intrigued me to learn Reas often repurposes snippets of code from other pieces to birth totally new visuals. His “Written Images” with its ever-morphing permutations seems like a concept that has potential for everything from music videos to merch design. As someone getting more into creative coding and graphic design, I find Reas’ perspectives hugely inspiring. The intersection of algorithms and chance is such a rich territory for innovation. Rules exist to be broken!

By engineering the tango between random and restrained, predictable and unprecedented, Reas’ work made me recognize chaos as creation rather than destruction. I’m now excited to further explore similar computational art by pushing boundaries and creating creative messes. 

 

Overall Reflections

After watching the video of Casey Raes it made me wonder about the difference between a traditional artist who draws by hand and a digital artist who generates art using code (algorithm). When making art with hand, the strokes in every painting show that this art/concept belongs to this artist. Whereas the algorithmically generated art can be of different styles by the same artist. So does digital art generated by ordered randomness broaden the artist’s capabilities and style of work? Or does it limit the artist’s personal touch? 

Intriguing Piece 

The art piece that was intriguing to me was when art was integrated with coding and fashion. I was surprised by how modern digital art can have an impact on other fields. The design of the dresses was very unique and appealing. I feel like this integration will give fashion designers a new spectrum of ideas. 

Takeaway

What I initially thought was that the message of the artist may be compromised by digital art’s unpredictability. The art generated is through ordered randomness. The artist is the one who has control over the code and sets the order of the algorithm. However, the art is unpredictable due to random variables. So to check my theory I dedicated this week’s assignment to the theme of ordered randomness. I got to know that the artist has control over their art piece based on how systematic the algorithm is and how often randomness is given control. I even realized how famous artist Jackson Pollock embraced the concept of chance in the art pieces where he made his pieces by splattering and pouring paint over canvases while depending on chance.

In the realm of art, I’ve always held the belief that meaning and visuals represent distinct aspects when appreciating art. My beliefs on the future of art invariably swerved towards visions of lights and interactivity, sidelining the pursuit of deeper meaning, and that is admitted, as I was ignorant of that aspect. However, my perspective was broadened during Casey Reas’s presentation. He introduced various artworks generated through algorithms, a concept that initially aligned with my thought process. Yet, it was his showcase of “Signals” that actually took me back. This piece, illustrating the interaction of protein cells within a cancer cell, not only expanded my appreciation of the intersection between technology and art but also underscored the profound potential for meaning in such intersections, bridging my gap in understanding and igniting a newfound appreciation for the depth of art’s potential.

 

Throughout the presentation, the only question that came to mind was whether any of these pieces of art match old artifacts regarding their value in terms of history. If, hypothetically, our civilization were to vanish overnight, leaving these modern creations as remnants for future generations to discover, how would they interpret them? Would they perceive these pieces as remnants of an extinct religion, or would they recognize them as artistic expressions? This question only comes to me because I wouldn’t personally understand any of it without reading the description or having someone explain what the artist meant by it.

For this assignment, I am not sure I drew my inspiration from the right place; I ended up being inspired by the Club Penguin dance floor. For some reason, while playing around with different-sized squares in p5js, that was all I remembered when I aligned them.

For reference:

The sketch:

While it isn’t the same proportions as the Club Penguin dance floor, It was because I wanted it to be more visually appealing with the size. After all, this is supposed to be an art piece…

let numTiles = 10; // Number of tiles across and down
let tileWidth;
let tileHeight;
let colors = [];

function setup() {
  createCanvas(600, 600);
  tileWidth = width / numTiles;
  tileHeight = height / numTiles;

  // Initialize colors array with bright colors
  for (let y = 0; y < numTiles; y++) {
    colors[y] = []; // Create a nested array for each row
    for (let x = 0; x < numTiles; x++) {
      colors[y][x] = color(random(255), random(255), random(255), 255);
    }
  }

  frameRate(10);
}

function draw() {
  for (let y = 0; y < numTiles; y++) {
    for (let x = 0; x < numTiles; x++) {
      // Randomly change the color of each tile to mimic the dance floor lighting effect
      if (random() < 0.1) { // 10% chance to change color each frame
        colors[y][x] = color(random(255), random(255), random(255), 255);
      }
      
      fill(colors[y][x]);
      rect(x * tileWidth, y * tileHeight, tileWidth, tileHeight);
    }
  }
}

I would say the effect function confused me so often when it came to understanding it because I didn’t want the colors to change so frequently. Still, also the issue that came up was the sketches I had taken down in class did not fully explain how things worked when it came to the randomness part and how quickly it would change, so hopefully, in the upcoming classes, I will get better at note taking so that when it comes to coding, I get to understand it better when I go back and take a look at it.

The artwork is supposed to represent a grid filled with random circles, squares, and triangles, each with a unique color. The number of shapes in each grid tile is also randomly determined, adding an element of unpredictability to the artwork. The black background and semi-transparent colors contribute to a visually dynamic and intriguing composition. The outer loop iterates through the x-axis, and the inner loop through the y-axis, creating a grid of tiles. The use of a while loop inside the nested loops allows for the random generation of multiple shapes within each tile. The switch statement is employed to choose between drawing circles, squares, or triangles based on a randomly generated shape type.
The element of interaction is when the user clicks on it, it alters the composition randomly every time with new colors and grids. This intricate dance creates a mesmerizing grid of shapes, each telling its own colorful story. And if you click on it rapidly, you can see some shapes forming on their own and the whole artwork feels like it’s moving.
I think the artwork effectively utilizes loops to create a visually engaging and dynamic composition. The randomization of shape count and type introduces an element of surprise, making each iteration unique. For future work or improvements, I could experiment with additional parameters such as varying the size or rotation of shapes, and introducing gradients. I also envision expanding the symphony of this visual experience by integrating sound. Each shape could emit unique tones, creating a multi-sensory journey. Additionally, exploring interactive elements, allowing users to dynamically influence the composition in real-time, could open up new dimensions for artistic expression and engagement.
The inspiration came from my desire to make something very vibrant with popping colors and simple shapes. Changing the “tileSize” and playing with different outcomes every time was a really fun experience until I found the visuals I most loved. As I reflect on this creation, I find joy in the harmonious chaos that emerges.

function setup() {
  createCanvas(600, 600);
  noLoop(); //Only draw once
}

function draw() {
  background(0); //Start with a black background
  let tileSize = 10;

  for (let x = 0; x < width; x += tileSize) {
    for (let y = 0; y < height; y += tileSize) {
      let shapeCount = floor(random(1, 5)); //Determine how many shapes to draw in each tile
      let i = 0; //Initialize while loop counter

      while (i < shapeCount) {
        //Generate a random color for each shape
        fill(random(255), random(255), random(255), 200);

        //Randomly choose a shape to draw
        let shapeType = floor(random(3)); // 0, 1, or 2
        switch (shapeType) {
          case 0: //Draw a circle
            ellipse(
              x + tileSize / 2,
              y + tileSize / 2,
              tileSize * 0.5,
              tileSize * 0.5
            );
            break;
          case 1: //Draw a square
            rect(x + 10, y + 10, tileSize - 20, tileSize - 20);
            break;
          case 2: //Draw a triangle
            triangle(
              x + tileSize / 2,
              y + 10,
              x + 10,
              y + tileSize - 10,
              x + tileSize - 10,
              y + tileSize - 10
            );
            break;
        }
        i++; //Increment while loop counter
      }
    }
  }
}

//Allow for regenerating the artwork on mouse press
function mousePressed() {
  redraw(); //Redraw everything
}

 

 

When you change “tileSize”:

The juxtaposition of the artificial, conventionally associated with rigidity and logical order, and the organic, characterized by spontaneity and fluidity, has been historically observed, as Reas illustrates in his talk, since humans ventured into the arts and the sciences. I especially enjoyed Reas’ chronicling of the journey of digital creators and artists marrying these two by exploiting “parameterized change” to give dynamism to their work, starting with the courage of early artists like Jean Arp. I also appreciated his demonstration of how he systemized the process of introducing controlled randomness in his work by formulating algorithmic elements and processes, like element 5 and process 18 that he used to produce the artwork below. As someone who has an understanding of the mathematical quantification of randomness, as defined by measures of entropy, and has also been interested in studying the historical emergence of artistic abstract and surrealist works, I was delighted to see Reas illustrate how both can be integrated, via computational methods, to produce pleasing digital artworks.

It was thought-provoking and almost ironic to see an algorithmic process attempting to simulate constrained randomness. Randomness, by its very nature, assumes the lack of regularization or adherence to a set of well-defined instructions. However, it is indeed possible, as shown by Reas, that despite their antithetical nature, randomness and order can co-exist and synergize to produce beautiful pieces of art.

One thing that caught my attention is Reas’ emphasis on producing from chaos an emergent homeostasis that is balanced and patterned. In the above example, for instance, Reas notes that repeated iterations of his process produce similar-looking, almost “unified,” results. This is essentially a product of “parameterizing” randomness. As Gerhard Richtar also states: “above all, it’s never blind chance: it’s a chance that is always planned, but also always surprising.” In a sense, randomness, then, becomes this beast that needs to be tamed, through order, to produce art that is organic and new, but still has an emergent form to it to be meaningful. This could also be demonstrated by the incorporation of symmetry in the Fractal Invaders animation to produce forms that can be readily interpreted by the viewer but were not necessarily manufactured by the artist.

This got me thinking: why can we not embrace randomness in art in its own right, without the need to constrain it or tame it in any way? Can we re-wire our brains to enjoy the unexpected jitters of white noise? Or derive pleasure from looking at TV static the way we would Renaissance paintings in museums? Lastly, if truly random art were to exist, where would that place the artist?

When we hear the word “Chaos” our minds automatically think of destruction and overall something negative. Casey Reas explored the meaning of this word and it reshaped my mind in terms of its meaning. Reas included many applications of “chaos” in beautiful pieces of art and explored how chaotic nature could be.

One concept that really stuck with me was the concept of randomness. Casey Reas’s talk opened my eyes on the ways in which the idea of randomness is perceived in art. I genuinely believe that randomness is sometimes important and Reas highlights that at one point.

Another concept that stuck out for me was the part where he talked about combining art with biology. Being a Psychology major student, I am very interested in one’s mind and knowing that it is possible to merge both of my interests into one made my day. I am truly satisfied after watching this talk.

Digital art has always been criticized because of its algorithm, as it challenges the old-fashioned traditions of painting, making music, videos et cetera. I believe that Casey Reas’ Eyeo talk on chance operations is a good argument on why modern artists still remain artists.

The way he is trying to explain the whole documentation process that has to happen in order for digital art to be created is very valuable. We do not only hear about the steps, but also we have the chance to see everything that goes behind digital art.

My favorite part of the talk was when he quoted the fact that ‘ a chance is always planned’, meaning that without the person, everything would just be a random code that has no beginning and no end. The human is what makes it have value.

In the end, I have to admit that after having watched this video I can certainly say that I have gained more respect towards digital creators.