Week 3: Physical Computing

Advertisements

Week 3: Drawing Bauhaus Patterns

Screen Shot 2016-10-11 at 11.19.30 AM.png

This week we paired up in groups of two and used p5.js to create graphical patterns that involves both random elements and a controller that changes the performance of the piece.

We first began by testing with random lines and random colors, within a restricted canvas. In this case, the “line” function is used to create each individual line. The start point (x1,y1) and end point (x2,y2) are random values taken from within the range of canvas width and canvas height. The “stroke” function also involves random RGB value, though with a greater emphasize on blue, and allows each line drawn to have a different color.

Screen Shot 2016-10-11 at 11.07.40 AM.png

We then experimented further with the “line” function. Instead of drawing one per draw loop, we decide to draw two lines each time, and the (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) of the two lines should share some common parameters.

14502111_10210983598010141_485909198_n.png

Eventually we combined those aforementioned features, along side a scaling bar that controls the size of the “canvas”, and thus controlling the generated pattern.

https://alpha.editor.p5js.org/embed/SJmA92r6

Screen Shot 2016-10-11 at 11.19.17 AM.png

 

Week 2: Kill the Bugs in P5.js

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-1-08-22-pm

This week I coded a small game called “Kill the Bugs” using P5.js.

A dozen of flies are randomly mapped onto the computer screen each time when the program is refreshed. Those flies randomly shivers and moves around, while slowly straying away from the edge of the frame. The goal is to kill as many files as possible before they get away.

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-1-09-12-pm

There are currently two separate versions of the code: the first version shows the cursor, and leaves a stain and dead body of the fly when it is killed; the second version shows the right hand, and the fly disappears when it is clicked on.

Week 1: Everything is Remix

“Dylan’s art offers a paradox: while it famously urges us not to look back, it also encodes a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise have little home in contemporary culture…”
I really enjoyed this week’s reading on appropriation in the process of creative production. I think this “appropriation” in Lethem’s text can be understood in two phases: technique adoption and content re-interpretation. 
On one hand, he quoted the musician community’s “open source” culture, suggesting that great musical piece inevitably benefits from re-working and layering of previous materials. Along with the accessibility of technology, the artists had tools to record, duplicate and remix existing works as they wish, and distribute various genres of work and receive feedback.
While the technic of replication can be continuously refined by craftsmanship and technological advancement, I’m more interested in the second aspect of his text – the “shifts” that happen when segments of pre-existing works are reconfigures by later generations. I really like that fact that Lethem liked music appropriation to the Data movement to highlight the transformation of implication of the “ready-made”, in this case the previously produce records, in a new creative process.