Algorithmic art

Algorithmic art is a subset of generative art that is the result of an algorithmic process—devised by an artist—usually using a random process to produce variation based on external inputs.

If that run-on sentence sounds like a bunch of gibberish, think of the algorithm as an elaborate recipe and the inputs as your assorted ingredients. Where it gets interesting, is that in this type of art you can generate an infinite number of results by using different “ingredients” based on the original recipe.  These inputs can be random number generators or some other source of data like frames from a movie.

I first became interested in algorithmic art back in 2006 through a project by BMW. BMW commissioned artist and designer, Joshua Davis, to develop an algorithm to generate a set of 500 limited edition prints, based on the forms found in the Z4 coupe that they were launching at the time. The pioneering aspect of Davis’ work was that each print was entirely unique and comprised on average of 120,0000 layers and 50,000 vectors, all generated by the algorithm. It was a highly complex process that required Davis to check countless iterations of his code to ensure that it would produce viable results. After months of intensive code refinement, his computer and printer begin to generate the artwork, as he supervised each output, print by print.

One of Artist Joshua Davis' algorithmic illustrations

Paul Krix is another artist who I recently discovered who uses algorithms to individually laser cut jewelry that is aesthetically informed by patterns in nature. The early seeds of his inspiration were planted when Krix read a paper that compared city street networks with common leaf vein patterns, concluding that pictures of either were indistinguishable to most people. Krix decided to use this research as a foundation to his modeling algorithm, and drew inspiration from various natural patterns and processes that are both beautiful and complex: crystal growth, moth wing patterns, leaf veins, tree growth, petals, and the zoological colorings/patterns.

Pieces from Paul Krix's jewelry line called Neat Objects

The idea of “one-of-a-kind” is something that is lost in this age of perfect digital copies and mass production. It’s fascinating to see how designers and artists are pushing  technology to create artwork that is entirely unique, and yet at the same time repeatable because it is digitally informed. This is where it’s worth emphasizing that the artist’s self-made algorithms are an integral part of the authorship, as well as being the medium through which the ideas are conveyed.

So if you’re inspired, learn a new programming language. Become your own factory. And start creating.

Illuminated LED on a MacBook Pro

I was watching TV the other week when the screen suddenly powered down and went blank. The status light that would normally be a solid red to indicate it was off, was flashing in a rapid, urgent succession, indicating to me that something grave had transpired.

Connected to the TV lay one of my Apple computers. The gentle, white, undulating light on the front reassuringly communicated to me that unlike its TV cousin—it was not dead—it was merely “sleeping.”

There are things we immediately, if subconsciously, find comforting or soothing and, in that moment, I found comfort in that little white light. In designing and engineering something as complicated as a computer, a status light seems like a minor detail in the grand scheme of things. But it’s details like this that can psychologically make a block of aluminum and silicon more communicative and more personal. And it took Apple two patents and hundreds of hours in R&D to make it happen.

In July 2002, Apple filed a patent for a “Breathing Status LED Indicator” (No. US 6,658,577 B2). The status light is intentionally designed to simulate sleep and the patent filing described it as a “blinking effect of the sleep-mode indicator in accordance with the present invention mimics the rhythm of breathing which is psychologically appealing.”

Prior to the patent filing, Apple carried out research into breathing rates during sleep and found that the average respiratory rate for adults is 12–20 breaths per minute. They used a rate of 12 cycles per minute (the low end of the scale) to derive a model for how the light should behave to create a feeling of calm and make the product seem more human.

But finding the right rate wasn’t enough, they needed the light to not just blink, but “breathe.” Most previous sleep LEDs were just driven directly from the system chipset and could only switch on or off and not have the gradual glow that Apple integrated into their devices. This meant going to the expense of creating a new controller chip which could drive the LED light and change its brightness when the main CPU was shut down, all without harming battery life.

On more recent machines, you’ll also notice that the status light is completely invisible from the surface when the computer is in use. There’s no transparent plastic or glass where the light emanates from. The light seems to glow straight off the surface of the aluminum and, in fact, that’s exactly what it’s doing.

This feat of engineering is achieved though Apple’s “Invisible, light-transmissive display” (No Us. 7,880,131). During the manufacturing process of the computer body, a CNC machine first thins out the aluminum. Then a laser drill creates small perforations for the LED light to shine through, creating the illusion of a seamless surface when the light is off.

Several years ago Dell decided to mimic Apple, and add a similar sleep status feature to their computers. They decided to use a rate of 40 cycles per minute for their indicator. Comically, this is the average respiratory rate for adults during strenuous exercise—not very indicative of sleep.

Attention to detail is what makes Apple products feel so impeccable. The team there doesn’t just pore over financial spreadsheets and personnel issues as most companies do. They don’t just think about design, they obsess over it to the smallest details. There are many companies that have the talent and the resources to potentially mimic Apple’s success, but without getting the details right, it ends up just looking like strenuous exercise—inelegant and labored.