Processing: Creative Coding and Computational Art

Within each of these application areas are numerous other competitive packages as well.
In addition, there are nonlinear digital editing tools for film and video—Apple’s Final Cut
Pro is one such tool. These tools, often timeline-based as well, are used to edit and output
finished animations, films, and videos. Compared to all these powerful time-based applications,
Processing and Java, or any programming language for that matter, seems pretty
sparse. Processing doesn’t have a timeline, keyframes, or the gazillion other dialog boxes
commonly found in these commercial applications. Theoretically, you could build all these
constructs within Processing and generate your own animation application, but wouldn’t it
be way more productive to just use one of the existing applications? Why use Processing for
animation? (I’ll assume you all have unlimited budgets for new software acquisition, so the
fact that Processing is open source and completely free wouldn’t figure into your decision).
Earlier in the book, I discussed the difference between using Photoshop filters for cool
effects and finding less common and more personally expressive possibilities using code.
Again, let me stress that I am not being critical of Photoshop or the other amazing animation
tools I mentioned earlier; I love these tools. However, in the creative process it is often
helpful to get down to basics and make more fundamental inquiries. Traditionally, artists
have grabbed a pencil and paper or a lump of clay, and scribbled and poked away in the
process of conceptualizing and finding new possibilities. The simplicity of the process and
the directness of the materials lent themselves to the process of discovery. It is often in the
process of playing with the materials, without explicit application, that new approaches
and forms are uncovered. I assert, and know from personal experience, that it is possible
to do this with code. Processing was designed primarily around this approach to coding
and is the reason Processing programs are referred to as sketches. In addition, quality in
art has never been a function of quantity or effect. One can use the most powerful software
tools imaginable and still make overly simple and uninteresting work. At the other
extreme, artists such as da Vinci, Ingres, and Constable have used simple drawing tools to
produce some of the most complex and beautiful images ever created. Processing fits
somewhere between the software bells and whistles and a pencil in its complexity, and is a
great tool to explore/create time-based art.
The joy of math
COMPUTER GRAPHICS, THE FUN, EASY WAY
The title of this section may seem like an oxymoron. Rather than joy, you may have other
associations with math (dread, boredom, pain, unpleasant memories from high school,
etc.). I can identify with the dread response, as I spent many hours staring out of public
school windows during math class. It wasn’t the subject matter that put me in a zombie
state, it was the way it was presented. Being a creative and process-oriented kid, I wanted
to feel a connection to the stuff I was learning and also wanted to see its relevancy in the
world around me. In an art class, there is a direct response between one’s action and
some tangible result. Even in a science class, there is the possibility of a lab result or some
process making a relevant connection. But in math, back when I was in school, we seemed
to primarily concentrate on drilling, rote memorization, and things being right or wrong.
However, turning 40 (yikes!), I don’t totally trust my memory of those days, so if you happen
to be one of the inspired math teachers I had and selectively forgot, my deepest
apologies. Recently, I decided to sit in a calculus class where I was teaching. I’d retrained
myself in math (just the math I actually needed), and was really looking forward to the
119
4