Randomness, Rules and Compositional Structure in Design

Author(s): Michael Eckersley

Source: Leonardo, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1990), pp. 75-80
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578469
Accessed: 15/04/2009 13:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo.

http://www.jstor.org
GENERAL NOTE

Randomness,Rules and
CompositionalStructure in Design

Michael Eckersley

minde'Randomness is something 'serious- dence that order lies behind

ABSTRACT
minded' people seldom seek. It usually crops up as a dis- apparent confusion and that
tracting by-product of a more interesting primary objective. more common kinds of order
A common tendency in one's ordered daily life, either need not be sought at the ex- The paperexamineshow
conceptsof randomnessand
consciously or unconsciously, is to consider randomly occur- pense of less obvious kinds of chaos impingeon the creative
ring phenomena to be merely a waste of time, uninteresting order. The writer Isaac Bash- studyandpracticeof design.A
and of no practical value. This conditioned attitude is begin- evis Singer, when asked to com- bodyof originalworkis document-
ning to change in some scientific circles as a result of ment on the messy condition of ed involvingthe transformation
of
computer-generated randomnum-
research that has shown amazing, unexpected and complex his study, responded matter-of-
berstreamsintovisuallyfascinat-
forms of order in seemingly random physical phenomena. factly that chaos is intrinsic to ingandthought-provoking graphical
Such research falls under the general umbrella term of his subject matter; the disorder arrays.Asimplecomputer-based
'chaos', and much is currently being written about it. The of his study was simply a reflec- methodforgeneratinga vast num-
berof uniquegraphicshapesis
point I attempt to establish in this paper is that investigation tion of that chaos. The com-
described.Alsoexaminedis the
of the concepts of randomness and complexity is, and has poser Antonio Vivaldi, it is said, roleof ruledevelopment indesign
been for some time, the province of the creative artist as well was inspired to create an entire andthe degreeto whicheven
as of the scientist. For the artist is, by virtue of the nature of musical composition from the simplerulescandramatically
the discipline itself, intrinsically involved in issues of order, sequence of notes resulting influencethe appearanceof com-
positionalstructure.
compositional structure and form in all its varieties. when his cat leaped unexpect-
Who would not admit to having experienced a certain edly upon a keyboard. Other
aesthetic satisfaction in the apparent randomness of cloud such examples abound in the
formations, the fluttering of leaves in the wind, the arrhyth- literature of the arts and sci-
mic monotony of raindrops, or even the imprints of scat- ences where happenstance, unpredictability and seeming
tered leaves left behind on a sidewalk after a cold autumn disorder have spawned original and creative ideas. Admit-
rain?Justas there is in all of us the instinct to organize events tedly, the artist's conception of randomness and the scien-
and space, there also seems to be a contrary urge to disor- tist's conception of randomness are colored by two different
ganize events and spaces that appear to be too rigidly struc- paradigms, but these are not necessarily incompatible.
tured or confining. This chaos/order paradox has been, Though it is natural and understandable that human beings
directly and indirectly, the subject of much literature, music find comfort in the basic clarity and dependability of law-
and visual art [1]. In nature itself an analogous paradox governed, deterministic systems, many individuals seem
exists between natural shaping systems embodied in various genuinely to prefer the surprising, the unpredictable and
types of polygons, spheres, helixes, spirals, meanders and the original.
branching patterns, and the apparently random and cur-
iously fascinating natural events described above.
Scientific activity over the last 10 years has focused on RANDOMNESS AND CHAOS
such complex phenomena as the long-term behavior of Webster's dictionary defines randomness as "lacking a def-
weather, turbulence in fluid and chaotic vibration. Whereas inite plan, purpose, or pattern"; "being or relating to a set
in years past such phenomena would have been rejected as or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal
hopelessly complex and consigned to the periphery of sci- probability of occurrence". The classic method of generat-
entific study, this attitude appears to be changing. Such ing a random sequence is to toss a coin repeatedly, tallying
changes hint of a new validation of other forms of investiga- the occurrence of heads and tails. However, a more useful
tion involving chaotic themes and informally structured conception or definition of randomness is offered by the
processes, namely, the work of many creative artists.The fact field of algorithmic information theory [3]. This definition
that chaotic phenomena in nature are inherently interest- of randomness takes into account only the characteristics of
ing is not news to them. Many artists (e.g. Marcel Duchamp, the random sequence itself, rather than the process from
Wassily Kandinsky,Jackson Pollock) have based entire car- which the sequence was generated. Consider the following
eers on the pursuit, visualization and understanding of such two sequences, both having 20 symbols and both consisting
complex life phenomena. only of the symbols '0' and '1'.
Artists have long been considered to exhibit a high toler-
ance for ambiguity and apparent complexity. Frank Bar- Michael Eckersley (designer, educator), University of Maryland, Department of Design,
ron's [2] psychological research in the 1950s indicated that 1401 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A.

the creative artist characteristically demonstrates a confi- Received 13July 1988.

? 1990 ISAST
Pergamon Press plc. Printedin Great Britain.
0024-094X/90 $3.00+0.00 LEONARDO, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 75-80, 1990 75

A: 10101010101010101010
B: 10100011111001011001
Sequence A follows the simple rule
of the strict alternation of the two sym-
bols. The sequence could be extended
indefinitely according to that rule. But
it can also be compressed into a more
economical algorithm: PRINT '10' (2 x
N) TIMES. Sequence B, in contrast,
does not appear to obey any rule and
cannot be compressed into a more ec-
onomical formula. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to infer its randomness.
Kuppers summarized the principle of
randomness in relation to the incom-
pressibility of a sequence. He stated
that "asequence is defined as 'random'
when the shortest algorithm needed to
generate it contains about as many in-
formation units as the sequence itself'
[4].
A flurry of writings on compositional
order and disorder appeared in the
early 1970s in Leonardo.Much of this
activitywas generated by Entropyand Art
by Rudolf Arnheim [5]. Arnheim ar-
gued that compositional unity is ideally
a bipolar struggle between utter simpli-
city and utter chaos. While the treatise
met with some criticism for the loose-
ness of its arguments and its casual cita-
tion of precise scientific terms and con-
cepts, its basic premise remains
76 Eckersley,
Randomness, Rules and Compositional Structure in Design
compelling. Further insights into ran-
domness and art can be found in two
other Leonardoarticles, one by Michael
Challinor [6] and the other by Fred
Whipple [7].
Likewise, random behavior in sys-
tems has interested researchers in the
fields of mathematics, physics, chemis-
try, engineering and meteorology for
some time. Their work has revealed the
pervasiveness of chaotic phenomena
even in the simple systems and has led
to new methods for finding hidden or-
der within apparent chaos. Pickover [8]
describes chaos theory as the study of
how complicated, random behavior
can arise in systems based on simple
rules. Such forms of hidden order have
been isolated with the aid of comput-
ers; they are called attractors,or strange
attractors when the chaotic behavior is
bound within certain parameters. (For
a popular overview of the topic, see
Gleick [9].) The prevailing attitude,
however, seems to be that randomness
as a phenomenon is only interesting
when some form of attractor can be
isolated within it. In other words, most
chaos researchers do not find true or
statistical randomness to be an attrac-
tive topic for serious study. But statisti-
cally random behavior possesses a com-
plex and identifying structural
'imprint' all its own, easily identifiable
on a global scale but only truly appre-
ciated on a local scale. And it is this
imprint that students of compositional
design will find of interest.
THE STRUCTURAL
IMPRINT OF RANDOMNESS
My interest in randomness grew out of
considerable thought and practice in
teaching principles of compositional
order elaborated by Wong [ 10], Thom-
pson [11] and others and in studying
the science of statistics. Through my
work on the psychology of problem-
solving behaviors in designers, I was
introduced to random number tables
as a quick means of selecting ran-
domized groups for experimental test-
ing. From that unlikely process I no-
ticed interesting distinctions in the
makeup of groups selected randomly
and groups organized consciously. This
awareness spawned a series of informal
experiments in my design classroom. I
noticed that design students were typi-
cally unable to organize elements ran-
domly even when explicitly requested
to do so. Their conception of random-
ness was something quite different
from what randomness actually looked
like. To illustrate this point, we trans-
lated long streams of random numbers
into graphical arraysand simply looked
at the results. The issue seemed to boil
down to structure-the graphical struc-
ture generated by random numbers was
completely different from anything my
students had seen. It is interesting that
this same observation has been made in
experimental studies involving persons
listening to sequences of random audi-
ble tones. The subjects quite often
could not distinguish the random se-
quence from the nonrandom one [12,
13]. When individuals are confronted
with the three different sequences
A: HTHTTHHT
B: HTHHHHHH
C: HTHTHTHT
sequence A tends to appear more ran-
dom than sequences B and C, because
it has an equal ratio of heads and tails,
and because it has no easily discernable
pattern. Studies shown that most
people also equate symmetry and long
runs of a single character with order,
and high rates of alteration and asym-
metry with randomness [14]. In reality,
however, statistical randomness often
exhibits characteristics of symmetry
and nonalternation. In fact, the proba-
bility of randomly obtaining the three
sequences above is exactly the same! In
other words, depending on one's rela-
tive sophistication with the concept, the
actualstructure of randomness appears
surprisingly nonrandom to people,
especially when viewed at a local level.
The principle can be simply demon-
strated by flipping a coin many times
and inserting a motif sequentially into
a grid on each occurrence of heads.
Figure 1 shows an array of 10,000 ran-
dom numbers generated with the use
of a computer. Rules of insertion (e.g.
motif type, rotation, insertion coordi-
nates) were input via a simple program.
The ratio of heads to tails in the global
array (in this case, composed of about
5,000 comma-like motifs) is approxi-
mately one-to-one; the distribution is
largely homogeneous or even. How-
ever, when areas of the same array are
viewed locally (Fig. 2) the distribution
is anything but homogeneous. The ran-
dom distribution of motifs can be de-
scribed as globally stable but locally un-
predictable, asymmetrical and visually
quite dynamic. The notion of random
structure seems at first glance to defy
logic. However, randomness can exhi-
bit as many distinctive structural im-
prints as there are varieties and degrees
of randomness, methods of graphical
analysis and levels of fineness of analy-
sis.
bers, (2) a two-dimensional plane and
(3) rules for insertion and rotation of a
predefined motif.
Already the complexity of these ran-
dom arrays exceeds (in its own way)
that found in the famous tiling patterns
of M. C. Escher and Sebastien Truchet
[15], where the shape topologies, how-
ever intricate (in Escher's case), are
nonetheless predictably repetitive. In
recent years mathematicians such as
Roger Penrose [16] and Robert Am-
man have made remarkable discoveries
in tiling theory. Tiling theory involves
study of the geometry of shapes (e.g.
equilateral triangles, squares or hexag-
ons) that, when multiplied identically
and snugly adjoined, will solidly cover
an infinitely large plane. Work by Pen-
rose and Amman involves the concept
of aperiodictiling, and the exotic forms
of symmetry that can arise from irregu-
Fig. 2. Detail view of large random distribution (comma motif), ratio 1:1. Motif rotation is
random. Motif is a basic comma form. Special emphasis on the enormous variety of com-
posite voids or white shapes.
larly occurring geometric patterns.
(For an in-depth discussion of periodic
and aperiodic tilings, see Grunbaum
and Shepard [17].) The subject of ran-
dom graphical arrayspresented in this
paper differs considerably from the
aperiodic tilings of Penrose and others
in that random arrays do not conform
to the rules of tiling theory. Both sys-
tems are bound by rules, however. What
differentiates these random arrays
from formal repetitive patterns is their
inherent asymmetryand their tendency
to result in exotic aggregate shapes.
It is in the astounding varietyof these
shapes that the creativity of random-
ness is found-not the creativity of
human self-expression but rather a nat-
ural sort of creativity such as seen in
snowflakes; the system generates an in-
credible variety based on a common
theme. The interplay of fixed rules

CONTROLLING THE
PARAMETERS OF
RANDOMNESS
The binding of randomness through
rules or controlling parameters yields
structures that are no longer random
(in the truest sense) but rather main-
tain an ingredient or imprint of ran-
domness. The imposition of rules enor-
mously influences the graphical
appearance of randomness. In other
words, the graphical characteristics of a
random array are highly sensitive to
even the slightest change in motif type,
the density of motifs and the operating
rules. The simple manipulation of
these can lead to significant changes in
the array. Figure 3 shows just such an
instance; an array based on the identi-
cal number sequence used in Fig. 2,
with only a minor change in the motif,
yields substantially different character-
istics in the negative (white) shapes or
voids. Figure 4 shows an even more
dramatic change with the imposition of
a linear motif. Controlling parameters
for Figs 1-4 comprised three simple
factors: (1) a random sequence of num-

Randomness, Rules and Compositional Structure in Design

Eckersley, 77

Fig. 3. Detail view of large random distribution (variant comma motif), ratio 1:1. Motif
rotation is random. Motif is a slight variation on the comma. Compare the difference in
composite voids or white shapes from those in Fig. 2.
(physical rules in the case of snow-
flakes) and randomness contributes to
the structured generation of original
forms. The odds against these shapes
occurring again in exactly the same way
are great, and they increase consider-
ably with the size of the given void, as
well as with the complexity of the rules
operating in their creation. Whereas
the same odds may operate in the crea-
tion of positive and negative aggregate
shapes (the case in Figs 1-4), the nega-
tive white shapes, or negamorphs, ap-
pear somehow more compelling in
their having been created as negative
imprints of the former. As one scans the
array, anthropomorphic and zoomor-
phic shapes seem to crystallize before
one's eyes. The compelling point is that
this Noah's ark of randomly generated
creatures is as large as the largest array
one can generate. Whole new species of
78 Eckersley,
Randomness, Rules and Compositional Structure in Design
negamorphs can be generated with the
imposition of different operating rules.
DESIGN LESSONS
FROM RANDOMNESS:
EDUCATIONAL
IMPLICATIONS
One of the most difficult design prin-
ciples for instructors to teach and for
young designers to understand is that
of dynamic asymmetry. Ironically, this
most complex compositional principle
is also fundamental to understanding
modern notions of composition. Dy-
namic asymmetry involves the ordering
of compositional elements (i.e. shapes,
lines, colors, etc.) in a manner that
forges a compositional unity while pro-
longing viewer scanning and delaying
perceptual closure. It is as much an
emotion evoked in the viewer by the
composition as it is the spatial organiza-
tion of the composition itself. Examples
of dynamic asymmetry can be found in
significant works of art, architecture
and design from Mondrian's Broadway
Boogie Woogieto Frank Lloyd Wright's
Falling Waterhouse.
Randomness and design appear at
first glance to be an incongruous
match. The act of designing is usually a
highly self-conscious, goal-directed ac-
tivity, and that runs counter to most
notions of randomness. However (and
herein lies the second and most useful
aspect of the randomness principle for
designers), random graphical arrays,al-
most without exception, exhibit strik-
ing examples of dynamic asymmetry;
localized sections of large arrayscan be
isolated and appreciated as powerful
compositions. The educational impli-
cations of this phenomenon are not
trivial. A recurring project involving
randomness and the definition of rules,
motifs and colors has generated numer-
ous beautiful designs, an example of
which can be seen in Color Plate B No.
2. This project has been a useful point
of departure in discussions focusing on
issues of rule formulation and control
in the design process. These discussions
have made apparent to students and
faculty alike that design is essentially
nothing more (and nothing less) than
an activity involving the formulation,
invocation and reformulation of rules
when existing rules fail to yield satis-
factory results. In this sense the design
process can be viewed as a cybernetic
machine in which the rules define the
capabilities of the machine, random-
ness provides the input, and the design
product is the output. Once the basics
of the machine have been set forth, the
creative designer manipulates or rede-
signs the machine in such a way as to
get more satisfactory designs. The de-
signer's creativity is directly related to
the intrinsic clarity, sophistication and
inventiveness of the rules conceived
and invoked.
The function of rules as determin-
ants of style are well exemplified in Fig.
5, where variables of line, shape, scale,
placement, type font and type style
(among others) operate in random
fashion. The literal push of a button
allows such designs to be generated al-
most instantaneously. Randomness in
this case does not render uniformly sat-
isfactory results (this is not the issue),
but one out of every seven or eight
designs is quite presentable. The real
power lies in the program's capability
to allow for easy reconfiguration by its

Fig.4. Detailviewof largerandomdistribution(linearmotif), ratio 1:1.Motifrotationis
randombut at fixed degrees.The motif in this case is a line segment.
human counterpart to mirror the de-
signer's own universe of acceptable op-
erations. As such, the computer
graphic representation can serve as a
powerful point of departure for design-
ers not wishing to face the often intimi-
dating blank canvas. In other words,
designers can establish upfront, in the
form of simple algorithms, the parame-
ters within which they wish to work
graphically. Based on those parame-
ters, if what the computer tosses up is
broadly acceptable to the designer, he
or she can proceed from there. These
notions have been alluded to in the
landmark research of Koenig and
Eizenberg [18] on the design style of
Frank Lloyd Wright, and have been
more fully fleshed out in writings by this
author [19].
SUMMARY
While some would argue that random-
ness is by definition without practical
value, the trained eye begins to see in
random structures a distinguishing
order. This order is somehow under-
standable on an intuitive level, reflect-
ing certain natural or man-made laws
bound together with chance. Its useful-
ness to designers compares to the les-
sons they can learn from observing
nature's own random permutations of
form.
One gain from discussions of ran-
domness in the design studio is that
naive conceptions about randomness
change as one learns to discern subtle
distinctions between random processes
and nonrandom processes. An addi-
tional payoff is familiaritywith a class of
structures uniquely different from
those self-conscious compositional
structures with which we are commonly
familiar. Random structures can be dis-
tinguished from formal, semiformal
and informal kinds of structures and
should be classified as different. As the
designer's visual language grows to ac-
commodate random structures, so too
does his or her verbal ability to differ-
entiate them from other, more tra-
ditional kinds of compositional struc-
tures. Just as learning is enhanced by
drawing comparisons and distinctions
between concepts, so can understand-
ing of customary structures be en-
hanced through a learning experience
with randomness.
Acknowledgments
The author thanksJ. P. Bonta for his valuable edi-
torial advice and the Computer-Aided Design and
Graphics Lab of the University of Maryland for its
support.
References
1. P. Weiss, "Some Paradoxes Relating to Order",
in P. G. Kuntz, ed., The Conceptof Order(Seattle:
Univ. of Washington Press, 1968).

llI
p
Fig. 5. Example output from Design Gener-
ator program. This version of Design Gen- L12 .. .. . . x .
erator involves variables of typography as
well as shape, line width, scale and place-
ment, and variables of distortion, color in-
version,rotationand flipping.Note general
I I ro ............................
stylistic similarities to Raiuhausand De Stijl
typographical composition, specifically, to
the typography of the late Dutch designer
Piet Zwart [20].

_. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......
3 ||||||l||
jie ^j t

I
_

I
Pe i

Randomness, Rules and Compositional Structure in Design

Eckersley, 79
 2. F. Barron, "The Psychology of Imagination",
199 (1958) pp. 150-161.
ScientificAmerican
3. G.J. Chaitin, "Randomness and Mathematical
232 (1975) p. 47.
Proof', ScientificAmer,ican
4. B. Kuppers, "On the Prior Probability of the
Existence of Life",in L. Kruger, G. Gigerenzer and
M. Morgan, eds., TheProbabilistic Revolution,Vol. 2:
Ideas in the Sciences(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1987) p. 362.
5. R. Arnheim, Entropyand Art:An Essayon Disorder
and Order(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1971).
6. M. Challinor, "Change, Chance, and Structure:
Randomness and Formalism in Art", Leonardo4,
No. 1, 1-11 (1971).
7. F. Whipple, "Stochastic Painting", Leonardo1,
No. 1,81 (1968).
8. C. A. Pickover, "Graphics, Bifurcation, Order
80 Eckersley,
Randomness, Rules and Compositional Structure in Design
and Chaos", ComputerGraphicsFrum 6 (1987) pp.
26-34.
9. J. Gleick, Chaos:Makinga NewScience(New York:
Viking, 1987).
10. W. Wong, Principlesof Two-DimensionalDesign
(New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972).
11. D. Thompson, On Growthand Form (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961).
12. R. Falk, "The Perception of Randomness".
Paper presented at the fifth conference of the
International Group for Psychology of Mathemati-
cal Education, Grenoble, France, 1981.
13. K. H. Teigen, "Studiesin Subjective Probability
I: Prediction of Random Events", ScandinavianPsy-
chology24 (1983) pp. 13-25.
T .^nn.-m-anti1
14A T.
tween
I'8. R
C. A.
Pick.ver adU.CA. Orli;n "Y)ictinmlikhino
l,NOd m Events, Eperi RQ
tween Random and Nonrandom Events", Experi-
Learning,Memoyand Cognition13,
mentalPsychology:
No. 3, 392-400 (1987).
15. C. S. Smith, "The Tiling Patterns of Sebastien
Truchet and the Topology of Structural Hierar-
chy", Leonardo20 No. 4, 373-385 (1987).
16. R. Penrose, "Pentaplexity",Eureka39 (1978)
pp. 16-22.
17. B. Grunbaum and G. C. Shepard, Tilings and
Patterns(New York:W. H. Freeman, 1986).
18. H. Koenig andJ. Eizenberg, "The langauge of
the Prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie Houses",
Environmentand Planning 8 (1981) pp. 295-323.
19. M. Eckersley, "Thoughts on a Computer-Based
Design Apprentice", in C. Pickover, ed., Computers
and Graphics,in press.
20. B. Monguzzi, "Piet Zwart",Graphis44No. 258,
57-61 (1988).