Assessment 1: Designing with Code
Due Date: 13th of April at 11.59pm
For assignment one you will be required to produce a static artwork using Processing. The work must be
generative. Each time the file is compiled it must produce a variation. Your goal is to implement the technical
knowledge you have gained thus far to produce an artwork that is simple yet aesthetically and conceptually
engaging.
Deliverables:
– The submission must be in the form of a .zip folder uploaded to the blackboard.
– The .zip folder must contain a single .pde file and a single .pdf file.
– The .pdf must include a 250 word description of the work. This should include:
– Description of the work.
– Technical notes, on how the code functions.
– Visual diagramming explaining code structure.
– Research, including examples of other works of art that inspired you.
– Reflection on outcomes, what did you learn in the process of creating this work.
Submission Guidelines:
– Libraries are not allowed in this assignment
– You are allowed to use a single mousepressed() or keypressed() function to create static variations. We
are learning about this in week 6, the week the assignment is due, so this is not a requirement and no
additional marks will be awarded for this.
Assessment 1 Rubric Fail 0-49 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction 85-100
Submission and
description of the work
Correctly delivered
submission
Description and
interpretation of the work.
Reflection and
background research.
Work is submitted
incorrectly, is incomplete.
There is no documentation
or there is no code.
Work is submitted in a
near correct or sufficient
form. Documentation is
included but sparse or
lacking in depth or is
underdeveloped.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is
acceptable and complete
but is not clear or concise.
Or it is lacking in either
interpretation or
background and
reflection.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is well
thought out and clear. It
has detail which forms
concise conceptual
thinking, includes well
formed reflection and
detailed background.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is
exceptional. Tearse,
complex conceptual
thinking involving detailed
exposition. Exceptional
reflection and background
which form a strong
conceptual framework.
Code experimentation
and organised code
structures, commenting
Code experimentation,
implementation of unique
self written code
Code structure, organised
and terse code
Code commenting, the
code is commented
throughout
Code is non-functional,
incorrectly formatted, the
syntax is incorrect, there is
no commenting or
indentation. The code does
not compile.
Code is functional but
insufficiently formatted,
indented and
commented. The level
of detail and originality
is poor. Code is
convoluted and the
structure inconsistent or
confused.
Code is functional and
formatted. Detail is
sufficient, use of logic
structures are present.
Commenting is sufficient
or good. Experimentation
and originality is
demonstrated, or there is
little substantial change to
example code.
Code is functional and
well formatted. Code is
complex, includes
complex use of object
oriented concepts and is
commented clearly. The
code is unique and
interesting.
Code is exceptional. Of a
professional standard.
The code structure is
optimised, tearse and
nuanced. The code is
unique and complex.
Commenting is clear, well
thought out and simple to
understand.
Aesthetic outcome and
response to design brief
Code produces
aesthetically engaging
imagery
Artwork is conceptually
coherent
Code creates variation
when iterated
The artwork is conceptually
incoherent. The work shows
no sign of artistry. There is
no variation.
The artwork is lacking
conceptually. It
produces a satisfactory
result. Variation is basic
or not interesting.
The artwork is consistent
conceptually, it does
produce variation but
could be more engaging,
more richly thought out or
developed.
The artwork produces
aesthetically engaging
imagery. It is conceptually
coherent and very
interesting. Code creates
interesting and enjoyable
variation when iterated.
The artwork produces
exceptionally engaging
imagery. It is conceptually
very strong and is
particularly interesting.
Code creates nuanced,
complex and very
enjoyable variation when
iterated.
Assessment 2: Animating with Code
Due Date: 5th of May at 11:59pm
For assignment two you will be required to produce an animated artwork using Processing. The work must be
generative and never ending with sufficiently interesting emergent properties. Your goal is to implement the
technical knowledge you have gained thus far to produce an artwork that is conceptually engaging, surprising
and enjoyable to watch.
Deliverables:
– The submission must be in the form of a .zip folder uploaded to the blackboard.
– The .zip folder must contain a single .pde file and a single .pdf file.
– The .pdf submission must include a 250 word description of the work. This should include:
– Description of the work.
– Technical notes, on how the code functions.
– Visual diagramming explaining code structure.
– Research, including examples of other works of art that inspired you.
– Reflection on outcomes, what did you learn in the process of creating this work.
Submission Guidelines:
– Libraries are not allowed in this assignment
Assessment 1 Rubric Fail 0-49 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction 85-100
Submission and
description of the work
Correctly delivered
submission
Description and
interpretation of the work.
Reflection and
background research.
Work is submitted
incorrectly, is incomplete.
There is no documentation
or there is no code.
Work is submitted in a
near correct or sufficient
form. Documentation is
included but sparse or
lacking in depth or is
underdeveloped.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is
acceptable and complete
but is not clear or concise.
Or it is lacking in either
interpretation or
background and
reflection.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is well
thought out and clear. It
has detail which forms
concise conceptual
thinking, includes well
formed reflection and
detailed background.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is
exceptional. Tearse,
complex conceptual
thinking involving detailed
exposition. Exceptional
reflection and background
which form a strong
conceptual framework.
Code experimentation
and organised code
structures, commenting
Code experimentation,
implementation of unique
self written code
Code structure, organised
and terse code
Code commenting, the
code is commented
throughout
Code is non-functional,
incorrectly formatted, the
syntax is incorrect, there is
no commenting or
indentation. The code does
not compile.
Code is functional but
insufficiently formatted,
indented and
commented. The level
of detail and originality
is poor. Code is
convoluted and the
structure inconsistent or
confused.
Code is functional and
formatted. Detail is
sufficient, use of logic
structures are present.
Commenting is sufficient
or good. Experimentation
and originality is
demonstrated, or there is
little substantial change to
example code.
Code is functional and
well formatted. Code is
complex, includes
complex use of object
oriented concepts and is
commented clearly. The
code is unique and
interesting.
Code is exceptional. Of a
professional standard.
The code structure is
optimised, tearse and
nuanced. The code is
unique and complex.
Commenting is clear, well
thought out and simple to
understand.
Aesthetic outcome and
response to design brief
Code produces
aesthetically engaging
imagery
Artwork is conceptually
coherent
Code has emergent
properties
The artwork is conceptually
incoherent. The work shows
no sign of artistry. There is
no emergence.
The artwork is lacking
conceptually. It
produces an ok result.
The systems is basic or
not interesting.
The artwork is consistent
conceptually, it does
produce variation but
could be more engaging,
more richly thought out or
developed.
The artwork produces
aesthetically engaging
imagery. It is conceptually
coherent and very
interesting. Code creates
surprising and enjoyable
interactions.
The artwork produces
exceptionally engaging
imagery. It is conceptually
very strong and is
particularly interesting.
Code has nuanced,
complex and very detailed
emergent properties.
Assessment 3: Interactive Generative Artwork
Due Date: 12th June 11:59pm
For assignment three you will be required to develop an interactive generative artwork. This work should be user
experience oriented, allowing a user to navigate a creative space. The work should be highly responsive and
engaging with a focus on a specific aesthetic or theme.
Deliverables:
– The submission must be in the form of a .zip folder uploaded to the blackboard.
– The .zip folder must contain a .pde file or folder of .pde files labeled clearly, and a single .pdf file.
– The submission must include a 250 word description of the work. This should include:
– Description of the work.
– Technical notes, on how the code functions.
– Visual diagramming explaining code structure.
– Research, including examples of other works of art that inspired you.
– Reflection on outcomes, what did you learn in the process of creating this work.
Submission Guidelines:
– Libraries are allowed in this assignment.
– Sensors and alternate computer interfaces such as the kinect or leap are allowed for students wishing to
explore these on their own.
Assessment 1 Rubric Fail 0-49 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction 85-100
Submission and
description of the work
Correctly delivered
submission
Description and
interpretation of the work.
Reflection and
background research.
Work is submitted
incorrectly, is incomplete.
There is no documentation
or there is no code.
Work is submitted in a
near correct or sufficient
form. Documentation is
included but sparse or
lacking in depth or is
underdeveloped.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is
acceptable and complete
but is not clear or concise.
Or it is lacking in either
interpretation or
background and
reflection.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is well
thought out and clear. It
has detail which forms
concise conceptual
thinking, includes well
formed reflection and
detailed background.
Work is submitted
correctly, in-line with the
assessment outline.
Documentation is
exceptional. Tearse,
complex conceptual
thinking involving detailed
exposition. Exceptional
reflection and background
which form a strong
conceptual framework.
Code experimentation
and organised code
structures, commenting
Code experimentation,
implementation of unique
self written code
Code structure, organised
and terse code
Code commenting, the
code is commented
throughout
Code is non-functional,
incorrectly formatted, the
syntax is incorrect, there is
no commenting or
indentation. The code does
not compile.
Code is functional but
insufficiently formatted,
indented and
commented. The level
of detail and originality
is poor. Code is
convoluted and the
structure inconsistent or
confused.
Code is functional and
formatted. Detail is
sufficient, use of logic
structures are present.
Commenting is sufficient
or good. Experimentation
and originality is
demonstrated, or there is
little substantial change to
example code.
Code is functional and
well formatted. Code is
complex, includes
complex use of object
oriented concepts and is
commented clearly. The
code is unique and
interesting.
Code is exceptional. Of a
professional standard.
The code structure is
optimised, tearse and
nuanced. The code is
unique and complex.
Commenting is clear, well
thought out and simple to
understand.
Aesthetic outcome and
User Experience
Code produces
aesthetically engaging
imagery
Artwork is conceptually
coherent
Interaction mechanisms
and user experience
The artwork is conceptually
incoherent. The work shows
no sign of artistry. There is
no clear interaction
mechanisms the user
experience is
unsatisfactory.
The artwork is lacking
conceptually. It
produces an ok result.
The systems is basic or
not interesting. The user
experience is poor,
opaque and
underdeveloped.
The artwork is consistent
conceptually, it could be
more richly thought out or
developed. User
interaction mechanisms
have been used but could
be more extensively
implemented. The user
experience is ok.
The artwork produces
aesthetically engaging
imagery. It is conceptually
coherent and very
interesting. Code creates
surprising and enjoyable
interactions. User
interaction mechanisms
have been used very well.
User experience is
engaging.
The artwork produces
exceptionally engaging
imagery. It is conceptually
very strong and is
particularly interesting.
User interaction
mechanisms have been
extensively implemented
and expertly designed for
user experience.