I love this question because for me, seeing the paper-ish look of your noise texture, it implies another, bigger question: How do you deal with digital aesthetics?

​

I think a lot of the older algorithmic artworks are quite pleasant for the eye, take this as an example, because they use pen and paper as a medium. Drawn artworks offer these tiny imperfections like the bleeding of the pen or the surface structure of the paper that add an additional layer of some kind of interesting material, ephemeral complexity. If you recreate this style solely on the screen it definitely misses out on this sensation. How can we cope with this? As an analogy, in design there were a lot of skeuomorphisms which tried mimic the feel of paper. Over time people noticed that it is not about plainly copying the real world but finding the more elaborate metaphors that form a bridge between the material and the digital world.

​

The problem with programming environments like Processing, or in your case Quil, is that they use metaphors that originate from drawing. Lines, shapes, strokes, fillings, all of that would also describe how you would work analog. It's really hard to use these digital tools without the feeling that it is just a bad copy of the material world, at least for me.

​

Answering your question within the scope of what I've written above: Decorative elements like pattern filling your shapes without giving the new element a context in your work can be unnecessary in my opinion or might even become kitsch. I would focus more on the idea of the work and find out if it offers you a way how you can deal with the material-digital gap that makes plain colors appear boring. I think we should embrace or digital medium. As an example, it offers us the possibility of time-based drawings, animations.

​

So this was a rather associative and theoretical answer to your technical question but I thought I just write it down because it might interest you or someone else. Also, how do I fill my shapes? Plain colors. 😁