The concept of chance is ubiquitous. Chance has led to unexpected scientific discoveries ranging from the concept of gravity, the use of nitrous oxide as anaesthesia, or the accidental discovery of penicillin among many others (Roberts, 1989). Chance is also present in nature and has been a topic of interest in evolutionary biology to better understand unexpected changes in species (e.g., Eble, 1999). The use of chance has also played an important role in technological developments. Specifically, the use of chance or randomness has been applied in artificial intelligence to deep learning techniques in which non-interpretable decisions are made by a machine which can impact users in important ways (see Grinbaum, 2018 for a discussion). Finally, chance has also played a major role in art in general and in photography in particular.
The interest in chance in the early 20th century is explained as a rejection response towards the dominant epistemological approaches in both the 18th and the 19th century characterised by a deterministic approach. Basically, they wanted theories to be able to predict everything. Chance emerged them as a response against it. This is evidence for example, in the poem Un coup de dés jamais n’abolira le hasard (A Throw of the Dice will Never Abolish Chance) by Malarmé. This poem is written over 20 pages with plenty of free text and the text included not presented in clear lines. The idea is that the reader can themselves read the poem as they wish leaving chance then to operate (Ionescu, 2015).
At the same time, the emergence of psychoanalysis was a catalyst for the interest in the unconscious that tended to take the form of accidents (e.g., slip tongues). These serve as a foundation to inspire artists. After the WWII, chance was seen as an opportunity to embrace the spontaneous understood as subjective experience which is something that was valued in the dominant epistemology at that time dominated by existentialism. In the 50s-60s, chance is placed in the context of probabilistic thinking. While in the 70s, chance was understood as another artistic convention (Iversen, 2010).
When it comes to art, chance has been used as a strategy for artistic creation by different movements (Díaz, 2011). For example, the Dadaists relied on chance to break with previous conventions and to challenge what we understand by art and the role of the artist in the creative process (Molesworth, 2003). Surrealists also used chance to embrace with the unconscious (Susik, 2016).
Although artists have used chance for different purposes, chance brings a debate about what constitutes a work of art and what the role of the practitioner is. In this sense, chance has a positive and a negative meaning attached to it when it comes to art. On the one hand, it is perceived as something that can help the practitioner to embrace freedom. On the other hand, chance has been as something that undermines the agency of the artist as the outcome is understood to happen randomly (Malone, 2009). Agency is abandoned to chance but also reclaimed when artists decide to intervene in the process so that chance can be generated under certain conditions.
When looking closely at the concept of chance, we can see that some photographers have approached it as accidents that may emerge during the photographic practice. For example, Sally Mann has used the term “happy accidents” to describe the outcomes obtained when using ambrotypes due to the high likelihood of these being damaged in the process (Parsons, 2008). A similar approach can be found in Pierre Cordier’s chemigrams in which he seeks to explore the accidental nature of the materials when exposed to natural light (Cordier, 1982). On the other hand, we can find artists that have explored chance from a systematic or methodological approach, for example, through multiple repetitions or tests while exploring uncontrollable elements. In this category, we could find photographers such as John Baldessari and his work Throwing three balls in the air to get a straight line (1973). In this series of images, Baldessari explored through 36 images how three balls were never placed identically due to uncontrollable variables such as the speed of the wind (Kelsey, 2015). In this category, we could also include for example, Sophie Calle’s work Venetian Suite (1980) as she was actively seeking to photograph a stranger, but she could not anticipate what she was going to capture when following him. This classification of accidental vs. methodological brings a debate about intentionality and agency in the production of one’s own work (Lopes, 2012). However, some would argue that there is always intentionality in chance since the artists make some conscious choices (i.e., intentionality of the unexpected, Mitcheson, 2010). This would be particularly true in the case of methodological chance, but it might be less applicable to chance as accidents unless the artist selects to explore how certain elements may impact on the outcome (e.g., to evaluate how the weather may affect a photograph).
Besides this classification, Malone (2009) makes a more fine-grained distinction when it comes to chance; Malone separates accident, luck, randomness, and contingency. Accident would happen when something unexpected takes place because a process failed. For example, in photography, Chris McCaw took a series of images in which by accident he captured the sun trajectory as this burnt the negative of the images.
The trajectory of the sun burnt by accident the negative and created an unexpected result. Kelsey (2015) would argue that accidents are observable in amateur photographers when they take a good image but they do not know how it was taken.
Accident is different from luck. Luck happens when something unexpected takes place but does not involve any error. We could include here many documentary photographers which by chance (luck) encountered a specific scene. For example, if we take one of the images by Tom Wood, we can see how in the background a series of animals are depicted and by chance (luck) two dogs also featured in the image matching somehow the background.
The third process proposed by Malone is randomness. Randomness should be understood within probabilistic theory. As such, it consists of processes through which one can obtain a different result by repetition as the material one may be using might be quite uncontrollable. We could include here Baldessari’s work or Sugimoto’s Lightning field series of images (2009) in which he created abstract patterns with light. Light was completely uncontrollable, and he obtained different images in each attempt. In Sugimoto’s words “there are many variables — weather, humidity, perhaps even what I had for breakfast — I’m never sure what influences the results.” (Sugimoto, 2009).
Finally, Malone (2009) proposed contingency. Contingency takes place when the final outcome is completely unexpected but there are certain elements to suggest that a certain outcome may be attained. For example, Robert Capa’s images of the Spanish civil war might be a great example. If we think about The falling soldier (1936), Capa potentially could not anticipate what the final image may look like but he knew he could get an image of men while fighting. Hence it’s contingency because the context makes a certain outcome likely to take place.
Thinking about my own practice, I would situate myself in methodical chance, according to the first classification; or randomness, according to the second one. I am interested in the process of repetition to see what possible outcomes might be obtained. In some particular instances, I want to be surprised by the possible shapes and patterns whereas in other instances I am trying to search for specific outcomes. In the latter instances, I may get possibly closer to contingency.
Thinking about chance brings the debate about the role of the practitioner in the artistic creation. Where is my agency in this process? My photography is characterised for being quite staged. I like to make rather than take images. However, this year, I have been trying to challenge myself in this approach to lose control somehow or at least, part of it. Despite that, chance is not completely arbitrary even if it has been placed as opposite to determinism. In my case, I decide what elements I want to use, how the scene will look like. Even in the instances in which I want to be surprised by the materials, my agency returns when I choose specific outcomes over others.
It is interesting to note that chance comes from the Latin word “cadere” suggesting that it is intrinsically related to release and gravity (Malone, 2009). This is something particularly important for my project as the liquid is released from a pump and gravity affects the different types of shapes I can attain in the droplets and splashes. Release and gravity is present in many works of art. For example, Duchamp’s Three Standard Stoppages (1964) or Pollock’s dripping technique. This made me think that this project somehow was a continuation of what I started in my first series of images of this year in which I explored motion and the different unexpected patterns based on the dripping technique. Chance would take place in this instance using formal procedures that would allow this taking place (Iversen, 2010).
In my project, I will focus on release and gravity by playing with liquids. Liquids are difficult to control, and they will open the possibility of chance to happen. As previously outlined, I am particularly interested in methodical chance. To that aim, I will take several images until reaching an outcome that will either resemble an object or a specific shape. Agency will therefore be present in both the design of the image and the selection of the final outcome.
References
Collot, A. (2020). Eric Rondepierre à découvert. Art Press, 477, 122.
Cordier, P. (1982). Chemigram: A new approach to lensless photography. Leonardo, 9, 262-268.
Costello, D., & Iversen, M. (2012). Introduction: Photography between art history and philosophy. Critical Inquiry, 38(4), 679-693.
Díaz, L. (2011). By chance, randomness and indeterminacy methods in art and design. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 10(1), 21-33.
Ionescu, A. (2015). Spacing Literature between Mallarmé, Blanchot and Derrida. Parallax, 21(1), 58-78.
Iversen, M. (2010). Chance. MIT/Whitechapel Gallery.
Kelsey, R. (2015). Photography and the Art of Chance. In Photography and the Art of Chance. Harvard University Press.
Lopes, D. M. (2012). Afterword: Photography and the “Picturesque Agent”. Critical Inquiry, 38(4), 855-869.
Malone, M. (2009). Chance aesthetics. Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum.
Mitcheson, K. (2010). Allowing the accidental; The interplay between intentionality and realism in photographic art. Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Archive), 8(1), 14-29.
Molesworth, J. M. (2003). Against all odds: The sway of chance in eighteenth-century Britain. Stanford University.
Parson, S. (2008). Public/private tensions in the photography of Sally Mann. History of Photography, 32(2), 123-136.
Susik, A. (2016). Chance and automatism. In D. Hopkins (Ed). A companion to Dada and Surrealism. London: Wiley.
Alberto Gonzalez 