These weeks, I started reading about chance and the distinction between accidental and methodical. I realised that my work in the previous weeks was focused on methodical chance as it was based on repetitions until achieving a desired outcome. In these weeks, I decided to keep exploring that by playing with staged still life images and bubbles.
Week 22
In this week, I wanted to keep experimenting with droplets but disguise the beholder by adding a magnifier glass. This magnifier glass not only affected how the droplet might be perceived but it may simulate a bubble in itself. The use of glass magnifier offered the opportunity to change the scale of the objects by for example making the flower look bigger than it was in reality and to change the direction of the planes. The beholder’s perception of the image is indeed tricked by playing with these elements. I reflect on this while preparing a possible sketch:
Following Arnheim (1974), the addition of these different elements in the image may increase its ambiguity to increase the likelihood of triggering different meanings. That is why, the initial images as evidenced in the contact sheet was still too simple and in fact, they did not work that well in terms of composition and potential ambiguity. However, when adding further elements such as a metallic grid (i.e., images in the second row of the contact sheet) and additional natural elements (i.e., the plant added in the last trials as evidenced in the third row of the contact sheet) the imagery becomes more complex and ambiguity may be more present.
I have selected for the contact sheet some of the most significant trials to comment on the different processes followed. The images of the third row worked significantly better as the lighting and the composition worked well together. The rectangle created by light was done on purpose so that the droplet could fall in there. That is why, I selected the second image as the droplet just fell where it was planned.
The final image can be found below:
Overall, I was pleased with the image as the droplet fell where it was expected as the image achieved was open to interpretation.
References
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. University of California Press.
Week 23
In this week, I wanted to keep playing with ambiguity by combining the magnifier glass and the lighting to achieve an abstract image. Given that methodical chance is based on repetition (Malone, 2009), I thought I could experiment with having a series of images in which the droplet could adopt different shapes. Playing with the lighting and the magnifier glass would help me to decontextualise the droplet and break the schema of a what a droplet is (Gombrich, 2000). Aesthetically, I got inspired by Moholy-Nagy’s photograms as they are characterised by stark contrasts of black and white and the objects depicted displayed at times a level of ambiguity (Nelson, 2006). The contact sheet can be found below:
As evidenced in the contact sheet, the first attempts selected to display in the contact sheet, the lighting chosen did not allow for the water texture to be seen. The second set of attempts (i.e., second row) allowed for the water texture to be more visible but the droplet was not fully visible so these images were also discarded. Finally, the images selected (i.e., last row) allowed for both the water texture and the droplet to be fully visible. The images selected are those in which the droplet clearly emerged from the hole. Although the final outputs were quite similar, I thought it was interesting to show precisely the same set up but with slight variations in the droplets to evidence the process of methodical chance, similarly to how John Baldessari did with his series of images in 1973 (Kelsey, 2015).
References
Gombrich, E.H. (2000). Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation. London: Phaidon.
Kelsey, R. (2015). Photography and the Art of Chance. Harvard University Press.
Malone, M. (2009). Chance aesthetics. Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum.
Nelson, A. (2006). László Moholy-Nagy and Painting Photography Film: A guide to narrative montage. History of Photography, 30(3), 258-269.
Week 24
In these weeks, I realised that the more trials I engaged when trying to achieve an image the more the control I was gaining over the process and the outcome. This made me think about agency since this is supposed to be in direct opposition to chance (Iversen, 2010). The more control I was gaining, the lower the chance in the images. I decided then to add some complexity so that chance could be reintroduced in my work and I could lose control. I went back to the objects I used in the previous weeks to try to achieve a geometrically pleasant droplet that could pass through a glass ball. Although the image could look simple considering the number of elements added, the complexity underlay the process to attain the specific outcome. The focus on the process and the unexpected is similar to how Ori Gherst has approached his practice. His images are characterised by freezing elements when exploding (Wainbright, 2008).
As evidenced in the contact sheet, it was not an easy process. I discarded those images in which the droplet did not achieve a splash. Those in which there was a splash, I discarded those in which this was not fully visible due the lighting or the position of the splash itself. The final image can be found below:
Adding elements to complicate the process reintroduced chance. As evidenced in the contact sheet, obtaining a particular splash that was well lit and had a good shape was not easy. Despite this, the overall image turned out well.
References
Iversen, M. (2010). Chance. MIT/Whitechapel Gallery.
Wainwright, J. (2008). Ori Gersht. Time After Time. Photography and Culture, 1(1), 115-117. https://doi.org/10.2752/175145108784861383
Week 25
In this week, i wanted to continue playing with abstraction by combining different lights and playing with refraction to decontextualise once more the droplet. Although this process was not complex itself, the attainment of a particular outcome could be challenging. I continued following the principles of methodical chance and engaged once more in multiple trials until achieving a desired outcome (Malone, 2009). For this week, I took inspiration in Berenice Abbot’s images in which she experimented with light and a mirror to achieve diffraction. These images had the aim to showcase scientific phenomena (Sullivan, 2006).
Abbott’s images were subject to chance as in many instances she could not control what the final outcome might be. In the selected image above, we can find the effect of refraction which I was after in my own image by mixing water and light.
As seen in the contact sheet, I tried different lighting diagrams to see which one could work best. The problem with the first two lighting set ups is that the diffraction was not fully visible so I had to change this up as evidenced in the third row. It was challenging to decide on a specific outcome as many of them looked great. I took my decision based on the shape (i.e., more aesthetically pleasing) and in which the was more diffraction. The final image can be found below:
The use of different lights changed the quality of the liquid and made it look very different. Once more, the light helped to decontextualise the liquid and make it look like a liquid sculpture.
References
Sullivan, G. (2006). Berenice Abbott, Photographer: An Independent Vision. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Week 26
In this week, I wanted to continue with simplicity in terms of the elements used but wanted to focus on the attainment of a specific outcome. Hence, as in the previous weeks, I engaged in multiple repetitions following a methodical approach. Specifically, I wanted to see whether I could attain a figure similar to Giacometti’s sculptures. Giacometti’s work was highly influenced by surrealism and cubism, two artistic movements quite influential in my own practice. His figure sculptures wanted to represent the imaginary and inaccessible space (Boyne, 2008).
As it can be seen in the contact sheet, it was not easy to achieve an abstract figure similar to Giacometti’s. I I included some of the most significant trials from all the ones undertaken (i.e., close to 100 images). The images discarded did not show a similar figure to the one I was after, did not have a collision of just showed a regular splash. The final image can be found below:
Although I did achieve a shape similar to Giacometti’s work, I was not entirely sure this would work as the lack of elements made the image quite simple and I think it’s quite evident it’s liquid so not sure it really fits well with the rest of the work as I was after a more ambiguous outcome.
References
Boyne, R. (2008). A brief note on Giacometti. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(5), 20-29.
Week 27
In the previous weeks, most of the experimentation relied on droplets. I felt as acknowledged in some of the earlier weeks that I started mastering the process to an extent I was feeling I had total agency and no chance was taking place. Hence, I thought I had to bring more elements into the equation to increase chance. To that aim, I decided to play with two elements: bubbles and droplets. Bubbles are elements that are intrinsically related to chance as they are very hard to control and they can explode at any time. Hence, there is little scope for control. Once more Jaromir Funke’s work focused on the use of different light planes was influential (Witkovsky, 2005), as well as Gyorgy Kepes’s images focused on abstraction and use of geometrical shapes (Blakinger, 2019).
Before taking pictures, I drew a possible effect I wanted to achieve with my images:
In the contact sheet, I have identified in red the images selected. As it can be seen I experimented with multiple processes that range from a single bubble and a droplet to including multiple bubbles as evidenced in the last image selected from the last row. I found in many instances hard to choose a specific image as many of them depicted an interesting pattern. I took over 100 images and I selected the ones in which the droplet (Warthington’s column) touched the bubble but did not break it and altered its shape instead. The final series of images for this week are as follows:
The final images depict a kind of tension in which the bubbles seem to be about to explode. I think these images represent quite well the concept of chance as something ephemeral and that one might be able to capture once but potentially might be hard to repeat the process. I felt that adding more elements brought back chance to my practice.
References
Blakinger, J. R. (2019). Gyorgy Kepes: Undreaming the Bauhaus. MIT Press.
Witkovsky, M. S. (2005). Jaromír Funke’s Abstract Photo series of 1927–1929: History in the making. History of Photography, 29(3), 228-239.
Week 28
To finish the practice of these weeks, I continued exploring multiple elements playing in this case with multiple bubbles and droplets. I wanted to continue adding uncontrollable elements to the practice. I played with multiple light planes to decontextualise the elements. Following Malone’s (2009) classification, I wanted to explore randomness by incorporating multiple uncontrollable elements to see what possible outcomes I could obtain. This is similar in the approach to Sugimoto’s series of images in which he experimented with electricity. Electricity is an element impossible to control and hence, difficult to predict what possible patterns may emerge (Wittmann, 2009). As in some other images, I stated working with a sketch so that I could try to achieve a very specific outcome:
In the contact sheet, it can be seen that it was not easy to work with two bubbles simultaneously and actually they only resisted very few images. the challenge was to ensure that the droplet would not burst the bubble and this turned out quite challenging. The final image selected achieved to showcase two bubbles and a droplet that did not break the bubble and had the appropriate height to make the composition work. The final image is as follows:
References
Wittmann, M. (2009). Time, extended: Hiroshi Sugimoto with Gilles Deleuze. Image & Narrative, 10(1), 187.
Final reflection on these week’s work
Working these weeks, I reflected upon agency most of the time and whether this was dropped and regained when experimenting with different materials and levels of complexity. Different authors have suggested that even the accidental has some level of agency as the artist makes conscious choices (Mitcheson, 2010). I agree with this but at the same time there are times in which the artist can be surprised with outcomes completed unexpected (i.e., happy accidents using Sally Mann’s words; Parsons, 2008). Finally, I also reflected on the possibilities of chance turning mechanical if the process is totally mastered by the practitioner. I think there is a very fine line between methodical chance and no chance at all. In fact, chance has been viewed in opposition to determinism. Hence, this is something I would like to continue exploring as I think it would be interesting to see where the limit is for something to be considered chance.
Alberto Gonzalez 