By Chance, Randomness and Indeterminacy Methods in Art and Design
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Visual Art Practice ISSN: 1470-2029 (Print) 1758-9185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjvp20 By chance, randomness and indeterminacy methods in art and design Lily Díaz To cite this article: Lily Díaz (2011) By chance, randomness and indeterminacy methods in art and design, Journal of Visual Art Practice, 10:1, 21-33 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1386/jvap.10.1.21_1 Published online: 03 Jan 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 188 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjvp20 JVAP 10 (1) pp. 21–33 Intellect Limited 2011 Journal of Visual Art Practice Volume 10 Number 1 © 2011 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jvap.10.1.21_1 LILY DÍAZ University of Art and Design Helsinki By chance, randomness and indeterminacy methods in art and design ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This essay investigates randomness and indeterminacy as art and design research design methods. A brief survey of contemporary notions of design is presented. There is a epistemology review of randomness and indeterminacy in the works of artists such as Jean Arp, indeterminacy Marcel Duchamp, Andy Warhol, and John Cage as well as in design research meth- method ods such as brainstorming and synectics. The author argues that the techniques in practice which these phenomena are implicated, make use of a reflection in action (or episte- randomness mology of practice) where a desired outcome is the methodical quest for the new. 1. INTRODUCTION Creating unique and engaging design requires methodical research and experimentation. Quantitative and qualitative research methods borrowed from the humanities and social sciences, for example, have proven effective in yielding knowledge about behaviour throughout the design process. However, they have yet to offer ways in which to bring forth and deliver new and creative results. Situations where there is a need to develop innovation and find new solutions require different methods. Though there is a growing literature about design methods that seek to address these 21 JVAP 10.1_Diaz_21-33.indd 21 6/4/11 2:11:06 PM Lily Díaz needs, there is very little research probing this area where serendipity meets coincidence. Alexander (1964, 2002) described the problem as finding the fit between form and context. John Chris Jones (1992) focused on design activity and philosophy. He documented two methods that are discussed in this article. More recently, Nelson and Stolterman (2003: 16) have advocated a design culture and a first new tradition where design is seen as the ability to imagine ‘that-which-does-not-yet exist, and make it appear in concrete form as a new, purposeful addition to the real world’. Nigel Cross (2006: 23–27) has proposed that the reliance on generating fairly quickly a satisfactory solution is a key aspect of design activity. Rather than attempting to generate one hypotheti- cally optimum solution, designers aim at producing a large range of satisfactory solutions. According to Cross, a fair amount of the knowledge – or designerly ways of knowing – that designers develop as part of their working methods, is related or resides in the material culture that designers work with. In this article, I investigate the use of chance and randomness as methods in design and art, and their role in the production of the new. Needless to say the topic touches on the territory of human agency. In the present text, however, I choose to focus on practical reasoning, or knowledge and under- standing as approached from an experiential, tacit and embodied perspective. The use of chance is, in my opinion, compatible with the currently held notion of design as goal-oriented behaviour, enacted with the intention to produce a given result. Throughout the activity of design, the designer posits an objec- tive and procures and utilizes the means to achieve it. The notion of ‘result’, however, needs to be further qualified. For in design, result can be seen as equivalent to effecting a transformation within a given set of parameters. What the actual transformation will be is not completely known at the beginning of the design process. So the designer must be able to keep an open mind to discovery. I describe examples of the methodical use of chance and indeterminacy in art and design. First, I present examples of the work of Marcel Duchamp, Jean Arp and Andy Warhol. Second, I present two methods, brainstorming and synectics, that make use of chance and randomness in order to increase the set of available options to the designer. Then I return to art and make a deeper presentation and examination of John Cage’s ‘Musicircus’ as an example of an artwork that makes use of chance and indeterminacy. Cage’s work is of inter- est in the current discussion because while retaining the identity of its maker, it continues to enable others to participate in the creation of new understand- ings of music and art. In bringing these examples together I want to highlight ways through which artists and designers have consciously used chance and indetermi- nacy to introduce new variables, to reframe the problem, and to enable new parameters to emerge within the creative process. I propose that the articu- late use of such strategies is the result of a type of ‘reflection-in-action’ (an epistemology) that occurs in the context of a practice. ‘The researcher is not ‘dependent on the categories of established theory and technique but constructs a new theory of the unique case’ (Schön 1983: 68). 2. RANDOMNESS AND INDETERMINACY Randomness is a quality attributed to outcomes, such as things and events lacking predictable pattern(s), or purpose. According to Gregory Bateson, without 22 JVAP 10.1_Diaz_21-33.indd 22 6/4/11 2:11:06 PM By chance, randomness and indeterminacy … a source of randomness, no system (mechanical or organic) could produce anything novel: … in the stochastic processes (see Glossary) either of evolution or of thought, the new can be plucked from nowhere but the random. (Bateson 1988, 2002: 46) In computer science, for example, random-number generators are commonly used to ensure that the ‘seek’, trial and error moves of the machine cover all the possibilities of the set to be explored. This led Bateson (2002: 174) to ascertain that all creative systems were divergent. Throughout history this concept has been closely related to fate and games, since in many cultures artefacts such as dice, runes and shells have been used as part of divination procedures to determine destiny. It is interesting to note that this is quite the opposite of the traditional view of design. Already in the sixteenth century, Giorgio Vasari was proposing that the ancestral origins of the practice were to be found in the meticulous planning of an artwork (Vasari 1975; Greenhalgh 1997). In recent times, new situations have come to the forefront where tech- niques of randomness and chance, and art and design, have been explicitly brought together. One noted case was in the early twentieth century when artists involved with Dadaism used chance and randomness to create art that expressed their opposition to society and critiqued the traditional notions of artistic mastery and excellence (Pierre 1975). According to the web archive of the ‘Dada’ exhibition held at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, a driving motive behind ‘Dada’ was a desire to challenge traditional concep- tions of art and the artist, and through their work demonstrate that art also relied on arbitrary decision-making (National Gallery of Art 2006). From this intentional use of chance, there resulted works such as Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades created with found objects and the collages of Jean Arp. Duchamp’s ready-mades involved the use of discovered objects that with minimum manipulation were presented as art. Among the most famous of these artefacts was the upside-down urinal. According to the artist, the ready- mades used found objects that had already been completed and were there- fore beyond the artist’s control. Such use of indeterminacy produced unique works, because they enabled the artist to get rid of notions such as taste or habit. As Duchamp stated, ‘I had to pick an object without it impressing me and, as far as possible without the least intervention of any idea or suggestion of aesthetic pleasure’ (Durham 2002). Legend has it that Arp discovered the ‘law of chance’ when frustrated at his inability to arrive at a desired form, he tore the paper to pieces and tossed the scraps on the floor. In the chance arrangement that resulted, he recognized the composition he could not achieve through conscious engagement. Arp believed that through chance, the artist could summon providential guidance to his aid. In this exercise he saw an act of self-negation for the artist, and an opportunity to access the subconscious as a source of inspiration. By eliminating the will, or direct intervention, of the artist in the making of the work, Arp sought to elevate chance to a philosophical principle. According to Arp, the most successful artist was attentive to these external influences since ‘chance in the art of our time, is nothing accidental but a gift of the muses’ (Durham 2002). Another, more recent, example of the use of randomness in the crea- tion of art was used by Andy Warhol to produce many of his well-known 23 JVAP 10.1_Diaz_21-33.indd 23 6/20/11 7:55:59 AM Lily Díaz Figure 1: Graphic visualization informs the audience of the variety of performances happening simultaneously across four different floors of the Tate Gallery in London during the Musicircus held in 2006.