I am working on a paper about the notion of serendipity and design method. I am reviewing art practices that make use of randomness, such as the work of John Cage. This is my first draft and it changes as I continue the investigation. I hope to have it ready by the spring.
You can read the essay on Non-intentional art practices in design.
t. Lily
This is a very interesting essay draft and I am eager to read the final version. The paper made me think about many things, including serendipity and randomness in relation to materiality and immateriality, observing variation in time versus space, intellectual property rights in the light of John Cage’s view of ownership, the idea of second-order understanding and points of convergence between Cage’s art and the design of digital interactive artifacts.
I wonder, how randomness and indeterminacy manifest themselves in material forms of art, as opposed to immaterial forms of art like music. I think serendipity is a crucial part in the creation process of any kind of art, but I wonder, how randomness shows itself differently in the final representations of material versus immaterial art.
One obvious difference is that in material artworks variation can be observed and comparisons between versions can easily be made. On the other hand, observing variation and making comparisons is also possible with music, only its temporal nature sets challenges for perception. If the musical piece was converted to a spatial representation, like notes, contrasting between versions would be significantly easier. In the paper you present an interesting way of studying variation through ontological definitions.
In John Cage’s work it seems to me that separating between design process and final representation is not easy. It would seem that his pieces are evolving and infinite. However, in my experience, in a typical design case there is a clearer boundary between the creation process and the ready work of art or design – object and outcome. This makes me think, is Cage in fact playing with randomness or is he just blurring the boundary between the development process and completeness of an artwork?
Cage’s idea, that you describe in the essay, that music is rather the listener’s than the composer’s property, raises a question in my mind about ownership. Who actually owns a piece of art and what implications does Cage’s idea have to the management of intellectual property rights.
Further referring to his idea of listener’s active role in experiencing the music, I recall discussions in your lectures about the need for second-order understanding in design. I wonder, should the need for second-order understanding now be bidirectional, should the listener also aim for an understanding of the understanding of the composer? Should the one that takes part in an artistic experience as a member of an audience have an equal responsibility of the creation of the experience?
In the essay you cite Patterson who describes that members of the audience create their own versions of Musicircus and that these versions emerge out of the location and focus of the listener at any given point in time. The idea about the listener actively participating in the creation brings about the question about authorship, who actually is the designer of the piece. I think what Patterson says has relevance not only to composition of contemporary music but also to the design of digital interactive artifacts. I think that Cage’s art can work as inspiration for designers of interactive pieces.
Looking forward to new versions of the essay.
Hi Anna,
One of the reasons why I am working on this piece is because of the trend among certain designers and academics of focusing more on the scientific aspects at the expense of the artistic heritage of the discipline.
I agree with you that there is a lot to be learned from this type of experimentation.
In so far as the use of randomness, this is in fact,one of the central aspects of his work.
Thanks for the comment! Lily