March 28th, 2011
I recently read an “artist’s” statement in a book that said, without controlling our processes, without making the process consistent and predictable, art is merely serendipitous. It was stated as if being serendipitous was being lucky, a bad thing.
Serendipity was coined by Horace Walpole (1717-97). He said he formed it from the Persian fairy tale "The Three Princes of Serendip," the heroes of which ‘were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of.’ Sagacity is an important part of serendipity and is defined as: acuteness of mental discernment and soundness of judgment. In other words, you may happen upon a thing by accident, but it takes awareness and deduction to know what to do with it.
So yes, it might be serendipitous to find something, but the artist makes the judgment of how that thing will be displayed and viewed. Not by some predictable process, but by feeling what’s inside themselves and allowing the viewer to see what they felt upon the discovery.
To be serendipitous is not a bad thing. Call me crazy, but art is supposed to be serendipitous. That’s part of what makes it art. The artist is looking for something that will touch someone else in some way, not knowing what that something is. It is serendipitous to know that you have found it.
Art should come from the heart and soul of the artist, not some controlled, predictable process. If art is a controlled, predictable process then anyone can create the same thing as easily as the first. If it is controlled and predictable, it is no longer art.