From serendipity to bahramdipity

<p><strong>Serendipity</strong>, <strong>bahramdipity - </strong>neither of these terms might be in common use and yet they designate one of the most important and challenging forces in play for all photographers as well as for all creative beings. </p>

<p>Serendipity is the capacity of discovering things in life that we were actually not look for. Something beside the expected. In photography we have seen it in many just in time shots, shots that mostly cannot be closely planned, but happen as a lucky strike. Many innovations and inventions are based on serendipity. The interesting thing is that some people seem to tumble over such events and occasions continuously and others might rarely.<br>

My question is what we, as photographers, can do to maintain and even develop the capacity of serendipity and not fall or stay in the trap of bahramdipity, which is the exactly the opposite ? </p>

<p>A known example of how to potentially destroy serendipity can be found in the "kind" (and sometimes useful) service, search machines on internet provide to us all of targeting our search efforts on the basis of passed activities on the web or the increasing social networks of 'friends" among which many slowly concentrate communication because of commonality of views, politics, experiences etc. The happy event of falling on something new and unexpected is becoming less frequent. </p>

 

<p>Anders, how much, to what degree would you hold photography itself responsible for this dearth of serendipity?</p>

<p>If you imagine serendipity as something one mines or harvests, and one of the best tools for working that mine or field is the camera and you give cameras to 3 billion people, then perhaps its reasonable to expect a diminished supply of that kind of serendipity that is available to said 3 billion cameras? The unexpected turns into the expected unexpected and finally into the expected expected. Serendipity, as it is currently defined, is expected. To get out of that rut, one needs to re-work the definition to be something other than about the expected/unexpected.</p>

<p>Julie, you always manage to choose the most difficult option. "Being something other" does in my mind not help me out, if I walk down a street that I have passed hundreds of times and I only see - what I have seen hundreds of times. I'm still in my shoes ! What I can do is to pass in a another, more unknown street or, of course, travel to a new and unexplored place on earth - or drink a cognac more than usual when I grasp my camera!<br>

Whether the 3 billion and their cameras change anything, I'm not sure. I'm not going to make the effort to look at their trillions of photos, anyway. <br>

Maybe we photographers are member of a specie that still to a certain degree keep serendipity alive, because seeing new subjects, events, lights, colors perspectives - is part of our inherent approach. Howver, also in photography , the unexpected is not always what is "expected" or appreciated even by experts and trained viewers of photography. Their are norms and traditions also in the photographical trade if we are to be taken seriously. The ongoing threads on acceptable degrees of post-processing is an example.</p>

 

<p>Anders, but don't you often get, when you look at really good photographic work, a feeling of "YES!"; a feeling that it's exactly right, that it's something you somehow already knew but didn't know you knew? Which would make it not unexpected at all; just unrecognized until that really good picture showed it to you?</p>

<p>If one is constantly involved in research of unknown/unexplained phenomena or innovation of new applications then serendipity may play a greater role in one's life than if one is involved with well known/well tread subjects or phenomena. The photographer who questions much of what he does, or lurks into unfamilar subject territory, may well experience more serendipitous moments than one who is mainly applying standard methods to oft photographed subjects. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question is what we, as photographers, can do to maintain and even develop the capacity of serendipity and not fall or stay in the trap of bahramdipity, which is the exactly the opposite ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One thing I try to do is be aware of my peripheral vision. Even when my eye is up to the viewfinder, I try to have an awareness of what's going on beyond that. Often something serendipitous is just outside the frame or about to come into it.</p>

<p>Another is that I try to think of what might otherwise be considered distractions as <em>possibilities</em>. Sometimes, things that at first feel like they don't belong can actually add a lot of energy to a photo. It is the out of order that is often serendipitous and often eschewed by the photographer attempting to organize the world inside a frame.</p>

<p>Thirdly, I sometimes try to do something as simple as keeping myself and the camera moving or encouraging my subject to keep moving. Movement causes many accidents.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>You used "discovery" in speaking of serendipity and I think that's a key.</p>

<p><em>"Chance favors the prepared mind."</em> --Pateur</p>

<p>Serendipity can and does add spice even to the most posed and planned shot. It's not about planning or not planning, IMO. It's about a state of openness and discovery, being accutely sensitive regardless of the plan, forethought, or pre-visualization. </p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>Even search engines can yield a lot of serendipity. The reason I love google, etc. is that I so often get sent on tangents and do, in fact, discover useful things I wasn't originally looking for. I find my google experiences full of serendipity, as are many of my Internet research experiences. That's often why they take me ten times longer than they needed to.</p>

<p>Anders, following in the spirit of the photograph lying, which was being discussed recently in Casual Conversations, a photograph can probably be infused with a feeling of serendipity by a keen photographer or by an imaginative viewer even if nothing serendipitous actually took place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One thing I try to do is be aware of my peripheral vision. Even when my eye is up to the viewfinder, I try to have an awareness of what's going on beyond that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try using the rear LCD, it's a whole new way of seeing, especially to your peripheral awareness:)</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The reason I love google, etc. is that I so often get sent on tangents and do, in fact, discover useful things I wasn't originally looking for </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I often do the same search using yahoo and bing as well as google...Try it sometimes:)</p>

<p>Me? I often would take different routes, even to the same destinations and I always carry a digicam with me almost everywhere...My digicam to dslr ratio is maybe 20-1. Furthermore, I try (but not overtly) to befriend folks from various sexuality/ethnicity/culture/age/class...</p>

 

<p>If serendipity means literally discovering by accident, than we can't really "develop" a capacity for it, can we. We can't "cause" accidents to happen in order to exploit them in other words. I agree with Fred's quote from Pasteur: "chance favors the well prepared" which I think is the best we can do. Being well prepared I think comes from experience where we have done things over and over so many times it becomes automatic. </p>

<p>I do think that serendipity is somewhat different from things like "seeing" a nice sunset on a particular location and photographing it. To me that's just having a good eye for things. <br>

I do have an example of a shot that came from serendipity. I had already framed up a shot of my favorite tree roots by the river. The camera was on a tripod and I took a couple of shots. Right at that time my dog, Lily, who often accompanies me on trips to the woods with my camera, happened to walk into the shot after a dip in the river. I automatically took the shot with her in it, and it has become one of my favorite photographs. Its not the kind of thing I would have tried to set up, but when I saw her in the frame I knew right away this was interesting. </p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"chance favors the well prepared"<br>

<br />If serendipity means literally discovering by accident, than we can't really "develop" a capacity for it, can we. We can't "cause" accidents to happen in order to exploit them in other words.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chance also favors those whom take chances. Whether how one defines serendipity (expected, caused, etc...or not), one has a better chance going out with a camera than not... </p>

<p>I think most photographers do what Skinner's pigeons did when they received a set (or later random) interval of reinforcement: Engage in low (or no) brow superstitious behavior over which they later plaster an overlay of reason and logic to make themselves Masters and Commanders of their luck and the bright boys they think themselves to be. Only a tiny handful science anything out, and can only do so by thinking statistically.</p>

<p>Whether chance favors you or not, the key is in recognizing it as an anomaly. Personally, I think the golden ring tweaks our noses on a nearly non-stop basis, but we (myself included) are too blind/deaf/dumb to notice.</p>

"Being something other" does in my mind not help me out, if I walk down a street that I have passed hundreds of times and I only see - what I have seen hundreds of times."

 

Nothing new, different, interesting? Perhaps it is your seeing, not the scene, that does not change.

<p>Serendipity doesn't come to those who wait for it? Routine is not conducive to serendipity? Serendipity is an intimate thing?<br>

At present, 50-60% of all my photography is down to serendipity - I might know where I'm going, but what's going to present itself for my photography is anybody's guess. Having said that the slope of the graph is going down - perhaps I'm just becoming a miserable cynical old sod - been there, seen it, photographed it.</p>

<p>Luis, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you talk about photographers making themselves Masters and Commanders of their luck. It may be something akin to what I'm about to wonder about.</p>

<p>Something I notice is a tendency, not just in photography, to make so-called serendipitous events into more than they are, either by romanticizing them or by spiritualizing them. Events are results of previous events. They are links in a chain. We impose different kinds of specialness on them depending on circumstances. The camera is so well suited for serendipity because cameras (and the photographers who use them and the viewers who view the results) tend to make events in some way special, too, by focusing a certain kind of attention on them.</p>

<p>Attention and focus seem very important to photograph-making and viewing. They also seem to pertain to serendipity. </p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>a feeling that it's exactly right, that it's something you somehow already knew but didn't know you knew? Which would make it not unexpected at all</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie if you don't know you know it seems to me, to be somehow unknown or known, as you wish ! I know the feeling but believe that serendipity goes beyond such "knowledge" unless the event puts knowledge in a context where it gets some kid of meaning - a new quality to the already known (We are almost back with Rumsfeld and his idiosyncratic formulations). </p>

<p><strong>Arthur,</strong> I agree that what we do in daily life, professionally and personally somehow determines what role serendipity / bahramdipity plays - or we end up in life situations that fits our level of both.<br>

I agree with <strong>Fred </strong>that our way of treating seemly peripheral events and elements is important. In fact our capacity of grasping ever wider sources of information provide opportunities also in life (professional and private) - that's why I sort of agree with Pasteur when he says the "Chance favours the prepared mind" - if the "prepared" goes beyond preparing a specific event and points at life experience, competences and knowledge (education and learning in its widest sense).<br>

<strong>Fred</strong> wrote that: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>a photograph can probably be infused with a feeling of serendipity by a keen photographer or by an imaginative viewer even if nothing serendipitous actually took place</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The term "taking place" is too restrictive, in my mind for what is meant when applying the term serendipity. For me the term refers to the discovery of any phenomenon that was not known before and/or searched for (if you can search for something you don't know exists!).<br>

However I agree with Fred that we as photographers can infuse potentially serendipitous elements in photos, or create images that have that potentiality. In fact what I presently do with my (too!) long series of "<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1023217">Carré d'image</a>" are mostly made with such an inspiration. In terms of serendipity photographies they can either be shots of the serendipitous phenomenon itself, or be, as Fred writes, be infused with a feeling of serendipity. At least that is the type of photography that speaks to me and is a primary quality criteria for me.</p>

<p>I'll stop here, but will surely come back !</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Something I notice is a tendency, not just in photography, to make so-called serendipitous events into more than they are, either by romanticizing them or by spiritualizing them. Events are results of previous events. They are links in a chain. We impose different kinds of specialness on them depending on circumstances."</p>

<p>That's very close to what I meant. Basically, people take credit for things to assume or appear to be in control and to believe they can summon the genie when needed.</p>

<p>I think it is important to separate the serendipitous event (for someone) and what is done with it. <br>

It does not help much to announce that events are results of previous events. Falling over series of events, seems to me to be a very extreme example of discovering something in life that is new and not looked for. Mostly we discover phenomena (single events or items) separated from their previous state and from their (original) context. Mostly they would be un-explained, free- flowing phenomena that we never noticed before in general or in that context. <br>

What we then do with it is another story. I don't think people "basically" take credit for things with other objectives then to show something that for them is new (might be common place for others). I don't think neither that people, in general, tend to appear to be in control of anything in the field. I have personally never met a scientist or an artist that believes or try to appear as, they are able to "summon genie" when needed. In extreme cases they might refer to Pasteur to explain their genius luck.</p>

<p><strong>Anders - "</strong>My question is what we, as photographers, can do to maintain and even develop the capacity of serendipity and not fall or stay in the trap of bahramdipity, which is the exactly the opposite ?"</p>

<p>How do you do that, Anders?</p>

<p>So, I'm not sure I'm right about this, but I always took "serendipity" to be more than simply an accident of good fortune. It always seemed to have an extra oomph for me. As if it were not only a fortunate accident but one that was almost tailor-made for your own needs or one that had some sort of internal harmony that made it seem not only good but RIGHT and particularly appropriate for the given situation. In looking up the word, I wasn't finding this special meaning and was about to give up when I found these couple of quotes that sort of capture where I think serendipity can take me beyond just a fortunate accident.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Serendipity is looking in a haystack for a needle and discovering a farmer’s daughter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(To me, it wouldn't be as serendipitous if I had found just any beautiful woman in the haystack. The serendipity comes in because of the connection between farmer's daughter and haystack.)</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Serendipity. Look for something, find something else, and realize that what you’ve found is more suited to your needs than what you thought you were looking for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I go to the market and meet the man of my dreams. That's a happy accident. But I go to the market and run into a guy I knew and was in love with years ago but he was already with someone and there was no chance of us getting together. Now, <em>serendipitously</em>, he just broke up with that other boyfriend last week and now here we are, after all this time, running into each other at just the perfect time.</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p>In any case, what does this difference have to do with photography? </p>

<p>I think we all experience happy accidents that would make a good photo for anyone. As I snap my shutter taking a picture of a beautiful woman on a billboard, that very woman walks in front of the billboard and I catch her and her image together. That's a happy accident. Would be great for anyone with a camera. Serendipity would be Fred catching a naked middle aged man walking casually down the street on a sunny day. For someone else, it would make a cool pic, perhaps, but it wouldn't be as serendipitous as it would be for Fred, whose thing is naked middle-aged men.</p>

<p>As I said, I may be way off in how I'm using serendipity. And maybe there's a different or better word for what I'm talking about. But I always appreciate the idea of internal harmony or a coincidence or accident that somehow has even more special meaning for the one it happens to than it would for someone else.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>With the above in mind, I wanted to take a stab at a further answer to Anders's question:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"</strong>My question is what we, as photographers, can do to maintain and even develop the capacity of serendipity and not fall or stay in the trap of bahramdipity, which is the exactly the opposite ?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One thing is to establish an identity, a voice, something individual that matters to us. Then, serendipitous situations may be fewer and farther between but, when they occur, they will be more unique to us and they will add power to our voice. They will seem like they were meant to be FOR US and for OUR WORK, not just for any photographer or any photo.</p>

<p>Another thing is to remain clued into layers of meaning and action as well as the multi-layered visual relationships that abound. The more connections and interconnections you are able to see and understand, the more likely a puzzle piece that fits really well will "accidentally" come into your field of view.</p>

<p>This is something I've been considering for quite some time, though not with the same verbage.<br>

My most successful shots have been those those that for some reason or another have induced that almost instantaneous feeling of excitement and an immediate "knowing" that this is a scene to be captured and I must shoot quickly before that feeling passes. On another site, I was asked once to consider why I took the photograph in question. I've thought about that many times, and I still can't give an answer. It is often only in the editing process that I can really begin to consider these things. (And then, I still can't always articulate an answer).<br>

Oftentimes, when I set out with the intention of shooting or plan a portrait session, it seems that everything I've ever known or learned about the craft of photography simply flies out of my brain, leaving me with only the possibility of a "happy accident". I say this with a sincere sense confession/chagrin as I have always believed that it is very important to master the craft of photography; most days in spite of years of interest, classes, and informal study, I feel incredibly lacking in that area. The idea that "chance favors the prepared mind" brings hope that all the work will come to play in my subconscious when opportunities present.<br>

That said, I don't think that "bahramdipity" is necessarily a bad thing: the repetition can be viewed as preparation to capture the serendipitous moments when they arise.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think that "bahramdipity" is necessarily a bad thing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amy, great point. I agree and I don't even think bharamdipity is good just because it can be viewed as preparation to capture serendipity. I think it can be good in and of itself. Intentional repetition can be very enlightening and visually interesting. An incisive LACK of accident, a well-ordered palette can certainly provide artistic and photographic dynamics of significance.</p>

<p>That it is good to be on the lookout and to appreciate serendipity doesn't make its opposite less fulfilling, appealing, or interesting. There's something actually quite wonderful about the sun coming up every single day.</p>

<p>Anders, you say, "Mostly they would be un-explained, free- flowing phenomena that we never noticed before in general or in that context."</p>

<p>I'm going to leave "un-explained" [agree to disagree] and now argue against "free-flowing." I think what you're talking about is *not* free-flowing. It's a rupture.</p>

<p>If one's typical experience is Fred's links and chains, or the habitual homeostatic feedback loops of daily bodily existence, it seems to me that what you're interested in is where that chain breaks; exactly where/when there chain fails.</p>

<p>Shocks, swerves, where the needle on the record-player skips out of its rut and lands in some other tune. Where you are infiltrated or infiltrate; where the alien leaks in or leaks out and there is that sudden shocked/delighted realization that things are not as you thought they were/are.</p>

<p>Julie, you and Anders seem to be saying the same thing. You're using rupture precisely the way he's using free-flowing. In other words, in your example of the needle of the record-player skipping (we must be old, aren't we!), Anders's "free-flowing" applies because it's not the routinely or dependently-flowing needle going from rut to rut, one rut leading to the next. It's "free" of that dependent, repetitive flow. So he would call it free-flowing and you would call it rupture. But you both seem to get it. </p>

<p>A point I and Luis might make is that your realization could as easily be that things are exactly as you thought they were. We sort of drift into expecting that the music will continue as the record plays and that one note will follow the next. When the record skips, our expectations are dashed . . . but things are still very much as we think they are. The record skipped because there was a scratch in one of the ruts or because a piece of dust got on the needle or the record. Once we realize that, we realize that, in fact, things are just as they should be. A scratch or a piece of dust should cause the skip and that's what did cause the skip.</p>

<p>The way one defines 'serendipity' ends up affecting the answer. I went back to the beginning. After looking at definitions for a while, this seems as good as any: "The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident". In the original fairy tale from which the word is derived, more is involved: "...<em>they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of...."</em></p>

<p>That injects sagacity into the equation: " acuteness of mental discernment and soundness of judgment." </p>

<p>There we have something concrete that might be needed: Mental acuity and soundness of judgment.</p>

<p>Bahramdipity in the original story is "... the <em>suppression</em> of serendipitous discoveries or research results by powerful individuals."</p>

<p>"Zemblanity" is the opposite of serendipity. "The unfortunate accident made to happen by design"</p>

<p>The word 'synergy' is mentioned more than a few times in this, so an input of energy (as in the expedition of the princes in the original story from which the word is derived) seems required.</p>

<p>Since serendipity only occurs for things that weren't being sought, the shorter that list is, the more likely it might be to happen.</p>

<p>[i still think we're dealing largely with superstitious behavior here]</p>

<p>A great example of apparent serendipity in photography was Talbot's disvovery of gallic acid as a fixer. His dog, who had a charming name I forget, jumped on his desk as bad dogs do, and knocked over a few bottles, and some of the fluids spilled onto prints, and Talbot later realized some were fixed. He experimented, and the result was the fixer. But....he was desperately <em>seeking </em>a fixer, so I doubt this would be genuine serendipity. More like looking for the farmer's daughter and discovering her on the other side of the haystack.</p>

<p> </p>