Well, you absolutely have control over splatters once you understand the way they happen. A liquid at a given viscosity moving at a given speed will have predictable, but minutely variable, outcomes.

In other words, every raindrop hits in a predictable way, and the only reason you can't predict exactly how the resulting splash will look is a lack of ability to make the same predictions on a molecular level. But, if you could see and hold in the human brain, the outcome is absolutely predictable even at that level; we just can't pull it off without outside assistance.

Look at airbrushing. It's tightly controlled spatter. You're using air to make the drops so small that we can predict and control the outcome so that it can be used to give a range of end products. But if you get in really tight to what's going on, it's high speed splattering.

I would also disagree that a happy accident can't have depth visually. But I think you likely misread how I was emphasizing, so it isn't really useful to say more than that.

However, Judge for yourself if he was bullshiting about his degree of intent in his efforts. It isn't like there aren't other interviews and information about what he did, on both technical and analytical levels. Him saying he has intent doesn't mean he's speaking truth, nor would it being truth change whether or not one agrees with his intent, or how successful one feels he was in achieving it.

But he at least came up with an explanation of intent, and his movements when working are controlled enough to indicate he at least thought he was working with intent, and isn't that the same thing as intent on a practical level?