GIF and response

  While I was not initially impressed with glitch art as a whole usually giving pieces a cursory glance rather than actually appreciating them however I've come to see the art in it where I did not before. I used to view them as just corrupted images but now I see in a few distinct parts, the original image as the canvas, the text software as the brush, and the distortions that come from tampering with the file as the brush strokes some of which can make or break the composition of a piece. I found it interesting how Nick Briz drew a distinction between glitch art generated by a computer program which he claimed not to be glitch art a statement with which I can agree as well as foresee dispute over from glitch art created in the traditional sense which would be a human manipulating an image by using some kind of software to translate it into another medium which gets edited and returned to the image cause some kind of chaotic change. Manipulating an image if done with precision and a firm understanding of how a saved image is coded one could produce glitch art with specific characteristics that an artist might wish to display such as shifting rows of pixels or ordering the picture by pixel color rather than the designated location for each pixel. The copyright issue brought up by Nick Briz is one that I am familiar with, some of my favorite creators have been heavily impacted by the grey area that is a copyright infringement and it is important to at all time be absolutely sure that anything belonging to someone else that you decide to use is being done so under the protection of fair use otherwise anything created can and will be stolen by those who own the work that may have inspired its use in the first place and while some might argue that the creator is the one who stole in the first place I am of the opinion that you do not answer a crime with another crime but I digress.