Response to Glitch Art
Prior to finding out about the process of glitch art, I assumed it was something that could only be done via extremely deliberate editing (in mimicry).
Seeing it in practice was interesting, and also led me to realize that I had been doing something quite similar for some time. While not nearly as eccentric, or created through audio or text manipulation, I have exploited programs in ways it was not supposed to perform in order to achieve interesting visual effects.
I find it intriguing how the image might be interpreted differently depending on the program, thus changing the image itself. Appreciation aside, I don't find there to be anything inherently profound about glitch art. Though, if someone is capable of finding a means of using it for that purpose, then more power to them (though I would prefer not to attaching meaning or value to art unless it can be put in a context where it is not pretentious).
Nice thoughts here, and interesting that you've been exploring some of these tactics unknowingly! In future written posts, a bit more expansion and details from the content would be helpful. How, for instance, might Briz's comments on copyright apply to your opinions, perhaps about meaning and pretension? I think you're right to be skeptical of ascribing meaning to art products, and I think Briz would agree with you. As such, glitch art is probably more valuable as a practice than product—as a means of production rather than end aesthetic. For us, it's a great avenue towards digital literacy and the inter-platform attitude that we should cultivate as digital producers and consumers.
ReplyDelete