On 06/03/12 01:29, Antonio Roberts wrote: > I've had a few thoughts on the public's perception of glitch art: > http://www.hellocatfood.com/2012/03/06/can-glitch-art-go-public/ > > tl;dr > > Is glitch art to be confined to galleries/events and appeal only to > those in the know?
Glitch is a strategy for ironising noise into signal. It is similar to the vinyl crackle of Trip Hop and the scratching of Rap. Or to the fetishising of the failings of chemical photography with Lomo or Polaroid cameras. What these all have in common are that they are a way of generationally positioning oneself in relation to media that have been superceded. Which raises the question of why digital media are receiving this treatment in Glitch aesthetics. Have they been superceded? If so how and by what? Or is glitch more like autotune, stretching the natural towards the digital ideal in a broken and therefore made strange and perceptible way? Or is this a form of pastoral, reading the virtues of high art into the failings of low aesthetic technology? Does the reassurance that technology is fallible humanise it, and is this kitsch or false consciousness? I think the key things are that glitch makes the technology visible again and that the human ability to aesthetically evaluate technological failure is an assertion of human value. Glitch may seem harsh, but if it's Punk rather than serialism then there is no reason why it should not see wide adoption. And it's already being used in Calvin Klein TV advertisements... - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
