I got a response from one of the people at the bus tops project that
gave me this reply:

I asked:
were there any comments made by the public re glitch art at Bus Tops?

They responded:
Not that I've been able to see no, but thousands saw it. There is a
real disconnect between on and offline

Not sure if the pun was intentional, but I think it's a fair point.

On 7 March 2012 23:44, Antonio Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Which leaves me to believe
>> that your question is a personal one; how far along the sliding scale do you
>> want or can you take glitch art? And when you finally make it to the public
>> space, will the work, although it originated from glitch, still identify as
>> a work of glitch?
> Very good summary! My worry is that in order to a) make my work more
> accessible b) reach a wider audience and c) not get rejected for so
> many public art projects I have to - and I take no joy in saying this
> - make my work dumber.
>
> A commenter on my blog suggested that if I keep doing this people will
> eventually learn how to "read" glitch art. I can't remember which
> essay I read it in, but someone argued that glitch will always be
> slightly on the outside of art. For me it feels like their's two
> options: Make my work dumber or endure a long hard battle to make the
> public glitch artworks more accepted
>
> On 6 March 2012 16:27, Rosa Menkman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear Antonio and others,
>>
>> I think you ask a very simple question that opens up a box full of very
>> complex problems. To not get stranded, I think its important to stress you
>> are not talking about technological glitches (the scary, unwanted break from
>> a technological flow), but glitch (as) art, which is derived from
>> technologically-based glitch but since then has evolved into a more
>> conceptually based art form and discourse.
>>
>>
>> I would say glitch art is often employed to break the conventions that
>> govern the publics expectations of a technology; it relays the publics
>> perspective on a certain technology and shows what else is possible. In this
>> sense, glitch art can also be described as a political or 'educating' act.
>>
>> But this is not always the case; glitch art is nothing new, it has many
>> histories and genealogies. A lot of forms of glitch have become esthetic
>> styles; Glitch art has grown, maybe paradoxically into a popular discourse,
>> with its own dialectics and conventions. As a style you can find it on MTV
>> (not only in Kanye!), or knitted into your H&M clothes imported straight
>> from the Bangladeshi labour factories.
>>
>> In the past I have tried to described a view of these glitch genealogies,
>> some examples: from compression artifact to filter; from cd crack affect to
>> sound effect; from circuitbend to simulation; from broken, voided technology
>> to commoditized form.
>>
>> Thus glitch art can be defined following its roots in technological, but
>> also in conceptual, political or esthetical grounds. These are by no means
>> closed-off categories, and as much as they spill over into each other, they
>> also leak into ... some kind of glitch nihilism.
>>
>>
>>
>> About public art. Public art is made for a public, so its meant to attract,
>> at least to a certain extent. This means that  there has to be a tradeoff
>> between this glitchy-mess (the scary, uncanny, unwanted technology) and its
>> attract-ability (both physically and mentally). Which leaves me to believe
>> that your question is a personal one; how far along the sliding scale do you
>> want or can you take glitch art? And when you finally make it to the public
>> space, will the work, although it originated from glitch, still identify as
>> a work of glitch? When do you as an artist or as a public find it more
>> interesting to call the work something else?
>>
>> The trade off is between how big of a public you want (or in the case of
>> your denied proposal) can attract and how far, or why, you, as a glitch
>> artist, are willing to slide down the slippery scale.
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, glitch esthetics has already permeated popular culture and is
>> therefor not rare in the public (art) sphere. I am not a purist by any means
>> but my preference in glitch art lies in work that educates, that opens
>> perspectives or technologies and that surprises me.
>>
>> The growing perversion of transgression through glitch in technology, the
>> mystification of the glitch and the glitch esthetics as an "ultimate"
>> accessory of the public sphere has for many reasons not my preference.
>> However, I see them as the other side of the coin and a definite part of
>> (glitch)society - its part of a "modern collective identity" that I want
>> part-take in, to be able to consciously reflect upon. However at this time,
>> it was also one of the reasons for me to decline my invitation to the
>> bus-stops project.
>>
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Rosa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
>>
>>
>> -- .- -.-- / - .... . / -... --- - ... / .-.. --- --- -.- / --- ...- . .-. /
>> ..- ...
>>
>> ЯOSΛ MEИKMΛN▓██▓▒▒▒▒ ▒▒ ▒▒ ░ ░ ░
>>
>> http://rosa-menkman.blogspot.com
>>
>> The Glitch moment/um
>>
>> GLI.TC/H  ▓██▓▒▒▒▒ ▒▒ ▒▒ ░ ░ ░
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +0100
>>> To: [email protected]
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Can glitch art go public?
>>>
>>> I think Bob has a point. It's when technology works we shold
>>> understand it, but when it doesn't work then we don't need to
>>> understand and can ignore it. That it doesn't work is rather the same
>>> as saying that we don't understand it, and that it works is the same
>>> as saying we understand it. Actually, whether something works or
>>> doesn't work is all fine, the problem is when it changes, that
>>> something that worked before stops to work, or something that was
>>> broken suddenly starts to work, boy, that's when we need
>>> understanding! When it comes to glitch the thing seems to be that it
>>> works when it doesn't work - but doesn't that also mean that it
>>> doesn't work when it works? If you make a working thing out of glitch,
>>> I don't know if it still is glitch - maybe it's pseudo-glitch? What is
>>> true glitch then? Like here, a faulty argument for instance, something
>>> that upsets the correct flow of logic or information - 'correct'
>>> meaning expected maybe. Currently we don't understand quantum
>>> mechanics properly, it doesn't mean it's a glitch, it's rather our
>>> understanding that must be considered a glitch - glitch understanding
>>> breaks reality - but is reality really broken?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Bob,
>>> >
>>> > As James points out, all's fine as long as technology works the way
>>> > it's supposed to. Then you don't need to understand how it works.
>>> > Glitch art breaks technology.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:01 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> Haha but you might want to engage when for whatever reason your water
>>> >> supply ceases! We had a power cut yesterday and were reminded just how 
>>> >> much
>>> >> we do that requires electric that we take for granted. Without the 
>>> >> computer
>>> >> the obvious thing to do was to read a book but that's a little difficult 
>>> >> in
>>> >> the dark!
>>> >> James
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
>>> >> Sender: [email protected]
>>> >> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 08:27:03
>>> >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed
>>> >> creativity<[email protected]>
>>> >> Reply-To: bob catchpole <[email protected]>,
>>> >>        NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>> >>        <[email protected]>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Can glitch art go public?
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> >> [email protected]
>>> >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> >> [email protected]
>>> >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > *****************************
>>> > Pall Thayer
>>> > artist
>>> > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>>> > *****************************
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> > [email protected]
>>> > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> --
> ============================
> [email protected]
> http://www.hellocatfood.com
> ============================



-- 
============================
[email protected]
http://www.hellocatfood.com
============================
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Reply via email to