Glitch art is often the product of
accident or experimentation in file corruption and data loss. Because of this popular aesthetic theme’s
connection with the digital age and technology, many designers feel they can
manipulate or cause the work to appear fake through plug-ins and other methods,
but is this staying true to the integrity of the work? Does glitch art need to
remain pure through file corruption to be considered true glitch art?
The answer
to that apparently depends on the artist’s intent behind the work. Jonas Downey mentions how the aesthetic of
glitch art is mainly derived from its concept.
Visually it could be compared to many of the modernist abstract painters
from the schools of De Stijl and some Bauhaus design elements, but conceptually
it represents the hidden code behind digital technology.1 In the
digital age, we don’t normally appreciate all the computer coding and language
behind a digital image or sound. If you
manipulate what is written in the code, you can access the glitches inside a
file and exploit those glitches to either make something visually interesting,
or speak to the how imperfect society’s perfect technology is. We tend to forget that a digitally
manipulated image could be just as impressive as an analog, hand-painted work
of art. That’s why Downey says keeping
true to the data’s integrity is more important than the aesthetic treatments.2
Tony Scott states that the value of
art is in its inherent imperfections. It
is when we can relate to it as imperfect humans that glitch art can begin to affect
us on an emotion level.3 Scott
also states that because the whole practice of glitch art is about exploiting
and showing these imperfections, that faking it through plug-ins doesn’t lend
itself to interesting work or results.
Plug-ins tend to produce predictable results. When you manipulate the code by hand or from
some happy-accident encounter an error in the script, you are making a more
direct connection with the medium behind the message than trying to fake as
design to look aesthetically pleasing.
But glitch art is becoming
increasing more and more fashionable, says Rosa Menkman, and this will lead to
a more commercialized approach for the genre as a whole.4 What is important to practitioners of glitch
art, he states, is to focus on these imperfections and to continue to
experiment and look for new ways to exploit the code and data. When this new medium begins to get
popularized, it is the responsibility of the artists to fight against faking
the look, because keeping true to the integrity of the concept speaks more to
the artistic community than the visual properties of a work.
This new fashionable approach has
already arrived in the last few years.
IDN World as a magazine company did an entire issue with the glitch art
aesthetic. Visually you can see where
some fake glitches on the page are purely design flourishes upon the copy, but
the pictures of actual work done by the artists tend to attract the eye in
more.5 I was quite impressed
by how the artists can still communicate their concepts of the hidden code
behind a picture and they all stated that faking the glitches wasn’t
necessarily a bad thing, but it just wouldn’t create a unique piece of art as
valuable as say, the Mona Lisa.6 So the intent behind what you’re trying
to convey in glitch art, is really the deciding factor in keeping to the true
glitch art form.
1. Jonas Downey.
“Glitch Art,” University of Illinois, accessed November 4, 2012, http://jonasdowney.com/workspace/uploads/writing/glitch-art-jonasdowney.pdf.
11.
2. Ibid.
3. Tony Scott.
“Glitch on Paper,” accessed November 4, 2012. http://www.beflix.com/gop.html.
4. Rosa Menkman, The Glitch Moment(um). (Amsterdam: Institute
of Network Cultures, 2011), 11. http://networkcultures.org/_uploads/NN%234_RosaMenkman.pdf
5. “Glitch – The Art of the Unexpected.” IDN, Volume 18, Number 3. http://idnworld.com/mags/?id=v18n3.
36-39.
6. Scott, ibid.
---Chris Boyle
Interesting article. I can't help but think about Photoshop in the aspects of "plug-ins.'' Can we argue then that if the value of art is in its inherit perfections that all the digital processing we grow through with editing pictures isn't art? Can't a plug in just enhance an art work just like make-up enhances beauty that is naturally giving? The result doesn't have to be predictable, I just think people over dose on the use of plug- in's but then the question becomes how far is to far? Every artist has their own license and reasoning to why they do what they do. Whether it is manipulated or simply a glitch,a rt has no boundaries and no rules so either way it can't be right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteGlitch Art is something most can’t even begin to comprehend. In this article, your groups blog, and from things we’ve been taught in class, it’s becoming much more clear. Like anything in life there’s always a shortcut. Both ways of making a glitch art piece may provide the same results. I believe that even if both final products were identical, they each serve different purposes, and would have totally different meanings.
ReplyDeleteCortney Norton