Follow Michael Betancourt on Twitter Facebook Fan Page

Movies by Michael Betancourt

Instagram


   About
   Aesthetics
   Art
   Avant-GardeMovies
   Betancourt
   CinemaNews
   CultureCrit
   Digital Capitalism
   Glitch & Postdigital
   How-To
   Motion Graphics
   My Movies
   Shows
   Theory
   Visual Music
   Watch Movies

 exhibitions [pdf]
 updates
 books

 
 
iPhone
 



   avant-garde movies, motion graphics, and theory


Glitches in Art

story © Michael Betancourt | published January 20, 2013 | permalink | TwitThis Digg Facebook StumbleUpon  |  



Glitch & Postdigital

This is an excerpt from a new article (slated for publication in Hz no 19) on the use of glitches in art, and how that use related to a critically engaged media practice:

The term glitch art is an attempt to distinguish between the specific use of glitches in an artwork as opposed to those happening spontaneously in non-art contexts/works: it is also a term that describes a particular media practice identified as being critically engaged. However, the distinction between an unpremeditated technical failure, unstable and transitory, and the use of audio-or-visual artifacts that coincide with these incidental errors, stable and repeatably a part of a finished work may be difficult to identify when encountered in a work since they can (and in artistic practice often are) indistinguishable; the ontological origins of any particular glitch are not necessary apparent in the form of the glitch itself. Various writers on glitch art have proposed terms to identify this ontological distinction between a transitory technical failure (always called glitch) and other variants that are then given a different designation, but which may have the same formglitch-alike (Morandi), domesticated glitch (Menkman). These distinctions are problematic in art, as theorist Curt Cloninger has observed: The term glitch art might apply to all domesticated glitches and all wild glitches that have been captured and recontextualized as art. The might opens the potential scope of glitch art beyond simply those glitches captured in a recording to include wild glitches orchestrated to occur on demand within a specific performace. Digital technology itself, based in sampling, enables the apparently perfect reproduction that is the hypothetical norm which allows the identification of the glitch. What is produced by the immaterial processing of digital technology is an always perfect new example of the work in question, made specifically for the moment of encounter; it is an original. This human-readable form is a pure product of the digitized samples (data) transformed by the decoding protocol. Glitch art is a reflection of how artists have engaged with this underlying structure by looking for, producing or exploiting the errors emergent in any complex system.

All glitches are a product of the autonomous digital creation (semiotic production) of a given work whose physical characteristics lead to an identification of it as being glitched by the interpreting, human audience encountering it; the glitch only exists because a human interpreter has identified it as a deviation (error) from the established, anticipated norm. This contextuality renders the ontological distinction moot: discussions attempting to theorize glitch phenomena reveal that the ontological destinction is problematic for both glitch and glitch art precisely to the extent that there is an ambivalence in the use of glitches within/as art. Rosa Menkmans Vernacular of File Formats (and its accompanying exhibitions) dramatizes this ambivalence directly. While there is a tendency to identify and discuss only those glitches placed within particular works and exhibited in an art context, at the same time there is a purely formal element to these glitched works. Menkmans work is typical, developing and elaborating upon particular technical means in achieving the glitch through a careful study and examination of transitory technical failures which are then formally documented as an essential element to the work/presentation.

The seeming paradox of an induced glitch (i.e. a desired glitch whose production was the focus of the technique employed) as technical failure is a different issue than the formal presentation of these failures, whatever their origins. This issue confronts all glitch art, whether the glitches being seen are part of the work, a novel result of some kind of transient technical failure, or a mixture of the two (there is no reason a recorded glitch cannot also be subject to glitches arising from an independent technical malfunction). Thus employing an ontological distinction between these variants of glitches in/on glitch-based work poses specific problems: how is one to distinguish between a technical failure that produced a glitch, a recorded version of that same glitch (visual/audible), and a machine designed to produce that same glitch, live on demand, as part of a unique performance when all three variants have the same semiotic function within a given work? When the glitch assumes the same form and plays the same role in the work, any distinction between them depends on information that is absent from the work. For the interpreting audience, this distinction makes no difference to the form of the glitch or its meaning.






 
 

 
  • more from Glitch & Postdigital

  • print

  •