The Value of Glitch Art by Jura McKay

The Value of Glitch Art by Jura McKay A Design Research Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the (Hons.) Bachelor of Design Design & Digital Arts School of Creative Industries Edinburgh Napier University December 2014

"This project is an original piece of work which is made available for photocopying, for interlibrary loan, and for electronic access at the discretion of the Head of School of Arts & Creative Industries.” Jura McKay

19/12/2014 2

Table of Contents List of Illustrations

Introduction

1. Defining Glitch Art

2.1. Interpretations

2.2. Problems with definitions

2.3. Jargon

2. Historical Context

2.1. Chance

2.2. Readymades

2.3. Aesthetics

2.4. Connecting to the past

3. Glitch Theory

4. Present and Future

4.1. Trivialisation and commodification

4.2. Loss of meaning

4.3. Removing labels

5. Primary Research

5.1. Interviews

5.2. Experiment

6. Analysis

6.1. Primary research analysis

6.2. Sociocultural discussion

6.3. Further research Conclusion

Reference List

Appendix

List of Illustrations Figure. 1: JURA MCKAY, Glitch in the Cafe, 2014 [graphic] Figure. 2: IMAN MORADI, Glitch Aesthetics, 2004, p. 11 [WWW] http://www.haraldpeterstrom.com/content/5.pdfs/Iman%20Moradi%20%E2%80%93%20Glitch%2 0Aesthetics.pdf Figure. 3: JURA MCKAY, Diagram of Glitch Art traits, 2014 [graphic] Figure. 4: JURA MCKAY, 2014 [photograph] Figure. 5: CORY ARCHANGEL, Data Diaries, 2003 [image] http://www.coryarcangel.com/thingsimade/2003002datadiaries (11.09.2014) Figure. 6: JURA MCKAY, Screenshot of Glitché app, by Vladimir Shreyder [image] http://glitche.com/ (01.12.2014) Figure. 7: BAS JAN ADER , Fall 2, [WWW] http://thedisorderofthings.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/basjanadere28093fall2.jpg (10.08.2014) Figure. 8: JEFF DONALDSON, GPS Glitch 2008 [WWW] https://www.flickr.com/photos/notendo/6216003061/in/poolglitchsafari Figure. 9: JUAN GRIS, Man in the Cafe 1912 [WWW] http://philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51698.html/ (09.07.2014) Figure. 10: STANLEY DOUGLAS, Corrupted Files [WWW] http://presentationhousegallery.org/exhibition/newworksbystandouglas/ (20.11.2014) Figure. 11. (a .. n): VARIOUS ARTISTS, Man in the Cafe Experiment [WWW] (appendix 1)

Fig. 1: Glitch in the Cafe, Jura McKay 2014 5

Introduction Over the past decade the aesthetics of the glitch have become an art form in itself. What began to some artists and programmers as “a personal matter to break the assured information flows of media” (Menkman, 2011) has now reached mainstream popularity. These artists painstakingly, or effortlessly, attempt to recreate the visual aesthetics of digital error, through changing image data at a binary level or using handy glitch software. The motions and ideologies; what drives these artists to create such works is a little more obscure, while we can draw many parallels between Glitch Art and 20th century artistic styles in their technique and aesthetics, what Glitch Art seems to lack is a sociopolitical motive in its intention. On the surface, it seems to have a more unbiased general aim towards the main goal of corruption, to visually shock and stun a viewer, to prod the capabilities of our technology. As with any other style that gains momentum in the public eye we can also see similarities in the of the saturation of “Glitch Art”. Whether that be Dadaisms transition from AntiArt to Art, or that of Punk and its inevitable deterioration into a massmarketed commodity. But does it, the glitch, hold any intrinsic value above aesthetic trendiness? Can the glitch be imbued with meaning in a sociocultural context or is its traction as a contemporary arts “movement” been stopped dead by the consumption of the glitch as another trendy product? While the glitch shares a large amount of similarities to the avantgarde movements in terms of technique, style, and intention, it lacks a solid place in the current sociopolitical climate. By exploring the relation between the Glitch Artist and the 20th Century Artist we to hope to shed some light on the motives involved in creating this kind of artwork. Some feel we are constantly in the cyclic repetition of perfection, a crystalclear vision of pixel purity where systems work flawlessly, the glitch could be considered an escape from the mundanity of the faultless. “In a sense we are cherishing the little idiosyncrasies that are absent from the soulless machine churned from the production lines.” (Moradi, 2009) We can consider the momentum for the Pure glitch over, where artists worked through either computational serendipity or framing the wild glitch as art. While Glitch Art is being more confined to a simple aesthetic output, there is an urge from some practitioners to explore what potential Glitch Art possesses in terms of cultural and societal impact. Does Glitch Art hold any intrinsic sociocultural value or is it simply another aesthetic trend? 6

Defining Glitch Art

Glitch Art has often evaded categorisation. This section will look at the inception of the term glitch, and how Gitch Artists have appropriated this term to an artistic means. 2.1.

Interpretations

In 2004, Iman Moradi wrote his undergraduate dissertation at The University of Huddersfield, England, the title of this dissertation was “Glitch Aesthetics”. This was one of the initial academic pieces of writing on the subject and provided ignition for the discussion of glitch as a visual practice. Moradi is considered a prominent figure in Glitch Art, having pioneered and curated many early Glitch Art events. In this dissertation he noted that “It is not easy to begin writing an introduction about any area, more so when there isn’t a great deal of writing or criticism on the subject in existence or when the area is so varied in scope that it simply cannot be dealt with effectively in the course of a short study.” (2004) And furthermore that his dissertation aimed to “address this void and its surrounding issues.” (ibid). While Moradi’s issue with the lack of writing on the subject has changed rather dramatically in the last decade, the quintessential question of What is Glitch Art remains open to scrutiny. The term “glitch” was first described by John Glenn, an astronaut, in a 1962 book titled ‘Into Orbit’. It was used to describe a literal unexpected change in electrical current and nowadays has become a common term for any technological malfunction. However, the term “glitch” has taken on a wider moniker than the astronaut first described. For some, such as the astronauts aboard the MercuryAtlas 6, it is an event that is to be avoided at all costs, catastrophic and terrifying. For others, the glitch is a personal, beautiful, fleeting glimpse into the fragility of the machine.

While the of glitch might of been this simple spike in electricity, producing a frightening electric jolt, Kim Cascone realises that “To the modern mind, a glitch is an unwanted artifact, a momentary interruption of expected behaviour produced by a faulty system. In an instant it changes the users relationship with that system. A glitch instills suspicion, indicating the system is unreliable, corrupted, not to be trusted.” (Cascone, 2011) Though the process may be completely technological, it is the artists hand in its creation, by provocation or capturing, that steers the glitch away from a technological fault to a reflective artistic outcome. There is a variety of methods in which Glitch Artists achieve these results, most notably, by “forcing” errors through a machine. While technology views the glitch negatively, the Glitch Artist finds beauty where the engineer finds fault. To many, especially more recent producers of Glitch Art whose works focuses on reappropriating nostalgic, personal films into corrupt digital manifestations “Glitch Art functionality is just a sterile enclosure of creative space and degradation, an agent of renewal.” (McCormack et al, 2011) and currently this is the most popular aesthetic produced by artists. While pioneers of the genre pushed the digital aesthetic into new realms, many current glitch content creators use the glitch aesthetic to appropriate nostalgic imagery into new forms, confirming the idea that “formats never really die they live on as echoes in subsequent media”. (ibid.) “Whatever form that the appropriated glitch once took, be it a printed poster, a video, a painting, we can consider the glitched language is never merely pure affect, because it always retains a residue (however violently glitched) of semiotic meaning and linguistic structure.” (Cloninger et al., 2011) Glitch Art is able to convey a message through its medium. In Fig. 1: “Glitch in the Cafe” at first glance the viewer assumes only a digitally corrupt image, it is only when the viewer is then presented with the original the viewer can begin to pick out small artefacts within the image that retain an original semblance of meaning. While we may understand why certain artists apply the glitch in certain ways: renewal, commentary, to disrupt or shock. Some artists see it necessary formalise what exactly we are dealing with when we speak so vaguely of the glitch for the purpose of research. 8

2.2.

The problem with definitions

Since Glitch Artists began to openly call themselves Glitch Artists, there has been a vocal desire from the community to create labels, descriptions, and tags for what was being created. Moradi sought to categorise the glitch into definable sections, declaring there were two identifiable categories within Glitch Art. “We need to reach a definition that tries to encompass the different works and practices prevalent in the production and presentation of glitch artwork. Therefore, it is important to define two terms that delineate the most popular related approaches.” (2004) Moradi called these approaches the “Pure glitch” and the “Glitchalike” and devised a table in which to convey the two approaches characteristics.

fig. 2: Moradi’s definitions At first, Moradi’s dichotomy seemed reasonable, in 2004, Glitch Art had not yet captured the online world’s attention, nor was it quite as popular a design aesthetic, or fashionable to reblog on social media. Like many, Rosa Menkman, a prolific Glitch Artist and theorist, finds fault with Moradi’s perusal of these definitives. 9

“While Moradi’s scheme can be a useful starting point for consideration, I also see a lot of issues with it. The creation of a binary opposition within glitch art seems not only too simple, but also in conflict with a genre that so often scrutinizes and aims to violate binary oppositions.” (2011) Menkman brings up some interest points that are relevant to the very definition of artistic glitch. For example, can’t a glitch be both Pure and Glitchalike? Can’t we take a Pure glitch, run it through another software to provoke an error, then edit it to our desire in a postproduction suite? Considering the changes in Glitch Art over the past decade, the large array of techniques now used to provoke such aesthetics are widely available. There is a need to readjust such definitions. For the purpose of formalisation, Glitch Art is a genre. The idea of Glitch Art as a genre was put forward by Menkman considering that it is “quite a useful way to comprehend the interinfluencing forms, reflexive materialities and expectations generated around glitch practices”. (ibid) If we are to consider Glitch Art as a genre, in doing that we are making a variety of statements about the nature of Glitch Art, firstly that it is not a singular entity. But a melting pot of ideas and styles that are grouped under one umbrella, with an openly subjective criteria not limited to form, aesthetics, or intention. It often reflects postmodernist values, in that the glitch community commonly refutes absolutes.

Fig. 3: Traits within Glitch Art, Jura McKay 2014 10

This diagram serves to show the interweaving traits each piece of Glitch Art commonly holds. What is important to understand is the traits and process can commute through these boundaries; the intentions of Glitch Art of vary wildly. We will often find that a piece that is commodified has nostalgic value with respect the artist, the reasons for this will be discussed later. Above are not absolute subgenres of Glitch Art, but general traits within the genre of Glitch Art, key terms here are often used to define a specific Glitch piece. The evolving nature of Glitch Art practice does not holds transigence. Menkmans reasoning for calling glitch a genre is not borne out of a personal desire to categorise, but a perceived similarity across the glitch spectrum. She agrees with Rick Altman’s [while paraphrasing Wittgenstein] consideration of the fluid nature of genre. “Don’t say: “There must be something common…” but look and see whether there is anything common to all. In the past, it has simply been taken for granted that genres are broadly shared categories […] When we look more closely at generic communication, however, it is not sharing and understanding that appear, but competing meanings, engineered misunderstanding and a desire for domination rather than communication.” (Altman 1999) 2.3.

Jargon

To give Glitch Art an understandable jargon to a newcomer, here are some examples of that you may see used through musings on the topic of glitch. Whilst we may see crossovers between these categories, generally, glitches can be described with the following terms. 11

Pure glitch

Fig. 4: Photograph of a glitching television by Jura McKay The Pure glitch is as first described by Moradi. (Also commonly called a wild glitch, with people who practice only this medium being called “glitch purists”) It is the completely unforced finding of a visual glitch in a system that has been appropriated and documented by the artist, in this branch, the collector. As described by Donaldson as being “In its pure, wild sense, a glitch is the ghost in the machine, the other side of intention, a form that is hidden until it manifests itself of its own accord. “ (n.d.) 12

Provoked glitch

Fig. 5: ”The old Quicktime file format had a great error checking bug. If you deleted the data fork of a movie file and left the header, Quicktime would play through Random Access Memory and interpret it as a video as defined by the header.” (Arcangel, 2003)

The Provoked glitch is explorationdriven. (Also called postprocedural glitch) It is the result of forcing errors through a system; intentionally breaking the flow of information. This is achieved through a variety of software, and exploits the binary data of an asset to appropriate it in a novel, digital, form that has the markings of the digital format it was appropriated to (for example, a glitched .JPG image will look different from a glitched .PNG image).

Designed glitch

Fig. 6: Screenshot of the Glitché iOS app in action Whilst the Provoked glitch has elements of randomness, the Designed glitch (referred to as some as a fake, simulated, or glitch effect) is premeditated. Able to be skewed and transformed in a Graphical User Interface. The Designed glitch is at the tip of fingers, packaged in a smart phone application or a plugin to a top of the range editing suite, purchasable and commodified. Profitdriven rather than explorationdriven. Aesthetically, it consists mainly of twisted adaptations of nostalgic films, cartoons, and videos. Though is also often seen in the malfunctioning screens aboard spaceships in SciFi Movies. What is certain is that the glitch has evolved from its foremost artistic and almost philosophical state devised by artists in the late 20th century. It has moved into the fetishised popular form that it is ubiquitous on our social media streams that is a prominent graphic design aesthetic. The current intentions of both the Provoked and Designed glitch are purely aesthetic; barraging us with a “fullfrontal retinal assault” (McCormack et al, 2011) of tripped out animated visuals of deforming and reforming figures.

These groupings have been made to give context to the differences in visual evolution of the glitch which will be discussed throughout this dissertation. 3.

Historical Context

When discussing any artistic style, genre, medium, or movement, it is imperative to frame it within the context of what has come before it. Glitch Art can particularly be contextualised through the ideas created in 20th century avantgarde art. These movements include (but are not limited to) Dadaism, Cubism, and Surrealism. These artist movements, as well as being powerful aesthetic movements of the 20th century also came with very strong political and social identities. This chapter will explore the links between Glitch Art and its predecessors in the avantgarde, and aims to shed light on their motives that in turn could be informing the artists of glitch, and give philosophical rationality to their work. 3.1.

Chance

In Glitch Art the use of chance when provoking a glitch is essential to the trial and error creation of an artwork. Where in place of the word chance, a digital artist might call this error (though the two aren’t necessary mutual). A glitch is either a chance encounter, or a chance outcome. In most forms of Glitch Art, chance is essential. A Glitch Artist can either see a glitch and frame it. Or he can poke and prod at the binary data of a media file in the hope that the file when produces a pleasing aesthetic result, or rather, working through computational serendipity. While Glitch Art may be the first truly digital manifestation of chance in art, chance played a large role in the avantgarde movements of the 20th century. “Chance has been used to characterize a very broad spectrum of practices including the readymade, collage, expressionist paintin , performance, participation and more”. (Iverson, 2010) One artist that bares the most striking methodological similarity to creating Glitch Art, though in an analogue form, was the Dutch Conceptualist Bas Jan Ader

Fig. 7: Fall 2 by Bas Jan Ader The way that Ader worked was similar to the process of Glitch Artists, Ader “staged his accident, such as riding a bike into a canal… [which] exposed him not just to chance (and gravity) but to physical harm and even death.” (Iverson, 2010) While Ader understood what he was doing, he hoped to provoke some kind of result, he did not know the true outcome of undertaking such a stunt. Creating Glitch Art undertakes this kind of process. “The artists process is not exacting, but an invitation of chaos: one triggers a glitch; one does not create a glitch.” (Manon & Temkin, 2011) Therefore we can consider such glitch artworks as being the digital counterpart of throwing a computer off a bridge in a bid to create a striking piece of broken beauty. We hope that the object retains some form, we hope that, in some way, it bares semblance to its original intentions, we hope that the result is pleasing. This is the equivalent of the provoked glitch.

To many Glitch Artists, a piece of Glitch Art that doesn’t involve this kind of chance is not truly Glitch Art, but a poor emulation. One Artist who embraces the use of chance in Glitch Art is Kim Cascone, who says that “Rather than use a canned two dimensional idea of what a glitch looks or sounds like, artists should use tools that allow them to invoke glitches by opening the process of discovery to probability without intent. In Other Words, these tools behave like Cage’s IChing or Eno’s Oblique Strategy rather than a deterministic, repeatable effect as crafted by content creators”. (Cascone, 2011) Jon Cage’s IChing and Eno’s Oblique Strategy are both machines thats outcomes are driven entirely by chance operations. 3.2.

Readymades

A relevant comparison of Pure glitches to an analogue counterpart created a century before are Marcel Duchamp’s ‘readymades’. These were simple objects that Duchamp had modified in some way, be that with a signature, by tilting the object, or a verbal phrase scrawled on the side. Which then instantly became Art, or really AntiArt, in Duchamp’s eyes. Duchamp in Hans Richter’s book ‘Dada: Art and AntiArt’ describes the catatonic nature of his readymade designs, saying that the aesthetic “choice was based on a reaction of visual indifference with a total absence of good or bad taste… in fact a complete anesthesia.” (Richter & Britt 1997) Duchamp relinquishes the need for control for the objects he presents, simply framing and presenting. This appropriation of object is mimicked in the Pure glitch.

Fig. 8: “the glitch safari project initiated by antonio roberts and jeff donaldson is a pool of readymade glitched images found in public terminals and on train station monitor.” (Manon, 2011:37) Fig. 8 is part of this glitch safari project, where the artist has captured an image, or video, of a digital asset malfunctioning and appropriated it. There is no control over aesthetic, instead a complete indifference and interest in what is seen before them. In the same way that Robert and Donaldsons readymade glitches belong to them, Duchamp’s readymades belong to him. Even though all the respective artists have done have framed an object or image, given it a platform, and added their mark to it. The simple act of framing something that you have found, an image, an object, makes it art, more interesting, it is your art. 3.3.

Aesthetics

It is relevant to understand that since the inception of writings of Glitch Art parallels have been drawn in aesthetic style. While one may see Glitch Art as new and shocking, the aesthetic traits of the glitch have been evident in many forms, via collage and fragmentation. Moradi first mentions these parallels when comparing the aesthetics of Glitch Art to the aesthetics of Cubism. Using Juan Gris’s Man in the Cafe 1912 as a muse.

Figure. 9: Man in the Cafe 1912 by Juan Gris Moradi likened the aesthetics of Cubism, a century before, as an analogous precursor to the glitch aesthetic. This image will be essential later in this dissertation, and too is the sourced of the image in Fig. 1. Connecting the past What is often proposed is that Glitch Art can be seen a logical progression to the artistic values of the aforementioned movements. In particular Dadaism and its power to react to the normative (which in our day and age could be the seamless design of our technology, and our desire for pure perfection) and its use of chance aesthetics in terms of the Pure and the Provoked glitch. That of the Pure glitch, which bares semblance to Duchamps theory of the readymade. Taking elements from each be that aesthetic or philosophical and applying to the current age. As we integrate ourselves further into technological beings; we become digital. Our communications, thoughts, lives, and therefore our art, has become a digital manifestation of its former analog self. 19

Glitch Theory

In 1999 Ant Scott was the first to use the term “Glitch Art” on his blog. It is important to understand the philosophical reasons, if there any, to the existence of Glitch Art. This chapter will explore relevant texts that situate the glitch in some way as being a meaningful entity in a wider cultural spectrum. Rosa Menkman’s “The Glitch Moment(um)” (2011) is a text that theorises the cultural implications of the glitch, arguing for the glitch as a social force a rather than simply an aesthetic trend. In this text, Menkman presents a comprehensive overview of all things Glitch Art from the technical to the cultural. Menkman presents a Manifesto of Glitch Art which asks artists to consider these implications. Her manifesto is written much like you would expect a manifesto for a 20th century avantgarde movement. She uses strong dialogue where she describes the search for a noiseless channel (one without glitch) as “an illfated dogma”. She places an emphasis on the power of what she calls “glitchspeak” to consider the effect that a glitch can have with the meaning of an object, image or other media. The first time we meet with a glitch Menkman describes that we should have “a feeling of shock, with being lost and in awe. The glitch is a powerful interruption that shifts an object away from its flow and ordinary discourse; towards the ruin of destructed meaning.” (Menkman, 2011). This idea of the glitch is that it can be a social tool to disrupt ordinary flow. While movement such as Dadaism had strong ties with a slew of leftwing ideologies, Glitch Art on the surface to be less of a politically inclined entity. Menkman argues for further practical exploartion into the glitch as this sort of entity, however it is questionable if such has arisen since its writing. Rosa Menkman’s Glitch Manifesto could therefore be considered a plead to artists to stick to the origins of Glitch Art, as an explorative process of wonderment. Not be swayed be the rising nostalgism of the glitch, instead of being a founding piece of Glitch Art ideology. However, this may of been too little too late, for the commodification of the Glitch was under way before its inception, as will be discussed in the next chapter. 20

While Menkman mainly focuses on the glitch as the centre of her theories. David M. Berry approaches the glitch under the umbrella of New Media Aesthetics and describes a “glitch ontology”. Employing the glitch in a wider technological sense. When discussing the New Aesthetic, Berry notes that “it is clear that the overlaps, synergies and connections remain relevant – here we think of open access, piracy, and glitch as some of the possible critical movements that also have a popular following and link to currently existing cultural practices. “ (Berry, 2012) While we may of thought of glitch as a singular entity, Berry makes the case for the connection of glitch to other technological paradigms as being connected in one. When the glitch is paired with entities such as “open access”, “piracy”, in a digital landscape then it can be imbued with cultural meaning. The aforementioned movements often had direct confrontations with their subject matter, and informed conversation, they became cultural forces that still represent ways of thinking in particular times, places, and peoples. The theorists presented here often argue for a global (or at least western) theological ontology not defined by these variables. 21

Present and future

Glitch as an artform is no longer a new phenomenon, this chapter will explore the current ways in which the glitch is employed by content creators, and how we can see a shift from artistic meaning to monetary gain, and the consequences this has on the work of the Glitch Artist and too the future of the genre. 5.1.

Trivialisation and commodification

On the 17th of October, 2014, The Tate released an open call for glitches, asking responders to “Glitch Up” select historic artworks that feature in their museums. (Appendix 4) As of writing, this was a rather defining moment of Glitch Art. As a power in the art world, The Tate had just given its formal recognition to the glitch. In its open call online, it featured pioneering and respected artists working with the Glitch such as Rosa Menkman, Phillip Stearns, Azamat Akhmadbaev, and Antonio Roberts. All considered influential artists in their respective fields.The glitch has finally reached the forefront of the contemporary art world. Or so it seemed on the surface. In the open call, The Tate describes the glitch in trivial words, giving only a short description for this rising artform. What was most surprising is its list of handy tools, Designed glitches, such as click and save apps, and online pixelsorters. As discussed earlier, what these Designed glitch tools represents seemed in direct conflict with the steadfast views of many Glitch Artists including Menkman. Yet her involvement in this open call seemed to suggest otherwise, that she was now endorsing the such methods as legitimate glitch techniques. The glitch was described not as the revealer of technology, but yet another product of the system. There has been some vocal commentary from the Glitch Art community about the perils of this trivialisation of what to some has become a coveted and poignant process of art making. When speaking of a similar Designed glitch application called “GLTCH” Motherboard magazine writer DJ Pangburn is critical of the “instafacation” of the process of Glitch Art. Pangburn goes as far to say that “the app completely undermines the art of the digital (or analog) glitch”. (Pangburn, 2013) Showing a certain contempt that is shared by the artists and theorists of the glitch genre.

Again, this contempt stems from such trivialisation of art. By creating these Designed glitch apps the masses are consuming the glitch as the equivalent of just another instagram filter to be used mindlessly. This in effect is why the propensity of such artists is likely to cause a backlash toward The Tate’s trivial interpretation of the purpose of Glitch Art. A kind of divide is apparent in the vocal sets of artists who proclaim the potential power of the glitch, and the silent designers derailing this idea by packaging the glitch as a simplified medium for monetary gain, projecting glitch as akin to a camera filter on a digital application. To further investigate this idea, the trivialisation of Glitch Art, an email dialogue with Menkman herself was opened to ask, and questioned the seeming disconnect between that of her personal views and The Tate’s interpretation of the glitch. In the email, her views on the conflict between the lack of expounding on the glitch genre offered by The Tate was questioned. And thus what commentary this made about her own, and her peers, significant catalogue of work both visual and written on Glitch Art. If Glitch really was as trivial as The Tate described. In her response, she clarified that she was not involved in the making of the call, and instead was only involved in the sense that she had been asked by The Tate to give a short tenminute talk on Glitch Art. She explained about the call that “I think right now the call involves too much glitch aestheticfocused tools and kind of muffles away the technical and cultural implications and potentials glitch art can have.” (Appendix 3) In her email she did not endorse or denounce the call, but seemed interested in its existence. Menkman’s response is calmer than other artists reaction the commodification of Glitch Art, being interested in seeing what “vernacular implications” (ibid.) it will have on the scene, tools, and language of glitch.

Perhaps Menkman sees the inevitably of the commodification of something that has reached the pinnacle of cool, and is taking its part in the cyclic nature of art & design. As an example, Manon & Temkins short but sweet (or rather, bitter) commentary on the subject compares Punk to Glitch Art “as with the banalisation of punk throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it is distressing to see glitch coopted in popular music, television advertisements, and so on.” (Manon & Temkin 2011) The trajectory of the Punk movement could foreshadow that of the Glitch. Punk, and other underground movements began with hope and ideas, along with very strong aesthetics to boot. While it is impossible to fully sterilise hope and ideas, as they remain as thoughts bubbling under the surface. The aesthetics produced by these ideas are the one thing able to captured and consumed by a market. The glitch in popular media reflects the same principle, and reflects the cyclic nature of art & design in consumerism. While it may be disheartening to some, the commercialisation of such artwork is almost an inevitably, and the topic of discussion is more if Glitch Artists can sustain the sociocultural meaning they try to imbue in their work while facing, and not being drawn into, a commercial onslaught. Loss of meaning The commodification and trivialisation of Glitch Art is something that has been undeniably clear since as early as 2009. Paul B. Davis is a digital artist (amongst other things) who in one morning in March 2009 awoke “... to a flood of emails telling me to look at some video on YouTube. Seconds later saw I Kanye West strutting around in a field of digital glitches that looked exactly like my work. It fucked my show up…the very language I was using to critique pop content from the outside was now itself a mainstream cultural reference.” (Davis, 2009) Davis is an artist known for critical technological projects, and thoroughly a fine artist with a range of projects which all contain poignant critique. For him, such a highprofile media personality to mimic these techniques so effortlessly to sell a commercial project meant a loss of meaning in his own work, so much so that he dropped the project, noting that realised the limitations of such 24

methods as social critiques. That “current artistic methods for grappling with digital culture—hacks, remixes, and “mashups” among them— are illequipped for sustaining serious and selfreflexive critical examination.” (ibid) What this form of Glitch Art (the Designed) lacks is meaning, the common explanation of this is that it does not need meaning. It could be argued that what this shows is a very distinct set of principles set along the line of Glitch. Those with meaning, and those without. Though again, this straying into the complexity of distinction and definition. Especially when splitting something as paradoxical as Glitch Art into a dichotomy. Removing labels In an online article posted by Presentation House Gallery described in detail a series called “Corrupted Files” in which a range of the photographer Stan Douglas’s photographs are displayed as data. This work was recently displayed (November 2014) at Edinburgh’s Fruitmarket Gallery, Scotland.

Fig. 10: Corrupt Files “The saturated colours and tonal range of the original file errors are translated into linear patterns as if garbled by an apparatus. While reduced to patterns of electronic data, the photographs are direct, unaltered reproductions of the data itself. Unrecognizable and abstracted, the images nonetheless remain concrete visual records. These synthetic images capture a sense of a ‘ghost in the machine’ interfering with the digital file.” (n.d.) There is a sense of familiarity here between the abstracted translations of Stan Douglas’s “Corrupt Files” and that of glitch aesthetics. While it would be reasonable to presume this was work made in the vein of being glitched, it is not. There is no mention of “glitch” within this body of work, only that is a digital transcoding of how a computer views Douglas’s photographs.

Usually, when we are met with a glitch in a presented format, it is amongst other selfproclaimed glitched images and videos. A strictly confined niche within the art community. What is further interesting about this particular piece of work is its place amongst other pieces of Douglas’s work which are purely photographs. To see what to many would be Glitch Art, but not labelled as such, may indicate Glitch Art’s future as medium rather than shock tactic. Glitchlike material is often confined to a singular realm of aesthetics, and strictly outwith normative mediums such as photography. Douglas’s work may show the Glitch ‘leaking out’ into the analog world of contemporary art galleries. Displayed alongside traditional artistic pieces without needing to scream or shout, to shock or disrupt, to say this is Glitch Art. There is no attempt to create a shocking stir in the art world. Instead being used as another medium, much like photography, it is interesting to see what we would call Glitch Art blend into such scenes without standing out as an anomaly, perhaps further signifying the normalisation of glitch in the art community. Though this also conversely, emphasises the lack of meaning in the typical glitch piece, that further “glitch” is a tag now of negative associations. That in the future an artist who uses such techniques or employs such aesthetics would prefer not to be associated with such glitch jargon, especially one now associated with the likes of Kanye West, and other huge popular media consumerfocused entities. 27

Primary Research

For my primary research, semistructured interviews and an experiment were the most logical primary research methods into probing the current practitioners of Glitch Art. Enthused by the email response of Rosa Menkman, and the large amount of insight gained from a single email, this was carried on to contact a variety of Glitch Art practitioners to setup dialogues. What did they, the artist as opposed to the theorist thought of the genre. To gain insight into their motives for their own work, to probe them on questions such as if they perceived any historical relation to the work they were doing. Aswell as what they thought of the Glitch genre’s present and future. The selection of experiment as a method comes from the authors singular explorations into creating Glitch Art not being complete enough to form analysis into the importance of method and the effect that the artist has on the outcome of the artefact. For this other artists inputs was indeed. Artists were asked to simply “glitch” this image by any means they saw fit, giving them artistic control over the result of the image. From these images we hope to draw comparisons to the styles in which Glitch Artists operate despite their computational methods. To explore, we can again hark back to the 1912 painting by Juan Gris titled “Man in a Cafe”. As analysed earlier, Curt Cloninger said that glitch no matter what had the potential to retain semiotic meaning and as well as exploring the very foundations of Glitch Art. How far can we glitch something before it loses its semiotic meaning? What new meaning is created by doing this? What does this tell us? 28

6.1.

Interviews

As the production of Glitch Art is a hot topic, interviews seemed the most appropriate research method was to talk with the practitioners working with the genre. This was undertaken by contacting various Glitch Artists to set up semistructured interviews, and collect thoughts from these practitioners via online methods. In conducting these interviews, the author understands himself as an insider of the scene. Six artists in total were contacted in relation to this dissertation, their contact information and site if provided can be found in the appendix. Participants: Guillaume Carre, Christopher Gillespie, Rosa Menkman, Od Nwir, Mark Klink, DC Spensley. (Appendix 2 & 3) As explored in the earlier chapter, the meaning of Glitch Art is a topic that theorists and artists alike have struggled to agree on. With many artists sharing a variety of views, the glitch genre has often evaded categorisation. To many, the process and too the reason for making glitches are personal experience, and a method of selfexpression. Speaking of why he is drawn to the glitch aesthetic artist Carre mentions “I remember as a kid looking for them on my videogames, I was so happy when the screen started to glitch on or this bug on Windows when a window started to leave a trail behind! It was awesome. I guess, in a way, we miss that.” (Carre) Klink also speaks of his own reasons for glitching, however, Klink is more inclined in his work to appropriate classical works, noting that he sees glitch as a way to transform the things we grew up around. A younger artist may be more inclined to appropriate old video games, such as Carre, and the older artist paintings they were once mesmerised by. Noting the reason for this nostalgic subject matter of the typical current glitch “I suspect that they have a complex relation to the technology that was extant when they were children”. (Klink) Again, this shows the glitch a powerful tool of appropriation of old media to new forms.

In terms of historical contextualisation of the glitch most participants saw a progression of techniques employed by artists in the 20th century. One artist, Mark Klink, considers further how these techniques have been revitalised, giving credit to the internet as the stimulus. “With the Internet, this tendency has reached such a level that it has, perhaps, entered a kind of phase shift... growing and transforming in unpredictable and unprecedented ways now that the source material is, effectively, unlimited, and the means to recombine and transform that source material is no longer constrained by the limits of material media and tools.” (Klink) However, the contextualisation of the techniques of Glitch Art were not universally agreed upon by the respondents, Spensley commented upon the drawbacks of such comparisons in academia “The academy ruins everything with overthink. Dada was play. It was flippant and whatever resists academia is fascinating. But it’s not about academia. It’s about having fun, doing and redefining what is interesting.” (Spensley) Many of the respondents were reticent to call the glitch a “movement” nor an entity that held social, political, or cultural value. With Nwir commenting that “Art that is saturated with political content tends to devolve rapidly into mere propaganda, as far as I'm concerned.” Though Gillespie brought up a personal experience of the glitch that to him, held a political value. Saying that his own personal strength of feeling toward the Iranian revolution, in “the glitching of cameras as people were running away from the army etc, its what underlined it [the political value]. It made it real, at least for me.” Again, this was a personal experience of the glitch, and often we have found that the glitch holds a certain emotional value at a personal level, whether that be political, or nostalgic. Gillespie brings up an interesting point in musing what implications the geographical location of the artist bears on the mindset and therefore work of that artist.

Gillespie, an artist from Edinburgh, Scotland, notes that he is “used to being in a city (Edinburgh) that architecture is layered and broken up by newness and oldness. I tend to migrate to that, the restructuring of something inside itself.” The geographical locality of the glitch is something that may beckon further research. We usually consider Glitch Art in a grand, global scale. With the predominance of the internet as the vehicle for the art, our focus has been on this globalised stage. The commodification of Glitch Art was less debatable, as shown the glitch was already a highly commodifiable style. What was more up for discussion was if the glitch could retain any intrinsic value despite being consumed in this way, with Nwir adding that we could see the glitch becoming a valuable digital art style “if it survives being knocked off as a style in fashion,”. Ultimately, the respondents were more inclined to comment that the glitch was an aesthetic trend or a fashionable style. Klink in his ending statement noting that “But glitch, by itself, is just a technique to obtain certain visual effects. I suspect that most "Glitch Art" is, like most "Art”, quite ephemeral. There may be a few artists who will be able to harness those effects to create something that works on a deeper level... but we don't know who yet!” (Klink) This commentary furthers the idea of the need to consider the glitch in a wider platform, linking back to the New Aesthetic and its broader spectrum beyond aesthetic. Glitch, at least as a singular entity, has not been one that has materialised into this deeper level. While it is easy to comment that we simply need more research, the problem is that there is not easily evident artists that are employing the glitch to a greater critical effect. And even if they are, they are being left in the shadows compared to popular Designed glitch aesthetic that is much more likely to catch the public and too the art community (as evident by The Tates trivial interpretations of the glitch). 31

6.2.

Experiment

The processes and techniques associated with creating Glitch Art are ubiquitous, with handy youtube tutorials now a dimeadozen. Allowing anyone with an interest and a degree of computer skill can appropriate their own or found images to a glitched form. This experiment was inspired by own initial experimentations with simple glitch techniques, in which I created “Glitch in the Cafe” (Fig 1.). I was interested to see what outcomes could be created in the capable hands of fellow Glitch Artists with the same source image. The control of this experiment was the image below.

Figure. 9: Man in the Cafe 1912 by Juan Gris Fig. 11,(a … n). in order; left to right in rows.

j. i.

The full range of responses from artists (and their names) can be found on my associated blog http://theglitchdiaries.tumblr.com/

Analysis

This chapter will analyse the primary research firstly as a singular, then the discussion will draw on the dissertation as a whole to make commentary the sociocultural implication of Glitch Art. 7.1.

Primary Research Analysis

The interviews were highly informative regarding the current notions around the present, and future, of the glitch genre. While for most part the interviews served to reinforce the problems with the sociocultural contextualisation of Glitch Art and build on them. What was brought up seeming disconnect between artist and theorist (a strife that has long since existed) and how they interpret meaning with the Glitch genre, with the artist finding a more personal meaning, and the theorist longing for a larger cultural meaning. The relevance of the interviews are selfevident, but also brought up new interesting areas that were not considered, such as the geographical and situational relation to that the artist and the effect that this has on the outcome of their artwork. The experiment aimed to provide further insight into topics instigated in the review of literature. The avant garde movements of the 20th century explored provided stimulus for the aesthetic similarity of cubism suggested by Moradi. Cloninger suggests that the glitch language retains residue of semiotic meaning and linguistic structure. In all examples listing in Fig x. there remains this residue despite some violent glitching, proving Colligner’s idea of semiotic meaning and linguistic structure being appropriated through the glitch. What is interesting is the diverse range of outcomes can be produced by simply asking to glitch an image. The glitch showing its potential as a tool of endless appropriation. The aesthetic similarities of many responses to other artistic movements and styles are highly evident. Such as evidence of pointillism in Figure. 7,k., or the painterly effects of expressionism in Figure. 7,m. However, these connections can be made, and the value found in a piece of artwork varies greatly from person to person. The point being that despite this (the experiment) not necessarily showing the power of the glitch in a sociocultural context, it reinforces the idea of the glitch as at least an aesthetic medium with boundless potential. 37

7.2.

Sociocultural discussion

As suggested by Berry in New Aesthetics, New Anxieties, the art that has evolved from the error must be taken into consideration within a broader spectrum to consider its sociopolitical value. This is why the glitch has little cultural value to a specific ideology, and only makes sense in a wider spectrum of the New Aesthetic. In era of increasing globalisation, and shared platforms for the exchange of information. Glitch Art puts into perspective that a movement of the same status as Dadaism or Surrealism (which were all confined to specific times and their socio, economical, and political regions) will no longer have time to brood in their own specific niches and setting. But rather will be made available to all corners of the globe, with different (more often conflicting) views and ideas, this exposes them to instant critique and alteration that may not necessarily be beneficial to the development of the idea. And the subsequent problem that before the idea even has time to breath, it can be exploited for gain by anyone. That is not to dismiss Glitch Art entirely as an art of social critique. What this will take however, is an artist (or group of artists) rather than theorists to take the reigns of the genre and take it in a new direction. Other artistic genres have been successful of this turnaround. (As a brief example consider Banksy and others took the graffiti genre as acts of vandalism and turned it into a hugely successful alternative social critique). 7.3.

Further Research

To research further, the Glitch has to be considered within a wider societal spectrum. While the techniques of Glitch Art draw many parallels to that of the 20th century avantgarde, such as the use of chance, readymades, and subject matter, this does not necessarily mean that Glitch Art is a direct progression of the former. However, it is certain at least on the surface that practitioners of the artform do see relevant similarities between that of the old and the new, which could beckon further research. However, what kind of form this will take is unknown. Berry suggests the link of “privacy” among other things to the glitch ontology. How this could transpire is less evident and requires research. 38

Conclusion The fact that many pioneering artists are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Glitch Art is worrying for the prospects of the glitch materialising as a cultural, social, or political way to reveal systems or make poignant commentary in a realworld scenario. In her email Rosa Menkman noted that it was her “personal tactic to switch from glitch art to resolutionbased art” (Appendix 3), along with Moradi’s distancing from the glitch to other projects, and too Paul B. Davis’s dismissal of the genre as a social critique do not bode well for the prospect. Potentially signalling that the social critique that the glitch provides has been exhausted. The ideological weight of the 20th century avantgarde was often spurred by rebellion. The glitch instead was borne out of human error and random fault within technology, this fundamental issue may signal that the glitch will always be confined to the retrospective rather than the instigative. While the glitch may bring interesting aesthetic outcomes, its power beyond this could limited by this factor. This could be the ultimate limitation of glitch as an art form What is certain is the glitch’s potential as a powerful tool of appropriation, the ways in which artists can employ the techniques of the glitch to breath new life into old media, or presenting and transcoding data in an exciting and novel way. The beautiful outcome of Douglas’s “Corrupt Files” is a prime example of such. The insight the glitch provides into revealing the workings of a machine through error makes for some interesting commentary, even if its full potential beyond an aesthetic outcome has not yet transpired or can not transpire. Glitch Arts rapid progression from ideology to commodity has stifled its own ability to act within this means with critical effect. Too often the glitch community has focused inward, unless the glitch is to be considered within a wider spectrum outwith itself, its consumption as an aesthetic trend will most likely continue to rise and defeat any ideological intrinsic value the artform holds. 39

Reference List Altman, R. (1999). Film/genre. London: bfi. p9 Berry, D. et al. (2012). New Aesthetic, New Anxieties. Available from (http://v2.nl/files/2012/publishing/newaestheticnewanxietiespdf/view) [7.12.2014] p61 Cascone, K. (2011). Errormancy: Glitch as Divination. Available from (http://theendofbeing.com/2012/04/19/errormancyglitchasdivinationanewessaybykimcascon e/) [1.12.2014] Davis, P. (2009). Define your terms or how kanye west fucked up my show. Available from (http://www.seventeengallery.com/exhibitions/paulbdavisdefineyourtermsorkanyewestfucke dupmyshow/) [15.12.2014] Donaldson, J. (n.d.). Glossing over thoughts on glitch. A poetry of error. Available from (http://artpulsemagazine.com/glossingoverthoughtsonglitchapoetryoferror) [20.11.2014] Douglas, S. (n.d.) Stan Douglas: Synthetic pictures . Available from (http://presentationhousegallery.org/exhibition/newworksbystandouglas/) [02.12.2014] Iversen, M. (2010). Introduction to Chance (Whitechapel: Documents of Contemporary Art), edited by Margaret Iversen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p1227 Manon, H. S., & Temkin, D. (2011). Notes on glitch. World Picture, 6, 118. McCormack, Cloninger, et al. (2011) GLI.TC/H READER[ROR] 20111. Unsorted Books. Menkman, R. (2011). The glitch moment (um). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. p2956 Moradi, I. (2004). Glitch Aesthetics. Undergraduate. University of Huddersfield. p18 Moradi, I. (2009). Glitch: designing imperfection. Mark Batty Publisher.

Nunes, M. (Ed.). (2011). Error: glitch, noise, and jam in new media cultures. Bloomsbury Publishing. Pangburn, D. (2013). The GLITCH app is trivialising the art of digital glitch. Available from (http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/blog/thegltchappistrivializingtheartofdigitalglitch) [01.12.2014] Richter, H., & Britt, D. (1997). Dada: Art and AntiArt (World of Art). New York, NY: Thames and Hudson. 41

Appendix 1. Blog Relating blog titled “the glitch diaries”: http://theglitchdiaries.tumblr.com/ 2. Artist Correspondence (all respondents agreed to publication) Interviews took place between 1st November 2014 and 14th December 2014. GUILLAUME CARRE, guillaumecarre.ang@gmail.com CHRISTOPHER GILLESPIE, cg532@standrews.ac.uk MARK KLINK, markaklink@gmail.com Site: http://www.srcxor.org/ ROSA MENKMAN, rmenkman@gmail.com Site: http://rosamenkman.blogspot.co.uk/ OD NWIR, odniwr@aol.com Site: https://www.facebook.com/pages/OdNiwr/1439036323032992?sk=timeline DC SPENSLEY, dc@spensley.com Site: http://www.dcspensley.com

3. Interview Screenshots

GUILLAUME CARRE

CHRISTOPHER GILLESPIE

MARK KLINK

ROSA MENKMAN

OD NWIR

DC SPENSLEY

4. The Tate