Re: [microsound] Glitch, "humanness", creativity

[Jeremy Markowitz <jeremymarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

--0-2065397645-1064520410=:74262
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Doesn't "glitch" require technology to malfunction?  As for visual arts I think of Lucas Samaras's manipulated polaroids.  His process was to manually create effects that, to the average consumer, would be considered a "glitch," or "malfunction."  Is there an aesthetic distinction between whether Samaras manipulates the photo, or whether Stephan Betke has a bum pot which creates "malfunction" during normal, intended use?  In the second instance, Betke is using a "defective" piece of technology.  In the first instance, Samaras is electing to "abuse" the print to make "defective" results -- more in line with the Oval process.  In one instance the human causes technology to malfunction, in the other, the human considers the technology malfunctioning on its own to have merit... functionality.
 
Pollack could also be considered a visual "glitch" artist, because he produced work using the tool of a paintbrush in a way antithetical to it's design.
 
However, with the current musical fascination, I see the glitch initially as representing the "moment" when things malfunction, as much as the result. The reverence is of instances when "incongruities" happen in our realities.  With most people tied to technology, representing order, the glitch reminds us that reality does not always happen the way the designers intended, which brings in all sorts of ontological re-callibration... is/are there metadesigner(s)? ...do they glitch?

|------------------------------------------------------------------------| 

   d e l t a d a d a >> the process is the product 

   http://www.deltadada.com/ 

|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--0-2065397645-1064520410=:74262--

------------------------------