[-empyre-] glitch device

marc garrett marc.garrett at furtherfield.org
Thu Dec 8 22:46:31 EST 2011

Hi Nick & all,

This is a very interesting discussion...

I just wanted to jump in here and explore it from a different angle.

Relating to your comments saying below....

 >I don't think this motivation (and goal) is "elitist", in fact it's
 >intentionally (and carefully) open and inclusive. Within the context
 >of GLI.TC/H, "glitch art" often refers to a community made up of many
 >communities, the art worlds mentioned being one of them, but also
 >academia (similar but different from these art worlds), also "creatives"
 >(in the commercial/design sense), also non-art world (fringe) computer
 >art scenes, also non-professional (amateur/folk) "participatory"
 >communities (which often convene on social-media: facebook, vimeo,
 >flickr) ---- and I don't mean to create distinct categories here,
 >rather propose overlapping/fluid groups.

A little while back when we were involved with a project called 
Node.London in 2006 (the 1st one) (http://www.nodelondon.org/), for 
Networked, Open, Distributed, Events in London, a Season of Media Arts; 
we experienced an important lesson with many others - the difficulties 
between engineers, artists and activists. The activities of NODE.London 
aimed to develop an infrastructure and to take a decentralised approach 
to curating a media arts festival according to the ethos and methods of 
open cultural production, on the understanding that these had always 
been a source of inspiration to media arts practitioners. I can see 
similar fragments emerge on this list as the discussion develops. "The 
cultures are in many ways antagonistic to each other, easily drawn apart 
and scattered by diverse forces. Engineers, artists and activists 
operate in different models of the world, take different approaches to 
life and have different modes of survival available to them. These 
differences impact their free time, values and priorities, which in turn 
give rise to some tensions in how they view each other." 

But, this is not to say it's a negative thing, because I feel that 
interesting works or situations, arrive out of people exploring their 
differences, in whatever context. Yet, at the same time, whether 
something is political, artistic or engineered in a certain way - is 
important (as well as other perspectives) to if we are going through the 
process of discussion, such enquiries can help define or redefine the 
thing(s) we observe and discuss at various levels - function, meaning, 
subtext, context, it all opens up the inner workings beyond a prescribed 
'interface' and the various designated protocols.

One thing I notice with the gl1tch phenomena- is that it seems to share 
properties of, or is dynamically close to an artifact; a mass-produced, 
usually inexpensive (digital) object reflecting contemporary society or 
popular culture. What I mean here, is that its behaviour and function 
works within frameworks of social platforms already existing, 
appropriating popular avenues of networked, creative and cultural 
distrubtion. It exists between geek world and the everyday world. What 
it reflects of the contemporary world is not necessarily subject 
matters, or issues of the day, but rather the mediums of the everyday 
digital networks that most people use on the Internet.

 > This moment(um) becomes an array of impetuses, and this to me is
 >incredibly exciting. Glitch art (again, as [a] communie[s]) is
 >concerned with + has been exploring varies themes: failure,
 >interference/noise, digital punk, digital psychedelia, [retro]
 >nostalgia, entropy, [human/computer] memory,  human+computer interface,
 >hacking/cracking + Intellectual Property, Digital Rights, [planned]
 >obsolescence and/or [anti]upgrade and various other nuances of our
 >digital ecology.

Well, I would say the spirit of punk or cyber punk exists within this as 
you say 'array of impetuses', but not as a means of changing culture in 
the physical sense. This reminds me for some reason of a piece of text 
Arthur & Marilouise Kroker wrote in their (now) classic publication 
'Hacking The Future'. "In technology as in life, every opening is also a 
closing..." Yes, it fucks things up, it pulls apart the efficiency of 
contained and (sometimes bland) environments on the net successfully. 
But, perhaps there are particular questions that are in need of being 
explored in respect of values and social contexts, which are not 
necessarily being asked or critiqued in established art arenas. What are 
the human related intentions behind the actions of the main players of 
the Glitch art movement? What doors or questions, are being opened and 
closed as the 'moment>um' expands into multi-crevasses, and cultural 
dynamics of the day, whether virtual or physical?

There is something which also needs consideration here, such as the 
'feral' nature of Glitch. There could be an argument that, if there is 
too much logic injected into this nuance of nuances, it can become tame. 
Less of a wave of noises and electric stutters/strutting an existential 
digital and nonchalant weave, but an efficient and cynical process of 
self-conscious, processed murmers of art related justification. Is it a 
case of wanting one's cake and eating it? This is the crux, the 
difficult terrain of becoming 'official' - seen and respected by others. 
I think the renegade 'spirit' or element this work offers, is it's real 
essence and most positive ingredient. And, even though having it 
discussed here, is excellent - it does bring it closer to an accepted 
form of creative 'grownup-ness'. Thus its feral nature, its most 
attractrive quality could be sacrificed, closing one door, in order to 
open another...

Wishing all well.



 > First, I want to say thnx to Patrick + all for getting this started, 
it's great to see online critical glitch and/or gl1tch and/or glitch.art 
and/or GLI.TC/H convos formulating so quickly after all the IRL events 
of the last couple months (by which I mean not only GLI.TC/H but also 
Glitch vs Scratch, the FLIP Screening, Algorithmic Unconsciousness, 
Destructional Video at Leeds, d1sc0nN3ct in Egypt [going on now] and all 
etc.evts I'm forgetting), all of which are testament to an exciting 
moment>um (I mean moment>um here, I think, in the same way jonCates did 
when he referenced the international glitchscene)
 > In re:to Andreas, I appreciate that you've introduced politics to the 
conversation but take issue with your framing. I think there is a very 
real/fluid/ongoing glitch && politix thread[s], which we made an effort 
to present at GLI.TC/H in the form of a panel + open discussion. 
Additionally, the political potential of glitch art is (has been) a 
major thread in my own personal work. For me, it is by combining glitch 
w/ art that this potential manifests (not a "deadly grip", but rather 
alimentation). A similar alimentation which is a core motivation behind 
our organizing of GLI.TC/H. I don't think this motivation (and goal) is 
"elitist", in fact it's intentionally (and carefully) open and 
inclusive. Within the context of GLI.TC/H, "glitch art" often refers to 
a community made up of many communities, the art worlds mentioned being 
one of them, but also academia (similar but different from these art 
worlds), also "creatives" (in the commercial/design sense), also non-art 
world (fringe) computer art scenes, also non-professional (amateur/folk) 
"participatory" communities (which often convene on social-media: 
facebook, vimeo, flickr) ---- and I don't mean to create distinct 
categories here, rather propose overlapping/fluid groups.
 > I agree with Rosa, I don't think that the binaries are particularly 
useful (though it was a good starting point for some conversations 7 or 
8 years ago). Additionally, I think the "fetish" perspective is a rash 
over simplification of thousands of works/experiments/endeavors/thoughts 
being produced by hundreds of artists/thinkers/enthusiasts. I think a 
more useful perspective might be the glitch moment(um), by which I mean, 
as Rosa Menkman defines it, "the moment which is experienced as the 
uncanny, threatening loss of control, throwing the spectator into the 
void (of meaning)", the moment which becomes a catalyst, a potential for 
(contemporary) glitch.errs to exploit, often in the interest of, 
"modulate[ing] or productively damage[ing] the norms of techno-culture."
 > This moment(um) becomes an array of impetuses, and this to me is 
incredibly exciting. Glitch art (again, as [a] communie[s]) is concerned 
with + has been exploring varies themes: failure, interference/noise, 
digital punk, digital psychedelia, [retro] nostalgia, entropy, 
[human/computer] memory,  human+computer interface, hacking/cracking + 
Intellectual Property, Digital Rights, [planned] obsolescence and/or 
[anti]upgrade and various other nuances of our digital ecology.
 > I think this could be a fruitful lens. Rather than debating whether 
the glitch is a glitch if we call it a glitch, I'd be interested in 
discussing/dissecting with yawl the avalanche of activity that has 
sprung up over the last year (couple years) around this idea and, as 
Curt suggested, what it's doing to us.
 > -Nick-
 > http://nickbriz.com
 > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:37 AM, IR3ABF <ajaco at xs4all.nl> wrote:
 >>     Andreas Maria Jacobs, i respectfully disagree w/what i read to 
be yr anti-art position in its most generalized application when you 
write w/sweeping confidence that "the art world's - deadly grip" is sum 
how a totalized effect/affect which will steal away possibility + 
"eradicate every possible trace of authenticity, replacing it with its 
commodified merchandazible fetish derivate." mayhaps you are opposed to 
Institutional Art or the institutions of art. or mayhaps the oppressive 
socio-economics of consolidated wealth/power that give rise to 
exclusionary elitisms... but if so, then these are specifics, not 
generalities, related to the unruly category of what constitutes 'art' 
or even "Art". && even if these would be the cases (that those are yr 
oppositions in specific) then those fears/concerns are warranted in our 
current context but not sum how predetermined. even the way 'we' (an 
inclusive term which may not be well-placed here) dfn 'art' +/or "Art" 
is technosocial + culturally contextualized. the dfns change + art 
modified over/through times
 >     @Jon Cates,
 >     Well, with all respect, I am somehow missing a clear standpoint 
in *your* movement in how you posit yourselves in conflicting societal 
 >     I am not discussing the specifics of glitch art 'as is', but 
about the specifics - are there any distinguishable specifics at all or 
are these just pronounced without being established? - of glitch art's 
relation with the established and functioning *art* world in a broader 
sense, i.e. not necessarily correlated or connected with glitch art.
 >     Has art/Art (including glitch art) in *that* art world any 
*meaning* besides its commodifiable fetish as art and if so how then to 
seperate art for the art markets - expressable in wealth accumulation 
for a small exclusive group, from art related with non-commodifiable 
non-fetish meaning and inexpressable in wealth, exclusivety etc etc, 
using alternative value/meaning measuring systems
 >     Without properly formulating an answer or pointing to a direction 
in a problematic field of mutual societal and economical contradictions, 
I see a naive and glitchy international partying bunch of youngsters 
unaware or unwilling to be aware of the dark and gloomy sides of 
existing art hierarchies and I feel offended being confronted by such 
ignorance if this naivety is also publicly stated
 >>     also Andreas Maria Jacobs, im confused/troubled by the positions 
you seem to representing in yr -empyre- email. are you the same artist 
who makes "prints on paper. Signed & numbered, editions of 3" of 
domesticated + aestheticized Glitch Art which is exhibited in galleries 
(i.e. @ GLI.TC/H2010 in Chicago) + sold (or @ least intended to be sold) 
on art markets? this is what you represent about yrself vry clearly on 
yr website:http://nictoglobe.com/new/room/New%20Room/2006/
 >     Yes, indeed I do make prints on paper - althought not 
domesticated or aestheticized - at least when I can afford the material 
costs which are currently by far too expensive to even think about, 
considering the physical dimensions I like my works to be. But in case 
there is interest I am more than willing to produce them in any amount 
or size you want. You can find the specifics at the same website
 >     Andreas Maria Jacobs
 >     "Antartica: empty colorful people making empty colorful products"
 >     http://nictoglobe.com (Art Magzaine, Amsterdam 1986)
 >     http://burgerwaanzin.nl (La Resocialista Internacional)
 >     Sent from my eXtended BodY
 >     _______________________________________________
 >     empyre forum
 >     empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
 >     http://www.subtle.net/empyre
 > _______________________________________________
 > empyre forum
 > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
 > http://www.subtle.net/empyre

More information about the empyre mailing list