An Existential Analysis of its Products, Processes, and Practitioners

by Dylan

“The glitch is a wonderful experience of an interruption that shifts an object away from its ordinary form and discourse. For a moment I am shocked, lost and in awe, asking myself what this other utterance is, how was it created. Is it perhaps… a glitch? But once I named it, the momentum – the glitch – is no more…”

— Menkman (Art of the Glitch, 2009)

Abstract: This paper is an examination of the art style known as glitch art and questions preconceived notions about glitches and art, and asks if they fit that which defines them. It looks at glitch art created by established professionals and how their thoughts and processes relate to the established definition of glitch art and if the definition should be altered to fit the art style. It also compares the effects of popular culture on glitch art.

Introduction

The analytics of the art world and art itself has always been a grey area. How can one critique something non-objective? When considering new mediums, who is to say who else is an expert? The field of digital art is something relatively new and is one that has many interesting facets and faces. Delving further into one of these sides, the oddly beautiful realm of glitch art is one of these parts of the art world that is difficult to critique. When the purpose of the art form is to destroy something, can one judge its beauty? Does it exist as art at all? To understand these questions, one must look at the roots of the art style. It will be questioned if it can exist as a style at all, given the methods and practices employed are accurate under the term, “glitch.”

Seeking an Understanding

To understand the root causes, underlying structure, or machinations of an issue, theme, or skill set, is to understand it at a deeper level, to lead oneself to a greater proficiency. This is the approach that will be taken moving towards a more thorough understanding of the notion of glitch and glitch art. It is also a means to examine the rationale for desiring a system that can be seen as a destructive one, the reasons for the seeking of chaos, especially when so much of the work that is done by humankind is to bring order to the disordered. Papers are sorted, lists are numbered, and infrastructure is created, all to “correct” this entropy (that seems so grounded in nature). Given these systems, why would this entropy be sought out? What good can come from disorder? This art style that is almost against the nature of human beings will be broken down and examined at its roots and its mysteries revealed.

A glitch could be defined as an undesirable result or outcome; a deviation from an expected conclusion. Is it possible that one might simply tack the idea of “art” on to the end of that definition? An undesirable artistic outcome? This, rather simple, definition leaves a multitude of things susceptible to its grasp. A walk down the street could have a “glitch” when one trips and falls. Certainly, one does not desire to trip and fall when walking anywhere. Perhaps a crack in a glass or a misprint in a paper could be considered a glitch. These things, yet, are different from the glitches that are considered art. A misprinted paper is certainly not art, nor is a broken glass. We might, then, ask ourselves, what is art?

Looking at the vast expanse that is the artistic timeline, we can see an enormous amount of different styles and methods for producing art, and it can be understood that to try and define “art” would be quite a challenging feat. They do, however, have one thing in common: they are all pleasing to look at (or interact with or whatever the intended form of experience may be. Regardless, the idea is that it is enjoyed). Monet’s impressionist paintings are indeed beautiful (beauty is subjective, however, and what one might find beautiful, another might find repulsive. This will be an inherent property of art, at least established for the sake of this writing). Returning then, to the broken glass with this new found knowledge, these bright, open, eyes, we find that this broken glass is not beautiful. It lies on the counter top, in pieces, and does not move us to gaze upon it longingly, only to wish that it was not needed to now be cleaned up.

This “glitch art” then, the child of two definitions that were so unceremoniously glued together (perhaps it is fitting, given the word that is being defined), can be understood, at least, for now. One could be typing a paper when for no reason at all, the computer screen glitches. It is in this moment that an artist is born. This daring soul captures the screen to produce a very strange, yet visually appealing image. The image is shared and enjoyed by many; the origin of the glitch art.

What then, of these imitators, these followers, of this new found style? The perceived beauty of these images that are so wonderfully distorted have a movement behind them. There are those that wish to see more of this. However, the methods that were employed to get these results are actually non-existent. The followers of glitch art’s only way to create more of this art is to go about their daily lives and keep an eye out for an opportune moment when something might break in their favor. Perhaps they use the same software that the originator used. Perhaps they try to replicate the actions of the previous user. They do, but the time it takes for anything to happen is too lengthy for their tastes, so they abuse the software. They feed the program input that any normal user would not dare.

Here, however, we can already see a problem. Returning to our definition of glitch, an undesirable result or outcome, we can see that these new users that are abusing this software for their own gains are no longer adhering to this definition. The results that are produced from their knowledge of this program and the intent to output errors means that what they are producing is no longer glitch art (in the strictest sense). Before we look to questioning what this new art style really is, let us look to a notable “glitch” artist, Rosa Menkman and her take on the style.

An Existential Crisis

Rosa Menkman does in fact, associate the definition in a similar way that has been laid out previously, as she states here: “The glitch has no solid form or state through time; it is often perceived as an unexpected and abnormal mode of operandi, a break from (one of) the many flows (of expectations) within a technological system.” (Menkman, 2009) Though she scopes it to a tighter view of a technological system, it fits the idea, regardless. She also notes that, the concept of these errors is altered when they are realized and made into an idea along with the glitch. The “original experience of a rupture” transcended its own self and moved into a new mode of existence entirely. The glitch has ceased to be, and has “become an ephemeral, personal, experience.” (Menkman, 2009) She speaks to the very idea that has been presented: that the definition and idea of a glitch are no longer that when they are realized. The mere observation or thought of them has changed them forever. An interesting point is made, however, when she touches upon the act of commercialization of glitch art, whether it be in the form of a script or a “glitching software.” She claims that they move away from the process of, what she calls, “creation by destruction” and focus on only the final product. In short, it is about the journey, not the destination, that gives “glitch art” its meaning. “When the glitch becomes domesticated, controlled by a tool, or technology (a human craft) it has lost its enchantment and has become predictable. It is no longer a break from a flow within a technology, or a method to open up the political discourse, but instead a cultivation. For many actors it is no longer a glitch, but a filter that consists of a preset and/or a default: what was once understood as a glitch has now become a new commodity.” (Menkman, 2009) This cultivation that she speaks of is inherent in just about any form of media, from music (a local band rising to international fame) to art (the rise of the popularity of the impressionist art style) to social trends (the explosion of the undead and supernatural creatures “genre”). If there are these communities that exist, producing glitch art as an end, rather than a means, they will be subject to scrutiny next.

Glitch Art in Popular Culture

Rosa Menkman talks about the attempt to define glitch art by media and art historians, giving rise to labels such as “post-digital” and “datamoshing.” She provides, what she believes, to be a solution to this problem, but for now, a gaze will be cast upon that subsection of glitch art called “datamoshing”. Author Shad Gross describes datamoshing as “a technique whereby the compression of digital video is manipulated as a means of creative expression.” Gross, S (2013) His article talks about how digital art (and most all digital media) lacks any form of physical forms but rather, holds within it, a vast number of potential forms. Gross looks to glitch art and datamoshing as a way to reveal these inherent forms of digital media, to focus on the digital aspect of the digital, rather than as a vehicle to a different form entirely. The process of datamoshing involves the editing of frames within the video, more specifically, the frames that relay information about which parts of the screen (pixels) to draw or redraw after something has changed. For many original authors of glitch art and datamoshing, the popular adoption of this style or the adaptation of the style into the mainstream culture, was to lose some of the original luster that it once possessed. Glitching and datamoshing were ways in which people could transform and alter popular culture, but now it has transformed into the ends, rather than the means, that was mentioned earlier.

Reducing glitch art to this minimal effort approach also loses a key aspect of the idea that it takes a skill and knowledge of the hardware or software to intentionally produce these glitches. Experimentation is a key element, as noted by Funda (2013): “[i]n forcing a visual glitch, there is an element of unpredictability that makes experimentation worthwhile and rewarding.” However, the production of scripts and tools to make this kind of art more accessible is what removes the appeal.

Some artists view glitch art as a means of questioning the nature and existence of art itself. Only after hundreds of years of creation of artwork do some people begin to ask, “why?” rather than “how?” One might view this as a driving purpose behind glitch art, to break down the established cultural norms and look at the craft from a new perspective. This style of thinking has been observed by and invited upon by the InterAccess Electronic Media Arts Centre in Toronto. Artists created video games based around the idea of what it means to be and produced some very interesting results. As an example, Terrence (2006) reported this: “… [Ashmore’s] Mario Trilogy places the eponymous plumber underwater, in prison or wandering through an empty landscape, with only the viewer/player to move him around aimlessly until the game clock runs out and he dies.” This kind of work of art certainly leaves the player with a new outlook on life when the game is finished due to its very relatable message of death and the purpose of existence, or well described by Krapp (2013), the contrast between “playing a game and playing with a game.” This mode of thinking can be applied to glitch art, questioning, and perhaps challenging, the very existence of art. With its destructive nature, twisted ideas and indefinable genre-state, it is almost as if glitch art is the death of other art forms.

Redefining Glitch Art

Given these new insights, one can see the beginnings of glitch art, its methods and practices, and its shortcomings. It is justifiable then, to say that the term “glitch art” is incorrect when it is being described. If glitch art is less about the glitch, and more about the experience, more about the path taken and the surroundings enjoyed on that journey than the end result, then it is to be understood that a new definition is in order. The true glitch art will live on as the far most removal of oneself from the desire to create it, though one could question if that is even possible.

Regardless, consider the term modal, which is relating to something’s mode or manner. It will be used as related to a “mode of action” or simply put, its procedure. Looking back again, we remember the description of the artist who followed in the footsteps of the “original glitch artist.” He pushed the limits of the software he was using to create these glitches. It will be termed that this kind of action taken with electronic devices, to produce a desired non-standard result, as abuse. Just as the terms “glitch” and “art” were joined together to create a new meaning, this style of glitch art that desires the malfunctions and errors and actively attempts to produce them, will be termed, “modal abuse.” To put it in a more official format, let us say it this way, modal abuse – the intentional modification or mistreatment of a hardware or software piece to produce an atypical result for the sake of artistic expression.

The newly defined glitch art is, perhaps, a more fitting representation of the values, methods, and ideas that it aims to be. While, however, the views that others (mostly artists) may have on this style may transcend all definitions into a more ideological and emotional realization, to other people, a definition can help create an understanding that is the difference between confusion and clarity. Now, then, begins a new task: to truly remove all elements that could reflect the possibility that any amount of disorder was desired.

References

Funda S. T. (2012). Glint: Audiovisual glitches. Leonardo, 45(3), 296-297. doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00383

Gross, S. (2013). Glitch, please: Datamoshing as a medium-specific application of digital material. 175-184. doi:10.1145/2513506.2513525

Krapp, P., & Ebooks Corporation. (2011). Noise channels: Glitch and error in digital culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Menkmen, R. (2009) Glitch studies manifesto Retrieved from https://rosa-menkman.blogspot.nl/

Terence D. (2006). Controller: Artists crack the game code. Winnipeg: Arts Manitoba Publications Inc.