..on Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:25:25PM +0100, Rosa Menkman wrote: > Personally I find the discussion 'real' or 'fake' glitch not a very fruitful > discussion. A glitch refers to the moment of not knowing what causes a > technological slip; a glitch is thus often the user not knowing > technologically what is going wrong; he is indeed relying on his own > parameters of knowledge.
By your definition, to bear witness to a glitch requires knowing that a "technological slip" is occuring. If you cannot know that such a slip is happening (for instance, at an audio-visual glitch concert) but are merely told it is, is the glitch any less important? Is it still a glitch? Does it matter if such a 'slip' occurred at all? What's left of the glitch? No, this isn't a forest-through-the-trees argument, rather I believe that there is a politics to the glitch too valuable to defer to presentation alone, one that has helped spawn interest in the phenomenon as a whole. Producing the unexpected is easy. Producing glitches is not. Hence plug-and-play glitch culture, the culture of gl1tch. Cheers, Julian > ▌ > ▌ > ▌ > >> > > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Julian Oliver wrote: > > > Very well put! I find it incredible that the emulation/fetishism of glitch > > is > > still rampant in electronic music and electronic art; glitch-making plugins > > in > > music sequencers, glitchy flash movies, glitch-alike PD and Max MSP > > performances. It really is a great example of Baudrillard's 'Becoming Null' > > in > > the software arts. > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > [email protected] > http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org _______________________________________________ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre
