agreed (kind of). cf: http://youtu.be/sZXhhEPuzp8?t=1m48s
but a glitch is not a glitch is not a glitch. all matter qualitatively differs in ways that (can't help but) matter. re: http://www.tacticalgl.it/ches/txt/sabotage.html >> 25. says "Political glitch art doesn't always involve the machine." then 26. says "Political glitch art must always involve the machine." (so yeah, it's one of those irreductive collaborative writing schemes.) But "the machine" does not necessarily = "digital." (I loathe the term "digital.") Nobody said "digital." The machine can = http://youtu.be/8qh6jRzjmcY , which ain't "digital." Best, curt > From: Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> > On 01/02/14 07:18 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote: >> Hmm yes -I'm not convinced ( as I remain unconvinced by so many >> arguments for the qualitative newness of the digital) that the the >> glitch is at all new > > Mutations are genetic glitches, and clinamen is an atomic one. ;-) > > - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
