An Open Letter: Glitch Aesthetics

While I do not think it appropriate to reprint Iman Moradi's lengthy dissertation on "Glitch Aesthetics" on this blog site, I would encourage everyone interested in the perfect defect paradox to follow the link to his site and give it a read. It's fascinating information, and he should be complemented for compiling and organizing a lot of probing data that he personally collected (conversations, blog entries, forum posts, etc.) on a subject that hasn't been formally written about in any comprehensive way.

I offer the following thoughts, now - after reading it in its entirety, and I look forward to a beautiful book on the subject, coming out in the Fall, that he and Ant Scott are co-producing.

My thoughts about Glitch Aesthetics: an open letter to Iman Moradi and Ant Scott

A matter of control...
Everything seems to me to revolve around man's desire to strive for perfection, yet be attracted to/empathic towards defect.

Perhaps a component of what's happening here, a sudden growing interest in all things glitch, is not necessarily just a fetishisation of technology, but rather a fetishisation of glitch itself! Perhaps when glitch is re-purposed into a symbol it can represent not just "a digital art aesthetic or a component of the creative process," but the nature of man and the universe as a whole. It can become a comforting sign reminding us that we (and all that we create) are flawed; that perfection is an abstract concept with no real meaning since it doesn't actually exist anywhere.

Are the differences between "pure glitch" and "glitch alike" just a matter of imposed control? Perhaps there should be sub-categories of 'techno' and 'bio' glitch? In many of my paintings from the Perfect/Defect Suite, and the subsequent P/D2, a portion of the symbols and patterns are re-purposed pure glitch (accidental, coincidental, appropriated, found, real). By being very process driven (a human copying machine) and layering glitched information in such a way that I was not absolutely sure how they would interact with previous (and subsequent) layers, I was providing an opportunity for chance, like Jackson Pollock, to create a "happy accident." Would this single process be described as pure glitch becoming glitch alike (through the act of being translated into a different medium) and then reverting back to purity by virtue of the minimal controls used in moderating how it interacts/communicates with a new environment? And then there's the matter of human interaction (which is less than precise) in rendering these images, adding another layer of (let's call it) bio-glitch.

LEFT: E-Sync, 1999, enamel and varnish on birch plywood, 23" x 18".

My understanding of the process of evolution is that it's 100% tied to glitch, or as it's usually referred to: mutation. Every species will occasionally produce a member with a mutation (glitch/defect/mistake) in its genetic code. If this mutation provides that entity with an ability that enhances its ability to survive and flourish in a competitive, opportunistic world, it's more likely to have offspring that will possess this same mutation, and eventually overcome similar species without the advantage... The defect becomes a perfection! [I now think of the very rare folks who are unfortunately visually perceived to be glitched (Stephen Hawking) yet are able to make huge mental leaps to advance man's perception of his/her universe, and/or have savant abilities (autism) way beyond what 'the norms' can do].

Perhaps, the perception of defect (glitch/mutation/mistake) jumps out at our senses (I'm guessing advertisers know about this hard-wired gut reaction) because of a subconscious filter in our heads (evolution working again) which tells us: There are differences here that you don't understand ... you do not have control of your situation ... PAY ATTENTION!