What are some of the key distinctions the author is making about glitch art?
Glitch art has its own wilderness of being unpredictable by the artists. It provides a dialogue between human and the machine and as an art form it’s a collaboration between human and machine.
Are there cultural or technical reasons why you feel giving up control of the final output is important to these artists? And are there reasons you would or would not want to do this in your own work?
I think the last paragraph of the essay explains the first question:
“Both scripts underscore the compulsive rigor of the machine and the alien logic of its process. How visually glitchy the results look depends much on the initial image and is not necessarily important to the piece. However, as new work is built which moves the exploration of the wilderness in the machine or the compulsiveness of human logic into new visual territory, perhaps the glitch itself will become less important as a visual clue that it builds on this history of experiments in human/machine interaction.“
I personally like the idea of having control of my final output, by saying that I meant that if the end result would be unpredictable I’d want to know in which way and to what extend. Because I think happy “accidents” are nice but intention is one of the most important things for me in artmaking. I would giving up some control of the final output but I would at least want to know which part of control I gave.