Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Electronic Glitch Artwork Made by 'Weirdos Within the Weirdos' (Video)

Roblimo posted about 2 years ago | from the software-that-may-or-may-not-exist dept.

Hardware Hacking 58

Jake Elliott and Jon (not Elwood) Cates are the ones who describe Glitch Art people as 'weirdos within the weirdos' in the context of Notacon 9, which was recently held in Cleveland. It's 'an annual event that focuses on people who like to build, make, break and hack stuff,' and even in the Notacon context the Glitch Artwork crowd stands out. Sit down with Jake and Jon and share their joy in working with "feral glitches... before they are domesticated," and see some of the output from artist Dave Musgrave's circuit-bent consoles.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Crap Video (5, Informative)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#39744727)

I'd much rather see their "art" than listen to them blabber on for 7 minutes.

Re:Crap Video (4, Informative)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about 2 years ago | (#39744769)

I agree can I get my 7 mins back please ...
they could of played more stuff and talked over it if they wanted

Re:Crap Video (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745071)

And you could "of" learned that it's COULD HAVE, not "of". Jesus! I'm tired of seeing that.

Re:Crap Video (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745337)

I agree can I get my 7 mins back please ... they could of played more stuff and talked over it if they wanted

I learned a long time ago: if you see a video on a slashdot story, don't bother watching it. It's always either some amateurish crap, or some marketing brochure, or some dweeb(s) having a circlejerk and telling you how great they are because they got their ugly faces on a Slashdot page. It's never something that a video or presentation is the best way to express. It's always something you'd rather read yourself in 30 seconds. In fact 10 seconds of reading comments will tell you more than 10 minutes watching the idiotic videos.

Anyway, I guess this artsy-fartsy stuff will appeal to the Applequeers and Macfags. I can see them now. They will read this. They will self-identify and they will know I am right. That will make them mad because they think they're so unique, individual, and unpredictable. They will get mad at me for being wrong about that. They will have their revenge the only way they know how: by wasting a mod point on this post.

Dunno which is funnier, an enraged Macfag or a dorky Slashdot editor who has infinite modpoints and thinks everything should always be G-rated or else Mama will come all the way down to her basement and tell him what a naughty boy he's been. One of those giving me a mod-down would really truly hurt my feelings. Here is my sad face :-(. Yup you clicked a button, you sure did show me you did! Man, if only I could guarantee everyone their right to never be offended, spending all day searching for posts with the word "nigger" and for posts that don't fit the groupthink so I can infinitely mod them down to -1 Overrated, clicking those mod buttons all day, man oh man that would be real power, then finally I would be SOMEBODY! That would really show 'em! Right admins?

Re:Crap Video (1)

doesnothingwell (945891) | about 2 years ago | (#39745405)

I actually had this dream recently, it looked like /. all green horizontal bars and buttons. The nightmare was no text content, just "submit your video" buttons. I can't recall every feeling quite so used, true story.

Re:Crap Video (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#39750123)

can I get my 7 mins back please ...

Then hack clocks.

Re:Crap Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39744821)

Or not...

Re:Crap Video (1)

uncanny (954868) | about 2 years ago | (#39744929)

Well in that case the whole video was a waste

Re:Crap Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745127)

I can't even see a video in any of the uninformative links. Looking at the page for the first guy, it just shows a bunch of low resolution pictures of random, uninteresting stuff that he cut and pasted together in MS Paint. This whole thing is fucking stupid and so is the person who posted the "story".

Re:Crap Video (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#39745195)

Well... at least it wasn't an add... but seriously, a story about art and show no art? come on...

Re:Crap Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745381)

The article is crap, too. A story about art with links to people's facebook pages, but no obvious links to the art.

Re:Crap Video (2)

Lashat (1041424) | about 2 years ago | (#39747645)

I am glad I read this post before watching the full clip. Thank you Monkey Bush.

Re:Crap Video (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 2 years ago | (#39748611)

Have to agree. I can see the fun and interest in screwing with stuff for art, so that's all fine. But they *do* talk an incredible amount of bollocks!

Re:Crap Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39750021)

"Ok, but could you stop talking now and play some?" -> Fast forward

"Could you stop talking and actually play something?" -> Fast forward

"Ok, could you please just stop talking and finally play something?" ->Fast forward

"Oh finally they're playing some" ->video ends.


Copyright issues? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 years ago | (#39744745)

I'd hope the companies that own the underlying programs that are the basis for the art see in it in the spirit of "Variations on a theme by "insert famous composer." rather than "Hey, that's a derivative of my product..." Ideally it would be a fair use similar to some sampling.

Re:Copyright issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745455)

Sampling is only considered fair use if it's for educational, critique or parody purposes, otherwise, if you don't have permission and the sample isn't drastically altered to the point that it is unrecognizable, you're violating copyright.

The technical term (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#39744763)

The technical term is " GL-GLITCH [] ".

Crap video quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39744873)

Whats up with the VHS-rip look-alike contest?

Definition of "artist" has changed... (4, Insightful)

zakaryah (1344891) | about 2 years ago | (#39744939)

It now means dabbling in an engineering discipline... poorly. The nouveau team could probably exploit glitches to interesting effect. Although the video does an impressively bad job of conveying what these "artists" do, mostly they are shorting or breaking various connections on video cards to mess up the graphics.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#39745033)

It seems to me that art has gone from creating something beautiful (well, usually beautiful) and letting the work speak for itself to now just making something and then having the artist tell people himself what kind of statement he's trying to make, or why it should be significant. Just like if you have to explain a joke it's probably not funny, if the artist has to explain his work then it's probably not art. People can look at the Pieta, or the Sistene Chapel, or Starry Night and figure out what it is. Much of what is passed off as "art" today requires explanation.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#39745283)

I don't think that figuring out the 'what' is all that interesting. You look at this glitch-"art" and if you know relevant engineering, you'll easily tell what it is. You look at the Pieta and of course you can easily tell what it is as well (a carving of some people, duh). As far as *what* is supposedly said -- now here's where it's hairy, because social context and prior experiences are a big part of getting the message. That's the problem with art: it tells everyone something, but it's hard to know in advance what will it say. Art as a means of communication is simply crap. Not that it's not enjoyable, oftentimes, of course.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#39745387)

The best explanation I ever saw for this is that with the advent of the photograph, art felt threatened. What was the point of spending a month or even a year painting realism if you could just photograph it? I know, it's different for the high end fine arts, but just to want to know what Edgar A. Poe looked like, it used to be a ritual to try to commission a portrait. Now it's just "Click on a phone camera".

So then with one of its original purposes swept away, Art has ever since moved out of Realism and into Interpretation.

The problem of course, is that poorly done modern art is sometimes indistinguishable from the really good stuff - it risks elitist obscurism.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745567)

art felt threatened

But first, art anthropomorphised itself.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745447)

There are still actual artists, but they are a rarity. I suppose that this may be a case of nostalgia, or survival bias, where only the good art of the (slightly) distant past survived, but we must face all the filth-art of the current age.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#39745611)

This isn't anything new unfortunately. Our state art gallery has a "painting" amongst the many wonderful works that is completely black. COMPLETELY BLACK. Apparently according to the really lengthy blurb about the artist who painted it in the 60s he couldn't figure out what to paint so he kept painting and then painting over it, and trying again, and painting over it, and in the end his masterpiece was just painted black to represent his state of mind or some shit like that.

And that's not even taking into account shit like this (shit in the literal sense now):'s_shit []

Art is definitely subjective, and in my subjective opinion 90% of it isn't art.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 years ago | (#39745851)

It seems to me that art has gone from creating something beautiful (well, usually beautiful) and letting the work speak for itself to now just making something and then having the artist tell people himself what kind of statement he's trying to make, or why it should be significant. Just like if you have to explain a joke it's probably not funny, if the artist has to explain his work then it's probably not art. People can look at the Pieta, or the Sistene Chapel, or Starry Night and figure out what it is. Much of what is passed off as "art" today requires explanation.

Actually, much art has both a allegorical and artistic component. You can enjoy a piece by looking at it; but the meaning behind all of it's symbolism may require explanation to understand what the artist is saying. For example, the National Gallery has many pretty pieces of art and you can simply walk around and admire them; but as one docent explained you really need to stop and look at what's in the work, consider the times and what various things meant, to understand a piece. he then went on to explain in great detail all the meaning behind the various things depicted in a particular work. Did it make it less beautiful or art because it required explanation? No; but it added a whole new dimension to the work.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (2)

noelbon70 (880884) | about 2 years ago | (#39746179)

As much as some people like to disagree, beauty is largely objective. This "glitch art" is objectively *not* beautiful. However, some people find the *concept* beautiful. But once you have moved from objective beauty based in traditional, objective artistic craftsmanship to pure concept, the execution of the concept is less relevant than the concept itself.

Think about it. What was more interesting in this article? The idea of "making art from computer glitches" or the actual 7 min video and few seconds of actual glitch art?

Yes, the actual "art" is underwhelming, and you can see by the amount of abstract talking, that it's the idea they are more interested in. This is where concept art just fails. All you must *really* do with concept art is state the idea, and you really can't progress much beyond that.

The trick with concept art is that you *must* explain it to "get" it. But whip out a classical oil painting and everyone around the world gets that it's beautiful, and that the beauty is intrinsic and universal. Modes of objective beauty may alter to one degree or another between cultures, but the modes are still objective. Compare Japanese brush work to Titian or Raphael. They are different kinds of formal beauty, emphasizing a different aesthetic value, but beautiful nonetheless.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39746419)

"Art is anything you can get away with." - Marshall McLuhan, quoted by Andy Warhol.

Everyone who posts comments like yours is showing their need for a Philosophy of Art course. The 30-second version is that you shouldn't set yourself up to determine what is and what is not art.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39746711)

culture is dead

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#39745279)

No, the definition of "artist" has not changed. As has been the case throughout civilized history, people of wildly varying degrees of talent and vision are choosing to call themselves "artist".

Caravaggio was a "circuit bender" when you see the crazy stuff he did to get colors and textures in his paintings. The sublime Mark Rothko was a "circuit bender" when you consider his abstract landscapes and philosophical paintings. But they had the talent and vision to make something transcendental.

Noise Art, Glitch Art, etc are just names to give excuses for artists to throw parties. People like Stan Brakhage were working the same territory fifty years ago, and he ended up influencing generations of filmmakers. So who knows? It's all about what happens when you sit down to watch or listen or think (in the case of conceptual art).

Having said all that, I still would party with these guys. Especially the guy who's trying to explain points...that he um the um visuals.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (1)

zakaryah (1344891) | about 2 years ago | (#39745619)

I agree with your post - I think the relatively minor point I was trying to make was interpreted as a condemnation of any post-Renaissance art, which it was not. My point was that work which is driven by a gimmick is often overtaken by the gimmick. My evidence in this case was that the artists talk much more about "hacking" and "glitches" than showing what they do. Although this could be the fault of the filmmaker, imagine Rothko dwelling on how his collaboration with the books of DJ Nietzsche inspired him to paint squares instead of faces, without any exhibition of his work. The demonstrations by Pollock of his techniques were always focused on the final work. I can imagine how exploiting some unintentional features of commercial products could lead to quite interesting art - some of the Machinima with grenades from the first Halo game could show in most New York galleries. However, from the video, it seems the potential is not quite being reached...

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#39748183)

. However, from the video, it seems the potential is not quite being reached...

Man, that's the truth.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#39745441)

I find the idea interesting, though in actual practice it can be done in more or less interesting ways, like anything. I don't care all that much whether it's "art" or not, but I tend to categorize it like that because it seems to fit more there than as "engineering" per se, since the goal is to produce interesting aesthetic effects or investigate some kind of conceptual idea, rather than to produce practical devices that accomplish some goal.

It's been done for quite a while, in any case. Here's [] a classic piece done by modifying a CRT so that an audio input signal modulates the electron beam. I like that kind of stuff for a mix of engineering/aesthetic reasons, it's a nice way of probing how a device works by modifying / "breaking" it in various ways.

Re:Definition of "artist" has changed... (2)

DiscountBorg(TM) (1262102) | about 2 years ago | (#39746309)

Boring artist statements aside, arts and engineering/sciences have always been fused together. The music we take for granted today (Well Temperment) with different keys and chromaticisms wouldn't have been able to exist without developments of mathematics in the Rennaisance, and likewise the instruments we take for granted today are the results of engineering, metalwork and so forth (the piano would not exist without such developments). Likewise all the electronic music we listen to today is the result of engineers (or maybe I should say Rennaisance men/women/polymaths) messing about with large-scale DIY projects in the 20th century. Think of it like 'general research' in the Sciences. General research is important because that's how new ideas are discovered. You fuck around and play with ideas and eventually something good comes out of it. And there's definitely a dedicated crowd of enthusiasts for this kind of exploration.

The definition has not changed (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 2 years ago | (#39746367)

Art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements.

By a selective recreation art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man's fundamental view of himself and of existence. Out of the countless number of concretes -- of single, disorganized, and (seemingly) contradictory attributes, actions, and entities -- an artist isolates the things which he regards as metaphysically essential and integrates them into a single new concrete that represents an embodied abstraction

-- The Romantic Manifesto []

These artists mess up the graphics to represent their worldview of what is and what should be. It is obvious to everyone that this means they are Linux users.

'weirdos within the weirdos' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745043)

They must be furrys

Video? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39745313)

"You need to have the Adobe Flash Player to view this content."

In that case, forget about it.

Glitch is right (1, Funny)

cruff (171569) | about 2 years ago | (#39745329)

I tried watching the video and Flash crashed. Talk about a real glitch!

Really bad video - content and production value (1)

DJRikki (646184) | about 2 years ago | (#39745431)

I'm not elitest but I really expected more from /. and their videos. I got to about 3 minutes in before actually seeing anything and the stuttering and stammering of the guy with the modded PS1 and PS2 crippled any remaining interest. For a tech site the production of the video was really low too. Up your game folks!

Went to Notacon 9 / PixelJam, had a great time (5, Informative)

infomodity (1368149) | about 2 years ago | (#39745831)

I want to thank Froggy for running Notacon for 9 years. I used to help out with Phreaknic in Nashville and I know a little bit of what it takes to run a con. It's thankless work. This year was my third Notacon, always have a good time. It's a great mix of technology, hacking, and art.

The accompanying PixelJam ran flawlessly and had a lot of great entries in the competitions. Friday night there were great performances. Highlight of Friday was Morgan Higby-Flowers' performance on a circuit bent video mixer. All the audio and video was coming out of one box. He coaxed more sub-bass, fractured noise and glitch visuals out of one piece of antiquated hardware than I've seen other artists get out of racks of expensive modular equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars. More is less.

Good starting points for learning more about Glitch:

Nick Briz's site. He's been at this a while and co-founded the GLI.TC/H festival in Chicago. []

Nick's Glitch Codec Tutorial. Also available as a DVD ISO. []

Evan Meaney teaches at the University of Tennessee, is a founding member of GLI.TC/H, and also works on projects at Oak Ridge National Laboratories supercomputers. []

For all the haters on the thread, I totally understand how this might not be your thing. That's what's great about great art: it is polarizing. Your hate makes me know I'm enjoying something special.

Re:Went to Notacon 9 / PixelJam, had a great time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39746061)

"Your hate makes me know I'm enjoying something special."

Wow. Pathetic AND douchey all in one.

Re:Went to Notacon 9 / PixelJam, had a great time (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#39747145)

Your hate makes me know I'm enjoying something special.

I really hate racism and midget Hitler sex clones, too. Maybe you should check out those scenes (oops, sorry, I meant SC.ENE/s) for some groovy feralized vibitutde.

Re:Went to Notacon 9 / PixelJam, had a great time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39748117)

That sounds like one of New York's hottest clubs from that SNL skit.

Re:Went to Notacon 9 / PixelJam, had a great time (1)

hamsjael (997085) | about 2 years ago | (#39747883)

Forget about the low-brow haters. They will never be able to enjoy something like this. You can have an IQ of 170 and still be a complete idiot about anything outsite your field of expertise.

This is nothing new (but I still like it). (1)

Drew_9999 (750818) | about 2 years ago | (#39746081)

At least, it's not new in the long view of what art is. Art need not be representational of real life, a fact that was explored in great detail after the invention of the camera. The view that art needs to be beautiful is simplistic. Beauty is subjective, and it's entirely possible to make beautiful art out of ugly things and ugly art out of beautiful things. While I agree with another poster who said that art should be able to stand on it's own without explanation, that's just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with making something that's not understandable without explanation. Also, art has a long tradition of people not accepting new forms and media as Real Art. Maybe this form of art is a dead end. Maybe it will lead somewhere interesting. Either way is okay. And it's perfectly acceptable to admit that it's art, and still think that it's crap.

Re:This is nothing new (but I still like it). (1)

DiscountBorg(TM) (1262102) | about 2 years ago | (#39746629)

Exactly. It's long-term thinking for long-term gain as opposed to short-term. You can't get to new and exciting places if you don't experiment and fool around. None of the things we listen to or observe today would exist if not for countless experiments that led nowhere in the short term. Such is the history of art. You can't be afraid of everything that comes with experimentation, and that includes successes and failures, and things that are a mix of both (eg things with redeeming qualities). And of course in the end it's still all subjective.

Everypony toke now! (3, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#39747183)

Is this a 4/20 post? it's a 4/20 post, isn't it?

That's 20/4 for those of you on the metric calendar.

Cardboard Computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39747991)

Unrelated to the noise/glitch stuff explained here, Jake Elliot also makes some really nice conceptual computer games: []

Re:Cardboard Computer (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39800831)

What, am i supposed to run it in WINE?

Transcript (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#39748179)

Title: Glitch Art Made by 'Weirdos Within the Weirdos'
Description: notacon is 'an annual event that focuses on people who like to build, make, break and hack stuff,' and even in the notacon context the Glitch Artwork crowd stands out as slightly odd...

00:00) <TITLE>
The tune from 'Twilight Zone' plays in the background as the video displays the following titles over a garbled video, with the 'notacon 9' logo appearing vertically on the left:
There is nothing wrong with your monitor

Do not attempt to adjust the picture

You're seeing Glitch Art at Notacon 9 in Chicago, where brave hackers and artists explore the OUTER LIMITS of life, art, and technology

In the bottom, having spiraled into view, is the SlashdotTV logo bar reading "Your host: Slashdot Editor Timothy Lord"

00:10) <TITLE>
A view of two men in casual clothing sitting in a conference room appears. The SlashdotTV logo bar identifies them as Jon Cates and Jake Elliott.

00:10) Jake>
We first started interacting with notacon about 5 or 6 years ago.
At that time they had a demo party component that was called Blockparty.
But that doesn't run anymore, so now PixelJam [...]

00:24) <TITLE>
The PixelJam logo fades in partially, then fades out again.

00:24) Jake>
[...] is the demoparty that froggy created that replaced Blockparty after Blockparty kind of came in and brought that component to notacon - which has always been both a hacker conference and a kind of electronic art conference even before the demoparty thing was there.
So that's what made it kind of like a really fertile ground for the kind of stuff that we do, which is, like, weirdo stuff, weird art and experimental music.

00:50) <TITLE>
An insert picture fades of a man standing behind some hardware much like a DJ fades in and out of view. A small title within this picture identifies him as "Paul ``Froggy`` Schneider".

00:50) Jon>
Yeah, and it's.. so Froggy had this concept of expanding the definition of a demo party and making it more inclusive and more expansive.
As part of that, larger project of redefining what a demo party might mean, he asked us to be involved this year, in a more official capacity, to help organize this glitch artwork category - which is a category for, as Jake said, kind of 'weirdos within the weirdos';
Glitch art, bad code, bad bends, circuit breaking instead of circuit bending, all that sort of thing.

01;30) <TITLE>
The video fades out and in fades stylized black/white portrait pictures of Jon.

01:33) <TITLE>
The view changes to that of a young man standing in a room next to some hardware with other people in the background. The SlashdotTV logo bar identifies the young man as "Chicago-based artist David Musgrave".

01:33) David>
I work with hacking electronics - mainly consoles, video game consoles.
I'm here as a part of PixelJam, and I'm showing [...]

01:46) <TITLE>
The camera pans toward the hardware David is talking about.

01:46) David>
[...] some projects that I've worked on with a bent Playstation 1 and a bent Playstation 2 and a bent A5 Panasonic?) video mixer.

01:57) <TITLE>
The view changes back to the initial view of David>

01:47) David>
I'm a glitch artist, I guess.
I have a background in abstract impressionist painting.

02:04) <TITLE>
A graphic fades in partially, showing a 'glitchy' background that cycles through different colors and patterns, and two smaller inset images above each other, the top image depicting a broken document icon reading "GLI.TC/H" and the bottom image showing David and a piece of hardware with some text (illegible) below them.

02:04) David>
This is my kind of response to that history of abstraction.

02:15) <TITLE>
The aforementioned graphic fades out and the camera pans back around to the hardware and a projected video on a screen as David continues.

02:15) David>
I have different points that I have soldered to on the boards inside these machines, and if you turn on these different points then the graphics change quite drastically - you can see..

02:38) <TITLE>
The camera pans and zooms in on the projected video which is full of apparent artifacts before zooming out again.

02:43) David>
So I basically create these as tools to make artworks, to make video artworks, and to perform - I guess - video sets that I collaborate [...]

02:57) <TITLE>
A static image of a desktop fades partially into view with various icons scattered around and the default Windows XP desktop background image turned up side down.

02:57) David>
[...] with other artists and sound people to do live performance.

03:02) <TITLE>
A brief shot of a bit of electronics appears showing a LED-based UV meter before the view changes to that of David performing with his hardware.

03:17) <TITLE>
The view changes back to that of Jon Cates and Jake Elliott.

03:17) Jake and Jon>
Jon> Wild glitches
Jake> Wild glitches *laughs* [...]
Jon> Feral, [...]
Jake> [...] caught in the wild ...
Jon> [...] yeah, feral glitches, caught before they're domesticated.
Jake> *laughs*

03:25) Jon>
We've been organizing these kind of events for about 10 years in Chicago, and like dirty new media, and glitch art, and kinda.. crashes, exploiting computer hardware and software in a digital punk or 'dirty' way.

03:42) Jake>
Yeah it comes from, like.. Jon and I are both really involved in experimental music and noise music, and we run a record label together in Chicago, we run a [...]

03:52) <TITLE>
A screenshot of the Glitch.FM website fades in and disappears out of view.

03:52) Jake>
[...] radio station there, that focus on experimental music and noise music.
We also live and work in this software, in the media, art world but our kind of approach to it is.. yeah, it's really DIY, and noisy ..

04:06) <TITLE>
A glitchy zooming word cloud fades in and out of view.

04:13) Jon>
Adjectives like DIY and DIT and noisy and rough and raw, glitchy, broken.. all of these are ways to complicate people's understanding of technology and a point towards unintended usage - which is what brings us close to hacker communities.

04:30) <TITLE>
A view of a man sitting behind a notebook in a room with a ladder fades partially into view before fading out again.

04:30) Jon>
Jake actually ran a hackerspace kind of community, computing, free/open source software, space in Chicago for a number of years.

04:40) <TITLE>
A fuzzy white dot fading in and out slightly over a black background fades into view. After some time, this fuzzy dot stretches horizontally before shrinking again, then stretches vertically, reminiscent of the intro for The Outer Limits, before the view changes back to that of Jon Cates and Jake Elliott.

04:52) Jake>
Conceptual art can be like a kind of programming of people's minds or something, and that ties closely into a thread of research that Jon's been doing for a long time, about connections between modern software art and early video art and conceptual art in the 70's.

05:09) Timothy>
It sounds like there is as much of an academic factor as there is a sort of like the punk and disruptive aspect of software.

05:17) Jake>
That's a contradiction that Jon embodies - he's a professor of art.. and punk..

05:25) Jon>
Yeah, so it comes out of a very autobiographical place.
But, yeah, we're also interested in language, we're interested in how people talk about things and how talking about topics is a way of structure.. reality.. so Jake, as a computer programmer, Jake is also really interested in how language structures can be poetic, how poetry can be like programming.
So we're often very discursive - we're often, like, talking a lot about.. so yeah, that's what we mean by speculative artware or speculative software, that may or may not exist.

06:00) <TITLE>
The view changes to that of David's video art with people talking in the background, mostly unintelligible;

06:00) Guy>
It's dizzy.

06:22) Guy>
Some bits of it I can recognize.. you know, the game coming through, and some of them.. you know.. I mean, I can't right now.

06:35) <TITLE>
The SlashdotTV logo bar faces into view giving credit:
Camerawork by Timothy Lord
Edited by Robin 'Roblimo' Miller

Notacon is in Cleveland, not Chicago (1)

sinnergy (4787) | about 2 years ago | (#39749405)

Just thought I'd clear that up. No, I'm not bitter, I just want to set the record straight.

- Froggy

yawwwnn%&!%&%&% (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 2 years ago | (#39750609)

Sorry, but this is some of the most boring, least artistically creative "art" requiring the least ingenuity and the least imagination that I've ever come across, ever. I'm not even going to do the "hip" thing and give these "hipsters" the benefit of the doubt that they're trying to be ironic. I just think they're genuinely toast.

having seen the work itself (1)

shmecklen (2622815) | more than 2 years ago | (#39754043)

It's nice to see slashdotters struggle with contemporary art that hits them where they live. Having seen the work being discussed (glaringly absent from the video, I agree), these artists are eroding categories and roles like "artist", "non-artist", "hacker", "tinker", "provocateur", "voodoo witch doctor", "weirdo", etc. One person's "bad engineering" is another's thought-provoking art. . . go figure, personal taste is involved. As for my personal taste, I agree with art historians that the purposes of art change dramatically over time. I agree with John Waters that a major (if not _the_ major) purpose of contemporary art is to provoke. I also agree with infomodity below that the vehemence of many responses here demonstrates the work's effectiveness. It obviously touches a few nerves and threatened some enough to provoke fiery responses, and others enough to leap to its defense. No response at all is the kiss of death for art. Ask Georgia O'Keefe, Frida Kahlo, Artemisia Gentileschi, Judy Chicago, Annie Leibovitz, Kara Walker, etc, etc.

Monetizing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39754173)

Why don't streaming video services hire the IT people supporting ad networks?
I've never missed an ad before the "content", but I've sure missed a lot of videos that wouldn't play after sitting through the ad.
Oh. I've just explained it. The ad makes money, while the "content" costs money. Deliver the ad, skip the content; pure profit.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39758753)


Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?