The most obvious example is Scott's paintings, which utilize the glitches within repeated copies. While the final product is a copy of the random errors generated by the copier, Scott chooses not just which glitches to purse, but how far to "develop" the errors before moving forward with his paintings. This displays a level of aesthetic evaluation for the errors, but also a definite sense of control over the errors. Scott cannot create the error, but he can choose which to pursue, and how far to take it. Henke takes an even more aggressive level of control over the "uncontrollability" of his Granulator. The precision with which he sets the parameters of his "random" tone generators, and the selectiveness of his samples (choosing between a number of different gongs, glasses, microphones, presumably gain levels and all the other variable elements of a recording) I feel almost entirely eliminates any raku-esque element to his work.
If glitch is a real aesthetic, and there is objectively good or bad glitch, then there's a way to create good glitch. If that's the case, renown glitch artists must have some semblance of control over their product or else they're simply bumbling into beautiful noise and distortion. While I completely agree with the idea that the appreciation of glitch is the embracing of beauty in a lack of control, I cannot see the artists who practice glitch as relinquishing that control in their work. By mediating the uncontrol, they control it, and undermine the idea of a raku in creating glitch.
No comments:
Post a Comment