On the topic of glitch art (response post)
I find the concept of glitch art, in general, to be quite interesting, and the quote used by Nick to describe it really speaks to me. "Glitch art is anytime an artist intentionally leverages this moment that moment, by either recontextualizing or provoking glitches." This really gets into the core of what I feel like glitch art is, It's a creative median that revolves around taking a moment in time, and drastically altering it in a way that (to my knowledge) applications like photoshop cannot accomplish. This, however, does raise an interesting question under copyright law. Is creating glitch art out of an image taken from the internet fair use? Generally speaking, a transformative piece of media usually falls into the fair use category. Things such as parody or criticism of a copyrighted work. So is glitch art transformative? I would say it is. Glitch art takes the original image and (in my interpretation of Nick's quote) attempts to give it a new artistic meaning. I would like to end this post with a question for the reader. Do you believe that glitch art is a form of copyright infringement? Why or why not?
Great question! It's interesting to keep poking at this issue of copyright, as its weakness is revealed so quickly. The most important point that Briz makes, in relation to issues of databending and digital literacy, is that private companies, with their own capital interests, are increasingly the gatekeepers of fair use, simply because their platforms are becoming ubiquitous and essential modes of cultural communication. This monopolizing is, of course, dangerous to free expression, glitch practitioners, and artists in general, are interested in testing the boundaries of these powerful systems. This is why glitch is better thought of as a practice than product; more an action that an art form. So...my answer...hmm...Yes, it's a form of copyright infringement if you ask the party that stands to benefit from suing you, but it's not in the grander scheme of communication history. So...it's not? Copyright is still, and always has been, a wild west of competing world views and interests.
ReplyDelete