Now consider digital media. Those artifacts are simultaneously infinitely easier to produce, and infinitely less meaningful.
-
-
Replying to @pookleblinky
Any jackass can now use out-of-the-box software to produce glitches and distortions that once carried subversion and intent. Effortful.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @pookleblinky
An MP3 can be subjected to any possible glitch and distortion that the physics of wave mechanics allows. None of which is subversive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pookleblinky
No glitch or distortion of a jpg or mp3 is a subversive attempt to destroy the structure of the medium.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pookleblinky
"but if you copy a jpg thousands of times you'll get an impressionistic pixel blur Art isn't about resolution, nerd. Go back to video games
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pookleblinky
There is no digital equivalent of a record scratch or pop, a violent paint stroke that bites into the canvas, a time-eaten photograph
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @pookleblinky
You *could* do all of that to a digital artwork. With a press of a button. And in no way compromise the medium itself.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @pookleblinky
All humanly-perceivable imperfections of digital media are by design. None is a piano being shattered with a sledgehammer.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @pookleblinky
You can smash a guitar on stage. You can't smash a codec on stage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pookleblinky
Basically I wonder what it means that we can no longer semiotically destroy our own media through conveying what we create.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@pookleblinky Sounds like you could still fulfill your requirements by physically damaging hardware
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.