theme 2: Artifacts –> Luncheon on the Grass, inheritance / gender, sex, others

 

Home Forums glitchxxx cultures theme 2: Artifacts –> Luncheon on the Grass, inheritance / gender, sex, others

This topic contains 45 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  glennmarcus 3 months ago.

Viewing 46 posts - 1 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #150

    theme 2: Artifacts –> Luncheon on the Grass and inheritance / gender, sex, and others –> considers gender, sex, and others represented in glitch visual cultures. Image repository and guests/participants from culture theory circles forthcoming.

    #209
    atrowbri
    atrowbri
    Moderator
    #212

    BC
    Participant
    #213

    BC
    Participant

    Some questions I am interested in thinking through are:

    What do these practices do?
    Do glitch practices interrupt mainstream porn images or reproduce them (and is it a problem if they do the latter?)
    Would/ does glitchporn by women and/or feminists and/or from queer/non-heteronorm perspectives look substantially different from glitchporn by straight men?
    What is the potential in the collision between glitch and porn?
    If critical of porn, is this potential embedded in a kind of “faith in exposure” (Eve Sedgwick)? This seems to be the perspective that is articulated by Erica Lapadat Janzen in her work Glimbo and was a perspective articulated at last year’s gli.tc/h by Marta Blicharz in the context of representing women in fashion photography.

    [Eve Sedgwick on faith in exposure: "...trust in exposure seemingly depends, in addition, on an infinite reservoir of naivete in those who make up the audience for these un­veilings. What is the basis for assuming that it will surprise or disturb, nevermind motivate, anyone to learn that a given social manifestation is artificial, self-contradictory, imitative, phantasrnatic, or even violent?" -- Paranoid Reading or Reparative Reading, or Your So Paranoid You Probably Think This Essay is About You, in Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity.]

     

    #216

    BC
    Participant
    #227
    curt
    curt
    Moderator

    Hi Beth.

    The Eve Sedgwick quotation above reminds me of Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of Others. To simply visually re-present a reprehensible phenomenon (photos of war violence, for example) is not enought in itself to force an ethical aversion to that phenomenon. Things get particularly problematic when the phenomenon one wants to critique is pornography, a practice inherently defined by exposure. How does one critically expose the exploitative act of exposure? Perhaps via erasure? >>

    cf:
    charles’ cohen’s Buff: http://eu.lumas.com/artist/charles_cohen/
    marc garrett’s No Flesh Guaranteed: http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/noflesh/

     

    perhaps via remix to the point of structural degradation (amulet of dissipation)? >>

    cf:
    my ongoing remixing of Petra Cortright’s always already spectacularized/mediated body:

    http://playdamage.org/67.html

    http://playdamage.org/77.html

    http://playdamage.org/89.html

    http://playdamage.org/90.html

    (Of course, all three examples above are of male artists modulating mediated women. Hmm.)

    #231
    jenninat0r
    jenninat0r
    Participant

    Hey Curt,

    First all I had a lot of fun browsing your site.

    I would agree erasure and/or disruption/refusal to represent is a great tactic for commentary and resistance to the conventional representations of female sexuality.

    I for some reason always think Oliver Laric’s Versions 2010 voiceover can be applied to porn. “Degradiation followed display…The image was treated like the lowliest of objects…”

    (god yes how many of you are eye-rolling because I am mentioning that work again, because it is that brilliant although I suppose Jill Godmillow’s Harun Farocki remake is a firm precedent…what.ever.)

    I want to argue that “exposure” or I guess you mean the capturing and representation of explicit sexual behavior  is not necessarily exploitative, but moreso the context, angles, and point of views it offers and reproduces. (i.e. Cropped bodies, genital-centric shots, ejaculatory cliches, unrealistically willing female subject etc.) However

    Andrea Coates argues perhaps there needs to be more mainstream porn made from love-based relationships, or  I think there should be more point-of-view videos shot from women’s perspectives of the male and female body. I’d be a bit uncomfortable with the removal of sexual representation in terms of female representation–would seem to reinforce dichotomies that women can only be seen as sexual or not seen at all. (and I know you didn’t mean that in your post, I’m just speaking for art production in general). Knowing these gendered representations are never neutral means we need to invent some way to violate those conventions without removal and invisibility…

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by jenninat0r jenninat0r.
    #234
    curt
    curt
    Moderator

    Jennifer, what you are saying makes sense. It makes me think of Ranciere vs. Debord. Since at least Debord’s Society of the Spectacle (and probably before), people have suspected the image (any image at all) of bearing the cloaked and evil spectacle! Ranciere seeks to overcome this inherited suspicion of the image. His move (in The Emaincipated Spectator) is similar to his move in The Ignorant Schoolmaster. In the latter, Ranciere disses the kind of teacher who comes in and knows everything and seeks to enlighten the student. Before this kind of teacher can “raise” the student up, the student must first be taught… “you are not as knowledgable as your teacher” (a put down right off the bat). Ranciere instead prefers the emancipatory teacher who helps the student teach herself, since “all intelligences are equal.”

    He applies the same idea to the emaincpated spectator. Rather than “spectator” being a pejorative term implying inactivity and duped-ness, Ranciere reframes “spectator” as a way for the artist to honor the other. Simply allowing someone to self-interact with your image is more emancipatory than forcing them to fear and suspect the ways in which they are being duped by your image (and far more emancipatory than forcing them to experience your “interactive” performance art — the horror!)

    So maybe all that is obliquely relevant.

    (By way of disclaimer, I am fairly dubious of porn’s detoxability. By the time you reclaim/detox it, then by definition, it’s probably not “porn.” But maybe that’s just semantics or ontology.)

    #254

    BC
    Participant

    The reference to faith in exposure is not a reference to porn as exposure/ the capturing of explicit sexual behavior. It’s more of an attack on the idea that if glitch porn (or glitching fashion images) IS being positioned as critical of porn by virtue of it’s ability to corrupt and thus reveal something about the image, then its not necessarily working. Sedgwick’s question is to ask: “what does knowledge do?” So, as if most of us weren’t aware that some representations of women reinforce misogyny (though I think we are aware of that) the follow up is, what does our newfound knowledge of said misogyny do. It’s actually a lot more anti-debord and pro-ranciere in that respect (though blegh ranciere). It’s a criticism of deconstuctive (Sedgwick calls them “paranoid”) practices of reading (and I think we can apply it to “making” too). It’s not a critique that calls for supplanting the “paranoid” with a new model of making/reading either. Rather, it’s about saying, we can do other things. In reference to glitchporn, I agree with much of what Jennifer says. The issue isn’t porn per se or glitchporn per se, rather it’s the use of mainstream hetero porn, the way it’s taken out of context (perhaps) and the ostensible laziness of “some” of the practices. Note that this conversation can be just as much about generating an “alternative” archive of women-made/feminist/queer practices of pornglitches as it can be about criticizing what’s out there. But as for a critique of what’s out there, let me turn to a quote from Jesse Darling to make this point:

    “I’m like, what’s the fucking point in it? Doesn’t extrapolate on the cyborg aspect of porn (desiring machines/ surgically restructured fuckbots) in any interesting way. Is there something of the superiority complex in glitching porn girls – distancing yourself from the consumer, who gazes desirously through the pixels to the wet holes beneath, as well as the actors in the clips, who are like other code, subject to deconstruction and reconstruction at your hand (what could possibly be more misogynistic)? All art nerds have a messiah complex: there’s something weirdly fascist-futurist in it somehow. I prefer lovecamp; at least it’s erotic.”

    #264
    curt
    curt
    Moderator

    Along the lines of Darling’s quote, I’ll port Theo Darst’s post yesterday from facebook:

     

    “its crazy that ppl are getting shine doing some basic textedit glitches of sexy chicks. idgi. didnt we move past this… i saw that tumblr a few months ago and it’s just so fucking wack. who spends so much time on that shit. masking a love of porn with some blah blah “deconstructing the image” is cowardly and hurts the glitch community a lot more then it helps by reaffirming the whole “BROS DOING SHIT WITH LAPTOPS” tenfold.”

     

    I think lazy process (“basic textedit glitches”) is intrinsically related to a lazy conceptual/critical approach. I’m still “punk” enough (and Derridean enough) to believe that there must be an ingenious, generative way to detourn media — probably along more rigorous contours (conceptual and formal) of the media itself. But simply databending a porn jpg and claiming criticality ain’t it.

    #292

    jeffkolar
    Participant

    http://i.imgur.com/Haign.png
    Queer Technologies, ENgendering Gender Changers

    #324
    rosa_menkman
    rosa_menkman
    Key Master

    I posted this in the apple and openness thread by maybe this is more suitable here.

    ///Some recent gender related works unveil the deeper issues at stake within a glitch community (or at least some issues that I see):

    GLIMBO

    Erica Lapadat-Janzen for GalleryOnline until December 21 2012 (perfect timing). From the facebook invite:

    The internet is made of women. Media of women is used for selling commercial products, entertainment, masturbation, etc. Female beauty and sexual attractiveness are on the forefront of technological progress. Online debates are waged over who the most perfect female is, what size her breasts are, what colour of hair is more attractive. The lines between Realdolls and women that look like dolls are blurred in the online space. These images are often maticulously groomed in photoshop; editing illusions used to exagerate the current trends in fantasy.

    To glitch is to interup. To glitch is to deconstruct.

    In the series GLIMBO (Glitch + Bimbo), the perfect images are damaged. They are aware of their digital status and the glitch is intentional. The gaze is disrupted and shuffled. The images now serve a different purpose.

    http://www.EricaLapadat-Janzen.com

    The statement: “The internet is made of women” is interesting. Unfortunately, Lapadat-Janzen omits (as so many do) the actual (historical) role female workers have played during the development of what we now know an information society (just href: the programming of ENIAC was done by women). In her short introduction, Lapadat-janzen minimizes the role of women to merely fetishized objects.
    If i understand her work correctly, the exhibition is a critique on the production and objectification / gaze laid upon female imagery. She states that she deconstructs the construct captured within these images; through disruption, the images now have “another purpose”. I am not sure what this ‘other purpose’ is – its really a shame there is not more of a statement carrying this exhibit, but I still feel inclined to play the role of an so called “algorithmic thought police” (to quote Marius Watz).
    Lapadat-Janzen does state that the glitches are intentional. Seeing that all the images are glitched following a jpg compression, I feel compelled to read into this. A jpg compression is a preset 6 step lossy compression algorithm; one of the most widely used compressions. This algorithm  does not only re-order the amount of information via very specific rules, it also cuts out specific (‘less important’) parts of information (which is actually visualized very well in a couple of her images).

    TEDx

    As a glitch artist, I am aware that no compression algorithm is neutral. These algorithms are tools that leave a certain footprint; much like  Marius Watz described, they are computational cliches.
    As an artist ‘you can play with them, but you cannot be naive about them’, if you are not creative around these given presets, these images are not a whole lot more than a found form, without credible authorship. So while the images made by Lapadat-Janzen are at first sight maybe seductive, at this point they do not contain or call for any deep critical engagement -they are in fact commercial, prefab imagery broken by proprietary presets. And because of this, they do not speak to my imagination – they seem instantly knowable and familiar. Similar to many other projects I have seen over the last years (I heard Nick call it a “Porn Tumblr Renaissance” and that made me smile 2345, ___ –)
    I am not saying that there is not a whole lot of potential here and in the area of female gaze-fetishization vs. glitch art; I just wanted to point at what I think is a problem; using a certain cliche to point at another cliche..
    #329
    theodore
    theodore
    Participant

    hi all. im a wordpress member now.

    “So while the images made by Lapadat-Janzen are at first sight maybe seductive, at this point they do not contain or call for any deep critical engagement -they are in fact commercial, prefab imagery broken by proprietary presets.”

    I think Rosa basically said what I meant to say in a more eloquent way and with a lot less cuss words.

    the whole idea of glitch porn/compression porn whatever it is as possible medium for artistic exploration needs to just be thrown out. glitch porn and that ridiculous tumblr(s) has a lot more in common with “lowbrow” tumblr porn culture than it is does with any sort of online art culture in terms of critical exploration. i’d rather have someone present unglitched porn that truly makes them feel horny as an art project since it’s about 1000% more honest.

    #332

    nickbriz
    Key Master

    Hey Theo (et al.)

    I also agree with Rosa on this one, while I appreciate Lapadat-Janzen’s position (having read her statement) the reality is that in this context (i.e. a facebook gallery, i.e. contextless-images in a stream amongst streams) it ends up becoming the very thing she’s aiming to critique …and this  (stream context) might have something to do w/all these tumblrs.

    *[FOR CONTEXT: i.e folks who haven't been following these tumblrs]
    http://pornoglitchy.tumblr.com
    http://porn-glitch.tumblr.com
    http://lovecamp.tumblr.com/

    + rosa also mentioned:

    http://avnoiz.tumblr.com/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlndrr/sets/72157594292221372

    on the subject of this ‘glitch porn tumblr renaissance’, I agree with your point on it being more about ‘lowbrow’ tumblr porn culture than glitch (or new media art) culture. Nick Kegeyan also brought this up yesterday (in IRL conversation), explaining that the goal of these tumblrs (or at least of these folks he’s had online convos with) is not to make ‘glitch art’ or ‘art’ period, but rather to produce enough eye candy content on their streams to land them on tumblrs best-o-gifs pages… so, just confirming your point in terms of intentions + communities/cultures.

    that said… the glitch pr0n tumblr streams have been appropriated into new-media culture (and the glitch art community) by artists working in this capacity, be it through the simple gesture of a ‘reblog’  or ‘like’, or perhaps the more involved gesture of ‘sharing’ or the extremely active gesture of referencing the ‘worx’ in writing (i.e. literally contextualizing it w/in a new-media context)

    so… if this is an issue (and I think it is… and we can talk about why) I think it has less to do with the dudes (and occasionally women) running these tumblrs and more to do with the way it’s being appropriated into the new-media / glitch art conversations.

     

    #362
    atrowbri
    atrowbri
    Moderator

    I dunno, Nick, I only went through a few pages of http://pornoglitchy.tumblr.com, which I had not seen before, and I found this:

    [trigger warning: violent sex]

    http://pornoglitchy.tumblr.com/post/30780678906/dirtynewmedia

    It seems to me that the porn glitches are not outside (or inside) but that there is not much difference between the glitch art porn use and the tumblrs. It’s a continuous flow and it looks like that gif, if I am seeing this right, came from redit, was published to dirtynewmedia’s (a group presenting @ gli.tc/h) tumblr  and then got reposted in pornoglitchy. I am not arguing for or against the work here, I am just questioning whether the high (new media art) /low (commercial, tumblr) art dichotomy that you and Nick Kegeyan constructed is all that relevant if it’s the same works making their way through both cultures.

    Also, I also think that is a near-perfect illustration of what we discussed as the possibility of glitch being used as tool for enacting/enjoying violence on women’s bodies, virtually. That woman’s head has been cleaved open and she’s being fucked in the chest, in a perpetual loop. Again, this is not necessarily a value statement. Francis Bacon discussed the violence enacted on bodies of friends via painting. There’s a difference to be discussed there, though.

    #390

    emeaney1
    Participant

    so there’s that famous scene from psycho, where hitchcock, through editing, dismantles janet leigh in a way which reflects the narrative’s own slicing. she is killed in the film and her image lies dormant on the cutting room floor. doesn’t glitchporn/codecdisrespect accomplish a similar goal for the new media crowd? instead of eliminating her image, we’re using an archival system to mutate her – to not simply end her image but imply an end to future memories of her. a retrograde amnesiac mutant.  in this way, perhaps glitchporn is ultimate form of prostitution (in the ‘i pay them to leave’) sense. they are both present and absent in their presence.

     

    also, it sort of reminds me of the origins of ‘taboo’, being the opposite to ‘mana’. taboo being that which we are not supposed to see. connecting the taboo of sexuality/female_bodies_in_a_puritan_culture and the taboo of the glitch, as something which needs to be fixed. i think these lineages feed into one another.

    #392

    nickbriz
    Key Master

    @Adam

     I am not arguing for or against the work here, I am just questioning whether the high (new media art) /low (commercial, tumblr) art dichotomy that you and Nick Kegeyan constructed is all that relevant if it’s the same works making their way through both cultures.

    xactly, this is what I’m saying. the worx exist through both cultures, and are actively reblogged, shared, liked and in some cases discussed (and in a positive light) in ‘our’ culture (I say ‘our’ that a little flippantly). I’m less trying to create a dichotomy and more trying to point out, that even if there was one… it is–as you said–irrelevant.

    Moving beyond this, my question to the artists reblogging, likeing, sharing, and appropriating these gifs is… why? What interests you about these gifs? I’d like to start haveing that convo.

     

    @Evan

      in this way, perhaps glitchporn is ultimate form of prostitution (in the ‘i pay them to leave’) sense. they are both present and absent in their presence.

    wow.. yea. Maybe less ‘prostitution’ and something more like ‘pimping’ right? who’s producing these is a question that keeps coming up.

     

     

    #409
    rosa_menkman
    rosa_menkman
    Key Master

    I think an even more interesting question to the question who? is why? why do you pimp these images and why do you reblog those images? We should start building a questionnaire for these glitch pimp retrogades, and just send it to them:

    - Why porn? (whats your relation?)

    - What does a glitch in a porn image mean/do for you?

    For this we could also ask Marta Blicharz and others to see if they have other questions they would consider to ask?

    #416
    atrowbri
    atrowbri
    Moderator

    @Rosa YES. I think this is a good question to ask.

    @ Evan Hitchcock is a good example, since he abused women as part of his work (like Stanley Kubrick), both sometimes to get the prefect performance (ART!) and sometimes because they just seemed to enjoy hating women.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by atrowbri atrowbri.
    #417
    rosa_menkman
    rosa_menkman
    Key Master

    @Adam, GREAT : ), lets do it.

    I am not a hero on the subject of tumblrs, do you know how to find/connect/send inquiries to a Tumblr owner?

    #423

    Firstly I’d like to thank Rosa for inviting me to join this conversation, I am very happy to be pushed to  more deeply consider the implications of this project.

    I feel I should elaborate more on the Glimbo project, as the introduction from the event is rather limited at best. The work itself is extremely recent/in process and certain issues in it and in my own concepts for the project have yet to be completely work through. I left the project untied, undecided  (“the images now serve a different purpose”) as it is still in process. Instant production and release of content into an endless, uncritical  stream of noise is not interesting, although incredibly easy to do.   What purpose the images serve is personally complicated; I find the images after being glitched to be more seductive than before.

    This project was inspired by an online conversation with a friend about his “bimbofication” fetish.  I was intrigued by the concept, although it made me consider that the desire for a “bimbo” or a hypersexualized female could be considered to be the most widespread publicly expectable and normalized  fetishes ever.

    I find the idea that women should be physically perfect and appeal to a certain hypersexualized ideal frustrating and the breaking  and deconstruction of these images to be cathartic.   In one of the images the women’s t-shirt reads “you can be sexy without having sex.”  I believe this statement to be a hugely influential idea of how women should act and how they should present themselves. My project is not critical of pornography; it’s critical of gendered behaviour control and the idea of hypersexual female perfection in online space.

    I purposefully did not use pornographic images for this project, because I wanted to consider the images that are excepted as normative for public consumption.

    “The internet is [visually] made up of women.”  I was not at all attempting to undermine the talented women that have worked/programmed  online space.  I realize the powerful quality of the statement that is sucked back into itself by the visual representations of a weak uninteresting ideal.

    I come from a background of painting, not programming. When I say the glitch was intentional, I am speaking to the push pull of the image. The play that happened with the information I chose to insert or take away and the amount of times those interactions were undid/redone.  I would agree that both the images and process are cliche, although I’m not sure I agree that using a cliche on top of a cliche is necassarily negative.

    To summaries intent, I wanted to take something I find incredibly boring and problematic and use it to create something more interesting. Perhaps it turns out the work is not and falls into the endless noise. I would argue that the fact that it is being critiqued and is a part of the conversation lends the project a certain amount of value.

    #436
    nickkegeyan
    nickkegeyan
    Participant

    hey y’all!

    @Rosa + @Adam

    i’m quite familiar with the tumblr community, i know the majority of the porn + glitch blogs. i contacted the person behind the well known one:  porn-glitch. i’m waiting on a response from them. when i do get the response i will let everyone know. to be honest though i don’t quite feel comfortable being the middle man in this situation, at least right now. labeling them “pimps” before talking to them sets up a potentially hostile environment for them. but i will keep everyone in the loop.

    —————

    as i read and skimmed through the last group of posts i was seeing a lot of why(s). i want to take a shot at answering these, at least through my personal experience(s) and involvement in some of these communities.

    —————

    @Adam

    “It seems to me that the porn glitches are not outside (or inside) but that there is not much difference between the glitch art porn use and the tumblrs. It’s a continuous flow and it looks like that gif, if I am seeing this right, came from redit, was published to dirtynewmedia’s (a group presenting @ gli.tc/h) tumblr  and then got reposted in pornoglitchy. I am not arguing for or against the work here, I am just questioning whether the high (new media art) /low (commercial, tumblr) art dichotomy that you and Nick Kegeyan constructed is all that relevant if it’s the same works making their way through both cultures.”

    i don’t think those two tumblrs, or grouping(s) of tumblrs can create that type of high art / low art dichotomy. i don’t think i started or helped start that, if i did i take it back? the divide is not the person(s) involved but rather there “education” on/in regards to glitch. if you trace back that reddit gif to the broken gifs group on reddit and read a few of the comments on posts you can notice a lack of “education” on glitch/glitch art. conversations like: “I don’t understand why this effect is a ‘thing’ now.” the response to that is: “Because it looks cool.” (from: mickey mouse) to me this is the divide. of course i don’t know if either of these people went on to get more info or anything of the sort but i know when i asked, “what is this?” i received tons and tons of info, tutorials, readings, philosophies, etc. on the subject.

    ————

    @Nick

    “Moving beyond this, my question to the artists reblogging, likeing, sharing, and appropriating these gifs is… why? What interests you about these gifs? I’d like to start haveing that convo.”

    i think thats a really valid question to ask and the convo that should be happening. here is my take:

    why are these gifs being liked/reblogged/shared (LRS)? theres a bunch of reasons to reblog and like these posts, depending on who you are/what your doing on tumblr. if you want to be part of a community your going to LRS peoples post to break into it. if you LRS peoples content they might look at yours and LRS you back. follow for follow is big on tumblr so if you follow someone, reblog and like a lot of there stuff they’ll do the same for you or give you a shout out or something.

    another reason is my idea of porn + glitch in general. when you watch porn online it tends to be glitchy, broken, datamoshy, compressed, etc. the connection between the two is pretty direct for me. in general sex is pretty interesting to the average tumblr user, the age of tumblr users is a huge factor in this. you need to be 18 (21 in some places) to go to a porn site (legally) but you only need to be 13 to get on tumblr.

    other reasons people like them:

    1. bright colors and not too many of them. it looks really awesome and pops out on your dashboard getting more attention.

    2. making a lot of something. it’s comfortable to follow someone who keeps posting (and posting a lot of) something you like

    ———-

    i’m just gonna quote what theo said because i agree with him, especially what i bolded.

    @Theo

    “the whole idea of glitch porn/compression porn whatever it is as possible medium for artistic exploration needs to just be thrown out. glitch porn and that ridiculous tumblr(s) has a lot more in common with “lowbrow” tumblr porn culture than it is does with any sort of online art culture in terms of critical exploration. i’d rather have someone present unglitched porn that truly makes them feel horny as an art project since it’s about 1000% more honest.”

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by nickkegeyan nickkegeyan.
    #438
    atrowbri
    atrowbri
    Moderator

    If the question to porn glitch blogs is: ”Why porn? (whats your relation?) && What does a glitch in a porn image mean/do for you?”

    I wonder if we should expect an answer other than: “Because it looks cool. && Because…it looks cool?”

    Looking through broken gifs, I see: glitched pop culture Sponge Bob, The Office, Seinfeld, NBA, porn
    Looking through Flicker  Glitch group, I see glitched porn but no Sponge Bob, The Office, Seinfeld, NBA (yes, there are a tiny number of pop culture references, e.g Simpson’s game but they are buried in comparison to non-pop-culture)

    So, why is porn the only think crossing over between these two repositories of glitch?

    #444
    nickkegeyan
    nickkegeyan
    Participant

    i see tons of pop culture in the flickr group, including the NBA, Baseball, Conan O’brien, George Bush, cartoons, and star trek among others.

     

    there’s also two things that pose a problem for your comparison:

    1. the sample size definitely has to do with it though. the handful of posts in broken gifs is nothing compared to ~5,000 images of the flickr group. plus there is literally only one “porn” image in broken gifs.

    2. the creators in each group are so different. the majority of content in the flickr group is created by “glitch artists” and members of the community. while broken gifs is more people who stumbled upon these images.

    *to me the only thing crossing over between these two groups is glitch and glitch art*

    ——

    i have a question for everyone though. what’s the problem with using the porn? glitch art to me is all about experimenting and trying things. the way these people are being talked about is crazy to me. labeling people as pimps and saying they’re metaphorically causing physical abuse to these women is actually starting to cause me “metaphorical physical harm.”

    i don’t disagree that things should have meaning(s) but sometimes it’s not about making a work that has meaning. not everything is a surface for personal projections and uncovering hidden ideas and meanings. if someone wants to make something by all means make it. who is to say what’s okay to make and what’s not okay to make? if people want to make porn + glitch maybe there just exploring glitch art and using porn as there means of doing so. no one has a problem with glitching an image of a cat? but through this dialogue it sounds like that would be animal cruelty.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by nickkegeyan nickkegeyan.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by nickkegeyan nickkegeyan.
    #452
    jenninat0r
    jenninat0r
    Participant

    hey guys, i’m really enjoy reading this thread, and of course having many deep thoughtz

    porn seems to go hand in hand with the development of computers and internet culture–since there were machines.

    I was listening to this informal survey of 100 years of computer art by Jason Scott (creator of textfiles.com) from NOTACON 2004. Now this is a bit lame the way he introduces this:

    “I’m going to step away from “it’s a boy” in a classic sense…we always try to intersperse pornography as much as possible…it plays such an important part in the world…(crowd cheers) Roxnanne is done using something called a remote teletype…a short way to send text messages…over ham radio”

    Apparently a softporn figure called “Roxanne” emerged in teletype.(unable to find this example online, but lo and behold, first search on teletype brings up a scantily clad woman advertising vintage printers.

    Scott later mentions how someone transferred an image from a playboy centerfold into letter type. i’m guessing this falls in line with the “lolwut s’just plain fun” reproduction but becomes a teaching moment i think; images that are casually culled and reproduce become a part of network history. the babe in the text is just a babe in text.  then eventually multi-sheets were used to create prints or murals.

    sooo in a way, people playing with computers back in the 60s were fiddling with digitizing and transcoding printed porn lol.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by jenninat0r jenninat0r.
    #454
    jenninat0r
    jenninat0r
    Participant

    @nickkegeyan

    I think what this thread is trying to undertake is the ideological structures that glitchporn can possibly reproduce or undercut. As I’ve mentioned in my post above and also touched on by Erica’s, representations of women that only appeal to men have been a large part of the net’s visual culture and also pop media, so if they are reproduced throughout history as such is there a problem?  So our discussion inevitably would be wrapped up in an analysis of porn and female/hetero/queer representation. I think this is especially important if female users are half the people on the internet, and are also the subject matter of a lot of other digital art art like vector girls, photomanipulation and anime. (I recall being 15 on deviantart and unquestionably browsing pages full of this.)

    Not to sound like a woman who is complaining (and for me to even think this, I’ve internalized male opinions on women’s views of porn, and even this year Anita Sarkeesian got into a lot of flack for analyzing sexualized tropes in video games), but women have different and varied relationships to porn, and especially hetero and hardcore porn. While pop media purports that sex/porn is something women can/should feel empowered to engage with and to appreciate others find this sexually threatening and shaming.

    I am an avid porn and fetish viewer, although a critical and inquisitive one. Sure glitch porn can be just plain fun and experimentation but for the same representations to be repeated over history makes some, if not many viewers hopeless and desensitized, and somewhat internalizing of  stereotypes.

    Other subject matter that are cliche to the internet like cats and beheadings, planes flying into Twin Towers (of course we can get worse and worse in our visual ethics here) have other frameworks of power around them that are similarly specific between different groups of people. I don’t think that there’s a way to ascertain what you can or can’t appropriate but it depends how one appropriates and how what that says about themselves. Glitching a point-of-view shot of a dickslap on a woman’s face seems to invite the same readings that it would with mainstream porn unfortunately, no matter how you “break the image”, however if you glitch it moshes into a beheaded cat, that meaning might change drastically.

    How can we use porn to change those meanings instead of reproducing it as a locus of male-dominant pleasure? Curt suggested erasure, I suggested selecting content with different perspectives and angles, and  Erica suggested distorting bimbo images…

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by jenninat0r jenninat0r.
    #460

    ganja-ganja
    Participant

    well my dad said porn has been around since the dawn of recorded time(the phrase “oldest profession” can sometimes work in this case maybe). even before the internet/machines when we had to watch moving pictures or something like that, and then back to drawings and so on and so on and you get it , you get it. what i am getting at is the instinctual impulse/desire to watch other members of the same species do what nature does best. and “to deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human” BUT  frankly im tired of humans they make me sick, if your gonna glitch porn at least have the decency to show all of it in every form. if there was male homosexual, bestiality  incestual, japanese vomit, tentacles or even child porn(take your pick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_sub-genres) my fave is the pterodactyl one ;] why narrow it down to just hardcore porn and ( let the ladies have all the fun), get the weird stuff,get the illegal stuff get stuff that makes you wanna vomit till you die. PUSH IT TO THE LIMIT!!!!!…..

    #461

    BC
    Participant

    “i don’t disagree that things should have meaning(s) but sometimes it’s not about making a work that has meaning. not everything is a surface for personal projections and uncovering hidden ideas and meanings. if someone wants to make something by all means make it. who is to say what’s okay to make and what’s not okay to make? if people want to make porn + glitch maybe there just exploring glitch art and using porn as there means of doing so. no one has a problem with glitching an image of a cat? but through this dialogue it sounds like that would be animal cruelty.”

    Hi Nick!

    For me, at least, I think this isn’t necessarily a conversation about whether or not to use porn in art per se. I think lots of artists (not just glitch artists) use pornography as their material and from all kinds of perspectives — some celebratory, others as a form of criticism and a whole host of other kinds of things in between. This isn’t, for me at least, a conversation about whether or not porn is bad or good since there is absolutely no one answer to that question. Like most things, pornography, as an industry, as a consumer product, as something people make together in their bedrooms for fun, is complex as hell and my own views on it are just as complex. I think the issues are much more about what it means to take porn images out of context, especially when those porn images are from rather conventional pornos and then, about what it means to glitch porn. Like Jen, I wonder: What does it mean to reproduce certain point of view shots? What does it mean to use certain kinds of pornography? And, as I said earlier in the thread, what does/would a feminist glitchporn practice look like? And could this be a chance to build a kind of archive? And, which of these practices posted here might be reclaimed/explored as interesting examples of glitchporn and which might not be?

    I think the connection you make to glitching cats is productive in the sense of how we can think of practices of glitching as a kind of pornography more broadly — a kind of fetishization of the glitch as such and what such fetishization means. However, I think its important to think about the differences between glitching a cat and glitching, per Jen’s example, a woman with a dick slapping her in the face. We have different and more complex reactions to pornography, particularly out of its context, than we do to images of cats (unless the cat is being mutilated/ abused/ used sexually etc etc etc — such images would likely provoke more varied responses than just a cute cat/kitten!) So my point is to say that while this isn’t a pro versus anti porn debate, the fact that porn is the material glitched is not unimportant and because of the divisiveness of pornography can’t be neutral. However, that’s not to close things down and say that glitchporn can never be a valuable practice. It’s more to ask: what does glitchporn do? What kinds of practices are there out there? etc.

     

    #462

    BC
    Participant

    One more thing, Nick. I do think you bring up another issue, which is this idea of whether or not glitching is a practice about exposing systems/ breaking and deconstructing images to make critical/political points. I think it’s just as valuable to make work that is fun, sexy, celebratory, psychedelic/ actively uncritical/ playful etc etc etc, or where glitch functions as a process, which is how Erica seems to describe her own practice.

    #464

    Marta Blicharz
    Participant

    This is a really interesting conversation, and I’m going to try to introduce some of my observations/connections/impressions on it.

    Of course Erica Lapadat-Janzen‘s work draws parallels with some of my work on the topic of glitching mainstream/misogynistic/perfected images of female beauty. Perhaps the difference is that I myself am the author of these source photographs that I later put through a glitching process. Having some experience shooting fashion and beauty, I use the very same Photoshop techniques that mainstream media uses to produce their glossy shots. Then I degrade these images to search for alternative beauty.

    I realize it may seem like a weird thing to do, to make something you dislike, and then break it yourself, but this is precisely the 2 opposing viewpoints I wanted to take at the same time. At the beginning of my experience with fashion photography both as a consumer, a producer, and sometimes a model, I loved these popular, glossy fashion shots. I found them alluring and reproducing them on my own felt powerful. But with time I became more sensitive to approaching those critically, and being suspicious of how mass media wants women to look at other women, or men to look at women or men to look at men.  These sexualized, polished, and stereotypical images  exert immense pressure on girls and the danger is that this force is still largely invisible. When women become aware of it, it is still hard for them to break with the influence that has been such a huge part of their life.

    With time I discovered that it was the Photoshop work, the composition of the photograph, the colors and the balance of light and dark, the unusual quirks or features of someone’s face that drew me more to the work than what the image was supposed to represent in the context of mass media. This is why I still like photography and portraiture.

    When I discovered glitch I began breaking what I was making. The images seemed more beautiful then. Again, it felt powerful to engage in the process, but this time with less control over the final outcome.

    I was making highly controlled and ‘tight’ beauty/fashion, and then I was making crazy, spontaneous, unpredictable glitch for the sake of release, and a certain loss of control. It’s like a work out!

    The fashion shot reinforced the stereotype of media, while the glitch tried to veil it in something that was more abstract, techno-romantic, a feeling of awe at the broken body proportions, the pixels emerging from the perfect skin tone, the shifting of parts like at a magicians “saw table”. The body of the model now followed a different aesthetic – one based on spontaneous manifestation of crazy visuals, rather than the predictable clean and Photoshopped perfume ad. The model and the photograph that held her, was now at the mercy of the forces of the computer.

    But fashion is tapping into this aesthetic now, because it always tries to come up with crazy sh*t when it starts becoming predictable. I don’t care, it still does not change what my original, personal approach was to dealing with my images. Art is ultimately about the artist’s personal relationship with the world, his or her story, the mechanics of her nature and nurture, and the spectacles they choose to see the world through. Whether the art is low or high, pop or alternative, is a matter of personal experience and opinion. This is my approach to glitch and how it transforms my world.

    I agree with Erica that the process is about catharsis – it is a deeply personal approach. However successful or unsuccessful the outcome may be in relating a message to the general audience there  – in this instance, being against the exploitation and the stereotypical representation of women in the media, as well as the conventional use of digital techniques to make those images pixel perfect – what matters is the personal approach of the artist in trying to negotiate with the specifics of the image, degrade its structure, bring out the qualities that one may find attractive beyond of what the photograph as a window displays to the public.

    What starts coming into view is the unnatural color, the abstract shapes, the seemingly layered look and almost-texture of the image – and in combination of what may remain out of the illusory space of the photograph – this begins to be my personal ground of deconstructing and negotiating with myself.  Perhaps I am projecting onto this photograph, a kind of battle I am trying to fight with myself and the stereotypes of female beauty/sexuality that have been taught to me by mass media’s main message of not only “sex sells” but “sex sells everything.” This in no way has to lead to a generally accepted conclusion, but to a small personal victory of beginning to question the image as an object, and what its persuasive powers may be. It is a personal take on beauty, a kind of holy aesthetic experience.

    There is a kind of aggression in the process, which makes it a bit paradoxical – but am I attacking a woman by attacking an image of her? Perhaps you can see it that way. Perhaps by attacking that image of a woman I am attacking myself, trying to redefine myself and how I see how the world sees me.

    Glitching such an image makes it more alluring, more seductive, but it is about seeing beauty a little differently, as if more hidden, through a veil, leaving more to the imagination.

    Perhaps it is a similar case with porn glitch imagery where the glitching seems to be covering something we have been desensitized to, and by covering it, as if a tool of censorship it in turn makes it even more desirable, because it engages our imagination in trying to figure out the image or fill in the blanks left by jarring pixellation. The glitch seemingly interrupts the digital production of sex, or digital production of reproduction, or maybe just masks it. Interpretations can be many.

    Porn is about separating the pleasure from the process of production (or reproduction). You watch porn for pleasure. Perhaps glitch is similar in this way, trying to disconnect aesthetic from functionality. Some artists glitch because they find pleasure in the aesthetic, and how it disconnects from the process of mainstream digital production.

    A lot of us think technology is sexy and mysterious, so maybe the porn that is being glitched becomes hyper-sexual by the infusion of the potential of technological fractures. We love technology when it works great, but some of us love it even more when sometimes it doesn’t. The glitch is already being fetishized and worshiped. When you combine it with the sexualized flesh, what is so enticing is the orgy of pixels instead of the porn actors beneath them.

     

    #489

    stallio
    Participant

    hi all!

    i’ve seen my share of glitch porn while maintaining the glitchgifs tumblr over the last year, and yes, a lot of it doesn’t go any deeper than pixellated brightly-colored dickslaps. i’m not too interested in that; when i consume porn i’m not into the dickslap-type stuff, and running it through the same glitch process i’ve seen hundreds of times doesn’t make it any more compelling.

    but contra theo’s suggestion that the very idea of glitch porn should be “thrown out”, i do think it’s possible to create interesting work in that context. for one thing, in glitch art the content of the original source isn’t necessarily even important. if i’m glitching content from, say, old videotapes, then fundamentally there’s not a lot of difference between taking it from an ’80s porno or from a used copy of back to the future. when selecting content to glitch, i usually pay at least as much attention to things like composition and color than to “content”.

    even when a deliberate choice is made to use erotic content, there can still be value there depending on what the artist is trying to say/do. is there something more going on than thoughtlessly running porn through a filter? which part is more important: the glitch or the porn?

    i remember one time i reblogged a gif from porn-glitch in which the glitch was destructive enough that you really had to look closely to make out the sex (rare for that blog), and someone reblogged it with a note complaining that “i can’t see the porn!” for that person, there was no point in glitch porn if it wasn’t actually usable as pornography.

    #494

    stallio
    Participant

    another thought: for me (and i suspect many of my generation), glitch and porn have long been intertwined. in the days of analog tv, US cable systems often included porn channels, but these and other “premium” channels were scrambled and couldn’t be viewed clearly without a special box to decrypt them. but the encryption wasn’t perfect so the result was an endless stream of glitch porn piped straight to your tv, often no more than static but sometimes surprisingly colorful, fluid, and at times very explicit though always warped and distorted.

    one of my earliest glitch art works, the eggify video from 1999, incorporated scrambled porn. in making that video i recorded 10-15 minutes of scrambled porn and i’m glad i did because cable companies phased out scrambling not too long after.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  stallio.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  stallio.
    #500

    BC
    Participant

    Hey Stallio!

    Welcome to the discussion and thx for ur awesome inputs. I largely agree with much of what you’re saying and I think it’s important to think about how porn as material is used. I wonder if perhaps the outcome of this conversation could be a screening of porn/erotic glitch works that ARE interesting — part of why I am thinking of this conversation as generating alternative archives to some of the work we’ve been discussing here.

    I also think the perspective re. tv and porn and the entanglement of glitches in technology with pornography is really interesting. Particularly as scrambled porn on T.V. comes about because companies want money for content and so make it opaque but just tantalizing enough. The question for me is what it means that there is a desire to make digital porn images opaque (though as you point out, for many, opacity is not the goal — but then i’d ask what is this desire to jack off to glitched images?)

    Also, Re. T.V., though this is more about analog aesthetics vs. digital and analog fetishism, here’s one from the Nick Briz archive: RGB Exposé.

    #567

    lol, i just read all of this and am supersaturated.

    i think i am most interested in the presence/discrepancy tween real women and represented women. at the last glitch kickoff meeting i was the only woman in the physical group of about 20 guys. rosa was on skype. shawne on video. there was one woman cleaning the kitchen, and in the time that i was sitting there/participating in the irl community activities i saw 4 nameless voiceless naked women show up on a screen saver sequence to my right.

    #568

    i do appreciate j chan’s “perhaps there needs to be more mainstream porn made from love-based relationships, or  I think there should be more point-of-view videos shot from women’s perspectives of the male and female body.” and other comments relating to non-conforming other –> def more interesting and hopeful. the heteronorm and all the manifestations/adaptations of those easily digestable traditional dynamics/loops play out all day everyday and dont go anywhere in terms of progress or access or openness.

    #591
    curt
    curt
    Moderator
    #592
    curt
    curt
    Moderator

    <aside>

    Also, i just have to say, for these and all past and future conversations in all threads and in real life forever and eternally, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride, “You keep using that word ‘deconstruction.’ I do not think it means what you think it means.” To break something is not to deconstruct it. To critique something is not to deconstruct it. To glitch something is probably not to deconstruct it. Deconstruction means something very specific, and in this case not even Wikipedia can help ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction ).

    </aside>

    carry on…

    #606

    BC
    Participant

    I get your point Curt but people use words colloquially and are not always invoking the specter of Derrida. I think in these posts people are mostly talking about “breaking down” or ‘”breaking up” or “revealing”. Not that I’m trying to say rigor doesn’t matter but we understand what is meant, right? /aside.

    #607
    atrowbri
    atrowbri
    Moderator

    Returning to Nick’s question (I missed it before):

    i have a question for everyone though. what’s the problem with using the porn? glitch art to me is all about experimenting and trying things. the way these people are being talked about is crazy to me. labeling people as pimps and saying they’re metaphorically causing physical abuse to these women is actually starting to cause me “metaphorical physical harm.”

    Misquoting throws off a discussion, accidentally or as a way to derail what was actually said was, which was:

    the possibility of glitch being used as tool for enacting/enjoying violence on women’s bodies, virtually. That woman’s head has been cleaved open and she’s being fucked in the chest, in a perpetual loop.

    This was a description of what is apparent in the image, not a metaphor. The aesthetic enjoyment is presumed, the looping violence is apparent but I am open to an alternate description of what is happening in that gif. In fact, I’d welcome someone describing that gif in a way that either completely abandons what I’ve set up or turns the violence into something more than banal desecration based on what is already a banal porn video.

    Returning to your second sentence, what is the problem with using the porn? No one, as far as I’ve seen, has made a strong argument against using “the porn” in these forums. If anything, many of us have consciously avoided revisiting past Porn Wars. However, porn is not a video of a cat.

    no one has a problem with glitching an image of a cat? but through this dialogue it sounds like that would be animal cruelty.

    I’ve sought out and failed to find what I believe to be solid studies of the abuse of actors in the pornography industry. It’s too contentious. (That is not to say there is any evidence of the opposite.) While you can argue (and PETA might argue) that cat images might involve cat exploitation, I believe but cannot prove that you would be on much more solid ground in arguing that randomly selecting porn gifs from porn sites will likely find images of people who have been exploited. (Obviously the exploitation of workers is not specific to any one industry but we’re not talking about people “glitching” pictures of McDonald’s workers.) So my first question to people making glitch porn is “Who is the person in your image and what is really happening to them?” I would argue that for most of the links I pasted in this thread, the artist has no answer whatsoever. That  isn’t “the problem with using the porn,” but it’s a question that I think is worth addressing. I understand that this may not be an interesting or relevant question for everyone.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by atrowbri atrowbri.
    #609
    curt
    curt
    Moderator

    Hi Beth,

    You are meta-policing my linguistic policing (and it hurts so good)!

    I like the parts of Marta’s post where she begins to get into some detailed formal analysis of the way the source images are actually glitched, like what is actually formally happening to the bodies and faces. And also I like the way she confesses being attracted to the allure and the sheen of glossy glamour photo production. And then she relates all these formal discoveries to her own personal practice. I think these formal details are important, maybe even essential, in terms of unpacking gltch_pr0n in a useful way. Which is why I think it’s a cop-out just to fall back on short-hand words like “broken, glitched, <slang>deconstructed</slang>, messed up.” Because there are a billion different ways in which something can be tweaked, and these different ways are not unimportant.

    To deconstruct is to assume the presuppositions of a given position, and to ingeniously follow the contours of that position until you discover and reveal the ways in which the position contradicts itself, or at least until you discover the things the position is trying to footnote, marginalize, and hide. That Pipilotti Rist video that I posted on the examples thread comes pretty close to deconstruction. If not deconstruction, than at least hypertrophy. She becomes “not the girl who misses much,” and she is more or less formally eviscerated. It feels a lot like Bruce Nauman’s crazy clow pieces, or maybe more like Cindy Sherman’s crazy clown pieces. Yes, critical and broken, but in a very specific way.

    #725
    jenninat0r
    jenninat0r
    Participant

    I think the conversation is moving in the direction of addressing the disparity between the glitch aesthetic and its potential for critical “deconstruction” of isolated images and looped scenes. I have a feeling this idea isn’t new. In video/moving image I suppose this depends on the degree of transformation, distortion and abstraction.

    Maybe we can “break this down”, and I’m being hypothetical:

    Example 1:

    If something of one sex is “glitched” such that it is undiscernable (that you only see an arm or a leg, the side of a face for example), is that a successful way to queer or disrupt gender?

    Example 2:
    from http://porn-glitch.tumblr.com/

    If one employs a single image and “glitches” it to complete abstraction, does it matter what the original image was at all? (I’m thinking this theory of new materialism would argue that if it is really all pixels that can transform into physical/non-physical things, none of the semiotic/semantic theory we have of images would apply. This to me is a huge crutch for ignoring social context. Then again, I don’t fully understand New Materialism.) This follows the logic of “If the (average tumblr follower) viewer doesn’t know, then it doesn’t matter. Well then why choose porn in the first place at all when it can be anything else?

    Personally I find some of the more completely abstract, pulsating and undulating gifs more erotic and curiously arousing than the representational ones…but maybe I’m just accustomed to seeing the same damn thing all the time in gonzo netporn. Furthermore a loop of a jackhammering penis seems to accentuate hardcore penetration more than mocking it–which is what repetition often does to speeches. (I don’t mean that there are no individuals who enjoy this either… but let’s just stick to the visual-haptic affect of the images)

    I’m not trying to say “A means/causes B” in practice… but I am wondering in the most simple processual level: what does glitch do to an image in relationship to specific practices such as hex code editing or datamoshing? I have only tried the latter myself due to attraction to the aesthetic.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by jenninat0r jenninat0r.
    #735

    stallio
    Participant

    If one employs a single image and “glitches” it to complete abstraction, does it matter what the original image was at all? (I’m thinking this theory of new materialism would argue that if it is really all pixels that can transform into physical/non-physical things, none of the semiotic/semantic theory we have of images would apply. This to me is a huge crutch for ignoring social context. Then again, I don’t fully understand New Materialism.) This follows the logic of “If the (average tumblr follower) viewer doesn’t know, then it doesn’t matter. Well then why choose porn in the first place at all when it can be anything else?

    some people will glitch the things they hate — political enemies and such — just as some will glitch their heroes. in these cases obviously the source matters even if it’s unrecognizable (perhaps the whole point is that it’s unrecognizable: destroy your enemies digitally because you can’t destroy them in real life). likewise, if you name your tumblr something like “porn-glitch” and devote it to that subject, then the fact that it’s porn is important even if a few of your gifs aren’t recognizable as such.

    most of my own work in this area probably falls under this description: i made a conscious decision for one reason or another to glitch erotic material, then sought out content that fit my requirements.

    at the other end of the spectrum, there is a more freewheeling attitude toward appropriation and remixing of content. data is data, there to be sampled, remixed, and transcoded. in this context, the artist may not give much thought to or even care what they are remixing. (i do this a lot in my music practice: pulling content at random, processing it, reworking it such that i don’t even know where a lot of it came from. does it matter where a sample came from if i as the artist don’t even know?)

    and then there’s the matter i mentioned earlier of composition — looking at an image strictly in terms of pixels to be rearranged. sometimes i’ve glitched images primarily because i could tell (or hoped) that a particular glitch process would suit the image well. does it matter what the original image was of if the artist doesn’t care? perhaps this would depend on whether the image is recognizable at the end.

    Personally I find some of the more completely abstract, pulsating and undulating gifs more erotic and curiously arousing than the representational ones…but maybe I’m just accustomed to seeing the same damn thing all the time in gonzo netporn. Furthermore a loop of a jackhammering penis seems to accentuate hardcore penetration more than mocking it–which is what repetition often does to speeches.

    the “tease” vs “giving it all away”. suggestive vs explicit.

    #788

    matthias
    Participant

    Hey, I run porn-glitch. I’ve spent about the last half hour reading through post after post and very little of the conversation pertained to my personal exploration. I’ll try to go through my starting concept and how it has shifted through time.

    Porn-glitch started around the time that I first started exploring datamoshing. I wanted to create content using datamoshing, but didn’t know what source video to use. As I thought through it, pornography came to mind due to its availability and articles that I had read regarding internet pornography, specifically the fact that it desensitizes a younger and younger audience. Initially the idea was to illustrate that desensitization by repeating the same motion in the video file without i-frames/key frames. Each repeating motion obscures the explicit nature of the content, creating imagery that only echos the originally explicit content. The resulting clips of video don’t translate well to the gif file format, because of the number of colors and organization of pixels, the file sizes were consistently larger than what functions well for the tumblr format. I began restricting the number of colors and color shifting. The bright colors relate directly to the idea of internet pornography, the colors are web-safe and the brightest available within the RBG color space. It’s aggressive, bright and pixelated, in the same context as internet pornography.

    The content is less about pornography as it is about internet and digital pornography.

    Other things I have explored is at what point something is explicit. How many pixels are needed to make genitals too explicit for general viewing? Is the context of a porn blog the only reason these pixels are recognized as sexual? I read a list of paradoxes at some point in time and included in that list was Sorites paradox, which states that the difference between a heap of sand is not one grain. So if you remove the sand grain by grain, a single grain of sand represents a heap. The idea that something is fit for broadcast television because breasts are pixelated is curious to me, because I am interested to know what level of pixelation is enough to be non-explicit.

    There are select gay porn glitches, accessible here. I don’t go much outside of straight, one male one female porn as source material, because it is sort of the standard. By obscuring the standard, the visual content can be pushed further while still maintaining a context. I am studying graphic design and simplification while maintaining legibility is a constant goal. Faces can be obscured to the point of a colon and parentheses. Incorporating less mainstream content requires more visual dialogue to communicate the content.

    In regards to using tumblr as a platform. There is system of sharing built in already. Any content I make has the potential to be viewed by a much wider audience than if I were to host it myself. Tumblr also allows explicit content, whereas other sharing platforms do not.

    Some people simply enjoy the visual aesthetics I have. Also, a number of the posts on porn-glitch are not actually glitches, but rather compression, pixelation and dithering.

    #789

    matthias
    Participant

    In addition to porn-glitch, I’ve made various other gif loops that derive from pornography, but the styles, content and context are such that I haven’t had anybody conclude or deem the content to be explicit.




    #840

    stallio
    Participant

    well, isn’t that timely… someone on tumblr just asked me “why do you glitch porn?”

    #1497

    glennmarcus
    Participant

    Glitching is way of hiding something, although it is already broad. The idea we have is something that unethical, we blurred something that is forbidden to see but it always shows the reality, and even process through sophisticated graphic designs.. there are many sites that when you check and visit pages by pages, you see some glitching techniques they used.

Viewing 46 posts - 1 through 46 (of 46 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.