"glitch artist" gives me cognitive dissonance. it’s an oxymoron of some sort.
We’re not even artists
We’re more like
With an appreciative taste
As a glitch artist/maker I just want to share my opinion on this.
For me it definitively is an art, and I absolutly don’t say that to valorize what I do at all.
I love to compare glitch artists as photographers, more specificaly nature photographers. Because in my mind, and to give a simple version of it (because it’s a lot more complex in my head), the evolution of “natural” things works with very complex algorithms (not entierly understandable for human conscience). But what make that there isn’t 2 similar trees, 2 similar landscapes or 2 similar emotions is that the “basic algorithm” (of the growing of the tree for exemple) has been glitched by time, by strange occurences, etc. And the poetry and aesthetic emerge from those imperfections. In fact you can’t have the perfect/unglitched version of a thing, it’s like its pure essence, it only exist through those glitches accumulated in its whole existence and you perceiving them as informations.
So when a photographer takes the picture of a sky it’s like one of the view of the essence of the glitched algorithm of what is a sky.
In the same way that a glitch artist is going to create errors in a .jpg and show a point of view of the essence of the glitched algorithm of what is a .jpg. And it exists as much interresting skys that interresting corrupted .jpg.
The glitch artist is often the source of the design, even if he don’t totally control it, and the nature photographer wait and search for the good moment, they both chose a certain composition even if they’re not aware of it.
So I consider glitch artists as explorers and photographers of particularities and imperfections of the virtual world of datas.