During this reading, I could not help but see the writer's voice and writing patterning even though most of what is preached is stating the opposite is honest/true. I resonate with the initial statements of growing away from the criteria of societal desires and truly striving to make something that is original and not defined by genres / comfortable styles. This is quite apparent in the university art department where those who find a groove with stay in that zone to repeat their ideologies just in a different manner. I find it to be quite boring to see the same style and theme move throughout someone's entire portfolio, but that is obviously subjective and there are some who love that kind of creation. I did start to appreciate the glitch mentality in which there are times when linear / static motion helps to drive home a singularity. I liked to start to think of a glitch as building from the skeletal idea and forming an exoskeleton around to fully realize a specific idea that only could be obtained through digital means. For lack of better words in my opinion I believe the author become “corny” in inferencing metaphorical / symbolic means that feels patronizing in a way. I was unaware of the glitching theory that goes into what feels like a little happy accident that is over appreciated, now I feel that some are intentionally positioned and meticulously honed to establish one's ideas. I did enjoy the overall layout of this paper – originally, I thought it was going be annoying to read.
Comments