Glitch art mythologizes the computer error as its ultimate muse and most potent tool: the event that triggers each piece to manifest. The glitch aesthetic may be rooted in the look of malfunction, but when it comes to actual practice, there’s often not much glitch in glitch art. Yes, some glitch artists are actually exploiting bugs to get their results — but for most it would be more accurate to describe these methods as introducing noisy data to functional algorithms or applying these algorithms in unconventional ways. But this is also not algorithmic art as we ordinarily think of it — it is a more demented form of generative art: zombie algorithms stripped of their ordinary purpose or built with no clear purpose at all, set loose to twist data into strange new patterns, or to expose side-effects unwanted by their original designers. Glitch art, when approached this way, becomes a study of the dialogue between us and the machine — how we relate to logical systems, and what happens in the breakdown between human thought and computer logic. This paper will focus on this algorithmic strain of glitch art. We will look at glitch without the glitch.
Ongoing project by Daniel Temkin to explore the aesthetics of dithering algorithms. The latest instalment is a browser-based customisable viewer allowing you to choose colours and alter the density - it is interesting to see what patterns emerge. It’s partly minimalism, algorithmic art, net art and maybe a little Warhol-like:
I began this series is 2011, misusing Photoshop to create dithering patterns, basically by giving it a plain color or gradient and asking it to dither using completely incompatible colors, exposing the patterns that emerge …
Last week I re-released it as an in-browser tool, allowing users to determine the palette (although encouraging the color combinations I like for it — by default it suggests the complementary color of which whichever first color you choose), and choose a dithering algorithm.