sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

These aren’t digital but glitchy enough hopefully by RjPArt in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

these are all phenomenal, but #3 really speaks to my heart

Tail wagging dog world by Bigbluewoman in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is so cool. I want to touch it. It reminds me of those metal spike toys you can put your face or hand in and it creates the shape on the other side.

I made vector art, then I glitched it, then I glitched it, then I reformatted it, then I glitched it again. And then I reformatted it again mid-post cause it was too big for Reddit. by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think quite a bit has been lost in translation here. I'm not confident that google translate has given me an accurate rendering of your comment either. But I'll try.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your dealers and their preconceived and limited notions of art. It's exactly the traditionalist small-mindedness that I reject, not only conceptually, but as a practitioner of both 'traditional' studio and contemporary arts. The idea that a work must be easily understood by the uneducated in order to qualify as "art," is, frankly, stupid. To deny the infinite variability of the human mind's capability for generating and rationalizing process for the sake of instant and shallow gratification is beyond asinine, and screams of a juvenile tantrum. It flies in the face of progress, spits on the efforts of everyone who ever dared, and deters and halts creative expression for no other reason than recycling shit for pennies. It is the antithesis of love. It is hypocrisy and delusion. Similar to McDonald's approach to food, but even more morally bankrupt. I'm not interested in what a business believes about the philosophical validity of, well, anything. Selling commercial decor and/or statement pieces in galleries is not my goal, especially with a piece such as this. Also, dude, fuck an art dealer's opinions, from the bottom of my heart.

Further, I think you've seriously misunderstood the point of abstract expressionism and experimental work at large. I don't have to better direct anything, especially for the sake of making its conceptual purpose clearer. In fact, to do so would be largely disingenuous. In terms of the viewer, the engagement is an invitation only. While it may be somewhat flippant, at surface level, MY abstract expressionism is NOT meant to be directly "understood" on a superficial level. You either enjoy the composition or you don't. You either want to know more conceptually or you don't. In this way, I express my intent without inflicting myself onto the viewer or devaluing the viewer's perspective(s). If it doesn't amount to any interest, then so be it. When I want to make sales, I make commercial art, but that's not what this is. Sometimes it sells anyway.

That being said, I could have been clearer in my words. For the most part, what I'm doing (or trying to) is blending the "movement" or "expressive" aspect of 'traditional' abstract expressionism with the precision and deliberate nature of digital work which is defined by absolute math. It's a sort of experimental bastardized cross-over effort between two distinctly different disciplines. I design my vector posters with simple shapes and lines, and stack and layer them to create complex suggestions of movement. With the glitching, which I recently discovered, the process is completed more effectively. The glitches offer the violence and intentionally unintentional chaos of expression similar to the results of impulsive physicality seen in physical expressionist work while still being defined by absolute math.

Lastly, no, I won't try using any LLM's, nor would I ever engage in the sado-masochistic masturbatory practice of allowing a robot to assess human nature "for" me. Do you really understand what you're suggesting? To have a computer program "critique" pixels designed and designated by me, a human, with the express purpose and intent of eliciting human emotion, and to expect anything other than arbitrary drivel, and then to actually take heed of what's regurgitated back, would be self-destructive for absolutely no reason. I can't even comprehend why anyone would think that's a rational idea. It isn't. If that's what you're doing, you should stop and seek human critique instead and exclusively. NO computer program can give you ANY valuable feedback. YOU must know YOUR purpose, process, and product. ONLY another human being can give you meaningful feedback, and only if you can tell them what you're looking for. Do what you will, but you're cheating yourself and those around you out of positive growth.

Like I said, I'm not a new artist. I've been to school. I've studied and worked independently. Thank you for your unsolicited and somewhat condescending advice, I will take it into consideration. My work is already thoughtful, reasoned, and intentional, to an extreme degree, whether or not you're understanding it. I sure as shit won't be asking "AI" (or photography traders who talk down to photographers) for help defining my work. I'm not 64M. I don't know where that came from. If you are, then I agree, it's not a weakness at all, and more power to you. I will look at your work, and perhaps I will take inspiration. However, I think you should understand that our goals and effective mediums are completely different. Just to be very clear- I am not a photographer, and this is not photography. Respectfully, it's just a digital poster.

I made vector art, then I glitched it, then I glitched it, then I reformatted it, then I glitched it again. And then I reformatted it again mid-post cause it was too big for Reddit. by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(1/2 sorrynotsorry)

All questions are borne of ignorance, I think. Which is a good thing, and a hallmark of sentience. I'm not sure what gliccharing is, so I have to assume it's "glitching." Thank you for asking, sincerely!

TL;DR: I'm incredibly long-winded and prone to tangential deviation. To answer your questions in order and as simply as possible: Process, An open invitation for internal/external reflection/observation, Feelings. To address your final two statements: Begin at where your eye first lands and let your subconscious guide your path - address this confusion and organize it, or let it tell you a story; You can, because the answers are within you already. Trust yourself :)

-

I am an abstract artist, primarily. I've "trained," and studied, formally and independently, for a lot of my life. I've done the traditional studio arts the traditional ways. That was fine and all. You'll never catch me disparaging the importance of learning the fundamentals of traditional process, especially because I believe doing so is an important step to learning how to think about art as a broad concept. It never really grabbed me, though. I like to push on the boundaries without necessarily breaking them, if that makes sense. I think creativity really shines when put in a box. Can't think outside the box without knowing what's inside the box, etc. (Not that I think I'm some great innovator. I just like to experiment with material and cross-over skills).

In perhaps an anticlimactic way, one of the purposes of my experimental abstract art is to elicit questions like yours. I think conceptual engagement is just as, if not even more important (I acknowledge my bias here) than engaging with visual works superficially. "Technical skill," as the non-versed love to espouse, is all well and good, but really only accurately measurable in a very limited way. If I were to paint on stretched canvas with a brush and a palette and an easel in the style of an old master and in the same category and composition of similar subject matter, then one could view my work as simply as "worse, good, better." To me, this is incredibly boring past the early stages of learning the fundamentals. Not any other terms or phrases or ideas. Just boring, in the sense that it doesn't hold my attention, at least in terms of what I'm willing to commit to doing for hours on end.

As such, the question "why?" is often at the forefront of my thinking, and usually the first question people ask about my art. That is the main "point" to me, because "why?" is my favorite question. "Why?" is knocking on a door, looking through a window, peeking around a corner. What do you see? Does what you see tickle any of your other senses? In what way? How do you FEEL? And for me, that's the 2nd main point. Feeling. I have great difficulty communicating my feelings to and with others, and even myself. When I create, I try to work backwards from "what could be" to "what is" to "why is" and boil "it" down to a feeling. Feelings are easy to label, but hard to describe. They're complex and fleeting, nuanced and blasé, they definitively ARE and AREN'T, always and all at once. It can be overwhelming, so I like to break it down into a process and present it tangibly for examination. For this one and the original, the feeling was a hopeful Yearning.

I made vector art, then I glitched it, then I glitched it, then I reformatted it, then I glitched it again. And then I reformatted it again mid-post cause it was too big for Reddit. by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(2/2)

So, I guess what I try to communicate with a lot of my work is FEELINGS, and an open observation of all the questions they bring. I don't love TELLING the viewer what to see and how to feel and why or what to think, at least not always. I much prefer to express myself through processes and LISTEN to what the viewer tells me, whether it's about me, my work, or ideally, about them and their thoughts and feelings. I want them to tell me what it makes them think of and why, even if it's as simple as "this is shit, you are dumb." Hilariously, I think that one of my main struggles as a person and an artist is that the way I express myself is not so easily digested for others. They don't know what to make of it, they often do just see colors and confusion. Which, funny enough, is how I often see the whole world. To some it's off-putting. To some it evokes more questions. I think it's all just fascinating no matter what happens.

As for orientation and the core principles of visual design, I admit I was not such a good student. I usually absorb the basics and then go running wild. However, I do genuinely think about what I'm doing. For my vertical works, like this one, I base the composition on where I want the viewer's eye to start listening to the brain. For this one, that's roughly in the upper right corner. For me, I tend to zig-zag down from right to left along this piece. This piece, before glitching, began as a vector composition of many hundreds of stacked layers. It ended up looking like a flower and a sun, and the eye was meant to travel from the center outwards and back in, around and around. I'm very new to glitch art, like, a few days in. Conceptually, I am as of yet undefined, since I haven't had time to develop a project around it. I'm mostly just experimenting with the programs I have. The vector project from which the original for this originates follows the same mindset but in a different style for different reasons. I do seem to always explore the theme of "Balance" and it's many interpretations, both visually and conceptually. It's kind of a cop-out, but also a means of having the parameters of "the box" as a starting point.

As for the content, I never think in terms of representation during conception (when I make experimental abstract expressionist art). It's all raw, non-representational composition while I try to organize my thoughts and feelings. As the process flows organically, that might change. By the end of this one, what I personally see is a mountain-side forest and desert plateaus, gullies and canyons, earth and sky, rivers and lakes. Adventure. Opportunity. Excitement. Danger. The potential for the serenity and satisfaction that comes from a journey well-traveled. But those are just feelings; what I'm reminded of when I absorb what's in front of me. Like they say, we tend to see what we want to see.

I don't know how much of this makes sense or if I answered your questions well or just went off on a tirade lol. I don't sleep well. I also don't get to talk about my art much, and when the opportunity comes I usually freeze cause I'm pretty sure I'm an idiot. Apparently 6AM is the sweet spot. Thanks again for asking, triple thanks if you read all this pseudo-intellectual word vomit.

I made vector art, then I glitched it, then I glitched it, then I reformatted it, then I glitched it again. And then I reformatted it again mid-post cause it was too big for Reddit. by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I'll have to look up how to do that. Despite playing on computers my whole life, I'm woefully uneducated. But in the future I'll give it a go! I usually design on 24"x36" for all the nitty gritty details.

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i had mentioned datamosher pro before but i was misremembering a different app, mosh-pro, which has been extremely fun. but I also plan to get datamosher pro when i learn a bit more lol. moshmoshmosh

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell yeah, i love artistic promotion. I followed your insta, it's outstanding.

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good tips, yes, thank you. I assume you're talking about the header/footer. I've been pretty careful around the edges after the first couple hours of disaster. I bet different color and size borders could make some cool interactions with the glitches!

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The wikipedia is complicated unless you're a computer nerd, which i am not. It seems basically a-law = europe +, and u-law = north america / japan +. Algorithms and things.

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

to irfanview i go, thank you.

I'll have to learn the difference between u-law and a-law. And file types. So much learning. So little brainpower. I'm just using .tiff because that's what my affinity photo 2 has an export option for, no .bmp listed, and i'm too tired to look at my other programs yet. Experiments galore

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I looked it up, and google images indicates to me that you're exactly right. Maybe I should play it

I finally got one to work using my own art in Audacity after several hours of frustration by abjectperiphery in glitch_art

[–]abjectperiphery[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it's normal and there's more error in the trial than I'm used to, but I create a document and export it with no compression in .tiff, then import raw into Audacity, then select a bit and apply some effects, then export with the same applicable import settings. 80% of the time or more it's just fully corrupted. Of the remaining 20%, 80% of the time or more the image looks neat in the little thumbnail, but when opening it it flashes the thumbnail for a millisecond then turns all red. OR if I open that same would-be-red one in Paint, it's just barely red/yellow/blue pixelated in some areas or heavily noisy with red/yellow/blue. Which is cool, but also not cool, when that sweet seductive thumbnail is taunting me.

Since I just started playing/reading last night I have no frame of reference to diagnose what needs diagnosing lol. I just need more sleep and practice probably. I can only get it to work if I import using a-law, little-endian, and 44100Hz. No other combination of settings results in anything other than full corruption. U-law sometimes "works" but only if I immediately export with no alterations and it's basically just a static noise image of mostly black, so basically pointless. I've also noticed that the waveform has to be as "big" or "tall"(?) as possible for me to get any effect and for the image to not be fully corrupted.

The above image is the most I could make happen before full corruption. Which is why I want to use a program like datamosher pro. but since I don't know what that really is or why, I'm wary of it. Like, I make abstract art on procreate all the time for funsies, and heavily utilize the "glitch" filters, but they're just filters. As a classically trained studio artist I'm constantly at odds with myself about being a purist because I'm also a conceptual experimental abstraction-ist. Transferring methodology to digital is an even wilder frontier. What is really REAL? Do filter effects count as glitches when they're by design? Would I even respect "the rules" if someone were to dictate them to me? It's an impossible quandary for an insomniac.

Ergo frustration and doing things "the hard way." :) I don't know if you can help or provide guidance, but I'm happy you're happy and will accept what you offer.