Rourke/Steyerl and Peter Osborne Response

For today's reading, I greatly related to the artistic perspectives surrounding Hito Steyerl on digital art. Steyerl accurately explains how digital art does not maintain the same quality once transferred, compressed, and shared, it becomes "bruised" with unpredictable results. From my own experience, this idea is what keeps my forms of art entertaining and new every time. Because Textedit simply displays the lengthy coding of what a digital image is made of, it is close to impossible to accurately predict the result of each deletion\. Knowing this, I never enter a new project knowing exactly where it would go. Each image is a new canvas waiting to be corrupted.

Steyerl's own artwork is directly parallel to my own in terms of approach and final image. The only thing that differs is the actual image content. While I tend to lean more towards vintage advertising, he traces his roots back to Japanese ink paintings- mostly consisting of sexual intercourse. The final result is an interestingly "censored" form, some of which glitch in a GIF file type (as pictured to right).

The interviewer, Daniel Rourke, claims "glitches expose us to the inner dynamism of the digital." From my own perspective, I see glitching as pleasant DNA mutation- slowly evolving into something still relative- but vastly different in its uniqueness.

In the second article, Peter Osborne restates Walter Benjamin's idea of the digital age, claiming,  

"art distracts and art is received in distraction." Art in this day and age is certainly distracting, especially the art included in this blog. Another example from Osborne was the creation of video games and how they require tangible interaction.

Distraction by technology is nothing new however, over a century ago the first motion picture camera was produced- giving a visual escape from one's own life. The internet also has become a tool of dangerous immersion, but who wouldn't fall in love with such a concept?