I copied an interesting thread from Facebook that Clif felt was off-topic for archival/perusal, as well as ongoing meta discussion:
why is there so much hatred towards glitch apps? what's the difference between using a processing script someone else wrote and an app?
probably the irrational belief that if something is more difficult to do it's inherently more worthy
i guess because glitch art loses its value now that its becoming more mainstream. kinda like your favorite underground band signing to a big record label. still great stuff people create in both aspects
Losing value is pretty subjective. If it loses value for you, then that means you should probably move onto a new niche. It means you care more about obscurity than glitch art. Nothing wrong with that, though!
I don't like apps because they all pretty much give you the same results, and they don't give you freedom of messing with the settings, you're limited to some preset (at least the ones i've tried). With processing scripts you can at least change some settings in the code. But i wouldn't say i hate apps, i just don't like to use them myself.
Presets, same reason they're derided in music creation, the results become generic and there is little to no effort required.
Matthias Meeta A processing script is a preset as well.
Tom Harlow Yeah just using someone else's script is the same as using a 3rd party preset, but I thought (hoped) that most people wrote their own.
Like from scratch? Because changing a few values in a script is not different from dragging a slider in an app
Or turning a knob on an analog synth. I don't get the hatred towards presets in electronic music as well, a 303 has a "generic" sound, so does an 808 or any other "real" synth. They're presets as well that you modify.
More like using Massive's Modern Talking.
Apps just restrict the scope of what can be done, glitching with a 'real computer' has much more opportunity rather than just the features that the app designer included. Using someone's processing script for example, you can add your own code and start to learn what's going on by looking at the code.
Although to be fair, I rarely actually 'glitch' files, when I do it's with imageglitch which gives you a preview of all the changes you're making with the ASCII editor, so cheating a bit, especially since the rest of the time I just use decomposed, layered and processed compositions using lots of GIMP filters.
"chaning a few values in a script is not different from dragging a slider in an app" yes and no. Finding the right setting in some hundreds lines of code is kinda different than moving the only slider on the screen, but i agree with the sentiment
All of my art has been made with apps besides what I do with tachyons plus and I have to say I've gotten a lot of love from GAC. It's a matter of being innovative with the software or apps you are using. I think what people dislike is when an image has been obviously made with an app.. It's like no thinking went into it. But yeah, I know a lot of glitch people who use and like apps and I haven't really experienced the stigma that people often express about apps. It's a myth! Use what you use and make quality shit and it will be respected !
Way Spurr-Chen nailed it. If it's too easy to do it's frowned upon because the user doesn't need to know the inner workings of underlying concepts and there's a fear that if the results are too accessible then those who accomplish them by manual coding are de-valued. The truth is that many who frown on apps don't fully understand the processing scripts they're using either, or the underlying processes in software like Photoshop.
Probably not that creative for innovative "glitch art"
personally, the process of coding my own image processing algorithms is as important and fulfilling, if not moreso, than the final result. I think a lot of the backslash is from people with similar outlooks who expect everyone else to have the same ideas about process vs result, when any approach is actually valid and meaningful. I personally don't see that much of a difference between someone using an app and someone using someone else's processing sketch without editing it or knowing how it works, but at the same time I don't look down at either group simply because I prefer a more manual approach.
Apps can be used as tools for innovation, combining app features with manual glitching, or combining different apps. When hardcore glitchers see apps as tools rather than the devil it opens up many possibilities...
Tuerff Wanted to respond to Tom in a separate reply because as one of the GAC admins I'd like to make the general admin team's opinions known and I'll try to keep it short:
The cheapness of a method comes mosty from the idea of "single-pass". Single pass is doing one glitch operation to a picture and calling it a day because now it looks different with no other merits to speak of. This goes for delaunay, rutt-etra, app filters, even audacity sonification effects. Most people who have been in the glitch creation scene for a good amount of time will see your piece and think "Hooray you figured out how to press the buttons."
We don't ban apps because they can be useful tools for creating glitch aesthetic pictures. If you do them right, even the app's users won't be quite sure what all went into picture. Sara's work is a great example of this.
We want to see the unexpected, and while this is harder to achieve with apps, it's possible. The game of finding new and exciting results in a constrained environment is a lot of fun for the creators.