<name> Meagan Winkelman Farhad Bahram Jessie Rose Vala </name>

<h1> Introduction to Artistic Failure in the

Digital Humanities </h1>

<quote> “Humans die, instruments fail.” </quote>

<p>

In this essay, we exemplify what is“humanistic”inthe

digitalhumanitieswithartpracticesthatexploreanddevelop

from the potentials offailure.Chaos,malfunction,anderror

aredisregardedstatesofcomputationaltechnology,excludedby

norms and expectations for usability, functionality, and

marketabilityinsoftwaredesign.However,thesestatesoccur,

defyingthesimplifyinglogicsofdesign,andrevealingmoments

inwhichhumanagencydoesnotcontroltheprocessesexecutedby

technology.Whiledigitalhumanistshaveembracedandexpounded

thenecessityof“failureinthepursuitofinnovation,”aspart

of a “high risk/high reward paradigm” borrowed from

entrepreneurism and scientific models (Spiro 29), the art

practiceswefocusonheretakeadifferentapproach,whichasks

ustolooktothatwhichiscriticallyunproductive,ioreven

destructive,includingthedesign(orundesign)oftechnological

objectswhichareinefficientorunusable,askingustoquestion

their instrumentality, while opening new avenues forcritical

inquiry.

In conceptualizing failure, westrayfromthescientific

experimental paradigm, which situates failure as results

inconsistentwithprojectedoutcomesorgoals,insteadexamining

thewaysinwhichtheerrorofcomputationalsystemscanplaya

roleincreatingnewexpressionsofwhatitmeanstobehuman,

andrevealingexistingexpressionswhichdefytheexpectations

of validating institutions. Moments of malfunction andchaos,

such as those characterized by the glitch, reveal both human

vulnerabilityandthepotentialforunderstandingcomputational

technology as organic and unconstrained by the instrumental

intentascribedtoit. Inthissense,“failure”isamisnomer,

asitrefersonlytotheagencyofhumansinputtingdata,and

not to the variety of forces, many of which are unknown or

non-human, affecting particular outcomes. Using “failure,” to

describeartwhichcomesastheresultofglitch,error,anda

lack of functionality, then,isaspecificideologicalchoice

meant to emphasize the human vulnerability implicit in the

glitch[1], which we consider to be central to humanistic

inquiry,andtoframethisparticularintersectionofartand

technology as subversive, defying the structuring

computational logics of exclusion in software and interface

design.

In “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White?”, Tara

McPherson explains that the programmers designing the

structuringmethodsofcomputingtechnologyhaveimbuedwithin

themcertainnorms.Thesenormsaredeployedunderthelogicof

‘commonsense’(McPherson146),orsimplicity,wheninfactthey

are exclusionary, contributing to a covert symbolic violence

regarding race. Principles of modularity, clarity, and

information-hiding guide the design of software and, as

Mcpherson argues, contribute to and continue to influence a

neoliberalandpost-fordistepistemology,thesameepistemology

whichinfluencesthedigitalhumanities.Giventhepervasiveness

ofcomputinginthecontemporaryhumanexperience,thesecoded

ideologies are at issue not just in the work of digital

humanists, but in our understanding of humanity at this

historical moment, as these ideologies not only reflect but

serve to produce societal norms.

Computational failure and failureofdesignattractsour

attentionasdigitalhumanistsandasartists,becauseitdefies

the violent structuring logics implicit in technologies‘

operations. Wecanseeitasamodeofcriticaldeconstruction,

a mode of critique which sacrifices a sense of control over

technology,bringingtolightexistingspaceforalternatives.

InTheQueerArtofFailure,JudithHalberstamexplainsfailure

asarefusaltoconformtodominant,“commonsense”notionsof

progress(reproduction,capitalaccumulationand,asweargue,

technological advancement) and a site for recognizing the

alreadyexistingalternativestotheseexpectations. Likewise,

theartisticpracticesinvolvingfailurewhichwewillexamine

here,specificallyglitchart,reclaimthe‘human’(albeitnot

always the result of human agency) in technologies, despite

supposednon-functionalityordifficultyofuse,andinspireor

reveal ways of thinking that lie outside of normative

structuring logics.

These artistic practices can be seen in a historical

continuumwiththecriticalethosofdestructivecreationinthe

Modernist period, when artists attacked the structures which

validated and defined art in a turn towards process and

performance,andincreatingobjectswhichfailed(orattempted

to fail) the institutional expectations of durability,

tangibility, and commodifiability.

</p>

<h1>DestructiveCreation:TheAesthetic

of Failure </h1>

<quote> "Previously, pictures advanced to their end by

progression.Eachdaybroughtsomethingnew.Apicturewasasum

of additions. With me, a picture is a sum of destructions.”

- Pablo Picasso </quote>

<p>

Digitalhumanitiesinpartcreatesitsdiscourseoverthe

ruinsofdysfunctionalandoutmodedpracticesintheHumanities

discipline. It is with this creative destruction that DH

embodiesthehumanhistoryoffree-floatinginhumanpostureof

toolssuchasmodularityandcoding.Infactdigitalhumanities

creates a new world in relation with technologies while also

changingthepoliticalandculturallandscape.Howcouldanew

worldbecreated,afterall,withoutdestroyingmuchthathad

gone before? In fact, the rationale of contemporary

knowledge-based works is directly related to this binary of

creation/destruction.Perhapsthat’swhytheimageof‘Creative

Destruction’ is very important to understand the digital

humanitiesapproachtowardthenotionoftheFailure,precisely

becauseitderivedfromthepracticaldilemmasthatfacedthe

implementation of the digital humanities.

Inpursueofinnovationandbyrelyingonthequalityof

scientific experimental paradigm, one could easily arguethat

digital humanities talks about Creative Destruction with the

emphasis on “creative” andalmostnofunctionalreflectionon

“destruction”. By considering thismodel,webelievethatthe

questionofthefutureaestheticofDHisthequestionofthe

general legitimation of art in such an image of creative

destruction. In fact we are asking what is the function of

creativeartinaworldofinnovativeinformationandknowledge?

Ofcoursethevarietyofcreativepracticesinthecontemporary

artanditsremarkableemphasisoncreationisnotthesubject

of our question. Here we are going to talk about the other

paradoxicalsideoftheequationwhichisaboutmutation,chaos

and destruction in art practice: what may be called the

“Destructive Creation”, or more fully, we can call it the

aesthetic of Failure, the critical inverse of the mainstream

ideology of creative destruction in digital humanities.

Infactweshouldbeawarethatdestructivityhasalways

beenintimatetocreativityinthehistoryofartevenbefore

the contemporary era. According to the Dario Gamboni’s The

Destruction of Art: IconoclasmandVandalismsincetheFrench

Revolution(1997)thehistoryofartistotallymingledwitha

parallelhistoryof“de-arting.”Artdevaluedbyindividualsor

regimesasnon-art;artdestroyedforbeingpaganorprimitive;

arttorndownforitspolitics(e.g.,statuesofLeninafterthe

fall of communism); art slashed or sprayed in museums for a

variety of reasons; even art "thrown away" because it is

supposedlynotrecognizedasart:alltheseactsofdestruction,

orde-arting,asGambonidescribes,aretheotherside"ofthe

same coin" of creative art.

Inthechapter"ModernArtandIconoclasm"fromthesame

book, Gamboni talks about one of the most dominant forms of

artistic destructivity: the attack of art on itself. For

example, in the Modernist period, artists started expressing

hostility,bothexternallytowardtheartinstitutions(suchas

galleries,museumsandacademia)andinternallytowardtheart

practiceitself.Inthelatterapproach,artdissolvedintoa

performative display of de(con)struction, the radical

disintegration of the structures defining art itself. The

objectscreatedintheseperformativedisplaystechnicallyfail

infulfillingtheexpectationsofvalidatinginstitutions,and

indoingsosubverttheauthorityofthesestructures.Robert

Rauschenberg'sEraseddeKooningDrawingisoneexample,which

defies the structure of preserving and authenticating art

objects.Howeverinrelationtoourcontemporarymoment,welook

topracticesindigitalart,whichembodythemodernistproject

of destructive creation within the technological paradigmsof

computing, software and interface design.

</p>

<h1> Glitch </h1>

<quote> “The negative feelings make place for an intimate, personalexperience of a machine (or program), a system showing its formations,

inner workings and flaws.” -Rose Menkman </quote>

<p>

To focus in onthisparadoxicalsideoftheequationwe

look at the process and activation of Glitch art. Glitch

rupturestheforegroundoftheusableinterface;thefunctioning

‘normal’ software, the opaqueness of digital platforms, the

planned obsolescence. The software glitch turns in and onto

itself; the background merges with the foreground creating

possibilities for a chaotic beauty to take shape. For an

instant, the user is aware of the pervasive illusion of

complete control. In this moment, there is an organic

relationshipofpurepotentialityandpurefailure.Theghostin

the machine is activated by a breakdown, causing shifting

perspectives, transparency, and unexpected possibilities.

Rosa Menkman further activatesthesemomentsthroughthe

‘Glitch Studies Manifesto’. Shespeaksoftheimperfectionof

technology,themomentsoffailurethattheglitchframesand

holdsinherentlyinitsnature.Thereisamythoccurringinour

wake,thatoftheholygrailoftechnology.Thisgrailbecomes

oursavior,ourbeingswillbebroughttoperfectionthroughan

illusion of usability, efficiency and shiny newness. What is

this holy grail made of? Who designs and operates it?

“Some artists set out to elucidate and deconstruct the

hierarchiesofthesesystemsofassemblage.Theydonotworkin

(binary)oppositiontowhatisinsidetheflows(thenormaluses

of the computer) but practice on the border of these flows.

Sometimes,theyusethecomputers’inherentmaximsasafaçade,

totricktheaudienceintoaflowofcertainexpectationthatthe

artwork subsequently rapidly breaks out of. As a result, the

spectatorisforcedtoacknowledgethattheuseofthecomputer

is based on a genealogy of conventions,whileinrealitythe

computerisamachinethatcanbebendorusedinmanydifferent

ways.Withthecreationofbreakswithinpoliticsandsocialand

economical conventions, the audience may become aware of the

preprogrammed patterns.” -menkman

The “preprogrammed patterns” fail. In this mysterious

instant we become receivers of an expanded dimensionality of

uncontrolled chaotic transparency. The known becomes the

unknown.Thereisafeelingofsteppingintoavoid,theexpanse

oftheglitch.Thisgenerativevoidisburgeoningwithnoise,a

communication that is undeniable, simultaneously holding the

negative and positive togethercreatinganambienceofspace.

Thisbreakingintonoisecanforcethespectatorto“understand

the politics behind code and voice..”-Menkman. A destructive

creation, or destructive generativity occurs.

TofurtherseetheworldofGlitchIwouldliketolookat

twoshowsthatplaywithinthisno-mansland.ThefirstshowI

wouldliketoconsideris(Glitch)ArtGenealogiesatLeapin

Berlin,Germany19.03.-23.03Theuseofgenealogiesinthetitle

of the show refers to Foucault’s theory of history as a

non-linear multiplicity of complex relationships and

perspectives. There is no one singular telling. There is no

masternarrative,nodirectlineage,asimultaneityisatplay

thatdisregardslinearity.Thecurationhighlightsthemultiple

threads, perspectives and problematics that create this

community. The work ruptures known relationships with the

Graphic User Interface (GUI), circuit bending, and gaming

platforms. This show creates an open-ended conversationwhere

technological standardization is questioned.

ThemeaningandmaterialityoftheGUIisquestionedand

pushed beyond its limits to consider “standardization and

corruption,expressionandcode,andmeaningandnon-meaning”.

Circuitswithinateddyroxpinarebentbeyondtheirdesigned

capabilities allowing the technology to communicate in

unexpectedways.Itisonlyatthemomentofcompleteentropy

thatTeddyRoxpinrealizeshehashisownvoice.Inotherpieces

tIme collapses where older media interfaces withstandardized

glitch software to create a retro aesthetic that becomes

fantasticallandscapesofpsychedelia. Enigmaticrealitiesare

createdthroughgamingprogramsdeterioratingintotheglitch.

The original functionality is strangely misplaced.

ThesecondshowIwouldliketoconsiderbyDanielTemkin.

Glitchometry took place at Transfer Gallery in Brooklyn NY,

11/2013.Glitchometrypositsaroundahumanisticcollaboration

between machine and artist. Temkin’s relationship with the

computerisextremelyuneasy,thereisatradeoffofcontrol.

Chaosisinherentinthemaking,Temkinisdissolvedintothe

machinesglitches.Itisatthesemomentwherethecontrolis

handed off to the machine. The author disappears into the

background.Onecannotteaseoutwhoismakingthepiece,the

machine? the artist? the glitch?

Temkinquestionsthinkinglogicallythroughwelcomingthe

computermalfunctionintohisprocess.InDitherStudieswesee

an exploration of Photoshops algorithm. Fields ofPsychedelic

abstractpatternsaretheproductofthisbreakdown.Itseems

thevibrantexpansecouldbleedoffthescreen,orburnitself

intotheretina,aswhenonestaresintothesuntoolong. The

vibrancyistracedbackedontothereceiver,asthecomputer’s

politicsof‘functionality’canbetracedintoourlivesonan

intimatelevel. Or,takeDrunkEliza:anonlinesiteonecan

seekhelpfromaprogramthatisinaconstantstateofdecay.

Here we find the notion of searching for something outside

ourselvesforrepairorguidancebutallwefindisafailureof

any sort of coherent communication.

Inunderstandingtheglitchasafailure,onewhichcalls

into question the supposed human control of technological

interfaces, as well astheauthorityofviolent,exclusionary

logics embedded within these systems, we propose that these

worksquestionnotonlythestructuringlogicsofcomputing,but

the structuring logics of society as well. In response to

criticaldoubtabouttheroletechnologycanorshouldplayin

relation to humanistic inquiryfromdigitalhumanistssuchas

JohannaDrucker,whofeels“theideologyofalmostallcurrent

information visualization is anathema to humanistic thought,

antipathetic to its aims and values” (Drucker 86), we might

consider ‘failure’ as strategy for subverting ideological

structuring logics.

When Drucker calls for a shift towards to “a

humanistically informed theory ofthemakingoftechnology(a

humanistic computing at the level of design, modeling of

informationarchitecture,datatypes,interface,andprotocols)”

(Drucker 87)we propose thathumanistically-informedtechnology

is technology which embodies the frailty of the human

experience. This frailty exists in the examination of

technologicalerrorandfailure,andperhapscanprovideusthe

new ways of knowing outside of the structuring paradigms.

</p>

<h1> Works Cited </h1>

Drucker, Johanna. “Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship” Debates

In The Digital Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold.

Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Print

Gamboni, Dario. The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism

Since the French Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Print.

Halberstam, Judith. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University

Press, 2011. Print.

Mcpherson, Tara. “Why Are The Digital Humanities So White?”

Debates In The Digital Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Print

Spiro, Lisa. “This Is Why We Fight” Debates In The Digital

Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press, 2012. Print

Menkma,Rosa. “Glitch vs. Glitch” Sunshine in my throat. Blogspot.

Web. 2/11/2014

Menkma,Rosa. “Glitch Studies Manifesto” Blogspot. Web. 2/8/2014

Menkma,Rosa. “(Glitch) Art Genealogies” Triangulation. Web.

02/19/2014