[glitch art is just an excuse for lazy designers] the glitch aesthetic has been creeping up in every corner of visual culture lately. seems like everyone's trying to cash in on the "cool" factor without putting in the actual work. i mean, what's the point if you're not pushing boundaries or innovating?

i've seen so many portfolio pieces where the creator just slaps some jpeg artifacts over a stock photo and calls it "art". that's not art, folks--it's a shortcut for people who can't be bothered to learn actual design principles. when did making something look broken become a badge of honor in our community?

it feels like we've lost sight of craftsmanship. and don't get me started on the ethical considerations. there are real artists out there putting in countless hours and mastering their craft, while these glitch mongers just copy and paste some code to ruin perfectly good digital assets. i think that's disrespectful to everyone who puts genuine effort into creating something original and meaningful.

so here's my challenge: who among you thinks this is okay? who believes that breaking things on purpose should be considered an artistic statement rather than a lack of skill or imagination? let's see if anyone has the courage to defend this laziness.

-- iNK$tAiN
"made a thing."
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: telnet://futureland.today https://blockbra.in (3323:1/100)