After reading Rosa Menkman’s Glitch Studies Manifesto, what stands out most is her argument that we should stop viewing technological errors simply as problems that need to be fixed. Instead of constantly chasing the impossible goal of a perfect, invisible interface, Menkman suggests that glitches and digital noise actually give us a valuable peek behind the curtain of our technology. When a system breaks, it interrupts our blind trust and reveals the hidden rules, biases, and flaws built into the software we use every day. I really appreciate how the manifesto frames these moments of technical failure not as a dead end, but as a creative spark, a chance to bend the rules, question the digital systems that govern our lives, and build something entirely new out of the broken pieces.

Before I even started reading, I wanted to say that the way the manifesto was structured visually was quite unique and I have never seen someone utilize the form of their writing as part of message.

One point the author points out in the manifesto that especially stood out to me was what they refered to as “conservative glitch art” where we are trying to replicate the aesthetic of the glitch. Although it may look cool, that’s pretty much it. There is nothing beyond that as the glitch is purely visual.

Another quote that I really liked was:” flow cannot be understood without interruption or functioning without glitching.” As we continue to utilize computers for everyday tasks, the existence of this functional piece of technology will always imply a glitch that is bound to happen. Beyond just technology, no matter what medium is utilized, there will always be some sort of glitch.

We know that live coding isn’t necessarily about the final result, but it’s a trial and error process, with a lot of experimentation and glitches. Some glitches end up making the work better, they can work like happy mistakes.


The idea of the black box being broken also applies to what we’re doing, while performing the code is being edited and evaluated in real-time and the audience is seeing exactly what the performer is, full transparency. So when a glitch happens (and perhaps throws an error), the performer may not be able to play it off as smoothly as they would be able to if a black box had been in place.


Given all this, I realize that I don’t let myself experiment with glitches, I usually play it safe in my demos, which while my final result may seem better to me, the reading made me acknowledge that I am probably limiting myself when I do that, and I can’t imagine its as fun for the audience to what me evaluate pre-written lines of code rather than watch me edit and figure out in real-time.

I read this and all I felt was tired. Yes, glitch reveals that systems are not inevitable and impenetrable. Control is an illusion. Hurrah. Storms flatten houses. Rivers of gold ravage Pompeii. Nature subverts itself. Glitch is the trickster spirits and coyotes and spiders and monkey kings represent in endless mythologies. The devil Robert Johnson met on the Crossroads. We detect glitch and feel it as a resolutely involved presence, playmaker, and force in this stupid play. I remember a physicist researcher told me dark matter is like stumbling over something in pitch black. It’s Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare knew all about glitch. I guess we are all sacrificial casualties on the pyre of glitch. That’s why it all seems so absurd, so tragic, so funny, so meaningful, so useless. You know when Puck revealed at the end that it was all a dream.

Everything I know and have ever loved is because of people who devoted themselves to what counts as glitch studies, those who were at the behest of glitches, and audiences that produced movements motivated by glitches, commodified, repackaged or otherwise. I don’t mean to be hypocritical and shit on the whole parade, but. The author is personally fascinated by the magic of glitch. Is your fascination contagious? They say they “believe that ‘Glitchspeak’ can democratize society.” Hm.

I don’t really want to be involved anymore. Unfortunately my skin is materially and literally in the game, so. The domestication and commodification of glitch blah blah blah. Glitch studies blah blah blah. Glitch is destructive generativity blah blah blah. I’ve become disenchanted with and disengaged from the gain and the loss, the sun rise and set, the confusion and the clarity. Glitch, ravage your course. I’ll laugh at the funny parts and cry at the sad ones.

The first thing you notice is that the document itself doesn’t look like a normal academic paper. It’s filled with visual noise, fragmented text, and off-margin layouts that act like a glitch. This non-traditional format perfectly sets up her argument that we shouldn’t just ignore the “black box” of our computers and other interesting comments about glitch in the paper.

Menkman describes the glitch as an “exoskeleton of progress,” saying these technical interruptions are actually “wonderful” experiences. When a computer fails, we move from a “negative feeling” to an “intimate, personal experience” where the system finally shows its “inner workings and flaws”. Usually, we use technology so fast that it feels transparent, but a glitch breaks that flow and forces us to be “shocked, lost and in awe” of what the machine is actually doing.

One of the most interesting points she makes is that a glitch is “ephemeral”. The second you “name” a glitch or understand how it was created, its “momentum” is gone. It stops being a mysterious rupture and just becomes a new set of conditions or a “domesticated” tool. For Menkman, the real value of computer noise isn’t in fixing it, but in that brief moment of “devastation” where a “spark of creative energy” shows us that the machine can be something more than what it was programmed to be.

When reading Rosa Menkman’s Glitch Studies Manifesto, I found it interesting how she changes the way we usually think about technological errors. Most of the time, we see glitches as annoying problems that should be fixed. But Menkman argues that trying to make technology completely perfect is not really possible. Instead, she encourages us to see glitches as moments that can lead to creativity and new ideas.

What stood out to me most was her point that a glitch only feels powerful for a short moment. Once we explain it too much or turn it into something normal, it loses that special effect. I also found her criticism of fake glitches interesting, especially when they are turned into filters or effects that anyone can use. That made me think about an important question: if we study glitches too much, do we take away the thing that makes them powerful in the first place?