a conversation with james bridle

Ffter watching his talk "waving at the machines", I decided to send James Bridle an email regarding his work and his opinions on the work I'm doing, since he seems to know what he's talking about. plus, I thought it might be good to get some first-hand sources. He had this to say about my chosen quote.

Dear Ally - 

Thanks for your message - I’m glad my talk was helpful to you. 

I’m not sure exactly what I can help you with, as I really disagree with the definition of “post-digital” in that quote - it seems extremely reductive. For me, “post-digital” (which is not a term I like much, but anyway) refers to pretty much everything that happens after you acknowledge that “digital” is not some separate realm of existence but intimately entwined with everything else. Reducing it to a glitch aesthetic really misses the point: like “post-modern”, the “post” here really means “crisis of” rather than “after” (as someone much wiser than me said) - everything is post-digital now, whether it acknowledges it or cares about it. The glitch aesthetic has its uses and many fine expressions, but it’s a very small part of digitally-infused work, post or otherwise.

Regarding the legitimacy of digital art, you’d be pretty hard pushed to find anything I don’t think legitimate as art.

I thought it was pretty cool that he emailed back, since I wasn't expecting much. I was surprised to see how severely he disagreed with the quote, but his points have opened me up to the idea of being more critical and sceptical about the quote. After all, it is 14 years old - things have really changed since then in the digital world, and it would be foolish to deny that. I also will look at how the digital world has a bigger influence than just in art.