I found the interpretations that Legacy Russell made in her article, “Digital Dualism and The Glitch Feminism Manifesto”, concerning glitch to be interesting. Comparing glitch to a digital orgasm is definitely something that I had not heard of before. It’s definitely a different take on glitch that I have not heard of before, but it is not one that I agree on. Russell describes the glitch as a “happy accident”, that buffering, freezing, of videos is a form of foreplay. To me the idea of having to wait for a video to buffer, or having something freeze on me does not sound appealing, on the contrary it sounds frustrating. Yeah, she says it’s the fact that we are left wanting more, begging for the action we had executed to continue but even then I don’t see the appeal of begging for more from a machine, and especially not in a erotic manner. I also found it a bit difficult to pinpoint what or how exactly Russell was trying to associate glitch as a digital orgasm, and glitch feminism, or was that to separate ideas? The whole definition of glitch feminism was a bit vague and difficult to understand for me, especially this sentence:
“Glitch Feminism is not gender-specific—it is for all bodies that exist somewhere before arrival upon a final concretized identity that can be easily digested, produced, packaged, and categorized by a voyeuristic mainstream public”
I found Chad Parkhill’s article “Queer/ Error: Gay Media Systems and Process of Abjection” to be a more insightful than Russell’s. Parkhill talked about glitch in a manner relating to the social structure of the economy and media. Parkhill’s analysis of the media not portraying homosexuality in a positive light, specifically the health issues that relate to it, such as HIV+ imaging, is eye opening. He cites that “In Epstein’s formulation, homosexuality is an error in nature that not only defies explanation, but renders nature itself inexplicable; unsurprisingly…” he then relates this negativity towards homosexuality with the way in which even media outlets who are suppose to serve as a positive community oriented platforms do not entirely embrace the totality of what it means to be a homosexual, specifically noting the troubles that they have to be cautious of (being HIV+). Parkhill points out that HIV+ bodies, which are considered to be not aesthetically pleasing to look at, are not properly portrayed in the media, and that is a problem because the audience that is subscribed to these media outlets have a responsibility to educate on all the issues of the community especially the ones that are consistently brought up such as HIV.