Glitch: Interview with O.K. Parking

Adapted from Glitch: Designing Imperfection (Mark Batty Publisher)

By Iman Moradi, Ant Scott, Joe Gilmore & Christopher Murphy

Dateline: October 23, 2009
Read more Graphic Design articles
Graphics.com/Learning video tutorials on Design

O.K. Parking William van Giessen, Joost van der Steen Graphic / Interaction Designers Arnhem, Netherlands www.ok-parking.com

Please outline your working ethos and history as a graphic design studio—your experimental glitch research and the commercial side. How did this way of working come about?

During our study at the Academy of Arts in Arnhem (Netherlands), we worked together on several projects. These projects were mostly assignments that we had to make for our study courses. But we also did some early experimental research together in our spare time, in the field of glitch, chance and error. After a while we used these glitch experiments in our graphic design projects. Because we had the artistic freedom we could spend a lot of time to develop our vision and way of working toward implementing glitch in usable, functional graphic design projects. At first, it was in a pure visual aesthetical way, but more and more we became fascinated by the concept of chance and error and how to use this in a conceptual way in graphic design.

O.K. Parking has two faces, one is the commercial graphic design studio; the second is the autonomous, artistic, experimental self-initiated glitch projects side.

When making commercial graphic design projects the client most of the time isn’t very pleased with glitch images. Sometimes it can work out great, but mostly the concept of glitch is more interesting and usable. The result doesn’t have to show the (extreme) visual language of glitch, but it can be made out of glitch-experimenting and concept.

O.K. Parking Monitor, Photograph

When starting a new design project, do you look at your portfolio of experiments to see what would work best? Do you start new experiments with a specific project in mind?

Whenever we start a new commercial project we first think about if glitch is possible. Nine out of ten times it isn’t. When it is possible, we look in what way, visually and/or conceptually. Then we start with new experiments. Each project/client is unique, so it deserves (we strongly believe it needs) a unique approach to the project. Mostly, new experiments are based on new ideas. But it’s also possible that we had new ideas during previous glitch experimenting that we can develop and use for a project. Or there are possibilities to take existing glitch experiments (which fit the project) and develop and research it more and take it to the next level.

For our self-initiated glitch projects, we often work from just messing things up (technical devices, hard/software) and the ideas that come along. We often find (or buy) old/ used material that serve as a starting point. First we see what happens when we glitch it. If we like it we go on with it, to make an installation out of it or use it in a commercial project if we have the chance.

If we use the glitch in a visual way (in our own projects) we’re not going to change the images. Not the color, not the size, nothing. We let them be actually the way we captured them. Yes, if needed for print we make it CMYK/300dpi but we always make sure the image will be as close to the real one. We keep in mind that (for commercial projects) it has to be reproducible. (Although in the producing/printing process there’s a lot of glitch fun to do!) The fingerprint of the software and hardware is important to us. So we will never change colors or something of the glitch visuals.

O.K. Parking Webcam, Webcam Stills

What has been the most fun experiment you’ve done to make glitches?

William: “SPRAAK: With SPRAAK” (“SPEECH” in English): We made an installation piece in which we were searching for a more interactive way of chance and error. It isn’t a visual glitch piece but more a conceptual approach toward chance and error. When we tried speech recognition software for another project, it seems all of them were buggy. They didn’t work the 100% they should do. We really liked this because when we talked, our words were recognized quite badly. We thought about it and came up with the idea of making the software mistakes visual. The first “SPRAAK” installation was in a bar. We made a table with two microphones on it. The chitchat of people sitting at the table was captured by the buggy speech recognition program, and made visible by projecting the words flying out of the people’s shadows. The visual words fly above, where they end up in a word cloud with all the words said in the conversations spoken earlier. People not sitting at the desk (standing a bit away) don’t know what the conversation is about. When they join, interactive confusion starts.

Joost: “PLOTTER”: When we were plotting several graphic design projects, some of them were printed very glitchy. We looked in the files of the one that went wrong. We discovered that the plotting machine cannot handle certain things. They always seem to randomly glitch the image coming out of the plotter. With “PLOTTER” (a large canvas print) we only used the things that could go wrong, making a unique, random, unforeseen canvas print. We only did it once but if the same file is being printed again the eventual image would turn out completely different. We didn’t expect a machine could make something this beautifully glitched!

Alex Peverett NEW61B, JPEG, 2000

Given the dual nature of your work, are you equally interested in both the process of making new glitches and the aesthetic outcomes?

The process of glitching is the most important. A little glitch or accidentally discovered faults can lead to an interesting new project. These projects can be used or be meaningful in a commercial assignment, visually or conceptually. The pure aesthetic in a work is only interesting for a short amount of time. More interesting is using the glitch as a concept in a whole project.

The experimenting itself, with devices/materials, is the most interesting. Doing so we experience the world of aesthetical glitch, wonderful images and unforeseen results. When we’re busy with the glitching process it’s like entering a new (or lost) world. The eventual result itself is not the most important part in the process. The research is the part we enjoy and get knowledge from. We write down what we do and what kind of results came out of it, and save it for later when we think we could use it sometime.

Brent Gustafson AX|BX (Detail), HTML / GIF

Where did you first encounter glitches?

We first encountered glitches when we had computer crashes or were using malfunctioning devices. The things everybody runs into from time to time. We discovered that we could use glitches instead of resetting them or trying to fix it. We started to save them (often screenshots or snapshots with a digital camera). The next step was actually looking for glitches. We started to use accidental glitches in our graphic design work as part of the process. It seemed to us quite obvious to do because it was a natural part of it. The next step was making glitches on purpose with all kinds of devices in all kinds of ways. Behind the perfect world of soft/hardware an even more beautiful and inspiring world comes alive.

In what ways do you consider the software and hardware to be your co-creators?

We consider software and hardware to be our tools to give shape to our ideas. Just like a painter needs paint and tools to put his idea on canvas, we use technical devices or buggy software to “paint” our ideas in our graphic design work. Of course, each tool has its own characteristic way of expression, and each piece of software or hardware has its own fingerprint, which shows up when you glitch and use it. In this way, you can say it acts as a co-author or co-creator. But, the “master” shows his talent in the way he uses it. When he goes beyond it. With glitching you know what probably could happen, in what sort of way, with a certain kind of material you use. But then there’s always an unforeseen element. This makes it exciting and challenging to push it to a higher, conceptual level in our work.

eNo Untitled, Video Still, 2002

Who are the target audiences for your glitch graphic design work?

Everyone who is interested in it! We don’t have a specific group of people in mind. Although we really like to show it to people who are completely unfamiliar with the glitch idea. They are the ones that get the most enthusiastic about it, rather than notorious art lovers!

Do you think it’s important to document glitches as a record or fingerprint of current technology?

The materials we use are from old computers to new webcams. Each device from a certain period of time has its own characteristic visuals. It’s very nice to see that each device creates different visuals. We don’t think it’s necessary to really record these fingerprints because it automatically happens. Contemporary machines will be old next, and the glitching is something that happens all the time (if you’re hunting for it or you aren’t).

Ben Ullman Technicolor JPEG