glitch knit II
Looking at the way Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) televisions use pixels thrown at the screen to form whole images, this knitwear concept aims to translate the knit stitch into the pixel - the 2D becoming the 3D and vice versa.
The knit stitch only functions in conjunction with other knit stitches, in much the same way that a pixel can only form a complete picture with many other pixels. In this respect, the stitch and the pixel can be compared and manipulated.
Juxtaposed with this is the glitches that are found in any technological system, both in older CRT televisions and in modern technology. In many ways, glitches are intrinsic to computer systems, even if they are not wanted. Is it possible to turn what can be construed normally as a glitch - a mistake - into something that is not a mistake?
Additionally, as consumers turn away from older technology it is left by the wayside as newer and modern products are produced at a dizzying rate. I wanted to not only aestheticise the old but also use it in order to showcase how old technology can still be considered innovative by using an old CRT television from a charity shop (only £5) as a creative tool in order to develop this piece.
Inspired by the digital knit stitch - the pixel - and the ways it can be manipulated through the form of glitches and mistakes, this is a look at how the traditional and the digital can collide.
Testing the limits and capabilities of what the digital can do and using knit machines to create deliberate and repetitive mistakes in order to create a whole that is definitively not a mistake, is a continuing theme looked at in this project as a way to reduce waste and to add personalisation.
It is impossible to knit something (by hand and domestic machine) without making mistakes such as dropped stitches, odd loops and accidental lace - if they were left in and championed would that reduce the amount of wasted yarn, re-dos and the time required of the person that was making it? Within hand knitting mistakes tell stories and add to the definitive “personality” of a garment. Could deliberate mistakes in a production atmosphere create an increased sense of personalisation and humanity within the industry that is infamous for it’s repetitiveness?