For me, a responsible for this second, it's partly about technological time - the leap second is a product of our technology, and our dependency on it. What time do we live in, how do we measure ourselves, does a "day" have something to do with the earth, or rather with atoms? There's an enstrangement here, in the sense of a technological other, cracks in the production of time, comparable to a glitch esthetic, certainly a glitch event on a global scale.
Another point, the precarity of the digital - in what sense does it exist if it's so easily transmutable, deleted, lost, in spite of its insistent, prevalent massiveness (which feels like a mockery and hubris at times). In a way, playing back the same existential conditions onto what it proposes us, staging an event which is questioning itself if it's an event or not - if it is significant or not, or what an event is in a mediated world of concurrent timelines fighting for your one second of attention - because did it really happen if not mediated? The ambivalence has interested me, technically, philosophically. Unix systems doesn't implement leap seconds, from what I read, they just repeat the last 59th, so in that sense the event actually didn't take place on the website (running on unix) - one of the works of the festival actually investigated this through a "network performance".
In reality the festival was broadcasting for an hour, previewing work before the leap second event at 23:59:60 where I tried to show all the works within one second - it looked and sounded like an explosion...
- regards, Bjørn