Aie! Why is this stuff consistently so hard to read? Were I to write in such a manner I would be accused of bullsh!ting. I'm still not sure that a computer didn't write the whole thing, with some pictures chosen that compliment the random text. Unfortunately, it made sense to me, so if it is a trick, then I am gullible. Or just susceptible.
I would like to focus upon three quotes from the piece.
"...readers expect, and search for, the identification of an author in a text at least in part as a means to assist them in their own sense of differentiation and establishment of a sense of self... If everything embodied in a text is so novel, so new, as to be alien to and entirely external to a reader's experience then that text will likely remain opaque and difficult to engage. Readers will be unable to differentiate the author in such a manner that they are able to internalize the authorial voice and establish the required internal dynamic where meaning, and differentiation of self, can arise."
"In seeking to disturb the manner in which we see things, and thus our accepted notion of self as constructed through our social sense of seeing, the objective here is not to author a new theoretical position, nor to illustrate an established argument, but to destabilize subjective experience in the hope of giving cause to doubt, as the subjective and experiential level, the basic belief in self."
"The question engaged here addresses innovation and how it is valued. We live in a world where creativity is celebrated as the solution to problems as diverse as personal anomie and the state of our twenty first century post-industrial economies. Innovation is central to current knowledge economies and thus is spoken of as a value rather than as a description of an activity. Yet it is clear that innovation, of itself, is not enough for the inscription of value to be established. For creativity to have occurred something must come into being that is recognised as valuable in some way."
(Now I have 500 words, peace!)
First let me summarize what I got from each quote, in the order I presented them:
1- Authors/artists whose voice, topic, and/or method of presentation is too new or unfamiliar to the reader/viewer will end up confusing or even dumbfounding the very people they are attempting to engage.
2- Authors/artists can cause us to challenge our own ideas about our identities as individuals, citizens, and members of a national community by messing up the usual cognitive processes associated with deriving meaning from a perceived text/object.
3- Authors/artists can produce novel works that aren't useful, and thus the novelty is not valuable.
Penicillin was discovered by accident. As was saccharine. And microwave ovens. And The New World. So I'm not ready to say that just because something doesn't have practical use now, it won't be useful, or inspire something useful alter on.
I relate that idea to the quotes chosen as follows: Some novel art is valuable just becasue it is new. It will foster the development of new forms that will be useful. Eventually. Which new forms will be inspirations is anyone's guess. But the production of novel art is essential to the evolution of humankind. Even if I don't "get it" and think that my buddy's four year old Madigan could do better. Maybe Maddy will see that author's work, end it will isnpire her to try to make her own. And if she enjoys it, then it was worth it to her.
Biggs, Simon and Leach, James. Autopoiesis:novelty, meaning, and value. Artwords, 2004
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Is Programming so different from creating a rhythm?
"The concept of a poet-programmer or prose-programmer is of a person who works among the tangles of vines that yield the work. It is of one who sets up a series of events that culminates in the work as an action or execution of procedures. It includes a concept of intelligence that is more concerned with settling into motion a number of variables than with creating a representation." (Glazier 176)
Umm, yeah. Glazier seems entirely focused upon the process of creating in a digital medium. That's fine. But what does Glazier say about the PRODUCT of efforts in this new arena? Anybody?
For Glazier meaning seems to be rooted in the process of creation. I disagree. I couldn't disagree more. Unless some special circumstances exist, the process of creation becomes significant in only three instances:
1. Trivia.
Was this made by programming only in 1's and 0's? Really? Umm, wow, that must have taken a long time. Or: So, the artist was suspended naked, upside-down over a precipice as he painted the fifty foot tall mural with his own feces? Neat. And gross.
2. Experience.
The artist failed, or didn't get it "right enough" for themselves, and learned from the earlier effort, and "nailed it" later on.
3. You liked a particular piece and are interested in the artist. Could be filed under Trivia as well, but it implies a more than passing curiosity.
The result of artistic endeavors is what matters. Foremost. Without exception. The process is incidental. To say otherwise is to raise the artist above their work. Put into another arena, you're saying that who is President matters, and their rise to that position more than what their policies, and the results of said policies, are. The creative process can be interesting. But mostly it is boring. certainly boring to behold. Watching somebody program-ooooooh. Watching a traditional painter is way more interesting-remember that dude who
used to paint on PBS, the guy who could make a tree or barn in like six seconds? Way cool. But it WOULDN'T have been cool if the barn was indistinguishable from the landscape. End product matters. PERIOD. Enough of this writers and professors glorifying the process and stuff. They ain't knights. Get over it!
Umm, yeah. Glazier seems entirely focused upon the process of creating in a digital medium. That's fine. But what does Glazier say about the PRODUCT of efforts in this new arena? Anybody?
For Glazier meaning seems to be rooted in the process of creation. I disagree. I couldn't disagree more. Unless some special circumstances exist, the process of creation becomes significant in only three instances:
1. Trivia.
Was this made by programming only in 1's and 0's? Really? Umm, wow, that must have taken a long time. Or: So, the artist was suspended naked, upside-down over a precipice as he painted the fifty foot tall mural with his own feces? Neat. And gross.
2. Experience.
The artist failed, or didn't get it "right enough" for themselves, and learned from the earlier effort, and "nailed it" later on.
3. You liked a particular piece and are interested in the artist. Could be filed under Trivia as well, but it implies a more than passing curiosity.
The result of artistic endeavors is what matters. Foremost. Without exception. The process is incidental. To say otherwise is to raise the artist above their work. Put into another arena, you're saying that who is President matters, and their rise to that position more than what their policies, and the results of said policies, are. The creative process can be interesting. But mostly it is boring. certainly boring to behold. Watching somebody program-ooooooh. Watching a traditional painter is way more interesting-remember that dude who
used to paint on PBS, the guy who could make a tree or barn in like six seconds? Way cool. But it WOULDN'T have been cool if the barn was indistinguishable from the landscape. End product matters. PERIOD. Enough of this writers and professors glorifying the process and stuff. They ain't knights. Get over it!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Red Riding Hood
First, apologies for the lack of a link. I've no idea how to make one.
Scratch That, here goes: http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/leishman__redridinghood.html
I "went" and viewed the Red Riding Hood animation we watched in class, because the little badass, visitor-alien lookin' girl intrigued me, and the music was cool. I also wanted to see if I missed anything.
The guys who made this piece were trying for a modern, urban chic retelling of the fable. RRH lived in a city, in a tall apartment building. and is accompanied by hip, funky tunes. Her mother was dressed well in a manner that showed off a bangin' bod. She even wore Palin glasses and red lipstick. And RRH gives her this disgusted, contempible look, like she already knows what the end of this journey will be, and believes her mother does as well.
RRH sets out, literally, of the city, and into the forest. (I'm a bit surprised they used a "real" one, and didn't make it a slum or mean ol' alley.) As she leaves the forest, she's stalked by the wolf, whom the artists leave as a wolf for a while before rendering him a bad-boy. This bad boy sidles up behind her on a modern, tricked-out scooter, to demonstrate he has some cash/ stole one. He keeps his wolf arms and gaze. But he's after more than a meal.
He introduces RRH to some dank weed/ flowers and sets her off the right path. Deep, man. Her judgment from this point is suspect. In any event, the Wolf overpowers the grandma, who could represent tradition or older morals, and lies in wait for RRH. She comes. (I'm gonna just, umm..., leave that.)
The Wolfboy knocks her up. She sleeps until he wakes her up with a gun to her dome, about to regulate. RRH smiles at the release from the thrall and circumstance she has been living under since falling for the Wolf.
This is still a cautionary tale. RRH here knew better- she is street-smart and a tough cookie, but she still falls for the tough guy and gets blown up (belly and head). The moral here is still don't trust strangers, in this case a boy, a lower class one at that, don't do drugs, and keep your knickers buttoned up. Or the stork and wolf will getcha'!
I thought that the approach was traditional- the story progressed in a linear manner, and the characters were easily recognized for what they were. Making the wolf a bad boy isn't a stretch, it's less of a leap than having an actual wolf in a bed. A city is an even more 'civilized' habitization than a cottage.
The piece works on its own, but knowing the original is helpful. If you can operate the computer, you're sharp enough to get the point.
I like the way RRH's face is rendered- she's given the personality of a little bad girl who [thinks she] knows what's what, and is gonna do whatever she thinks she can get away with. She's tough and not totally naive, but not really experienced. And she is funny lookin' enough to be humorous. I'd like to be able to create a character that has their personality out there, easily observed by all, without moving or speaking.
Scratch That, here goes: http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/leishman__redridinghood.html
I "went" and viewed the Red Riding Hood animation we watched in class, because the little badass, visitor-alien lookin' girl intrigued me, and the music was cool. I also wanted to see if I missed anything.
The guys who made this piece were trying for a modern, urban chic retelling of the fable. RRH lived in a city, in a tall apartment building. and is accompanied by hip, funky tunes. Her mother was dressed well in a manner that showed off a bangin' bod. She even wore Palin glasses and red lipstick. And RRH gives her this disgusted, contempible look, like she already knows what the end of this journey will be, and believes her mother does as well.
RRH sets out, literally, of the city, and into the forest. (I'm a bit surprised they used a "real" one, and didn't make it a slum or mean ol' alley.) As she leaves the forest, she's stalked by the wolf, whom the artists leave as a wolf for a while before rendering him a bad-boy. This bad boy sidles up behind her on a modern, tricked-out scooter, to demonstrate he has some cash/ stole one. He keeps his wolf arms and gaze. But he's after more than a meal.
He introduces RRH to some dank weed/ flowers and sets her off the right path. Deep, man. Her judgment from this point is suspect. In any event, the Wolf overpowers the grandma, who could represent tradition or older morals, and lies in wait for RRH. She comes. (I'm gonna just, umm..., leave that.)
The Wolfboy knocks her up. She sleeps until he wakes her up with a gun to her dome, about to regulate. RRH smiles at the release from the thrall and circumstance she has been living under since falling for the Wolf.
This is still a cautionary tale. RRH here knew better- she is street-smart and a tough cookie, but she still falls for the tough guy and gets blown up (belly and head). The moral here is still don't trust strangers, in this case a boy, a lower class one at that, don't do drugs, and keep your knickers buttoned up. Or the stork and wolf will getcha'!
I thought that the approach was traditional- the story progressed in a linear manner, and the characters were easily recognized for what they were. Making the wolf a bad boy isn't a stretch, it's less of a leap than having an actual wolf in a bed. A city is an even more 'civilized' habitization than a cottage.
The piece works on its own, but knowing the original is helpful. If you can operate the computer, you're sharp enough to get the point.
I like the way RRH's face is rendered- she's given the personality of a little bad girl who [thinks she] knows what's what, and is gonna do whatever she thinks she can get away with. She's tough and not totally naive, but not really experienced. And she is funny lookin' enough to be humorous. I'd like to be able to create a character that has their personality out there, easily observed by all, without moving or speaking.
Proposal
Here it is: I see a large "EVIL" slowly moving across a land, with little "words" being squished, bashed aside, or fleeing its advance. Even large and elaborate "WORDS" won't be able to stop the onslaught. It will take a "SWORD" to defeat the assault.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Differently?
Hmm, what do I do in a different manner now? In the past five years, what has digital information exchange done for me, or to me?
It has made me... poorer. Sometimes I get a wild hair up my, well, and I go on an internet binge, and buy everything I see on the screen. I've spent many a coin on these binges, but usually I was in another country, and these purchases were a way to give myself something to look forward too, to enjoy when I was home. I used the net as an escape, and this escape was different from the one books allowed me. But it was just an escape, a way to make daydreams material.
It has made me... poorer. Sometimes I get a wild hair up my, well, and I go on an internet binge, and buy everything I see on the screen. I've spent many a coin on these binges, but usually I was in another country, and these purchases were a way to give myself something to look forward too, to enjoy when I was home. I used the net as an escape, and this escape was different from the one books allowed me. But it was just an escape, a way to make daydreams material.
Computers and Originality
How Do Computers Effect the Product?
“Florian Cramer and Friedrich W. Block supported the notion that, especially in reference to literature, there is much in computer and net art that could be traced back to historical ideas, so that from an aesthetic point of view nothing really innovative results.”
I like this idea. For as long as there has been “writing” there have always been “original” texts; “original” in the sense that at one time the arrangement of words within the body of the work itself was unique. At one time Robinson Crusoe didn’t exist, then Defoe wrote it. But were the ideas found therein revolutionary, or were they ‘merely’ stories that had existed in many different cultures and were then set to paper for posterity? Were there no stories of French daring-do before Dumas’ Musketeers? Are the “Bourne” stories original, or are they just rewordings of the familiar formula? I ask these questions because they address the originality of content- very little is “new”. Adventures and romances have been around for a long time, and art for art’s sake has been around for even longer.
What do computers add to all this? The article says that, “The essential quality of the computer proved to be its processuality.” What does that mean, and how does it make the content or form of art and literature presented in electronic media different from printed or painted forms? Processuality refers to the ability of the computer and user to generate ‘new’ texts based upon the rules laid out by the programmer/writer and the reader. Giselle Beiguelman holds, “Links and programming can be used to transform text into an ‘intelligent’ object.” This is true. Computers can integrate interactivity, but how new is this when it comes to literature? I read “choose your own adventure books” as a kid. Whenever there was a choice to be made for the protagonist, such as whether or not to sneak past a guard, or to find another way into the fortress, I’d just turn to a specific page based upon my choice, and the text that described the result would be there, along with art, and if I’d chosen right, more choices (if I’d chosen wrong, that would be the end-I’d be “dead.”) Using two books I’ve even played a game against another person that was supposed to represent dog-fighting WWI era biplanes. We each had our own book in hand, and based upon my opponent’s choice and my choice, I’d select a page, and more choices would follow. It was complicated and required many pages, but thousands of different battles could be easily waged based upon ‘static’ text and the processing powers of our minds. The only thing that a computer game could have added to the experience is sound.
There have even been “color by numbers” and books that teach one how to draw, and come with templates and transparencies to be traced. In other words, computers facilitate activities that have been previously been the territory of books or classes. I submit that missing from this discussion is the simple question: How do computers do this in a manner that differs from the hand-written or painted methods? (Aside from the speed of transmission of information, I see little that they allow one to create that is original.)
“Florian Cramer and Friedrich W. Block supported the notion that, especially in reference to literature, there is much in computer and net art that could be traced back to historical ideas, so that from an aesthetic point of view nothing really innovative results.”
I like this idea. For as long as there has been “writing” there have always been “original” texts; “original” in the sense that at one time the arrangement of words within the body of the work itself was unique. At one time Robinson Crusoe didn’t exist, then Defoe wrote it. But were the ideas found therein revolutionary, or were they ‘merely’ stories that had existed in many different cultures and were then set to paper for posterity? Were there no stories of French daring-do before Dumas’ Musketeers? Are the “Bourne” stories original, or are they just rewordings of the familiar formula? I ask these questions because they address the originality of content- very little is “new”. Adventures and romances have been around for a long time, and art for art’s sake has been around for even longer.
What do computers add to all this? The article says that, “The essential quality of the computer proved to be its processuality.” What does that mean, and how does it make the content or form of art and literature presented in electronic media different from printed or painted forms? Processuality refers to the ability of the computer and user to generate ‘new’ texts based upon the rules laid out by the programmer/writer and the reader. Giselle Beiguelman holds, “Links and programming can be used to transform text into an ‘intelligent’ object.” This is true. Computers can integrate interactivity, but how new is this when it comes to literature? I read “choose your own adventure books” as a kid. Whenever there was a choice to be made for the protagonist, such as whether or not to sneak past a guard, or to find another way into the fortress, I’d just turn to a specific page based upon my choice, and the text that described the result would be there, along with art, and if I’d chosen right, more choices (if I’d chosen wrong, that would be the end-I’d be “dead.”) Using two books I’ve even played a game against another person that was supposed to represent dog-fighting WWI era biplanes. We each had our own book in hand, and based upon my opponent’s choice and my choice, I’d select a page, and more choices would follow. It was complicated and required many pages, but thousands of different battles could be easily waged based upon ‘static’ text and the processing powers of our minds. The only thing that a computer game could have added to the experience is sound.
There have even been “color by numbers” and books that teach one how to draw, and come with templates and transparencies to be traced. In other words, computers facilitate activities that have been previously been the territory of books or classes. I submit that missing from this discussion is the simple question: How do computers do this in a manner that differs from the hand-written or painted methods? (Aside from the speed of transmission of information, I see little that they allow one to create that is original.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)