"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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that in this passage Glazier is talking about a specific kind of digital writing, a kind where the poet/programmer sets up a series of algorithms that generate texts only when someone interacts with them; the algorithms have some variability/randomness built in so that the end result -- the text someone reads -- is not predictable.
I think this then does change how we might think about the product, since the product is not fixed.
I do think your concern about the product is nonetheless valid, if we judge by the aesthetic standards with which we've grown up...
And I'm also curious how you respond to the reading for 11/20, which addresses your concerns (somewhat!) directly...?
Post a Comment