Heavy inspiration

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

The "Conversation" Project

http://pantherfile.uwm.edu/muelle25/public/conversation.mov

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!