Drippy's (yech) Blog

Heavy inspiration

2008-11-20T07:55:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-06T09:24:00.000-08:00

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

Is Programming so different from creating a rhythm?

2008-11-06T08:12:00.000-08:00

"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!

Red Riding Hood

2008-10-29T20:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Proposal

2008-10-29T20:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Differently?

2008-10-28T09:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Computers and Originality

2008-10-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

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.)

Why alter form instead of content?

2008-10-14T09:24:00.000-07:00

Which would you think would be more helpful when you are trying to relate to people in a new manner or to communicate new ideas- altering form or content?

Smokers' Rights vs. The Public

2008-10-14T06:45:00.000-07:00

My partner and I will attempt to engage in a lively discussion of the merits of
outlawing smoking in public, particularly in restaurants and bars. We will use
information involving the impacts of such legislation upon the bottom lines of
the businesses effected, and upon the health implications. We will refer to
personal freedoms and attempt to define, for ourselves and according to law,
when the freedoms of one person (in this case, to smoke in public) are
outweighed by economics or the freedoms of other non-smokers.

We will employ different fonts, colors, and sizes of text to evoke different
responses, as well as using differing speeds and techniques to expose text. Our goal
will be to inform the reader on the economic and health pros and cons surrounding
the issue, and do so in a manner that has information and rhetoric that supports
both claims. This is a very general description, of course, but who's to say we don't find a scheme that works well halfway into the project, or decide to change things up halfway just to DO it? Though, who knows- after some good research and discussion, we
may come to a clear conclusion ourselves and tailor the discourse to have the
reader tend to OUR opinion. We reserve that right.

The animation of the UDoHR

2008-10-13T21:31:00.000-07:00

The animation was pretty cool. I even liked the text, aside from the rights to work and earn a decent salary and the right to an education (I don't like "rights" that must be supplied by others).

The strange thing to me was that the smallest text was used to spell out "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Weird. Wuzzup wit dat?

Art should Be (?)

2008-10-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

The professor's talk on the reason why artists/writers were creating this new form made the attempts of the artists more 'sensible' to me. It makes sense to me to try to find a new way to relate to poeople when you felt as if the world had ceased to work right. And it makes sense that a universal reactionw ould be sought for instead of signification, because the more subjective a work is, the the more possible meanings it has and the more devisive it is, instead of uniting.

Ok, this was tough, but the central underlying theme that was being drilled into me was that artists experimenting with type and line were interested not in imitating whatever their subject was, but in making the viewer/reader experience something, for the art to BE.

Admittedly, that's pretty general. What is meant when someone says, "The art must not mimic experience or theme or idea, not signify something, but BE?" Sheesh, that's going to be tough to put into plain words, to be definite and concrete. I think that in order to accomplish defining, "Art must BE," I will have to rely on the opposite approach that the artists mentioned seemed to use. I will have to rely on content (the word) as opposed to form.

Experiencing art should be an act that requires some effort of the viewer. This effort uses the emotions, preconceptions, and rhetoric of both the artist and viewer, as well as the material used to create the work, to evoke something from the viewer. The intention is not for the viewer to go, "Oh, I get it! Workers of the world unite!" Instead, the viewer should feel the pain of the proletariat, or know what it is to be alienated from your fellow man, or to feel free from the bounds of gravity. The art should not signify and idea, but make the viewer FEEL for someone or for themselves. Art should be a process by which one learns to experience the feelings of others, not to identify some idea or cause.

I like that idea, but I find it hard to accomplish with form alone. I would really have to change my approach to art and literature (two separate media, to me) in order to create a piece that relied upon form instead of the word. to me, content is always the word, not the horizontal arrangement of letters into words, then sentences, then paragraphs. While long paragraphs can be boring (around page 18 I began to zone BAAAD), it is the word that could hold my attention, not the look of it all on the page.

I think it would have been more illuminating and illustrating if Drucker would have attempted to use the ideas of the artists to convey their intent or purpose or style. For being a work on experimentation with writing, the writing was itself quite typical and "boring" when evaluated against the standards of its own subject. What would Mallarme have thought of this staid evaluation? (Lemme guess-YAWN.)

"Fight Club" vs. "Pulp Fiction"

2008-10-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

In "Pulp Fiction in Typography" the words come at their own speed- they don't wait for the reader/viewer to catch up, and don't stop or slow down for easier comprehension. They overpower the processing ability of the brain. If you haven't seen the film or don't remember the scene, then the animation is not going to allow you to catch all the dialogue- you won't know all of what is being said, so you will always be a step or two behind the characters delivering it. But you should get the gist easily.

Jule's (Samuel L. Jackson's character in the film) dialogue is bigger than Brett's. It remains on screen until new words move the piece along, literally. Brett's feeble whining and protestation fades in and fades out- he's not powerful, nor is he going to last, literally. It's not until he screams in pain that his dialogue takes upon any quality of permanence or force- the paint-splatter font suggests pain, messy and confusing.

The animation discussed above differs greatly from the little piece "8 Rules of Fight Club in Kinetic Typography" in one major detail- you don't miss any of what is being said, not until the crowd speaks. The text on screen details all of the dialogue easily. Unlike the earlier animation, the "Fight Club" piece would allow you to view it without sound or prior knowledge of the film, and you would still understand most of what is being said. The "Pulp Fiction" piece depends heavily upon the audio track and familiarity with the film and the specific scene in order for the animation to not run right past the viewer.

Another important distinction is that the title of the "Fight Club" piece gives the viewer enough of a context to understand what is being detailed therein- rules conduct in the club. The "Pulp Fiction" piece has no context for someone who hasn't seen the movie or is foggy on the scene.

Both pieces do lose some of their impact without the audio track. Without the audio track, you wouldn't know that Tyler Durdin is giving the speech to a crowd of about to be combatants, and you wouldn't know that Brett got shot. You'd see that he was screaming, but you wouldn't know why, exactly.

Both pieces use their own little tricks to grab the viewer and/or convey the meaning of the text. Brett's weak and impermanent dialogue is one example, as is Jule's big bad font. "fight Club" puts the word "Over" on top of the word fight when the rules state that a fight should end and uses text already on the screen to continue the flow- the words "Fight Club", left on the screen from a prior sentence, glow red again as a way of catching the viewer's eye with something new and to speed things along.

Both pieces use larger fonts to emphasize what is being said and to deliver the same impact that the actor's voice is used for in the film. "Club" keeps all the dialogue on screen at once, though, so it is easily read, whereas "Fiction" uses typefaces so big that sometimes only two letters at a time are visible on the screen. Both use the same tricks, but to different degrees, leading to different levels of dependence on reader knowledge of the scene.

I'd like to use the "Club" tricks to keep the viewer interested, and keep the text small enough so that sentences stay on the screen long enough to be read. This is necessary becasue no audio will be used for the next assignment.

WTF!

2008-10-07T01:04:00.000-07:00

The fucking "P" disappears! Pardon my French but fuck Adobe, fuck Apple, and fuck ME!

Watch

2008-10-07T00:49:00.000-07:00

The effect of writing.

2008-10-02T09:05:00.000-07:00

Does writing something down prevent or hinder your memoriztion of it? What effect does recording something physically have upon your analysis of it?

Nothing is ever entirely new.

2008-10-02T08:14:00.000-07:00

According to Bernstein and his sources, the 24 character Greek Alphabet increased literacy and set the stage for prose, that is, text that was meant to be read to oneself, not performed for a crowd. The performed texts were not only used for entertainment value but also for their ability to communicate the culture of the dominant powers to the viewer- their version of history, custom, and the duty of the citizenry. To me, this suggests that the plays/spoken texts would have been constructed in a manner that tended to have fewer differing interpretations than the prose intended for a more solitary and introspective audience (of one). This means that the construction of the spoken texts would have to tend to the objective more than the subjective- how else could it accomplish it's goal of cultural transference (well)?

To me, this is clearly illustrated with the current state of the mass media, particularly of the coverage and dynamic of the presidential campaign. The spoken words of the reporters and the advertisements are carefully chosen to provide a clear version of the history, values, and 'duty' of the citizenry (to vote for their particular choice of candidate). The purpose of the texts that are performed by either reporters or the candidates (or their representatives) is to ally them with YOU, to get you to see yourself in their version of reality and ally yourself with their ideas. Just watch some ads or coverage, and try to be conscience of the effects, you'll see it.

The blogosphere, on the other hand, is cutting and biting, alienating and edgy. Why the difference? One big difference, according to Bernstein, is that blogs are meant to read to oneself alone, and the proper response is to reply in kind. While this is not a solitary act, the parties viewing the text are not usually in any type of physical contact, and thus removed from the act of communication and interpretation, just as early readers of prose found themselves. This is not to say that bloggers are more honest or objective, just that the process of their publication would seem to be an environment where a new idea could arise, one that is actually revolutionary, and not created with mass appeal and the accompanying subjective interpretation of reality.

I don't know what I'm driving at, exactly, but I know I'm trying to saying something about the effects of a mass media that is easily understood on an almost sub-conscious level- it is very powerful, and capable of appealing to base instincts, meaning it can lie more easily and blatantly. It is no wonder to me that with the dawn of prose and individual interpretation that the ideas of natural rights and liberty began to flourish.

Perceive

2008-09-29T19:08:00.000-07:00

Concrete? Poetry?

2008-09-24T20:29:00.000-07:00

Concrete Poetry, the term, seems to me to be a fallacy. So many of the examples viewed for this class have nothing in common with both prior styles and other pieces in the Concrete Movement that it seems to me that grouping together these pieces and calling them "Concrete" is simply being done to make an easy classification. An analogy would be: you know what dogs are, and come upon critters that aren't dogs, and no matter what manner of critter they actually are, be they deer or birds or fish, you call them cats, because they are strange to you and you choose to name them easily. What have wooden instruments that resemble books to do with posters that refer to a circus, or eyes stacked upon each other? Nada, (two of them don't even seem to use words!) except they are not in any earlier existing style, so they are grouped together.
Something that gripped me was that in Macinaus' work he says poetry must be taken back from Europeans and made so that it is grasped by all, not just dilettantes, critics, and professionals, but does it in a way that isn't very appealing to laymen- classic do as I say, NOT as I do. It seems that the pieces grouped in the Concrete school are so subjective that not only are they NOT easily grasped, but have so many ways of being interpreted that they would serve more to divide than to unite two or more people. (Maybe unite them in a debate/argument over what the "true" meaning is.)
Phooey on Young-The bookforms are not new, nor are they revolutionary. People use one thing as another all the time. And how is this POETRY!!!! AAAAHHHH!!!
Cockburn and Finlay had some good points. It is true that while Concrete poems aren't meant to be in books, that is where they are most often encountered, and that while many terms that refer to poems deal with the spoken word, most poems are read, and Concrete poems certainly seem to be predominantly visual in style (at least the ones I've seen).
No good reasons are given for experimenting with the shape of texts, just subjective judgments upon those that did. How about this: "Do it if you feel like it, and think you can achieve your aims that way." There, that took me sixteen words.
Like Finaly and Cockburn, I think poets must come to terms with evolving technology, just like early man did when he figured out language, how to make music, to make instruments, to put the two together, to elaborate upon other's tales, to write em' down, in words and or pictures, to use printing presses or typewriters or whatever. Tech changes. Its nothing new. What we can do with computers really isn't even that new (pop-up books, 3D art, kaleidoscopes, anyone?).
What's new about computers is that they make animating and sharing our ideas easier than it has been before, just like an organized mail service, roads, the telegram, and radio did in the past. But we are still primarilly reading words that have been printed.

2008-09-23T09:29:00.001-07:00

Poetry is anything that somebody says it is. It is often thought to have rythm and high-reaching aims, but really anything can be poetry. Bombs falling above your head can be an awful poetry. Structures are said to have a poetry to them. Raindrops falling can be poetic to some. Ballet dancers are said to move like poetry in motion. Now we can animate words and letters to the point that they become symbols whose shapes are manipulated to achieve a stylistic goal. If somebody says it is poetry, fine, cool. I think that the word is too broad to have any useful meaning, unless you specify a type or style or poet. To me, the word "poetry" has as much concrete, desciptive value as the words "big", "bad", and "blue". Without specific context and many more qualifiers, it is too subjective a term to really accomplish much.
But it still conjures a specific sensation/idea in my head. Go figure.
Why do people make poetry? Out of words? Out of dancing? Stone? Nature? Nothing? The word poetry is just a name we have given to an incredibly broad set of individual qualifiers. We create a poetry out of Nature's raindrops ourselves, and the melodic verse you hear while they fall may just be pissing on my parade.

My word idea.

2008-09-22T14:43:00.000-07:00

Here's my idea for my next project, and if anyone copies or steals it, then you will get what you deserve (literally and figuratively):(
I'd like to have the word "PERCEIVE" gradually grow distinct from a cluttered background. I'd like to have the letters be the same color as the background, or close to it, and have some of them more distinct than others and scattered on the vertical axis. There will also be other random shapes that obscure and clutter the area. As the letters of the word begin to be visible ( a process which ideally will involve color and minor shape change) the background will fade away, until the word is in stark relief. Then I'd like to have the letters come together on line and change color again. I dunno about that last part for sure. Maybe it will be a pain in the neck to execute, and I'll end up just doing the word "SEE".

When I am with a crazy poem presented in a crazy manner...

2008-09-22T11:02:00.000-07:00

... I have to bust out a paper and pen to make sense of it all.
OK, that above statement will make more sense once (or if) you read "When She is With I" written by Gregory Betts and illustrated/animated by Toke Nygaard, from the 1999 "issue" of Born Magazine. I suggest you go there and read it. (Please, it will make my job here sooo very much easier. No? Phooey! All right then.)
Note: I got a very concrete idea as a result of reading this piece, and write about it accordingly. View it for yourself, and it is quite possible that you will think of an entirely different interpretation.

The artists of this piece try to communicate the experience of existing in a large metropolitan area. The piece overpowers you while it obscures you view of the text, and by doing so confuses your sense of vision and your cognitive abilities at the same time. The artists want the viewer (as you are more than "just" a reader here) to labor to understand their vision of the world, just as they labor to see it and make us realize it. To this end they employ two strategies- on a white screen black text wavers and shakes, and is also covered by a black cloud that covers differing portions of the screen at different times, sometimes revealing all for a fleeting moment. Obviously, if one is to glean the words from under the blackness and shuddering, more effort is required than if the text sat there in Times New Roman on a static page. By confusing the senses the artists engage the viewer to delegate more resources such as time, attention, and concentration in order to understand, or even perceive, the piece in its entirety.
I think that the text and the animation work together in two different but reinforcing ways. First, the text refers to a journey of some sort through an urban landscape, with "time-scraped bridges", "human cave(s)", "light", and "glass", a place, "Where night means nothing, is just the same." When the words refer to the character making drums from bones ( of the city) while "talk-walk"ing "above human caves", in place full of light, so much so the might is as day, I take the text literally and see someone alone trudging through Time Square as the Metro Line chugs along underfoot. The clouds and shaking text are representations on two separate levels. First, the clouds are the crowds in the way of our character's progress through the city, and the shaking text is the hustle and bustle and the shaking of the streets themselves by traffic on and below them. Second, both the black cloud and the shuddering text demonstrate that this view/idea of city life is sometimes evident and sometimes buried beneath the level of conscious perception. The character in the work does not always think of the city in this way. Sometimes he/she just makes their way and is concerned with other matters.
I found myself struggling to make out the words themselves, shelving the "meaning" of the dark fog that interposed itself between my mind and the text until after I had the words transposed onto paper. I realized the function of the cloud and shuddering text right away, as I had trouble reading immediately. But I didn't understand the significance or purpose of these animations until I was able to read the text in another medium, namely on paper, grid paper at that, and then consider the text, animation, and my reaction to the whole affair. In a "gallery" without paper or motivation (in this case, the need to understand something well enough to spout off 500-750 words) I doubt that I would have made the effort to perceive the piece in tis entirety, which I think would be OK with the artists- the city don't care if you know what's going on, or who designed which building- it exists all the same.

Excruciating Diarrhea of the Pen - or - Damn, that was hard to read, both for my eyes, and for my mind.

2008-09-22T10:23:00.000-07:00

Aragañaraz, Aragao, and de Campos seem to be, umm, terrible writers. I'm not saying I'm any good, either, but as I tried to grasp the concepts they were elaborating upon, I couldn't help but want, then need, then SCREAM for: an example of this style of writing or struggle that they referred to so often. Duh! After reading Aragao's statement that words and images are, “transfigured by their interaction until they from an ambiguous and enigmatic communication, which rearranges art,” I couldn't help but think, "YOU didn't even need images, beyond the text on my screen, to make your whole article ambiguous, you asshole." (This guy got under my skin. It was like he was trying to be ironic and show that text all by its lonesome can confuse and cause difficulty when one is trying to figure out what is truly being said in a work.)
These guys believe that writers should experimentt with art to either use a "new" medium to create a "new" art (Aragao, as if the TV isn't just a play whose stage is our living room, or thge internet isn't just a quicker form of pen-pals or bulletin boards), or/and to reach people on an objective level and act as a voice of revolution (Argañaraz) or as a bastion against collectivism and subservience (de Campos).
They seem to be in agreement with Maso that the arts need to stir up the mind and cause action, which is okey-dokey, and agree that new forms that cast off the rules imposed by insitutionalized language and presentation are valuable.
*When de Campos writes communication may not be language's first function (!?), I almost quit right there, but I would have missed a gem that came soon after. "Poetic statements are no more actual statements than peaches in a still life are actual dessert." Brilliant, because you can't really feel a breeze that somebody is describing in a text you are reading, you only imagine it, and imagine it in a way unique to yourself, no matter how concrete and universal the poet has attempted to be. Later on I saw some serious hypocrisy/ failed logic in her article, though. She maintains that poetry is not utilitarian, but later says that poets are dikes against the degeneration of language. And while she writes that Concrete Poets stray outside the norms to demonstrate and defeat the limits and strictures imposed upon them by institutionalized language (and, therefore, institutionalized minds), by identifying their modus aparandi and attributing to it a function, name, and purpose, she transforms it into yet just another movement which will be subsumed, and become the norm.

Final L

2008-09-17T19:39:00.000-07:00

Second L

2008-09-15T18:04:00.000-07:00

The Letter "L"

2008-09-10T18:35:00.000-07:00

Ok, so it appears the the "L" has been around in some form or another since the dawn of phonetic writing, which is who knows when. According to the shape analysis, the capital letter is quite harmless because it consists of a right angle, which means it is objective and even tempered. I find it strange that according to these methods of analysis, the lower case "l" is more virile and aggressive than its upper case brother, and more powerful, as all it does is unite the Earth and Sky, but maybe it has a Napoleon complex or something. The "L" may have initially represented apprenticeship, education, science, but that all seems goofy to me. I guess that the Earth-Sky, human angle, virile stuff could represent man's attempt to explain the existence of himself, so that might work, but it all seems like trying to use phrenology on a unit of text- a big scam, like pet astrology or doll-house feng-shui.
In any event, my OWN research consisted in closing my eyes and letting the letter "L" inspire me, so here's what popped in my noggin': "lust, lick, luscious, lascivious, libido, lesbian, letter, leave." Ok, I guess that experiment proves I'm a man- I didn't think "lipstick" or "letch". Anyway, I'd like to have the words listed morph from one to another, with the "L" in upper case and in a different color from the other letters, but I believe that to be beyond my abilities. INstead, I'll have the letter "L" move around the screen in a clockwise motion, changing color and font, advancing, if you will, the "L" from archaic fonts to the modern ones. It's simple, but then so are my skills.
PS An "L" word that I associate with Minnesota- LOSERS sweet

First "L" Attempt

2008-09-10T12:14:00.000-07:00

(I hope I'm doing this right). The letter "L" and me.

2008-09-03T16:25:00.000-07:00

The letter "L" inspires positive associations. There's: libidinous, like, lust, lick, love, loose, lull, linked, and, (at last) leave. I guess "limp" works in there, too. "L" isn't a bad letter to have to animate. A capital "L" would be the mode I'd choose to mess with, as in this font, and in many others, a lower case "l" looks like a "1" or a capital "I", or just a stupid line. A capital "L" could fly around the screen like a boomerang, or be made by two converging lines that fade away, only to leave the "L", or two "L"'s could act like legs. In a pinch, I suppose a lower case "l" could pierce a line and rise up, or a capital "L" could shrink and the lower bar could turn green and fall away. All in all, the "L" is luscious.

Umm, here goes...

2008-09-03T16:14:00.000-07:00

I never thought of myself as being desperately lonely and terrifyingly angry enough to blog, but I guess the joke's on me.