Re: [-empyre-] on electronic poetry
on 6/5/03 10:33 PM, Simon Biggs at email@example.com wrote:
> What I am trying to establish here is the difference between media that is
> responsive, that can change itself fundamentally in relation to how a
> "reader" is reading it, and media that is navigable (hyper-media).
I think Simon is talking about why I find turning poetry into a string
variable is so interesting. . .you change the 'ontology' of the text, and
the text becomes a different type of artefact that is capable of behaving in
ways that are not associated with text in traditional media, or, in fact, in
For example, I can make the text behave in accordance with user
interactions, but more -- which interests me, I can apply generative
algorithms and rudimentary ai principles, to allow text to organise itself
beyond what I, or any user seeks
That makes the semantics of the text an even more complex type of
engagement, because the operator (not reader any longer) has to learn to
understand that they are engaging with an algorithmic environment, a
different level of textuality that intercedes in(?) the natural language
semantics of the displayed text.
These issues are one reason why 'electronic poetry' seems so misleading to
me; it fails to distinguish between algorithmic and non-algorithmic works,
which I think Simon was also pointing to.
cv and links available at http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/~jenny
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and