linguistic

I consider the role of the source code of generative literature in the process of meaning making. The significance of code in the cultural meaning of generative works means the source code becomes a key factor to explore in literary studies. I use Critical Code Studies (Marino) which rejects the practice of only analyzing the output of electronic literature and instead proposes to look at code from a humanities perspective as an integral part of coded literature. To specify this emerging field specifically for generative literature, I propose a distinction between three levels on which the code is involved in the meaning-making process of generative literature: the linguistic level, the literary level. and the cultural level. On the linguistic level, I draw from structuralism, using Jakobson's notions of selection and combination as outlined in "Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances". Generative literature shows the meaning of language explicitly via selection and combination of linguistic units, and adds to this process a literary meaning employing the process of chiasm and overwriting. To do justice to the complexity of the materiality of coded literature on a literary level, I link this to Brillenburg et al's reference to Lyotard's notion of chiasm as excess of meaning and Dworkin's notion of neglected perspectives. Moreover, the source code is positioned as a trope for objectivity, as it does not embody the same cultural biases as one expects from intention-typical research. On a cultural level, I argue that source code is positioned as a trope of objectivity, as the randomness of generation supposes an emptiness of cultural bias.

(author abstract)

I consider the role of the source code of generative literature in the process of meaning making. The significance of code in the cultural meaning of generative works means the source code becomes a key factor to explore in literary studies. I use Critical Code Studies (Marino) which rejects the practice of only analyzing the output of electronic literature and instead proposes to look at code from a humanities perspective as an integral part of coded literature. To specify this emerging field specifically for generative literature, I propose a distinction between three levels on which the code is involved in the meaning-making process of generative literature: the linguistic level, the literary level. and the cultural level. On the linguistic level, I draw from structuralism, using Jakobson's notions of selection and combination as outlined in "Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances". Generative literature shows the meaning of language explicitly via selection and combination of linguistic units, and adds to this process a literary meaning employing the process of chiasm and overwriting. To do justice to the complexity of the materiality of coded literature on a literary level, I link this to Brillenburg et al's reference to Lyotard's notion of chiasm as excess of meaning and Dworkin's notion of neglected perspectives. Moreover, the source code is positioned as a trope for objectivity, as it does not embody the same cultural biases as one expects from intention-typical research. On a cultural level, I argue that source code is positioned as a trope of objectivity, as the randomness of generation supposes an emptiness of cultural bias.

(author abstract)

In PAIN.TXT, Alan Sondheim and Sandy Baldwin explore the limitations of expression at the borders of human sensation. Derived from a dialog between Sondheim and Baldwin on extreme pain, this essay considers how one signifies intensity and another attempts to interpret that intensity, and the challenges this process poses for affect, imagination, and ultimately intersubjectivity. In keeping with the content of this piece, the two preserve the dialog format, recreating for readers a discourse on pain that never finds its center. (Source: Electronic Book Review)

This paper makes observations about digital poetry through thematic connections derived from a 1969 short story by Robert Coover (“The Elevator”) and a poetics statement written forty years later by critic Janez Strehovec (“The Poetics of Elevator Pitch”). Strehovec’s essay addresses poetry in the age of short attention spans, and in which compositional designs are mosaics, hybrid. Contemporary works are unstable, precarious, and relations between textual components have evolved. Digital poetry is a textual, meta-textual, linguistic, and sometimes non-linguistic practice requiring new forms of perception. Because our observational skills have changed, Strehovec proclaims the importance of first impressions, getting viewers excited and immediately involved with language. He promotes the notion of an “elevator pitch” as a temporal ideal for digital poetry—the idea that the poem, “can be delivered in the time of an elevator ride (e.g., thirty seconds or 100-150 words)”, “which hooks the reader/user within a very short temporal unit”—an idea perhaps more relevant to authors of projected works than those who invite their audience to participate. Coover’s story, written as a series of mosaic passages, also points to the potential for instability in any moment but acknowledges unexpected possibilities that happen over time. Coover’s elevator reflects the awkward occurrences that gradually occur in a single place, how a familiar vehicle can bring someone to unfamiliar places, and how sometimes people are forced to solve problems caused by someone else’s statements. Through actions, in space, over time, social and communicative interaction is altered. The unknown, unexpected, and fantasy celebrated by Coover are the “space, time, motion, magnitude, class” of a given place. Yet, in the manner the life of the story’s protagonist Martin is spared we might conclude that walking—rather that riding quickly—through difficulties is a viable way to proceed. As authors strive for novel, complex, and sophisticated procedures, is it fair to use the elevator pitch as a model for engagement? Can an audience ably make conclusions in such a short amount of time? What can (and does) happen in the first 30 seconds of a digital poem? Examining works as diverse as John Cayley’s wotclock, Mary Flanagan’s [theHouse], geniwaite’s Concatenation, and others, this paper look at the possibilities held, and techniques used, by expert practitioners in the opening moments of their works. While certain works resist being quickly judged, others strive to be immediate. Artists working in the field often make a lot happen quickly but have not rejected depth—even if that, in Strehovec’s view, might be seen as self-defeating. If Strehovec’s digital vision trumps Coover’s analog speculations, projective authors can practice (and fine-tune) spectacle forever, but how will authors of participatory works employ language to keep audience engaged?

In September 2008 Jim Andrews shared with me the “Arteroids Development Folder:” a collection of drafts, versions, source files, and other materials that document the work that led to the publication of his “poetic shoot 'em up" Arteroids (http://www.vispo.com/arteroids/index.htm).

Jim Andrews is a programmer, poet, and musician who explores the poetic potential of language in the computer by programming elaborate behaviors to transform linguistic texts. Arteroids creates an interface based on the classic 1970s arcade video game Asteroids, where the player/reader controls the motion of the word “poetry” on the screen and fires at other words floating on the screen. The reader can change or add words to the game, personalizing its lexicon, and modifying the conditions by which they interact with the text. Arteroids is a milestone in Andrews’ artistic development because of its ambition and complexity both as a work of electronic poetry and as a work of programming. More than any of his works to date, Arteroids brings it all together—vispo (visual poetry), vismu (visual music), and interactivity—in a work that references the most native genre in computerized entertainment: the videogame.

Jim Andrews started working on his literary computer game Arteroids in 2001 when his work on Nio helped him receive funding from the Canada Council for the Arts. The earliest versions were titled "Webarteroids", preparing him to publish Arteroids 1.0 in The Remedi Project in 2002. He published version 2.02 to participate in the Augustart show in New York City (August 24 to September 2, 2002) and published version 2.5 in the Fall of 2003 issue of the electronic poetry magazine Poems that Go. The most recent version (3.11) was published in Vispo.com in August of 2006

The three versions currently available online—1.0, 2.5, and 3.11—are merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg for an editorial study, because the Arteroids Development Folder contains over fifty different versions of the work in Director MX2004 files, Shockwave movies, HTML publication pages for these files, at least one commented version of Arteroids 1.0 prepared for submission to the Canada Council, Microsoft Word files with drafts of essays written to accompany the e-poem, the documented source code for Arteroids 1.0, sound files, images, Flash animations, letters, and much more. These materials are a gold mine of information for a scholar interested in studying Arteroids in depth as a work of e-literature, as a first generation electronic object, as a computer game, and as a record of an artist’s work with programmable media.

(Soruce: Author's abstract for ELO_AI)