procedural model

The paper will present a percepto-cognitive theory of e-poetry. This theory uses a non-ontologic approach of literature in which the concept of "text" cannot be defined independendly from the mind representation for the system. This conception, named "theorie du texte lié à une profondeur" (theory of text linked to a deep) will be present. In this theory, the main concepts are the mind representation of the system, named the "profondeur de dispositif" (system-deep), and the set of elements which can be perceived as a classical text. This set is named the "texte-à-voir" (text-to-be-seen). The system-deep which seems to govern the real behaviour of the system in e-literature is named the procedural archetype. The paper will present the main caracteristic features of it, specially the particular position of the reader. The most important features relative to the reading are the "double reading" and the "aesthetics of frustration": to construct the sense of a work, the reader "has to read his reading", even if the work is non-interactive. This particularity is named "double reading". The aesthetics of frustration consist to use a classical archetype, uncompatible with the real behaviour of the system. It is a strategy of writing: The author supposes that the reader uses this classical archetype. Reading can fail, and this failure is a part of the work. This is why this strategy is named the aesthetics of frustration. In fact, reading does not fail when the reader uses the procedural system-deep. This strategy needs the double-reading to sublimate a failure of reading. Several examples by authors published in "alire" or "KAOS" will ilustrate these points.

Source: Author's Abstract

This essay proposes a methodology for the analysis of poetic digital works, based on the procedural model. This methodology is here applied to Jean-Marie Dutey’s le mange-texte. The article will provide a reminder of the definition of some concepts and highlight the various effects on the work of the changes in technical contexts of execution. The program is also being studied in a rhetorical dimension. This paper demonstrates that a reading of the screen is not enough to reach all the aesthetic representations of the work and aims to complete it with an operation of meta-reading. We will then analyze the rhetorical level induced by the execution and show why the obsolescence of the work does not mean the death of the work.

Source: Author's Abstract

ELO 2013 brought out the question of how the theoretical discussions about specific works can be extended in space and time beyond teams. A few months before, different teams began a project of the labex Arts-H2H focusing on the design of “Cross-reading”, a tool to make a pooling of theoretical perspectives used in different parts of the world to treat works of Electronic Literature. This experience, the first large-scale in this area, has as its primary mission to cross different methodologies (or points of view) on the same object to produce a high value-added analysis, which is not only a juxtaposition of disparate contributions but a construction reflecting teamwork.The still ongoing implementation implied first the design of an ontology to harmonize the different analyses produced autonomously by each team. Analyses come from diverse backgrounds such as literature, semiotics, media and cultural studies, ergonomic experimentation and aesthetics. The ontology considers the work as a Spinozist individual in the context of the procedural model of Ph. Bootz, allowing the contemplation of both the visible "surface" and the computer program of the work. Based on this ontology, we indexed all contributions. Then, “Cross-reading” presents a visualization to show relationships, similarities and differences between the analyses. Relations between synonyms and homonyms concepts are those that allow the construction of a combined theoretical approach. A prototype is available at http://ineslaitano.com.ar/crossreading/

I will present some conceptions of programmed art focused on the problem of form. I will not explain here the different approaches but only open the question in the perspective of the procedural model. I will start from the basic common point of view of the collective Transitoire Observable and, after an overview of some aspects of the procedural model, I will pose the question of form as a specific management in the programming of arbitrary aesthetic constraints that are posed by the author in his management of the situation of communication created by the work whatever the surface aesthetics is on screen. In this sense, we will speak of “programmed forms” as forms in programming and not as forms of the programmed multimedia event.

Source: author's abstract in book publication