Re: [-empyre-] Introducing Neural Skeins and Digital Skins -- November on -empyre-

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Alessandro Ludovico wrote:

> I've always thought of the alphabet as a code and on the same level
> I've always thought of the computer code as an alphabet for another
> language (the language for programming an entity inside a machine,
> called software).
> The potentially infinite creative possibilities of a codified
> language (alphabet + language rules), seem to me the same infinite
> creative possibiliies that one can implement using computer code,
> just as good writers use their languages.
I think a code might be more specific than an alphabet; a code implies a
doubled layer of interpretation a -> b -> referent - at least to some
extent. For example morse-code -> alphabet -> referent - although the
alphabet also points to phonemes. (But need it? I think one can 'read'
Chinese ideograms without the pronuncation.)

> Couldn't it be that the 'code' behind some Cy Twombly works would be
> codified if only we'd have access to his thought mechanisms and we'd
> be able to record and decode them?
I'd think (and hope) they'd be literally impenetrable. One of the things
we tend to believe in is that causes lead to effects, that artworks are
interpretable, readable. This is problematic; there's a muteness, perhaps,
an inertness at the heart of things (as Clement Rosset points out).

- Alan

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.