Re: [-empyre-] Re: 2 wr[b]yte : oulipo -- FWDing Giselle Beiguelman

amazing. we [always] agree.
i love one quotation from borges.
he says we are always creating our precursors

2005/10/12, Jim Andrews <>:
> > From: giselle beiguelman
> > I think that we should keep in mind that what is interesting in
> > History is that it is continuity *and* rupture.
> > I agree with Friedrich when he states that we can not stress new
> > futurist approaches and with the classification Marcus introduces in
> > his post. In spite of that, I think it is important to recognize the
> > novelty of the practices we are facing today.
> > We are dealing with a code that is not only a transmission code but it
> > is also executable. Because of this, it can affect material things
> > (for instance: to set a machine into motion). Vernacular languages can
> > persuade us but not execute actions.
> > The example Friedrich used in another post -- Jaromil piece in p0es1s
> > -- is a good example of this new situation which points, I believe, to
> > new reading and writing practices. It seems to me that they don't have
> > precedents in our cultural traditions.
> >
> > gb
> well said, giselle.
> i am not sure why the literary tends to be more conservative and slower to
> innovate than visual arts. i recall reading ws burroughs saying that the cut
> up technique was  basically from visual arts from fifty years ago.
> currently, in digital writing, publishers have been slower than galleries to
> have much involvement on the net or in writing that is pressing forward
> concerning digital writing. and we hear strong injunctions such as
> friedrich's not to dare speak of anything being new.
> one can usually dig up precedents, however incomplete they are. i am fond of
> william carlos williams quote from the fifties (or so) that 'a poem is a
> machine made out of words' and apollinaire's words from his 1917 talk
> L'Esprit Nouveau et les Poetès:
> "Typographical artifices worked out with great audacity have the advantage
> of bringing to life a visual lyricism which was almost unknown before our
> age. These artifices can still go much further and achieve the synthesis of
> the arts, of music, painting, and literature ... One should not be
> astonished if, with only the means they have now at their disposal, they set
> themselves to preparing this new art (vaster than the plain art of words) in
> which, like conductors of an orchestra of unbelievable scope they will have
> at their disposal the entire world, its noises and its appearances, the
> thought and language of man, song, dance, all the arts and all the
> artifices, still more mirages than Morgane could summon up on the hill of
> Gibel, with which to compose the visible and unfolded book of the future....
> Even if it is true that there is nothing new under the sun, the new spirit
> does not refrain from discovering new profundities in all this that is not
> new under the sun. Good sense is its guide, and this guide leads it into
> corners, if not new, at least unknown. But is there nothing new under the
> sun? It remains to be seen."
> we read in apollinaire both an acknowledgement of the difficulties of
> speaking of the new and also, nonetheless, a willingness to do so. that
> strikes me as important. because the alternative is a kind of 'ipsi dixit'
> atmosphere of 'proof by authority' in which it is viewed as futile to try to
> say or do anything new.
> so your willingness to hazard to speak of the new is very welcome to my
> eyes.
> ja
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum


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