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

<<so your willingness to hazard to speak of the new is very welcome to my
same here!! That´s why I differ DW that relates to concrete in results
from DW that relates to concrete in attitude. But, I´m not sure if it
is possible to adopt or criticize the discourse of the new without
giving some thought to the following:

1. the concecpt of "new" is somehow reminiscent of the avant-garde
guerrila of manifestos and does not fit the overlapping of differences
that digital media allow.
Avant-garde was about substituting one by the other (one argued to be
"old", other argued to be "new"); digital media seems to be about
intermigling both and others.
For that reason, I´d say that "continuity" and "rupture" is not the
same of "old" and "new". Walter Benjamin sustains that the flow of
history can be described in terms of "intensity" instead of
"chronology". The brazilian philosopher Jeanne Marie Gagnebin explains
how this allows "to read Benjamin´s philosophy of history and
philosophy of language as a reflection centered in Modernity,
carachterized by a profound interwieving of the 'ephemeral' and the

2. the idea of "novelty" can be an industry device, an strategy of
marketing based n the quick substition of an "obsolete" product by its
"more modern" version.

On 10/12/05, giselle beiguelman <> wrote:
> jim,
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> --
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum

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