[-empyre-] FWDing david jhave johnston

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: david jhave johnston <jhave2@gmail.com>
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:38:59 -0700
Subject: RE: affect in digital writing

christine, jim,

pleasant to hear responses that concern affect
and intriguing to hear of yr experiments christine, that transfer
between book object digital artifact,
the work of david small might be useful as a pivot point
and also a consideration of how synesthesia is involved

> > Affect is a subject I'd love to continue discussing. One of the things I
> > think about is largescale projection -- putting the audience in
> > the story.
> > Would this produce a higher level of affectivity? Anyone know?
> We read a lot of email in which we are part of the story. That we might not
> read were we not.

my thought is:
upping the size scale might not provoke increased affect, then again it might
(think about how imax usually is not a peak moment of emotive art,
while tiny poems can be)
as jim suggests, interactivity is leveraged where narcisstic
tendencies enter the game, but with emotions
non-linear unpredicatability is a key feature as most of us find out
in daily  living with emotions
so i think the incorporation of cognitive science or affective
neurology insights
(such as those created by koch, panksepp, damasio)
has to also leave room for the incandescent unknowns

the affect is really one root of poetry
since its implicated in memory production and symbolic construction
it will definitely need to be increasingly considered in larger
projects involving AI-art
informed by neurology and design with a dose of simple and personal
or as tononi and edelman call it : biological epistomology

as Bill said in his cohesive summation:

>  to look carefully
> at the body and all aspects of its operation in
> terms of meaning production;
> --

that sounds good to me


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