[-empyre-] reply to Sally Silvers
silversdance at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 20:48:16 AEDT 2016
Thanks, Craig, Happy to have a link to explore & connect with. I'm aware
that my doubt makes it easy for me to deny interest. Something to overcome.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> You wrote: “… not yet a way to transform the most common form of movement
> notation (Labanotation) into video action … and [you are looking for, but
> not finding] magical animated movies [related to the] felt body”
> Do you know Leslie Bishko’s (at Emily Carr) [ https://labanforanimators.
> wordpress.com/leslie-bishko/ ] … work that uses Labanotation to create
> “expressive movement in computer animation”
> Also, do you study Feldenkrais Method that influenced an earlier
> generation of experimental animators — especially Sky David?
> The connections among dance/movement and experimental animation is
> probably stymied by disciplinary boundaries in colleges — the dancers want
> the “documentation” that you discuss below and the media-makers want to use
> dancers to “sell music” [music videos], and poetry is … Well, all this to
> say — it is too rare to have someone translate and adapt a theoretical
> essay into “dance-poems”
> On Nov 26, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Sally Silvers <silversdance at gmail.com>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Completely overwhelmed by Thanksgiving and the aftermaths. But... hope
> everyone who celebrated had a great one.
> Responding to Chris's sense of code and connecting it to poetry and music
> projects, and cyborgian relationships to the body, I did a dance piece
> (right after 9/11) on cyborgs and nuns to make the connection between nuns
> who were the first 'feminists' of their time — choosing god and celibacy in
> order to gain access to education & to avoid forced pregnancy and
> motherhood — & the cyborg as a challenge to patriarchal-based dualities.
> I also wrote an essay on Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" that Chris
> mentions as being so influential for him as well.
> In my dance (*Strike Me Lighting*) the first half was devoted to nuns and
> the 2nd half to cyborgs. I remember it was much easier to set in motion
> nuns than it was cyborgs. All the kneeling, contemplating, in-fighting,
> and undercover sex, so to speak, had more oomph than bodies with mechanical
> parts. The stiff robot move gets old fast. I ended up having to use a lot
> of photographs from books on cyborgs and spatializing the moves with things
> like star constellation floor patterns.
> I find this to be true online as well. The body may be the last thing to
> be made digital in a non-reduced form or in a fresh translated form. Unless
> you think of dance videos as a stand alone form & mostly I don't as they
> mostly seem like a translation of the body into something to sell music or
> glamorize some other product. Of course there are some exceptions to this
> as when the form of video and the form of dance/movement make a new concept
> -- when the language of each is not diminished. But most of the dance on
> film or via computer that I've seen seems like documentation or
> romanticized body angles.
> Video on-line is never as satisfying as the body live. (well maybe
> toddlers & animals get a pass). There is not yet a way to transform the
> most common form of movement notation (Labanotation) into video
> action.There is clumsy software that Merce Cunningham mastered which mostly
> works with given movement combinations and vocabulary and allows you to
> recombine or select parts of the body, but it's not that easy to use to
> make something interesting for the computer itself; it's mostly a tool for
> When gravity is absent, movement is hard to design.
> I am still trying to imagine what a combination of movement and digital
> art could be without it seeming gimmicky.
> I've seen performances with robots (cute), sound triggered electronically
> by dancers' bodies (so what), abstractions made by putting light/sensor
> points on the body (like trees wrapped in xmas lights —very pretty), but so
> far I have not seen or heard of anything that would allow actual
> interaction or that makes chance or algorithms very available or
> interesting. I'm waiting for virtual reality to at least make it more real
> and felt for the viewer because 3-d has been somewhat of a bust. I have
> hopes for all these things but as of yet, nothing is as appealing to me as
> actually working on the live body. The computer is a luddite when it comes
> to dance/choreography.
> When I google digital dance or computer dance, few programs come up —
> mostly for managing the business side of a dance school!
> Of course, there are all these incredible, magical animated movies, but I
> still remain interested in the felt body, the body with weight, that
> registers gravity I'm waiting though; I'm eager for more knowledge on the
> possibilities of digital dance, in the way so many possibilities have been
> organized for digital poetry/language and digital music/sound.
> Sally Silvers
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> Chris, first, happy Thanksgiving to you and to all the others, at least
>> the people living in the United States. Also thank you for your thoughtful
>> Yes, for a short moment at least, the idea of making Empyre like a 1990's
>> listserv was intentional, ideas coming from different directions, the
>> excitement of not knowing where to turn next, etc. Those lists were
>> meandering, argumentative, even sometimes hostile; but very productive. My
>> purpose has been to project a sense of what we miss, what the web has
>> "... I was wondering what you meant by my work being, “in fascinating
>> ways full of contradictions”. Early on as a poet who became somewhat of a
>> technologist, I might have seen that as a contradiction (others definitely
>> did), though not anymore..."
>> The contradiction (in a positive sense) I am referring to is not in your
>> involvement in technology as a poet. After all, all of us as artists or
>> poets use technology. in some way or another, be it a pencil or a computer.
>> Rather, I am referring to, as I see it, an interesting contradiction (or
>> tension) in your ideals/impulses. On the one hand, reading your *Prehistoric
>> Digital Poetry*. I sensed a great interest in developing the
>> capabilities of the computer progressively to create a poetry *unique to
>> the medium* from word to image to movement to sound, and their
>> combination --finally creating a poetic form which is both absorbing and
>> ephemeral and can be read practically in endless ways depending on the
>> choices the "reader" makes. In that synthesis, the digital poem resembles
>> very much a computer game where words/letters are one element. Towards the
>> end of the book, I remember asking myself what differentiates that digital
>> poem from a game (not a play). I don't think I found a satisfactory answer
>> in the book.
>> It is basically that contradiction I am referring to. Perhaps, since the
>> writing of that book, you have found an answer and, therefore, see no
>> contradiction. A sense of play has always been part of poetry, but is a
>> game the same thing?
>> Failure for me usually has to do with tech issues—esp. those that make a
>> work inaccessible, which happen way to often & on multiple levels (e.g.,
>> hosting, .www permissions, dll updates, changes in OS & software standards
>> (i.e., Flash/Shockwave)
>> Here I think we differ. Failure for me is a residue that remains in the
>> poem after it is "finished." It is integral to the kind of poetry or
>> poetics I write. Failure or success of communication, obtaining or failing
>> to obtain rights are different. I know for you the ephemeral quality of
>> internet sites or changing computer software are major issues. They are
>> what make digital poetry (or any digital art) temporary, subject to time.
>> Perhaps that is the failure that haunts digital works. I don't know. You
>> tell me.
>> "...working with software/design/code/&c I always try to have a general
>> vision as to where I’m going even if a lot of things do happen on-the-fly.
>> In this realm there’s often a lot of tedious prep, which can be/is extended
>> if to many big changes have to be made on the fly..."
>> If I understand correctly, the basic creative part of a digital work
>> occurs in the programming of the software where the visionary or poetic
>> impulse comes into play. If the original idea changes, the program has to
>> be altered "on the fly"; or, I assume, sometimes the idea is bent by the
>> exigencies of the program. If so, how does the idea of perfection come into
>> play? In what sense is the code always perfect? How do you know?
>> "... there are ways to organize expression & project material without
>> being bogged down by any constraints imparted code’s “perfection”. These
>> tools are there to help us do what we want..."
>> ☺so the code is perfect and imperfect (or perfect with loop holes). I
>> like that.
>> "... the coding allows the sound-image-text to be rendered
>> improvisationally. MIDI allows me to play an instrument, or speak, and have
>> the sound (& makeup of the sound) trigger onscreen or audible events...."
>> How do you determine the triggered on screen or audible events are
>> random? Do you mean it feels random to the viewer/listener?
>> database stylings that may not be improvised on-the-spot but project a
>> sense of spontaneity and uniqueness..."
>> We are I think touching a very crucial issue. "A sense of spontaneity and
>> uniqueness" is an effect, basically a rhetorical trope. It can be
>> premeditated, created through hard labor or through a code. "Improvisation"
>> is an act. Something is either improvised or not. For instance, in his
>> performances, Taylor is improvising, not creating a sense of it. Doesn't
>> the difference matter?
>> "... he idea that so many things are chimeras, hybrids of human &
>> machine, made (makes) a lot of sense. So I basically see everything that
>> uses digital media non-trivially to be a cyborgian endeavor. ...."
>> Chris, here we completely agree with each other. My poem *The Spiritual
>> Life of Replicants* is precisely such a work. In Blade Runner --the film
>> on which the poem is built (by the way, Blade Runner is the last Hollywood
>> film that uses no digital special effects)-- the ultimate perfect code that
>> no technology can break or contravene is mortality, to which even the
>> cyborgs are subject.
>> Chris, thank you again for your thoughtful responses.
>> To be continued...
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Funkhouser, Christopher T. <
>> christopher.t.funkhouser at njit.edu> wrote:
>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>> Hi Murat,
>>> I couldn’t delve into anything on Thanksgiving, & hope everyone had a
>>> blessed day.
>>> Now, let’s see… this discussion reminds me of being on listservs in the
>>> 90s: lots to think about, hard to keep up with everything, & difficult to
>>> elaborate as much as one would like, or could in a face-to-face situation.
>>> I was wondering what you meant by my work being, “in fascinating ways
>>> full of contradictions”. Early on as a poet who became somewhat of a
>>> technologist, I might have seen that as a contradiction (others definitely
>>> did), though not anymore.
>>> *But how often starting a work of art do we no where we are going (at
>>> least the kind of work I assume interests you and me)? We evolve, basically
>>> try to discover the work. In that way, intention is not a useful concept
>>> for me. To me failure has to do with gaps in a work, loose or unexplained
>>> parts though the work is presented as complete. In that way, failure is
>>> related more to a lack of total answer.*
>>> Discovering the work is a good way to describe what usually happens, but
>>> working with software/design/code/&c I always try to have a general vision
>>> as to where I’m going even if a lot of things do happen on-the-fly. In this
>>> realm there’s often a lot of tedious prep, which can be/is extended if to
>>> many big changes have to be made on the fly. If I don’t set up some sort of
>>> general intention, though (as in a yoga class), I’d likely have problems!
>>> Failure for me usually has to do with tech issues—esp. those that make a
>>> work inaccessible, which happen way to often & on multiple levels (e.g.,
>>> hosting, .www permissions, dll updates, changes in OS & software standards
>>> (i.e., Flash/Shockwave))
>>> *What is interesting in what you do is that, while you "accept" the
>>> absolute perfection of the code, a lot of the artists that interest you and
>>> you get deeply involved with, including your own projects, are open ended,
>>> improvisational, "evanescent" so to speak, such as Cecil Tayloror the
>>> wonderful piece of music "Wedge" you linked us to in your post.*
>>> I do try to keep an open perspective on things, & working with
>>> programming/design software there are ways to organize expression & project
>>> material without being bogged down by any constraints imparted code’s
>>> “perfection”. These tools are there to help us do what we want, & there are
>>> ways to use them that allow invention & expansion rather than confine.
>>> *In what relation do you see the perfection of the digital code (its
>>> "unforgiving" divine reality :) ) and your improvisational aesthetics? I
>>> know in in your book you say that the poetry created digitally is
>>> essentially ephemeral, and the artist must acknowledge it. *
>>> I definitely accept ephemerality as a given, & expect most digital
>>> works—if not cared for/maintained with some dedication—will become unusable
>>> somewhere down the line (has already happened, to me & others--a lot),
>>> which in many cases is really unfortunate. I see it as part of the
>>> conditions of postmodern poetry. David Antin's skywriting piece disappeared
>>> even more quickly!
>>> fwiw, the thing about the work I’m doing now (for the past 5 years or
>>> so), with sound and image, is that the coding allows the sound-image-text
>>> to be rendered improvisationally. MIDI allows me to play an instrument, or
>>> speak, and have the sound (& makeup of the sound) trigger onscreen or
>>> audible events. Once I discovered how to make this happen, making
>>> enable impromptu, interactive database stylings that may not be improvised
>>> on-the-spot but project a sense of spontaneity and uniqueness—they seem
>>> improvised (esp. if the user/viewer is allowed to input content). &, btw, I
>>> did end up posting some of the new work I've done, mapping voice to
>>> instrumentation, a couple of days ago at https://soundcloud.com/fnkhsr/
>>> page-33-infiltration (another approach, where instrument drives
>>> animation in performance is up at https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>> v=t9PkkqOzCf4 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si30Iajz4Zs (a collab
>>> with Amy & Sophia Sobers, whose projections do not appear unfortunately)
>>> "I was thinking about glitch after my post yesterday, but even in
>>> something that is glitch (in any form), the code functions properly.
>>> usually these works are aberrations imposed by composer, hardware, or
>>> software. but it is the surface that contains something
>>> unexpected/distorted. the code is *able *to do what it is
>>> instructed/informed to do. glitch is a great cyborgian form, whether
>>> intentionally created, or not.."
>>> To me, Chris, the above passage reminds me of Medieval (Christian)
>>> discourse on God and the existence of evil-- [image: ☺] OK! But the
>>> stakes are not so elevated. I was just rambling on, probably ineffectively,
>>> a certain topic. As far as making stuff goes, I never think of myself or
>>> anyone else as taking on the role of god, though I do like the highlighted
>>> passage of your post below!
>>> God's design is often inscrutable, but always there. Humanity can only
>>> experience the surface --and sees evil (unexpected/distorted): "What is the
>>> difference between God and virtual God?" "Virtual God is real." It's
>>> the software programmer.
>>> Could you elaborate on the following sentence: "glitch is a great
>>> cyborgian form, whether intentionally created, or not.."
>>> Sure. One of the first “theorists” I ever read was Donna Haraway, in
>>> 1991 when we were both living in Santa Cruz. Her Manifesto about Simians,
>>> Cyborgs, & Women really knocked me out & I kind of took it to heart & mind.
>>> The idea that so many things are chimeras, hybrids of human & machine, made
>>> (makes) a lot of sense. So I basically see everything that uses digital
>>> media non-trivially to be a cyborgian endeavor. That was the reference
>>> point. Glitch can of course be done non-digitally (with scissors, paint,
>>> arms, *quod libet*) so it’s not exclusive to computers. I know a few
>>> people who, using software (as well as output manipulation) do intentional
>>> glitch work; othertimes, it happens by accident & comes to eyes, ears, etc.
>>> I’m sure I didn’t say enough, or address everything, but that’s it for
>>> the moment. Bests, CF
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> Bruce, you have hooked up with the Project ten years earlier than me. I
>>>> had just returned from living in London for almost two years (and I had
>>>> said to my wife Karen that if I don't see another beautiful green park in
>>>> my life I'll be happy). I wanted to go to a poetry event in New York. It
>>>> was Wednesday, and at the Project Paul Auster was presenting his
>>>> anthology of French poetry that he had edited with multiple readers (to me
>>>> the most memorable was Armand Schwerner reading his Michaux
>>>> translations). That was it. I became friends with Bob Rosenthal and
>>>> Simon Pettet who had introduced Paul, and we created The Committee for
>>>> International Poetry. That was another adventure.
>>>> I agree with you about the ups and down of the Project. We all heard
>>>> our share of boring stuff there. I did doze off occasionally but the place
>>>> always seemed to come through. A lot of poets, artists came from different
>>>> parts of the States and the world and learned from and collaborated
>>>> with each other.
>>>> What the Project has been doing is what the Web is doing now. I have
>>>> had long term collaborations with artists over the years whom I have never
>>>> met. That is the huge positive of the digital world.
>>>> "We did want to focus attention on language itself as the medium, but
>>>> I'm not ready to embrace some of your characterization: words & letters
>>>> are not non-referential, but we liked to organize them in other ways beside
>>>> what they were pointing to (which was too often, for us, the author's
>>>> personalizing experience or expressiveness or traditional lyric
>>>> expectations). We tended to want the readers' experience at the center —
>>>> which cuts against some of this binary of yours about the sensual,
>>>> movement-based vs. logical aspects of language"
>>>> Bruce, when you say "We tended to want the readers' experience at the
>>>> center," are you saying anything different than saying "I want the text at
>>>> the center," the reader reading the text? The question interests me because
>>>> in my essay The Peripheral Space of Photography, I assert that what is
>>>> important in a photograph is not the photographer's focus (framing), but
>>>> what escapes that framing. The real dialogue occurs between the
>>>> watcher of the photograph and what is in front of the lens (human or a
>>>> landscape, etc.). If, as I think you are to saying, it is the reader (and
>>>> not purely the text), then even the "reveries" the reader builds around the
>>>> text reading it become part of it. Is that not so?
>>>> "Logical" was an unfortunate choice of words, on my part. I am more
>>>> interested in the distinction between predicated idea (therefore fixed) and
>>>> thought as process (therefore movement). One can have thought and/in
>>>> movement (that's what Eda is). In that way, thought is sensual.
>>>> "So if there's an "exchange" it's a mutual bending (which might be way
>>>> too mutually disruptive to warrant being called a "synthesis"). Maybe
>>>> that's more like the relationship between a 'dialect' & an 'official'
>>>> language — [and by the way, doesn't "the dialectic" typically end up in a
>>>> Yes, mutually bending and disruptive, not a synthesis. That's what a
>>>> true, transforming translation does, bends, alters both languages,
>>>> discovers potentialities in them. Walter Benjamin does see a synthesis in
>>>> the process when he writes that in a translation "A" does not move to "B"
>>>> but both move to a third place "C ," which he calls "ideal language."
>>>> Some people believe Benjamin was being a "poet" (poet in the pejorative
>>>> sense) here. "Ideal language" is a mystical fantasy. I am not one of them.
>>>> I believe it is part of the core of his very original concept of
>>>> "... doesn't "the dialectic" typically end up in a synthesis]?"
>>>> Not necessarily. I believe in an art or poetry of continuous dialectic.
>>>> The Talmud, where the interpretations of a holy passage are never resolved
>>>> and remain always multiple, is such a text.
>>>> To be continued (inviting others to join).
>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Bruce Andrews <andrews at fordham.edu>
>>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>> Hi all — finally figured out a little more about the interface [one of
>>>>> my least favorite words] & receiving messages intriguingly dated many hours
>>>>> ahead — from Australia — so it's already Thanksgiving the day before.
>>>>> Thanks, on Thanksgiving [with recent political events, e.g. the
>>>>> trumpocalypse, having disrupted so many things I was hoping for & hoping to
>>>>> give thanks for], Murat, for your Intro.
>>>>> Nice to think of the Poetry Project as a site for adventurous
>>>>> exploring — certainly it's where I first had a chance to talk with you
>>>>> (often about matters political, Turkey, etc. — I started going there, &
>>>>> getting to read every couple years, right after arriving in NYC in 1975, to
>>>>> take a job as a Political Science professor [American Imperialism my
>>>>> specialty] wch lasted 38 of the 41 years since).
>>>>> The so-called 'Language Poets' actually tended to question whether the
>>>>> consensus 'New York School/Beat' styles honored at the PProject was really
>>>>> still devoted to adventurously "exploring the outer limits and
>>>>> possibilities" of the medium: our aesthetics had taken shape in the early
>>>>> to mid 1970s, mostly outside of NY & hashed out in the mail rather than
>>>>> face to face in any community 'scene'. We did want to focus attention on
>>>>> language itself as the medium, but I'm not ready to embrace some of your
>>>>> characterization: words & letters are not non-referential, but we liked to
>>>>> organize them in other ways beside what they were pointing to (which was
>>>>> too often, for us, the author's personalizing experience or expressiveness
>>>>> or traditional lyric expectations). We tended to want the readers'
>>>>> experience at the center — which cuts against some of this binary of yours
>>>>> about the sensual, movement-based vs. logical aspects of language. If I had
>>>>> to choose sides there, I'd always go with movement & the sensory, as a way
>>>>> to 'volatilize' & 'capacitate' its potential readers; my own writing
>>>>> certainly doesn't get much acclaim for being "logical". But I'd rather step
>>>>> outside any polemical wrangling about the poetry we do & keep things
>>>>> focused on the digital front: for instance, whether an online presentation
>>>>> tends to help or hinder the kinds of reading that put movement & the senses
>>>>> in the forefront.
>>>>> On your question: I don't think that verbal language is basically a
>>>>> self-referential system; instead, it seems more like a messy hybrid. And so
>>>>> is what happens via the computer & the web: this may be distinctive as a
>>>>> linguistic/communicative arrangement, but that's not exactly what I see in
>>>>> the idea of it creating its own system. So if there's an "exchange" it's a
>>>>> mutual bending (which might be way too mutually disruptive to warrant being
>>>>> called a "synthesis"). Maybe that's more like the relationship between a
>>>>> 'dialect' & an 'official' language — [and by the way, doesn't "the
>>>>> dialectic" typically end up in a synthesis]?
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
>>>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> I have known these week's guest participants or been familiar with
>>>>>> their works for years. They have all been, directly or indirectly, part of
>>>>>> the Poetry Project poetry and art community. A spirit of adventure
>>>>>> exploring the outer limits and possibilities each of his or her own media
>>>>>> that has been the characteristic of the place since 1960's for fifty years
>>>>>> permeates all of them.
>>>>>> I met Chris Funkhauser first in 1994 during a Poetry Project
>>>>>> symposium on "Revolutionary Poetry." He and his friend Belle Gironde --both
>>>>>> University of Albany students at the time-- along with three other young
>>>>>> people had organized an "unofficial" workshop on "Poetry and Technology"
>>>>>> that, if I remember correctly, had set up its tent out in the garden of the
>>>>>> church. I was a member of the final panel that presented overviews of the
>>>>>> symposium. As part of my preparation, I visited the workshop. I was so
>>>>>> struck by what they were doing, by the spirit of Dada in their manifesto of
>>>>>> the virtual --yes, the possibilities of a virtual poetry was infused with
>>>>>> Dada mojo at the time-- that I spent a final, significant portion of my
>>>>>> talk on that workshop. I felt what the workshop was saying contained a
>>>>>> significant portion of the revolutionary spirit the symposium was searching
>>>>>> for. Chris and I remained friends ever since. Interestingly, Bruce Andrews,
>>>>>> the second guest participant this week, was another member of that panel
>>>>>> Here are two passages from "Takes or Mis-takes from the Revolutionary
>>>>>> Symposium, The Poetry Project, May 5-8, 1994," the second being its ending.
>>>>>> The talk consisted of quotations from the symposium (peppered with my
>>>>>> "What's the difference between God and virtual God?"
>>>>>> "Virtual God is real." It's the software programer.
>>>>>> "From The Poetry and Technology workshop: 'Give free shit to lure
>>>>>> them…. Commodity lives," Eric Swensen, the 'Enema' of Necro Enema
>>>>>> Amalgamated, producers of the manifesto BLAM!"
>>>>>> Bruce Andrew was with Charles Bernstein the co-editor of the ground
>>>>>> breaking poetry magazine L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E which, as the "=" signs in the
>>>>>> title implies, ushered a new attitude towards poetry and language. Letters,
>>>>>> words relate more to each other than to a referential point outside. The
>>>>>> result was the transforming (and influential on younger poets) poetry
>>>>>> movement Language School of which Bruce is a key member. As a poet, I have
>>>>>> had serious disagreements with strict (in my view, almost fundementalist)
>>>>>> take on language the movement embodies. I come from the East (Turkey).
>>>>>> Though equally exploring, my view of language is different, more sensual,
>>>>>> based on movement than logic. I tried to bring these qualities to English
>>>>>> language and American poetry though my concept of Eda. On the other, I must
>>>>>> admit the poetry of my friends in the States inevitably bent the direction
>>>>>> of my work. I believe Eda will do, and is already doing, the same even
>>>>>> though though the effect is not totally visible yet.
>>>>>> There is one question I would like very much Bruce to explore, if at
>>>>>> all possible, among many others. The computer seems to create its own
>>>>>> linguistic/communicative system. If verbal language also is basically a
>>>>>> self-referential system, how do you see the possibility of exchange between
>>>>>> these two entities? Is it at all, possible? If so, what has to bend to
>>>>>> accommodate the other? In other words, is the relationship towards
>>>>>> synthesis or always dialectical?
>>>>>> I saw Sally Silvers dance for the first time years ago during a
>>>>>> Poetry Project New Years' Day Marathon. I was immediate struck by the
>>>>>> uniqueness and originality of her dance. Over the years I tried to answer
>>>>>> that question because I felt it said something important, not only about
>>>>>> but beyond dance. Gradually, a picture emerged. Even watching avant-garde
>>>>>> or "experimental" dancers, I always feel that their movements are rehashed,
>>>>>> coming out of a repertoire of established avant grade movements. There was
>>>>>> nothing of that in Sally Silver's dancing. Every movement was itself,
>>>>>> nothing more, nothing less. The movements had a solidity, embodying the
>>>>>> reality of gravity that run through them and shaped them. That earth bound
>>>>>> clarity was a thrilling thing to see. I am looking forward to what she has
>>>>>> to say about dance or anything else.
>>>>>> All the Empyre members, welcome to the fourth week.
>>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>> Dr. Christopher T. Funkhouser
>>> Program Director, Communication and Media
>>> Department of Humanities
>>> New Jersey Institute of Technology
>>> University Heights
>>> Newark, NJ 07102
>>> funkhous at njit.edu
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre