Re: [-empyre-] on electronic poetry

[Lloyd Sharp <lsharp@bigpond.net.au>]

> Interesting,  about  ambiguity in the choice of topic
> title. It was deliberate.  Literature is always
> already misleading about something.  Could a poet
> 'fake' a hypertext?

Isn't this the most interesting aspect of the discussion of 'digital art'?

...the essential underlying play between the technology itself, the 
use of it and the [seemingly unrelated] outcome...  and I guess also 
the marketing 'presence'... [by that I mean how academics, curators 
and journalists like to try interpret it for us]

I was thinking about how anyone would|could define and recognise a 
'fake' hypertext and how the creative|interpretive|cognitive 
processes work in ourselves to lead us through these experiences.

It also 'speaks' to the point melinda and others made earlier about 
not relating personally to a specific technology or communicative 
form and how to define 'immersion'.

I have a wide range of friends and relatives... some with head 
injuries, some blind, some deaf... some very repressed and 
conservative and some just crazy... all with their own internal 
narratives and relations to technologies that are in the most part 
incomprehensible or at least mostly opaque to me.
I am still pleasantly surprised at these unique ways of interpreting 
and relating to the world.

Why do we even need a term like 'poet' and 'hypertext' ?

Many might find the current 'linear' texts we have hard enough to 
navigate without diversion...