[-empyre-] reply to Murat

[Murat Nemet-Nejat]

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
answers.

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
become.

"... 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?

"... Plus, programs like javascript enable impromptu, interactive 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...

Murat



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 improvised
> digital poems became possible. Plus, programs like javascript 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>
> wrote:
>
>> ----------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
>> synthesis]?
>>
>> 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
>> translation.
>>
>> "... 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).
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Murat
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Bruce Andrews <andrews at fordham.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ----------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>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----------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
>>>> also.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> reactions):
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>> Ciao,
>>>> Murat
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Christopher T. Funkhouser
> Program Director, Communication and Media
> Department of Humanities
> New Jersey Institute of Technology
> University Heights
> Newark, NJ 07102
> http://web.njit.edu/~funkhous
> funkhous at njit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20161126/e82ee425/attachment.html>