Week 7

The reading describes digital performance as performance where computer technologies play a key role and not just a subsidiary role. I think this is an important distinction that may need to more specifically interrogated. It’s not very clear at which point technology becomes ‘key’ enough to go from art to digital art. Furthermore, if there is a line that can be drawn between art and digital art, I’m not sure if this line is even static; I think it may be moving. Technology is advancing and everyday it pervades our daily lives more and more. The children growing up today will take more and more technology for granted. Therefore I think that it’s very possible that there are art pieces today that take advantage of some digital technology that later peoples may find difficulty appreciating, because to them, the technology that the pieces use will seem mundane because they have grown up with that technology and they take it for granted. I think this is quite relevant for digital performance art because much of this is involved with projecting or manufacturing a presence, but telepresence may become so commonplace in the future that future people may view this artwork in a very different frame. Things like video chat have already drastically changed how we view distance and video.

War and Peace in the State of the Union

assert(Monkees);

I 'translated' the song "I'm a Believer" into C code.

love = fairy_tales ? TRUE : FALSE;

meant = (s0me1_else && !me);

love = out->get_me;

that = the_way(seemed(it));

for(int i = 1; i <= num_dreams; i++){
    haunts(disappointment,dreams[i]);
}

scanf(“%s”, her_face); assert(belief);

mind[doubt] = !trace;

im = *love;

assert(belief); leave_her = FALSE;

love > giving_thing || love < giving_thing;

more_i_gave = less_i_got;

what = trying[use];

all_you_get = pain;

if (need == sunshine) {

    get(rain);

}

scanf(“%s”, her_face); assert(belief);

mind[doubt] = !trace;

im = *love;

assert(belief); leave_her = FALSE;

Week 6

I think language can become data in two ways. I think in the absolute sense all information is data and therefore, all language is automatically data in that sense. I also think that in the modern sense we don’t think about the word ‘data’ in this absolute sense. I think we tend to think about data as some numbers on a computer screen or database somewhere. In this sense, I think language becomes data when it is put in a digital form that is relatively easy to access and analyze. For example, we can look at Shakespeare’s works as data because we easily access, read, and download them from websites like Project Gutenberg. I think data can be used to great affect to find patterns and to look for connection. One example in literature is using data to attribute works or to try to verify whether a particular author is likely to have written a work or not. One big concern with data is access. Access to language arts must be governed according to the wishes of the author and data access must follow from this. I think another interesting and creative use for data online is in generative literature. We have already gone over grammar systems and Markov generator which can generate fake text that sounds vaguely like Kafka, for instance. These sort of systems can only work because there is easy access to digital versions of Kafka’s works and other authors.

Week 5 experiment: Vertical Typing

https://editor.p5js.org/full/H1S3b_zoX

Week 5

Computer code is a language and “programming language” is not an oxymoron. Essentially languages exist to communicate and coding does that. The difference that makes computer code different from other language is that it is not meant to communicate to other humans, it is meant to communicate with computers. There are exceptions to this of course, for examples the //comments in code are not meant for computers, in fact they are especially meant not to be interpreted by the computer. Another thing that separates code from normal language is interpretation. The interpretation of computer code is a science in its own right that involves a complex interplay of translation, contextualization, and compilation. Often this process is so complicated that the code that the machine executes is nothing like what is written. In this instance one can think of the code not as communicating an idea, but rather describing it. I think this sentiment is present in “ What is Codework?”. The piece states that codework is parasitic. Take for instance a code that draws a picture. Perhaps the picture is something people can agree is art, but if the code is a description, is it art. Is a description of art always art in itself? Perhaps this is how code can be parasitic, if the product of code is artistic then perhaps the codework that describes the product can vampirically lay claim to the aspect of art. Of course, not all code is codework, “To code is not to produce codework; it is to produce code on the level of the code or interface. Bridged code, embedded code, is not codework; the irreversible spew of cellular automata is codework”.

Week 4 Artwork

https://editor.p5js.org/full/SJbMnKuq7 https://editor.p5js.org/abraarchaudhry/sketches/SJbMnKuq7 https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XKKYLehpsl4xTav4WbXbmgIlqLW_kDms

Week 4

I thought the beginning of the reading was a bit indecisive since it uses language that it refuses to define. For example it notes to “rethink terms such as ‘literary’ and ‘forms’”. Furthermore it says that moving beyond can also be a return and this statement on its face without further clarification seems to be a straight contradiction. The idea of going beyond the screen as a movement toward something posthuman interested me and I hope we will see this idea explored more. I thought the example provided for literalism was helpful although I disagree that its of special interest in this context. I think that while a movement beyond the screen could be viewed as a move toward literalism, given the lack of definition from the article, it’s possible for a piece to move both beyond the screen according to the vague definition of the article and away from literalism. If moving beyond can also be a return and a piece “returns” to a flat aspect of the screen, then it could show a lack of richness like dynamic text and movement which some of the main examples the author uses. The author also claims that the Internet has weakened the sense of authorship which I think is probably true in most cases, but I feel like there must be exceptions to this. Text in 3D is different from 2D since it has to look less simple. Even though a 3D text could simply be writing a 2D text and adding a shadow, when I think of 3D text I think of 2007 and WordArt and I feel like its a gaudy style that has long gone out of fashion. Of course 3D text can show depth and distance, but taking a piece of text that functions in 2D and putting it into 3D seems excessive to me. Keywords: Depth Distance Simplicity Parsimony Complexity Medium Space Curve Emptiness Substance

Week 3 Artwork

https://editor.p5js.org/full/BJgH4wex5m

Week 3

The oulipo piece was interesting. I thought it was interesting that the machine took into account how fast a user typed their name as input for determining which poems to show them. The author talks about using location which seems like a fair idea but they say that the reader has to get their latitude and longitude from another site and then put it in; this seems cumbersome to me. The part of the choose-your-own-adventure where two choices lead to the same place is interesting. I agree with the author that understanding the structure of the story does not supersede actually reading it. I agree that S+7 is cool because the output is so recognizable. The grammar piece was pretty straightforward because I have heard of context-free grammars before. I have heard that the ‘schm-’ phrases in English (e.g. ‘nilsson schmilsson’) are one of the things in particular that make English not context-free and I am interested in what other things prevent English from being context-free. The ‘Bot or Not’ game really stumped me. I played it at least three times and I lost every time, which is significantly worse than guessing. It is quite disconcerting that the game is so hard. It makes me wonder just how far robots can go in the poetry world.