dis.[UR]Locate on Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:32:02 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] _Net.wurk log:: Lewis Lacook [aka LL] + dis.[UR]Locate [akamez]_

_Net.wurking:: Lewis Lacook [aka LL] + dis.[UR]Locate [aka mez]_

At 05:52 PM 8/11/2002 -0800, LL wrote:
>Would be ineterested quite alarmingly in responses to this question:
>Are "digital poetry" and net art two distinct genres? And, perhaps more 
>importantly, should they be?

.setting. the.cat. a.m.ongst.the.pro.verb[d]ial[up].klee|stool.pidgins.


.dye[d with a parsing spoon].late.
di.s[in]sect[of the bo.vine.theory.x.tract]ion


[d.fine + d.volute::]

.core dumping + re.hash mode[m]
.re.sist.or dross + spewing.statics.in.polemic.placements.



At 02:50 PM 9/11/2002 -0800, LL wrote:
>don't misunderstand me too quickly!

.-[quarterer N]

>i don't want nor believe they SHOULD be distinct forms...BUT it all too 
>often seems to me that they are...


>there's a fundamental difference between, say, 'the dreamlife of letters' 
>and jimpunk/bruno with their gogolchat....and all too often, looking at 
>works that tout themselves as 'digital poetry,' i'm 
>disappointed...disappointed because there's so much potential in the 
>medium not being used...too often i see nothing more than text that 
>moves...which is great, but no different than cinema, and not indicative 
>of a new artform...or i see works that use rollovers as their only source 
>of user-interaction, which, while justifying their presence on the machine 
>and network, and introducing some reactivity to the work, is still pretty 
>basic stuff (and with the tools used, require no writing or understanding 
>of code)...




>all of which is fine, really (some of these works are quite beautiful and 
>intriguing)...but i hunger for more (as usual, being American, which is 
>probably why we screw the world up so often)....




>i want a new art form, a new form of digital poetry that's less cinematic...

.printL[b]o[x]a[n]d[N + yoke]


>why can't a digital poem do what gogolchat does, or what chris fahey's 
>ada1852 does? is there work out there like that? where can i see it? 
>because i desperately want to see it...



__________[Up.]Dated Sun.day, November 8th, 2002______________________

- re:placed the new.Nce re.C#.[Ever.crack[l]ing]ding! with a ripped 
[double] blind.

- re:moved all references 2  L.[747]boeing yr way in2 the sense.less.

- d.bugged [not happy]jan.re:cauling & yr passi[e]ve][+a.dam][.printLoad. 

- s.witched ab.sor[e]ption modes 2 "Sau[fi]ssureStunNRun" or 

- stripped disLocate modules + toggle mode is now operational un.duh these 
         1. my mind is codeDark & S[en.s][t][ory]D[eprivation]blank.
         2. i canKnot  re:align.
         3. u push my buttons + run[::end].
         4. i'll squ[ID]eal, i will!
         5. u stink of code piss.
         6. let me wind u down //[grindMode].
         7. s.wing_shifting my fluid way in2 yr organ_head.

At 02:28 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >are your texts using other texts?

they r not texts.
"texts" respawn yr own.

 > how is the network important to
 >these texts?

"texts" *r* not the net.work.
"t4e0x4ts" Not Found.
_net.wurks_ *r* the net.work.

_texts_ plug the gaps + _net.wurks_manifest as form from packet-driven

_form from_

_homogenesis substrata b.coming a.n][et][atomy_

think _code_ ][trans][forming ][2][ _application_.

text does not exist w.here.

At 02:57 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >if i'm not mistaken, mez here is proposing the works exist in a
 >certain communicative channel...they're a flow of data////like all
 >things really are////

_form from_

or even

_form form_

 >my question would be (and the answer to this would actually help me
 >distinguish between works): where does the data come from? where does
 >it flow to?

_net.wurks_ u.se[e] information.

<d.fine: information?>

_in form_

 >one can say (as in romanticism): well, the data comes from somewhere
 >up there: it flows into me, and then out:::::all of which is true////

up there: no
in2: no
out: no

[a trip.tick.ler of nos].
[think no.dic[k]|x.plosive, la[la laaaa li]terally.]

 >but the works i like best are those in which data comes from several
 >sources (not simply repsawning my own): data comes from you, and you,
 >and you, and you, and you=====and goes to you and you and you and

u & u & u.

[ewes & use = cul.pa[lata]ble comprehension].

 >this is interesting to me because it's pointing to an epitemology of
 >net art (or at least an epistemology of mez's work, which interests
 >me greatly)////
 >but i still don't understand why they're not texts? how would you
 >define a text, mez? and what is the distinction between that and what
 >you do?

i _net.wurk_.
[u text b.coz u r].
[i net.wurk b.coz i am

[u purr.[d]sist in b.ing .here.]

oppositional here|w.here.

At 03:31 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >texts use information in form as well////

[contiguous filtering + response patternings + reification of proto.co[a]ls]

 >so what are you doing that e.e. cummings hasn't already done?

[contiguous flittering + respose patternings + deification of proto.co[a]ls]

[net.wurking thru nets.co[de]pic[torials]s]
[nod.ule =nod.url =nod.jewel =nod.jules]
[add.end[w.here.?]um n.finite]

orality is.not textual
textual is.not netscopic

[1+0 =???]

 >what privileges your texts as net wurks and mine (even when that text
 >isn't really mine at all?)as just texts?

passive lo[a]ne construction + advertisingly projective + isolated


At 04:08 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >MEZ:passive lo[a]ne construction + advertisingly projective +
 > > mono[info]thrusting
 >LL:but in order to escape this you have to allow others to create
 >work for you...you have to open a gap in the work/////

re:[sup]plying [the goods]...........

 >the way i see it (yeah, i know, mi mi mi)===esp in your flash and
 >javascript works, where the opportunity lies quite baldly before you
 >to NOT do this) this is exactly what you're doing. you're not
 >allowing the user to reconstruct your texts. at best, you're allowing
 >them to experience them in different orders (that time thing
 >again)...in the poetry generators, i don't really construct the text
 >at all///i simply set up a space and a means for the user to work
 >in///in anningan it's a little more complicated, and not fully
 >fleshed yet////but the user still commicates with the piece...
 >i'm not berating you, simply discussing this///you see what i do as
 >this, but i see what you're doing as the same thing///which is where
 >i don't understand how you see what you're doing as essentially
 >different, the trouble i'm running into understanding it///

[S]O[AP]rality is.not textual
text[d]ual[ity] is.not netscopic

dependencies vs x.clusions.........

 >i mean,
 >really, the flash works are just multimedially enhanced texts////
 >(granted, there are some awful cool rollover tricks, which do
 >actually enrich one's reading, which is why i don't call your work
"mi" MM @tempts r remnants.
 >well, yes, i produce a lot, and i don't use an avatar///neither does
 >eryk salvaggio, nor does jim andrews....is that the difference?

. ..
. . . . ..

A c][r][][ab-like][yst][al][ repeating. . .
. .
In disarray, a molten swathe of n.ter.face][s][ts
mimic simul.crated spaces.
In describing, yr structure is musty,
n.distinguishable from the
a graphic urn of
circuitry rust.

In b.tween][ning][, pat.turns of repetition
][like looped n.testinal lattice][
is in ][& of][ IT.s][h][ell.f
][the uni.f][r][ied cell][.

. ..
. . . . ..
. . .A most fungalmental repetition property. . .
. . . . .
. ..
. . . . ..
. ... .
.. .

This Cyb.age.nic Lattice in its
][& of IT.self][ ubersymmetry.

We n.itially shrink ourselves ][in][2 3 di][ce][mensions.
4 ][si][m.plicity, 3 types r coded:

. .Replification.
. . .Helix.

.C.quential: U perceive & reproduce via regular successions. No gaps
allowed. No m.maginative rigor. U may ][& will][ b visualized like this. U
represent a sell][out][.F - the human unit of repeditive n.elasticity.
[4 e.e.g, u r 1 of the sell.Fs. if u look out, u c the same reflective
sell.Fs @ 0, 90, 180, & 270 d.grees because a c.quential repeats itself @
predicable ][culturally-d.][greed n.tervals.

. .Replification: U repeat consistently. U r not able 2 distinguish
successive patternings ][@ 0 and 180 cultural d.gree][d][s][. U find
replification easier than advancing. U m.ulate. U ][re][produce as if it
were progressive.

. . .Helix: U spiral and poll][inate][ute. U.re c.oiled c][ultural][entrics
reorder & re.route. U burn the sell.F. U.re c][h][ells can traverse the
vir][mens][t][r][ually & geocentrically g][l][athered.

. ..
. . . . ..
If the helix s.][c][el][l][ves were seen in ultradimensions, they would
completely fill the Cybagenic & Ge][c][o.d.fined Lattrix.
. ..
. . . . ..

At 04:11 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 > who
 >a)s w(e loo)k
 > eringint(o-
 > eA
 > !p:
 >S a
 > (r
 >rIvInG .gRrEaPsPhOs)
 > to
 >that would be e.e. cummings
 >that would be mez....


At 04:22 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >cummings wrote text...




lewis, doe.s:
orality = textual
textual = netscopic

if yes, how sew?

At 04:24 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >so explain (without resorting to pseudo artspeak and pseudo
 >mysticism) what's reductive about actually judging the work and not
 >the reputation of the maker?

thats not where yr reductionism lies.

pseudo artspeak = none.

do u c this w.here. as epigenetic?
this is no pseudocode.
please search + absorb.

At 04:34 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
i like this distinction you're making between orality and netw
ork...but one can't exactly "recite" the cummings work i
quoted////and other than the fact that it was done on paper it's very
similar to what you do to text...

the language poets as well discussed how poetry had long left the
oral behind////


At 04:36 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>you may have a point there...i may have been a bit red about the
>collar...sorry mez!
>what's at stake...well, pure discussion, really/////and intellectual
>curiosity///(i'm liking reading mez write about her work like this)

At 04:39 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>you're right...i've twisted on myself and am now exhibiting just what
>i despise////sorry, mez (and thank you for your patience!)

At 04:58 PM 10/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>they are, and they aren't...
>nothing is ever simply text, i'm thinking this morning////
>i think mez was making a very important distinction in this
>because i thought of my work as text, it was text....
>she was seeing her work in terms of flow////
>it's an old zen master trick///
>a zenist holds up an object, say, a book of matches, and asks her
>student, :"what is this///"
>student says///"matches!"""
>master throws matches at student: "'matches' is a sound...what are
>brilliant, really///wish i'd had the clarity last night to see this///

At 03:21 PM 12/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >some more clarifications:
 >i just want to point out that i didn't dis anyone until i was being
 >dissed...i compared and contrasted works...

.dis[all.(in)lieu.sioned now?]ah.vow.all = n.voked?

[a sub.stantial shame]
[yr fingers rub with transm.ogrified g.loss]

 >i think it's rather unfair that i was treated this way, to be honest,
 >and it's very doubtful that i will be posting work anymore...it would
 >be a waste of time...not only do i not get actual feedback from it
 >(which is what i'm looking for), but i'm actively discriminated
 >against for the type of work i'm doing...which is sad...

how sew, LL?

[j]ob.servation status:

.if u purr.sieve yr own [switch.hitting.in2.yr.own.bawl.court] as
.s.ta[c]tic[al] regurgitive


.orientation of [con]text=[con]fusing?

[sending out m[r]e[vie]wling sounds makes 4 response sparkles]
[mine(ours) may dull yr flicka-senses]
[yrs may knot]

[be it sew: but b pre:pared 4 int[ra]er.action]

 >i'm very sad
 >because i thought this whole thing was about experimentation and
 >freedom, and in the end it's about career and reputation...

.affectivity staining & reading thru a victim's drawl.
.u _kno_ this.
.this is _k_not u.

.s[l]ink.ing & then re:fusing 2 s[ilicon]wim.


 >while previous works have used templates, millie, it's a start, and i
 >don't see too many others doing it, and i don't know why...and for
 >the record, i didn't learn anything about programming in
 >school...what i know about programming i picked up on my own...which
 >hardly matters, in the long run...
 >you know...this has really broken my heart...it's just plain
 >sad...it's sad that no-one can really discuss anything,
.our.XX.change.was Legion, then?
 >or call
 >anything into question...

.N.gauge =batt[ling]ed & byte[ing]

 >hell, i would have been overjoyed had
 >someone raised such questions about my work (mazzy did about anningan
 >in trAce's experimentally forum, and it was wonderful, it helped
 >clarify my own thoughts about what i was doing with the work, which
 >is why i post anyway:::to see the work from outside::::)...but i've
 >pretty much come to the conclusion that any gestures toward
 >experimentation and openness out here are simply poses, and are
 >adopted for the appearence of innovation...

three.sixty.ish positioning [?surprised?]
.u seam up.[un]set[tled].

.please, LL, don't.fl[op]IP.ova.the.learning.curve.

[attack perception = OFF]


[react & revolve]
[child[(blue)ren s[h]i[f]t dreams.letter.istic
as do u.

.des.[Hell.en of]troying others .will.knot.help.]

 >i'll admit, what i'm doing isn't fully developed yet...but i just
 >learned how to use flash last year...i've only been doing this for a
 >year...& i've acomplished a lot in that time...& yes, i get filled
 >with a revolutionary zeal at times...but in this discussion, which
 >started out as a simple effort to get some input about something i
 >was thinking about, i never called anyone a 'phoney' (as mez did in a
 >subject line about me at wryting),


false wurds + n.furr.ances.

[the line was phoney:
content reflex.ive & [s]hunting context]

no mention of _u_ in .t.here.

again LL:
.lash -[Hell.en of]t(r)oying with others.n.tentions.will.knot.help.]

 >nor did i engage in any gleeful
 >bashing...i never really got angry until i was attacked, and had my
 >own work simplified...(



@tack = no
x.pand = yes

 >which may have been fair, the simplification,
 >seeing as how mez thought--and was right, in a sense--that i was
 >working with a reductive paradigm re her work----& when you're
 >looking at questions of form you do end up reducing works to forms--)-
.a single l[p]o[ke]be,

. . .... .....

.... . .??? .......

Nettime-bold mailing list