Q: How have social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, ect... contributed to our society as we know it? Are these contributions, if any, positive or negative? Where will technology take us?
A: Social networking sites undoubtedly contribute to society in a vast number of ways. These contributions, however, are often difficult to judge as either positive or negative. More often, the circumstances of a given situation dictate whether a social network is beneficial, detrimental, or somewhere in between. Once linked to a network, an individual creates a virtual depiction of his or her self which can be accessed by the world at large. Often, others are allowed to add or subtract from this virtual representation through posting pictures, partaking in polls involving others, or through various interactions within the network itself. These representations can do well to allow individuals to remain in touch with friends, allow for meeting new people, provide a form of entertainment, and offer many other beneficial qualities as well. Unfortunately, they can also lead to public degradation of character, misrepresentation of the self, and matters meant to be held private open for public discussion. If one an underage high schooler, for instance, were to apply for a job after a friend posts a picture of him drunk on his facebook, he will likely not get the job.
out of time...
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
4-20 in class response
Q: An original hard copy text is put into digital form verbatim. N. Katherine Hayles calls this media translation and says 'something is gained as well as lost." Peter Shillingsburg says if the text is stored accurately on a second storage medium, the text remains the same though the signs for it are different. Discuss what can be gained and lost in media translation, if anything.
Response:
When a text is copied verbatim, the wording obviously remains the same and yet an equivalent rendition of the original text is not always achieved. A different font my be used, a new background, italics could be employed instead of cursive writing, the ink may not be worn in the translation in the same places that show wear in the original. Much like the differences observed when multiple people read the same speech, perform the same dance, or play the same musical song, each instance of translation can alter the way by which text (and context of that text) interact and impact others. The question here ought not to focus on "whether or not there are differences" but rather whether or not those differences matter. Is there any great significance? Personally, I would say that in most cases there is not. Undeniably there are other extreme cases where it would matter, but those seem the exception rather than the rule. Overall, Shillingsburg seems to support my view moreso than Hayles but I would regard both as holding positions at extreme ends in need of finding a common ground.
Response:
When a text is copied verbatim, the wording obviously remains the same and yet an equivalent rendition of the original text is not always achieved. A different font my be used, a new background, italics could be employed instead of cursive writing, the ink may not be worn in the translation in the same places that show wear in the original. Much like the differences observed when multiple people read the same speech, perform the same dance, or play the same musical song, each instance of translation can alter the way by which text (and context of that text) interact and impact others. The question here ought not to focus on "whether or not there are differences" but rather whether or not those differences matter. Is there any great significance? Personally, I would say that in most cases there is not. Undeniably there are other extreme cases where it would matter, but those seem the exception rather than the rule. Overall, Shillingsburg seems to support my view moreso than Hayles but I would regard both as holding positions at extreme ends in need of finding a common ground.
4-20 TechnoText Response
As more topics are covered in this class I find myself wondering what others find so desirable about achieving the status of “poetic” for their creations. Ranging from the disaster of flarf to the more acceptable (though not as poetry) techno texts introduced this week, it is puzzling that poetry as it is commonly understood remains under constant assault. If something new is created, why must it fit into an older category? Furthermore, if one should claim that it doesn’t fit, why should that person be said to have “misunderstood” the “poem?” This whole practice both frustrates and annoys me. Take things as they are and leave them as they are. We should abandon this idiotic approach of attempting to force obscure constructions into pre-established patterns. In short, LEAVE GOOD POETRY ALONE!
***That slight mini-rant aside, I’m going to outwardly state for any of those who may read this particular post that I’ve been sick lately and admittedly I am making this post in a bit of haste. I’m perfectly aware that much of this post could be (and indeed ought to be) better justified and if such justification should be required by any reader feel free to comment and I’ll do my best to make revisions.
Anyway, to begin with the Anipoems by Ana María Uribe, I reiterate that I fail to see what can be called “poetic” about them. I could understand them being called a form of artwork or something done on the side for entertainment but certainly not poetry. What is poetic about having P’s become R’s as if to show exercise, multiple V’s becoming W’s in order to show a zipper? I mean, you could say that the letters are representing other things metaphorically, but that does not equate poetry. These “Anipoems” are forms of entertainment, perhaps an artistic rendering of individual letters but not a poetic one. Such techno texts should rather be considered as techno flipbooks or letter animation works of art, nothing more and nothing less.
Moving on, The Dreamlife of Letters by Brian Kim Stefans reminded me clearly of the kind of artwork which I do not understand, but acknowledge as someone’s decision to be visually creative. Another form of this sort would be ASCII art which takes letters and creates pictures or animations out of them. Many of these are quite impressive and can include color images or even, when viewed in rapid succession, clips from well-known movies. In this sense they could become, much like the Anipoems, techno flipbooks.
Finally, we come to Fields of Dream by Rachel Stevens and Nick Montfort which represents another kind of techno text. Fields of Dream, much like flarf, is something which proclaims to be “new” and “unique” when in reality it is nothing more than a child’s form of entertainment. It’s a mad lib, seriously, there is nothing new here. For those of you who for some reason may disagree, go to the Fields of Dream site and then go to www.elibs.com. You’ll note there is very little difference between the two websites.
As examples of techno text of which I am aware of on-line, I offer two links both related to star wars. The first is a rendition of star wars in the command prompt of windows XP and can be viewed at the following you tube links: part 1 part 2. The second is a rendition of star wars via on-line typewriter with sound and can be found here. Both of these examples, like all techno texts force the text as a material that has a higher degree of interaction than traditional texts. The first is very much like a flip book while the second could be more appropriately thought of as watching someone type each individual letter on a typewriter through the lens of a magnifying glass. Techno text exists as an art, as an entertainment, and certainly not as poetry in and of itself. It isn’t anything new, it’s not all that special, but it is there. That’s about all I have to say on the subject for now.
***That slight mini-rant aside, I’m going to outwardly state for any of those who may read this particular post that I’ve been sick lately and admittedly I am making this post in a bit of haste. I’m perfectly aware that much of this post could be (and indeed ought to be) better justified and if such justification should be required by any reader feel free to comment and I’ll do my best to make revisions.
Anyway, to begin with the Anipoems by Ana María Uribe, I reiterate that I fail to see what can be called “poetic” about them. I could understand them being called a form of artwork or something done on the side for entertainment but certainly not poetry. What is poetic about having P’s become R’s as if to show exercise, multiple V’s becoming W’s in order to show a zipper? I mean, you could say that the letters are representing other things metaphorically, but that does not equate poetry. These “Anipoems” are forms of entertainment, perhaps an artistic rendering of individual letters but not a poetic one. Such techno texts should rather be considered as techno flipbooks or letter animation works of art, nothing more and nothing less.
Moving on, The Dreamlife of Letters by Brian Kim Stefans reminded me clearly of the kind of artwork which I do not understand, but acknowledge as someone’s decision to be visually creative. Another form of this sort would be ASCII art which takes letters and creates pictures or animations out of them. Many of these are quite impressive and can include color images or even, when viewed in rapid succession, clips from well-known movies. In this sense they could become, much like the Anipoems, techno flipbooks.
Finally, we come to Fields of Dream by Rachel Stevens and Nick Montfort which represents another kind of techno text. Fields of Dream, much like flarf, is something which proclaims to be “new” and “unique” when in reality it is nothing more than a child’s form of entertainment. It’s a mad lib, seriously, there is nothing new here. For those of you who for some reason may disagree, go to the Fields of Dream site and then go to www.elibs.com. You’ll note there is very little difference between the two websites.
As examples of techno text of which I am aware of on-line, I offer two links both related to star wars. The first is a rendition of star wars in the command prompt of windows XP and can be viewed at the following you tube links: part 1 part 2. The second is a rendition of star wars via on-line typewriter with sound and can be found here. Both of these examples, like all techno texts force the text as a material that has a higher degree of interaction than traditional texts. The first is very much like a flip book while the second could be more appropriately thought of as watching someone type each individual letter on a typewriter through the lens of a magnifying glass. Techno text exists as an art, as an entertainment, and certainly not as poetry in and of itself. It isn’t anything new, it’s not all that special, but it is there. That’s about all I have to say on the subject for now.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Response to Ryan
This is a response to Ryan, someone who commented on my flarf response.
Hey Ryan, this is Kevin. I actually just saw your comments today and felt I ought to respond to them (if I had seen them sooner I would have responded to them earlier, my apologies). Anyway, many of your remarks strike me as quite interesting and I'd like to respond to each. The phrases in quotes are Ryans, the passages following them are my response.
“You make a lot of assumptions, about poetry, about philosophy and certainly about Flarf here.”
This is very true, but what do we base our opinions and beliefs upon but assumptions? The interesting aspect here is to identify what assumptions you are making and how they differ from my own. I make assumptions largely about philosophy because it is my major and thus many of those classes tend to influence my line of thought on these matters.
When I speak of criticisms some have held of philosophy I am largely focusing on the logical positivists and my own personal experiences. As a little background, the logical positivists used linguistic analysis to “conjure away” philosophical questions by attempting to show that they were not, in actuality, questions at all. They largely focused on trying to prove that all philosophical problems were “cognitively meaningless” but held that such matters could contain “emotive meaning.” In using these terms, I am building from this type of foundation.
On a further note, I find it striking that you identify flarf as separate from poetry. Was this intentional? I’ve been under the impression that people consider flarf as a form of poetry… Either way, I would be interested in your opinion here.
“The above poem [in your post] isn't flarf: it's more like a copy of what Flarf seems like to someone who doesn't get it.”
Flarf, I will readily admit, is out of my element but it is interesting that you claim my “poem” isn’t flarf. Please, enlighten me if you will, as to how I ought to discern what is flarf and what is? By what criterion can you call something “not flarf?“ Also, I will fully agree that I do not get flarf. Feel free to explain to your heart’s content and I will do my best to understand.
“I should also add that you don't like what you don't like, and no one can argue with that.”
I would like to start by saying that I am not simply saying “I don’t like flarf” nor do I see it as a valid argument. My problem is that I can’t see why anyone at all would like flarf. Perhaps for some sort of humor which I fail to see but beyond that.. I have yet to discover an answer.
“So a good point to start off a critique of Flarf might be to ask just what it is that you don't like about Flarf and go from there.”
I find it difficult to critique Flarf based upon what exactly I don’t like about it largely because I can’t pinpoint anything of significance which I do like about it. I simply fail to understand any reason for flarf’s existence. It serves no purpose and I would still hold that in most instances, communicates literally nothing or communicates nothing which could not be better communicated through some other medium.
“But, your characterization of Flarf as plagiarism is a mischaracterization. Considering that poetry has often appropriated, and that some would contest that found poetry leans more toward plagiarism than Flarf, it seems weird to accuse Flarf of plagiarism”
My understanding of flarf, although heavily limited, comes directly from here and what has been covered in my class thus far. Here are some of the working definitions as explained in the link:
Flarf: A quality of intentional or unintentional "flarfiness." A kind of corrosive, cute, or cloying, awfulness. Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. "Not okay."
Flarf (2): The work of a community of poets dedicated to exploration of "flarfiness." Heavy usage of Google search results in the creation of poems, plays, etc., though not exclusively Google-based. Community in the sense that one example leads to another's reply-is, in some part, contingent upon community interaction of this sort. Poems created, revised, changed by others, incorporated, plagiarized, etc., in semi-public.
Flarf (3) (verb): To bring out the inherent awfulness, etc., of some pre-existing text.
Flarfy: To be wrong, awkward, stumbling, semi-coherent, fucked-up, un-P.C. To take unexpected turns; to be jarring. Doing what one is "not supposed to do."
Note how flarf is described as plagiarized and inherently awful in the definition. This is where I get my characterization of flarf and until you offer me a new definition, I will continue to hold that flarf largely involves plagiarism. As you seem to encourage flarf, I sincerely hope you can offer me a new definition from which I can find insight to your perspective.
“For more on what is NOT plagiarism, see here.”
I have checked this link out and I really don’t see how it defends flarf or other general “forms” as not plagiarism. An interesting link all the same.
“You further say this:
Before anyone argues that this “lack of style” ought to be considered a style all its own I’d like to state that such an argument cannot be construed as viable in any sense.
To which I ask, why? Why can't misspellings and mistakes of various kinds be considered style? Let's argue it. Not before, but now. Why can't these be style? Who's to say that they can't?”
It is not the random misspellings or mistakes which deprive flarf from achieving any kind of style. What I state is that “Misspellings, plagiarism, and shapelessness [held together] do not describe a style or form which ought to be considered in thought or pursued in practice. This is an important distinction but feel free to try and convince me that flarf, in essence, could be worth anyone’s time.
“Another assumption: poetry communicates ‘meaning.’"
Yes, I would argue that poetry must communicate meaning of some sort.
“Another: poetry communicates a linearly grasped idea (plot--> progression-->terminus)= pat idea/statement of ‘meaning’ to reader? Are poems supposed to ‘mean’ things? Is your ‘meaning’ my ‘meaning‘?
I do not assume, however, that all poetry must “communicate a linearly grasped idea.” Poems don’t even necessarily have to “mean things” in and of themselves but they ought to communicate something. My ‘meaning’ of a given poem may be different from yours but there remains some meaning involved with both of us. In actuality, some of the best poetry inspires contrary meanings in multiple individuals.
“Another: Flarf communicates nothing. (Have you ever read "Chicks Dig War" by Drew Gardner?)
Please read “Chicks Dig War” and then come back to your blog and tell me that Flarf communicates nothing, nothing about war, nothing about chicks digging it, nothing about GWAR.”
I hadn’t read this before but I have now. Here is a link in case anyone else would like to read it. If you would prefer, it can also be found with ease on you tube. I’m not entirely sure about “Chicks Dig War” just yet but I will give it another read at a later date since you find it so highly recommendable. Until I’ve had a bit more time to think on it, I won’t say any more here.
Hey Ryan, this is Kevin. I actually just saw your comments today and felt I ought to respond to them (if I had seen them sooner I would have responded to them earlier, my apologies). Anyway, many of your remarks strike me as quite interesting and I'd like to respond to each. The phrases in quotes are Ryans, the passages following them are my response.
“You make a lot of assumptions, about poetry, about philosophy and certainly about Flarf here.”
This is very true, but what do we base our opinions and beliefs upon but assumptions? The interesting aspect here is to identify what assumptions you are making and how they differ from my own. I make assumptions largely about philosophy because it is my major and thus many of those classes tend to influence my line of thought on these matters.
When I speak of criticisms some have held of philosophy I am largely focusing on the logical positivists and my own personal experiences. As a little background, the logical positivists used linguistic analysis to “conjure away” philosophical questions by attempting to show that they were not, in actuality, questions at all. They largely focused on trying to prove that all philosophical problems were “cognitively meaningless” but held that such matters could contain “emotive meaning.” In using these terms, I am building from this type of foundation.
On a further note, I find it striking that you identify flarf as separate from poetry. Was this intentional? I’ve been under the impression that people consider flarf as a form of poetry… Either way, I would be interested in your opinion here.
“The above poem [in your post] isn't flarf: it's more like a copy of what Flarf seems like to someone who doesn't get it.”
Flarf, I will readily admit, is out of my element but it is interesting that you claim my “poem” isn’t flarf. Please, enlighten me if you will, as to how I ought to discern what is flarf and what is? By what criterion can you call something “not flarf?“ Also, I will fully agree that I do not get flarf. Feel free to explain to your heart’s content and I will do my best to understand.
“I should also add that you don't like what you don't like, and no one can argue with that.”
I would like to start by saying that I am not simply saying “I don’t like flarf” nor do I see it as a valid argument. My problem is that I can’t see why anyone at all would like flarf. Perhaps for some sort of humor which I fail to see but beyond that.. I have yet to discover an answer.
“So a good point to start off a critique of Flarf might be to ask just what it is that you don't like about Flarf and go from there.”
I find it difficult to critique Flarf based upon what exactly I don’t like about it largely because I can’t pinpoint anything of significance which I do like about it. I simply fail to understand any reason for flarf’s existence. It serves no purpose and I would still hold that in most instances, communicates literally nothing or communicates nothing which could not be better communicated through some other medium.
“But, your characterization of Flarf as plagiarism is a mischaracterization. Considering that poetry has often appropriated, and that some would contest that found poetry leans more toward plagiarism than Flarf, it seems weird to accuse Flarf of plagiarism”
My understanding of flarf, although heavily limited, comes directly from here and what has been covered in my class thus far. Here are some of the working definitions as explained in the link:
Flarf: A quality of intentional or unintentional "flarfiness." A kind of corrosive, cute, or cloying, awfulness. Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. "Not okay."
Flarf (2): The work of a community of poets dedicated to exploration of "flarfiness." Heavy usage of Google search results in the creation of poems, plays, etc., though not exclusively Google-based. Community in the sense that one example leads to another's reply-is, in some part, contingent upon community interaction of this sort. Poems created, revised, changed by others, incorporated, plagiarized, etc., in semi-public.
Flarf (3) (verb): To bring out the inherent awfulness, etc., of some pre-existing text.
Flarfy: To be wrong, awkward, stumbling, semi-coherent, fucked-up, un-P.C. To take unexpected turns; to be jarring. Doing what one is "not supposed to do."
Note how flarf is described as plagiarized and inherently awful in the definition. This is where I get my characterization of flarf and until you offer me a new definition, I will continue to hold that flarf largely involves plagiarism. As you seem to encourage flarf, I sincerely hope you can offer me a new definition from which I can find insight to your perspective.
“For more on what is NOT plagiarism, see here.”
I have checked this link out and I really don’t see how it defends flarf or other general “forms” as not plagiarism. An interesting link all the same.
“You further say this:
Before anyone argues that this “lack of style” ought to be considered a style all its own I’d like to state that such an argument cannot be construed as viable in any sense.
To which I ask, why? Why can't misspellings and mistakes of various kinds be considered style? Let's argue it. Not before, but now. Why can't these be style? Who's to say that they can't?”
It is not the random misspellings or mistakes which deprive flarf from achieving any kind of style. What I state is that “Misspellings, plagiarism, and shapelessness [held together] do not describe a style or form which ought to be considered in thought or pursued in practice. This is an important distinction but feel free to try and convince me that flarf, in essence, could be worth anyone’s time.
“Another assumption: poetry communicates ‘meaning.’"
Yes, I would argue that poetry must communicate meaning of some sort.
“Another: poetry communicates a linearly grasped idea (plot--> progression-->terminus)= pat idea/statement of ‘meaning’ to reader? Are poems supposed to ‘mean’ things? Is your ‘meaning’ my ‘meaning‘?
I do not assume, however, that all poetry must “communicate a linearly grasped idea.” Poems don’t even necessarily have to “mean things” in and of themselves but they ought to communicate something. My ‘meaning’ of a given poem may be different from yours but there remains some meaning involved with both of us. In actuality, some of the best poetry inspires contrary meanings in multiple individuals.
“Another: Flarf communicates nothing. (Have you ever read "Chicks Dig War" by Drew Gardner?)
Please read “Chicks Dig War” and then come back to your blog and tell me that Flarf communicates nothing, nothing about war, nothing about chicks digging it, nothing about GWAR.”
I hadn’t read this before but I have now. Here is a link in case anyone else would like to read it. If you would prefer, it can also be found with ease on you tube. I’m not entirely sure about “Chicks Dig War” just yet but I will give it another read at a later date since you find it so highly recommendable. Until I’ve had a bit more time to think on it, I won’t say any more here.
Monday, April 06, 2009
4-6 In Class Response
As stated in my earlier post, I think that Kenneth basis his approach upon a poor understanding of what a valueless practice would entail. One cannot make the argument that it is moral or immoral to remove values from literature because the literature itself cannot said to have any value (which could then be removed) to anyone beyond the author if there is no reader. One may even pose the question and make good arguments as to whether an author may create a valueless piece in and of itself. Purpose is derived largely from the application of a thing rather than being inherent in the thing itself. Furthermore, the value of a piece is not stagnant but rather an adapting thing which shifts and forms based upon who interprets the piece, when, why, how, and various other factors.
Academic and creative repercussions which could result from value-free writing are difficult to determine largely due to the poor basis upon what ought to be considered as value-free.
Academic and creative repercussions which could result from value-free writing are difficult to determine largely due to the poor basis upon what ought to be considered as value-free.
4-16 Uncreative Writing
Those who identify specific writings or methods of writing as uncreative fail to fully consider their approach. In stating that uncreative writing, “means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair,” Goldsmith ignores any influence the application of the writing itself. By this definition, perhaps I create a new method of writing altogether. Would the writing itself be considered creative only until the method is revealed? Is the method itself creative while the writing piece is allowed to have uncreative status? Can something be considered a creative piece in one moment and an uncreative one the next? Answering these difficult questions will likely lead one to contradict himself or result in nonsensical findings. This is shown Goldsmith’s statements which begin with “it is involved with all types of mental processes” and end with “Uncreative writing doesn't really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or any other mental discipline.”
Goldsmith’s further contention that all uncreative writing is “purposeless” also leads to problems. All writing, it can be argued, is purposeless until it is applied in some manner. This point moves to contradict Goldsmith’s assumption that creativity resides exclusively within the piece of writing. Even the “uncreative writing” that I submitted today (which went something like the following: aiopajh ivn0qe4 00j jds e0- _) could have some kind of purpose depending upon how it is applied. I could, for instance, analyze the number of characters typed on the left side of the keyboard as opposed to the right and yield data which may prove useful to various studies. Goldsmith even acknowledges that “Different people will understand the same thing in a different ways,” but fails to follow this line of thought and realize that different people will draw out and apply purpose of the same thing in different ways.
Yet another problematic claim held by Goldsmith involves the supposition that “the objective of the author who is concerned with uncreative writing to make her work mentally interesting to the reader, and therefore usually she would want it to become emotionally dry.” I fail to see how this argument is intended to hold any merit. Why can’t emotionally rich documents be mentally interesting? When did the use of logos exclude the implementation of pathos? How could something be mentally stimulating or be written with a goal in mind if that same writing is defined as devoid of all purpose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
