Monday, May 1

software art (noising like its some pretext from the backrow)

In the beginning was the word and the word was with g*d and the word was g*d untsoweiter. In the beginning the continuum was the continuum was the continuum untsoweiter ..In the beginning was the beginning beginning the beginning untsoweiter ...
nel mezzo cammin di nostro vita is not the same as in the middle of the course of our lives Why bother? Because nel mezzo cammin... is not the same as in the middle of the... Untsoweiter ...

Why is peace not the same as vrede? Because the initiating of the running code "peace" started at a different time than the initiating of the coagulated running code "vrede"?

Why do languages live? Because they rub each other's backs.

In the beginning of this text there is the beginning of this text which is not the same as the beginning of this text in the beginning of this text untsoweiter

Scale matters, position matters, division matters, time matters. Even if time is a human illusion, time matters. Literally. (In Dutch you can only say "doet er toe", you can't make the "matter" link,- does that mean anything? Sure, it's a comment on the configuration as we are having it.)

On what basis are you going to have a protocol, at which "level" of the continuum, the line indicating where traversals can be made?

What does the http:// protocol actually do? Nothing. It observes the flow of data. Does it change the flow of data? Is it not observerving the flow of data? Does it not interfere with the flow of data? Do we not bleed when you...

Observance comes at a cost. The cost is called the digital divide. It looses data while cutting them. Why loss? Because you are cutting, changing positions of non-existent entities, you are making entities, objects. You're quantum leaping from wave to particles. Wehen making the cut, you gotta consider where you're going to make it, but you'll always lose. There's no red and green wire to choose from, it's only one wire, , the bomb will always explode in your face...

The digital revolution is about refining the grid but you cannot ungrid the grid. The point of no return is when matter itself says to you "hi, you're cutting me". At that moment you already are within the grid, you have made the choice (to cut or not to cut, that one).

Redemption? Cut again.

Why not the agreement of "universal language" at the xml-level? Would there be any difference where you draw the line? As things are there is a plethora of reasons to draw the starting line of "namespaces" at the xml level

- humans can read/write it

- machines can read/write it

- business needs it

If not, what are you going to measure? Below? The remainders of analog noise? Sure there is "meaning" left in analog noise. Connect to the "noise"of Ultra Short Frequency and you will hear it. Do sea waves mean something? Sure, why not. Where are you going to establish an art:// protocol? One that makes agreements on the meaning of seawaves? On the cries of the doves? Who will understand it? who will be able to read/write to it?

Why agree at all? Because then you can start garbaging, recycling the losses.

Or: not at all, let it swing, hang loose, disagree, object, phantom, pray, obsess, incorporate, mislead, defy, acknowledge, breath, die, resurrect, (re)verb...

1 comment:

Harvey Bialy said...


You ask (among a number of preguntas that call to me):

"On what basis are you going to have a protocol, at which "level" of the continuum, the line indicating where traversals can be made?"

i have engaged that same question, (first posed in modern times i think by people like Cage and Jackson MacLow), along with a few poet friends like Charles Stein and George Quasha, for what seems a long time.

Our answers to this question (yours, mine and the Hudson River school of post disembodied poetics)all fall squarely on the work itself which does not fall on the plain but on the "eye, pronounced I", even though i have to work with an apparently 2 dimensional surface informed by 0 dimension leaps of the imagination.

"Audire amare" wrote Dante, as Olson had in mind when he would say "I hear ya."