From: "dis.[UR]Locate" Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art At 02:50 PM 9/11/2002 -0800, LL wrote: >don't misunderstand me too quickly! .hoarse .-[quarterer N] .-drawn .& .print .echo .s.pin[e]al .[s]t[r]apped............ >i don't want nor believe they SHOULD be distinct forms...BUT it all too >often seems to me that they are... .seams .2 .me[me[ >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)... .these .wurks .r .[k]not :. .d|[con]fined .bi .yr .own .d[efinition]box .u[se] .unda .write .with .out .C++.ing >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).... .& .mis . .match[ing] .my .re:[4]ply .weaves. .the .[s]sense .of .soft+hard. .w.here. .net.wurked .in .w.here[?]. . .XXssed .+ .broken. >i want a new art form, a new form of digital poetry that's less cinematic... .a.gain[st] .. .... ...... .yr. .printL[b]o[x]a[n]d[N + yoke] .grain .u .do.NT. >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... .dis.[UR]Locate . .. ... .ur-locate .if .u .can.