From: "dis.[UR]Locate" Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art At 04:08 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote: >MEZ:passive lo[a]ne construction + advertisingly projective + >isolated > > 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 >decorative) "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? > >please...explain... >bliss p.lease...ab.sorb.... . .. . . . . .. 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 mas][ticated][s, 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 repeated ][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: .C.quential. . .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. . .. . . . . ..