Short Project Plan

I'm still not super-certain what I want to do for this project, but from what has been said about it in class, I feel like that is ok.  We were told that we were supposed to write whatever it is we want to write as we go along, so I feel like I shouldn't have a completely concrete idea for my project yet.  If I had something concrete to type out right now as The Words I Am Going to Animate, then I feel as if I would be going against the project guidelines.

That said, I have at least decided that what I write will be a poem.  I'm not really good at coming up with jokes, and I don't know what is meant by "a gem," so I guess a poem is really my only option.  I feel as if I am fairly good at writing poetry, but not as good about trying to construct something that is more or only effective if it is animated, so hopefully something comes to me as I am playing around in Flash.

Conversations on Digital Aesthetics: Networking

The perspective that stood out to me most after reading this chapter was the one about networking and the notion of collaboration between multiple authors. Although the chapter focused more on "collaborative projects supported by corresponding tools, such as wiki servers" (51), the first connection I made with this segment was more related to our ongoing conversation project. For that assignment, there will be two authors per animation. Similarly, in the Flash piece I am researching for my independent research project, there are two authors credited, Serge Bouchardon and Vincent Volckaert.

Consequently, before reading "Conversations on Digital Aesthetics," I had already given some thought to the idea of animated works with multiple authors. Although I knew there must be many reasons authors would choose to collaborate in this way (for instance, I personally am doing it because it is what this class requires of me), one of the main benefits I came up with was that it could free someone with a creative vision but little to no technological know-how from having to learn a new program in order to create their work of art. That is, an artist or poet could collaborate with someone who could transfer their vision onto a computer screen. In the episystemological portion of this chapter, a similar concept is introduced – whether "it is necessary for users to develop new areas of competence" in order to understand art presented in this new digital medium (49). In my preliminary consideration of why multiple authorship may be used, artists would circumvent having to have any more than a basic knowledge of what the computer is capable of.

However, this chapter discusses networking and multiple authorship from a somewhat different perspective. It focuses primarily on web-based works that readers can edit, such as wikis. The chapter poses the question of whether this eliminates the assignment of such works "to one author or a known group of authors, [or] copyright, intellectual property, etc." (51). Ultimately, though, it is claimed that "authorship definitely still exists, albeit in multiple form: initiators who open up the project frame, programmers... open author groups without individual assignment of authorship, etc." (51). Still, dealing with copyright and intellectual property law regarding these "authorships" is tricky.

However, the chapter adds that in many cases people shy away from participating in online collaborations. For example, on Walter van der Cruijsen's ASCII Art Ensemble wiki, "no one really dares to take advantage of this new freedom" (53). This is a little depressing, especially if van der Cruijsen's intent was for his art to come alive through active viewer participation, and through lack of participation, the work ultimately fails. This reminds me a little of a work of art I once saw in a museum, which consisted of a stack of papers that museum attendees were encouraged to take a piece of paper from, thereby demonstrating how the stack of paper will shrink over time (I don't quite remember what the diminishing paper was meant to represent, unfortunately). I recall feeling hesitant to take one of the papers because I felt as if I wouldn't appreciate it enough and didn't want it or the slowly-shrinking stack of paper to "go to waste," even though I realize that was the piece's intent.

On the other hand, though, I found myself disagreeing with the statement that "no one really dares take advantage of this new freedom." I know with some wikis, especially Wikipedia, there has been so much collaboration that some pages have had to be temporarily shut down so they can be "fixed" after some group is prompted to edit it full of misinformation, often in response to a television or internet joke (e.g. The Colbert Report getting people to edit the page on elephants). Now in many cases, it seems to be more of an issue of keeping people from posting incorrect information on wikis (thereby making these sites fairly unreputable/not "reliable sources") rather than trying to garner reader participation. However, I understand that the situation is probably considerably different with smaller, art-based projects.

Ultimately, the quotation that most stood out to me was that "computers and the Internet differ from the 'traditional' mass media in that they can be used for individual and group use and communication on one hand, and as mass media, on the other" (55). When we work on our animations, we do it on our own computers, working alone or in a small group; it is not until we have posted them on our blogs that they become a form of "mass media" available to the rest of the world. In the past, I have tended to think of these two uses as being separate stages of a single process: I would create my work on a computer program designed for individual use, and then post it online to be viewed. After reading this article, as well as seeing such Flash animations as Serge Bouchardon's "Loss of Grasp" that require viewer participation, I am beginning to realize that the "creating my work" stage doesn't have to end when my work is published online. Just as my classmates can post contributions on my blog, the beauty of digital pieces is that they can continue growing and adapting after they have been published. Although, the more I think about it, I feel that the way a viewer perceives a work allows it to constantly keep evolving, even if it is printed statically on the page. A seemingly-unchanging thing can change simply in the way it means something to each individual viewer.

Serge Bouchardon's Loss of Grasp

I found the Flash animation "Loss of Grasp" while browsing the Electronic Literature Organization's Directory.  I found the piece interesting because of its interactivity -- the viewer has to do different actions with the mouse or the keyboard in order to make the animation progress, giving him or her a feeling of control.  I also liked how the piece didn't give you instructions beyond the initial "press any key" order; I had to figure out what to do on my own, and sometimes it was a little tricky.  I feel like, in this class, we have to try pretty hard sometimes to read into a piece of experimental literature -- this piece seemed to take that effort to the next level.

After developing an interest in "Loss of Grasp," I went on to see if the author, Serge Bouchardon, had been involved in any other works.  It turns out he contributed to two others available on the Directory, as well as wrote a journal article about digital literature and its values.  I thought that looked promising, as, from what I gathered from a brief perusal of it, the article is another one of those pieces that explains the values of experimental literature.  I feel like, even if I can't find much biographical information on Serge Bouchardon, knowing his values and perspectives on this matter can tell me a lot, and help me in interpreting some of his animated works.

For this project, I plan on mostly focusing on Bouchardon's work in the context of his "Loss of Grasp" piece, though I want to spend some time comparing it to themes found in his other pieces and in his article.  I think looking at all these different dimensions of his work will allow me to easily write five to seven pages of analysis.

To be honest, I'm not really worried about getting the work done on time, as I tend to work ahead anyway.  The first draft isn't due until November 11th, and I plan on starting my research into Bouchardon's other works and possible underlying themes as early as this weekend.  When I do such research, I inevitably take notes, so after that, it will simply be a matter of organizing my thoughts and connecting them in a coherent way.  It looks like I have almost a month before the first three to five pages are even due, and two before the final polished version is, so I don't think I will have any problems.

I guess the only thing I may need from you is further clarification on what exactly I am to be focusing on in my research.  I think I have an idea now, but if what I have outlined above is not the sort of thing you're looking for, I would like to know.  Otherwise, I'll let you know if anything comes up.  Thanks!

Talking About the Conversation Project

For this project, Tobias and I plan on researching and presenting different sides of the debate over the ethicality of genetic research. Specificially, we will probably focus on stem-cell research, as it seems to represent a more real possibility for the near-future than many other areas of study (and therefore a more pressing and controversial issue), although we also considered investigating the ethics of various eugenics practices (trying to eliminate genetic diseases through gene manipulation, choosing the "best" genes for one's fetus, etc.). We think these are also very interesting topics, though we're not sure if they fit the parameters of this assignment (whether or not they're really "current").

The research we will need to do will include, obviously, the different arguments on whether these scientific advances are really positive or negative. We will also look up some of the science behind whatever sub-issue we choose, so we are better informed on the facts.

We thought about having our two "voices" talk over the phone, with the classic zig-zagged line down the middle to indicate who is saying what (as well as using font shape, color, etc. to better illustrate the speaker's character). We also talked about taking pictures of each other's reactions to each statement (confusion, outrage, disgust, etc.) and having our words appear in front of our reactions. We can figure out the reading speed easily by trying a number of different fps speeds and seeing which is most readable, both to ourselves or to others we show it to for feedback.

Mimsy II: Feedback

I guess the only thing that surprised me in the feedback was that I was told I put "a very heavy emphasis on shape tweens that could have been motion tweens or something else."  I would agree that I put a lot of emphasis on shape tweens, but I feel like that was especially necessary with the way I had one word morph into another and, ultimately, had two crash together to form a portmanteau.  I guess I don't quite see how motion tweens (or "something else") would have been as effective in this situation.

If I had more time, I might have tried to make "mimsy" do something other than morph into a borogove.  As it was, I couldn't figure out what I would have it do, as "miserable" and "flimsy" already kind of did all their own expressing, and "mimsy" isn't really any more than just a combination of those two words.  Maybe I would have thought of something more to do with "mimsy" if I had more time, but at the same time, I'm pretty happy with the way I shape-tweened it into the image of a borogove.

I would like to learn more about the various motion presets, I think, for future projects.  They looked pretty neat, and might be easier in some instances than using a bunch of motion tweens.  I think in future projects I will use a lot more motion tweens than shape tweens, but for this project it just worked out that way.

In terms of learning more about how to compose expressive animated writing, I guess I would like to work on text size and speed.  I feel like from some of the examples we have looked at in class, that can really change the way one reads the piece.  I feel like I didn't really do much of that in this piece, but I think I will have a lot more opportunities to do that in the conversation project and in the final projects.

I would also like to maybe play more with stream-of-consciousness and word associtation.

Mimsy

Here is my word animation.

To Be, or Not To Be...

This reading was incredibly dense. Reading most of it, I felt as if I lacked the basic knowledge of various art movements and concepts to really understand this text 100%. That being said, I feel as if I managed to glean the main idea Drucker seemed to be trying to convey in this writing.

The point that seemed to be reiterated time and time again was the idea of artistic forms beginning "to be," rather than being used "to represent" (50). This was evidenced in Mallarme's A Throw of the Dice, where "the textual elements forge links of meanin in their visual and verbal relations but those relations function as their own gestalt, not as the trace or image of some other figurative form" (55). This idea appeared over and over in this piece of writing; in fact, the following May Sinclair quote was thought to sum up the main point of this article so well that it was quoted twice within the piece: "Presentation not representation is the watchword of the school" (64).

Of course, this raises the question of what experimental texts, as a work of art, should be. On page 58, Drucker describes Mallarme's A Throw of the Dice as "underscor[ing] the randomness and inadequacy of human thought and action in the face of the Ideal." This description makes sense given the way Mallarme's work utilizes text size, alignment, and spacing. However, given what was said above about the aims of experimental art, it can be supposed that what Mallarme was trying to do was not to write something that imitated human thought, but rather was it.

This was probably the hardest concept for me to grasp, even though it was the most basic and reiterated one in the article. The idea that a poem doesn't just represent thought, but is thought, is really difficult for me to wrap my mind around. It challenges the way I think of poems and words and thoughts. Which is good.

Black Blocks, Concentrating Constellations, and Books as Frigates

For my analysis, I chose to compare the poem "Outward Bound," by Hamish Whyte with Colin Dunning's two poems, "Cluster" and "Icon."

When I first read this assignment, I was a little unsure what poems I would write about this time around, given that the list of options was the same as that for our first analysis of an example. I was fairly certain I had already chosen what was in my mind the "best" option, or at least the one I best understood. When I reviewed (re-reviewed?) my options, however, I was excited to find much more meaning in Whyte's "Outward Bound" than I had last time, seeing the poem as a much more artistic and intricate piece than what had originally seemed a jumble of letters. After settling on this piece for my first choice, my second seemed almost immedately clear.

I decided to compare these two (or rather, three) pieces on the basis that they have a fairly large commonality (that is, they are both derived from a single line of text [or a word], within which much more is embedded), while still having some clear formal differences.

"Outward Bound" consists of what is essentially a single line from Emily Dickenson: "There is no frigate like a book." Using this pre-arrangement of letters, however, the author is able to create a considerable thirty-seven line poem, merely by deleting the letters not needed for that particular phrase. For instance, phrases as dissimilar as "is fate like" and "take the risk" coexist in this lines, otherwise hidden until Whyte deleted the unnecessary clutter surrounding. (What is most interesting, is that the reader does not realize that the other words and letters from the original Dickenson line are clutter until they see what Whyte has done.)

Similarly, in "Cluster," Dunning has the syllables "con" and "tion" bookending "stella" and, below it, "centra" (thereby forming either the word "constellation" or "concentration," depending on how you view it). In "Icon," he does the same thing, only with "bl" and "ck" on either side of alternately "a" and "o" ("black" versus "block"). In these pieces, too, the reader is shown the many different options inherent in a set of letters, even as few as five.

I think this notion of possibility is something both Whyte and Dunning wished to convey in these pieces. Using only thirteen letters, over half of which are matched in the same formation, one can create words as different as "constellation" and "concentration." (Or, similarly, given only five letters, four of which are the same, we get "black" and "block.") In this way, readers are shown just how much of a difference one letter can make. It reinforces the idea of the power of language, the power of sounds. In the same way, given only one short line of poetry (only seven words, twenty-five letters in total), an argument to get caught up in the world of a book, to let it carry you away to a new place, can be found in its arrangement of letters, an argument that one wouldn't even notice unless it was formatted as Whyte has done. All three of these poems encourage the reader to read more closely, to think about the potential contained in each word, each syllable, each individual letter. There is so much one can do with so little.

At the same time, these poets' pieces are not identical. Whyte chose to focus on a phrase, while Dunning's poems were even simpler – containing only two words. I think the poets made these choices because of the more specific focuses they wanted to consider in their overlying themes.

In "Cluster" and "Icon" we have two pairs of words juxtaposed with each other for contrast. I think Dunning chose to arrange his poems in this experimental way because it emphasizes the similarities and the differences between the two words all at once, without having to provide a written explanation of why they are both similar and dissimilar. Both words in each poem share many letters with each other; however, they are not the same idea. In "Icon," I felt like the two ideas being contrasted, "black" and "block," are very fundamentally different. "Black" is a very abstract idea, a colour, while blocks are about as concrete a noun as you can get (some even being made of concrete). I appreciated the way Dunning exposed that the difference of a single letter can lead to something very concrete to become very intangible. At the same time, these words can be used very much together – it is very possible to have a black block. In "Cluster," on the other hand, I feel almost as if Dunning is emphasizing the similarities over the differences. Obviously, the words "constellation" and "concentration" are fairly alike in spelling, and although they are somewhat different ideas, I feel as if their pairing, especially in the context of this poem's format, stresses the way they can be used in conjunction with one another. One must concentrate to pick out the constellations in the night sky. Similarly, one must concentrate to find the hidden meanings and possibilities inherent in words and letters. In this way, I feel as if "Cluster" best emphasizes the theme of possibility I mentioned earlier.

I feel as if the reason Whyte chose to work with an entire line of poetry, as opposed to a single word like Dunning, was because he wished to emphasize the possibility inherent in poetic structures more complex than merely a single word. Interestingly enough, the line of poetry he chose to manipulate was not even his own, but Emily Dickinson's. This seems to reinforce for me the idea of finding power and significance in preexisting literature that one may have missed the first time (just as I missed the significance of this poem the first time I glanced at it). Of course, Whyte does not make this search particularly easy, even when he has taken measures to show the reader the potential in these lines. While he has deleted the unneccessary letters, he does not shift them together (or, in some cases, add the necessary spaces between letters), partially to show the reader where he is deriving these letters from, but probably also to show how reading into words takes a certain degree of effort. The first time I looked at this poem, it seemed like a bunch of gibberish to me and I was a little daunted by its form. Now I not only am able to read the text without much difficulty, but I also understand the purpose for writing it the way it is. Upon having the inner meaning of the text revealed to me, I felt a certain degree of satisfaction I would not had it been easier to decipher; referring back to Dunning, I had to concentrate to get to the underlying meanings, but it was very much worth it.