(1)]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nettime's mezangelled-code- workers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Table of Contents:
Further notes on codework:
Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: <nettime> Notes on codework [response from John Cayley]
Rita Raley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: <nettime> Notes on codework [response from John Cayley]
Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:50:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Further notes on codework:
Further notes on codework:
****************************************
1. "codework"
I think I came up with the name (which surely had been used before) in a
conversation with Ken Wark - we were talking about code - the term at that
point, as far as I remember, was code-poetry - and I borrowed the notion
of 'work' - i.e. labor, production - I think - from Heiner Muller -
running the two words together - as in Hamletmachine - so there was a
political component as well - not wanting the limitation of poetry,
however defined, or poetics for that matter - opening the framework, not
closing it - I'd also felt that code-poetry - however spelled - was too
close to concrete poetry - which didn't interest me at all - at least not
any longer - not even dom sylvester huedard - maybe huedard actually - but
not the usual suspects - anyway - I thought that codepoetry would minimize
the design aspect - emphasize the symbolic or asymbolic or presymbolic -
for that matter the (Kristevan) choratic of language - so the political
and psychoanalytical met on the grounds of mathesis and semiosis - all
this into the naming of the word - pretty commonplace now - at least this
is what was going through my mind at that point - still is - anyway -
2.
Codework impossibility of self-reference and decipherment.
a. "There are seven words in this sentence." Which word is the number?
b. "This is a sentence." But how would one know?
c. "This is written in English." But how would one know?
etc.
- - Self-referentiality possesses a residue; only in mathematics or logic is
it 'pure' - the whole relating to the whole.
The residue is in relation to an attribute. But then
d. "This refers in its entirety to itself." Are we at the juncture of
paradox?
etc.
Using Peirce's distinctions, I'd argue that every painting is first and
foremost ikonic and perceived as such - the paint is never transparent. To
the extent that codework requires interpretation, examination, it is
ikonic as well - one might say that, even in the space of virtuality, it
possesses a materialist foundation. The more 'impenetrable' the greater
the degree of ikonicity, the greater the appearance of _material._ This
appearance is just that, however, appearance, as a change - for example
from monospace to justifiable type - will demonstrate.
One must consider, of course, the semantic residue of the ikonic - and the
interstitial / liminal between the meaning-sememe and the ikonic provides
the _content_ of the work; in fact, the meaning-sememe and ikonic-sememe
are interwoven, inseparable, and contributory, a somewhat similar
situation to the calligraphic.
_Meaning_ itself is both attribute (i.e. 'meaning of _cheval_ in French')
and calligraphic; totality is reserved for the Absolute which is always
problematic ('meaning of Life,' 'meaning of Everything') and ideologically
suspect. To the extent that meaning embraces an Absolute, meaning depends
on decoding (Bible, Koran, Kwak!); here is the locus of political Power in
the Foucauldian sense.
Codework simultaneously embraces and problematizes meaning; one might
argue that codework is _fallen work,_ fallen by the wayside, as well as
the disturbance of the Gnostic Mary Magdalen.
Every more or less traditional text is codework with invisible residue;
every computer harbors the machinic, the ideology of capital in the
construction of its components, the oppression of underdevelopment in its
reliance on cheap labor.
Every text is Derridian/Foucauldian differance; codework is exemplary of
the process of deferral and _rewrite._ Codework, like _wryting,_ is an
embodiment within virtual ontologies; wryting disturbs _towards_ the body,
desire, language - that language of codework, ruptured by codework.
Inner speech as well is self-referential, a decoding of every text spoken
within it, before the reader, or among the readers. And nothing fulfills
_utterly,_ every Absolute itself is codework, a deferral - hence the
psychoanalytical nature of _defuge_ - that decay which comes about through
the overuse of pornography or the attempt to begin again and again, a
novel left off in the middle. Therefore consumption, the ravenous, is at
the heart of _things_ to the extent there is any _meaning_ at all.
__
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:23:25 -0800
From: Rita Raley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Notes on codework [response from John Cayley]
[this response to Alan's post comes from John Cayley]
>please note it is not the code that is broken - but the interiorities of
>more or less traditional semantic worlds - sememes as well (in other
>words, distortions of world-making).
That is a great way to put it. That when so-called natural language
is, for example, 'mezangelled,' then "the interiorities of more or
less traditional semantic words" are "broken." The code that breaks
into the words is not necessarily itself broken. (Although let's face
it, if it doesn't get recontextualized pronto, it ain't going to
compile.)
But why code as opposed to other (chiefly linguistic) matter - from
other registers of language or other practices of natural language
use (other tongues)?
The point is not to valorise or downgrade
(aesthetically/socially/politically) some text because it addresses
or incorporates code, or subgrade it because the constituent code is
broken or operative. Brokenness need not ally with value in any neat
way. [See Sandy Baldwin in the current Cybertext Yearbook]. The
questions are more to do with: what are the properties and methods of
code as such, and how do (and how could) these contribute to language
art making? What are the specificities of code that will allow us to
derive textual objects with distinct characteristics? Or allow us to
extend the Class Text and/or better understand its underlying
abstract Class?
And because a very prominent feature of code is its operation, the
"program that produces a residue" focuses (for me anyway) critical
attention. We are more familiar , in this context, with "carriers of
meaning," however slippery and shifty. re(ad)Joyce! (I know you
always already have.)
Code runs and conceals itself. Code that runs generates text over
durations. Code that runs guarantees that language art cannot bracket
its time-based dimension. It plays and plays out precisely and
particularly in the 'Not to mention ..."
>12 Not to mention all those aleatoric texts, stochastic or chaotic texts
>or imagery, multi-media codeworks, generative works, generative works fed
>into themselves (resonance-work), specialized editors which refuse the
>WYSIWYG...
John (Cayley)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:53:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Notes on codework [response from John Cayley]
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Rita Raley wrote:
> That is a great way to put it. That when so-called natural language
> is, for example, 'mezangelled,' then "the interiorities of more or
> less traditional semantic words" are "broken." The code that breaks
> into the words is not necessarily itself broken. (Although let's face
> it, if it doesn't get recontextualized pronto, it ain't going to
> compile.)
>
> But why code as opposed to other (chiefly linguistic) matter - from
> other registers of language or other practices of natural language
> use (other tongues)?
>
Because code is often substructure or protocol or generative. As
substructure, it underlies, for example, the very distribution of the
piece. As protocol, it may underlie the very typing or production of the
piece. As generative, it has produced or partially prodced the piece.
> The point is not to valorise or downgrade
> (aesthetically/socially/politically) some text because it addresses
> or incorporates code, or subgrade it because the constituent code is
> broken or operative. Brokenness need not ally with value in any neat
> way. [See Sandy Baldwin in the current Cybertext Yearbook].
Here is the issue; your 'addressing' or 'incorporating' (btw I've read
Baldwin and was just down in Morgantown) implies a separation which for me
- - like the activities in the _chora_ are both problematized and
inseparable.
As far as brokenness is concerned, I am working out of Winograd and Flores
(re: Heidegger) here.
The
> questions are more to do with: what are the properties and methods of
> code as such, and how do (and how could) these contribute to language
> art making? What are the specificities of code that will allow us to
> derive textual objects with distinct characteristics? Or allow us to
> extend the Class Text and/or better understand its underlying
> abstract Class?
>
But whose questions, John? These are yours. When you say "more to do with"
- - this is your approach, not mine. When you cay "Class Text" again you're
operating with the notion of "clean code" ("specificities") which may well
not be the case. Look at Kenji's work or nn's writing.
(I want to point out also btw - in relation to the Cybertext book - that
Jim R's work is quite clean, but he's not the only practitioner; I was
doing codework in 71 and later wrote a number of programs in 76-78. Some
of these are now in the internet text. And I was _late_ - Fernbach-
Florsheim was doing things in the 60s with computers/code. Etc. etc.)
> And because a very prominent feature of code is its operation, the
> "program that produces a residue" focuses (for me anyway) critical
> attention. We are more familiar , in this context, with "carriers of
> meaning," however slippery and shifty. re(ad)Joyce! (I know you
> always already have.)
Yes I have, but the carriers in this case are structured or dirty
structures - very different. You're coming at this through both literature
and a 'clean' notion of code (see above); I'm not. For example, Perl
poetry is operable, but the residue is pretty much irrelevant - yet as far
as I'm concerned that's a terrific use of code. As is the figlet program.
I don't distinguish - which is why my list in the first place is highly
inclusive, not exclusive.
>
> Code runs and conceals itself. Code that runs generates text over
> durations. Code that runs guarantees that language art cannot bracket
> its time-based dimension. It plays and plays out precisely and
> particularly in the 'Not to mention ..."
>
Code doesn't necessarily conceal itself. Code doesn't necessarily do
anything you say it does. I wouldn't use the phrase 'language art' myself
- - I think prions are also code, DNA is also code and code is not
necessarily language. I'd have to go back over my Eco for this.
All art is time-based btw. Some of the codework I do takes advantage of
lag (in email or quicktime .mov), and some doesn't and some appears
instantaneous ...
I feel a real difference between us is that I am writing from the position
of dirty code, world-code, which may or may not operate, and that may or
may not be the point. For example one piece I did involved reversing all
the < and > on a specially written webpage. The result is chaotic, dys-
functional in many ways, amazingly functional in others. At West Virginia,
I re-morphed/mapped motion capiture sensors, transforming the body into a
signal or searchlight system (see my heap.mov at http://www.asondheim.org
). And so forth.
It seems to me you're interested primarily in clean and generating
concealed code - I have no problem with that. But I do feel you dismiss
(even the word 'pseudo-code' is dismissive) everything else that's going
on; since you're an editor and critic in the field, it's problematic for
me.
- - Alan
> >12 Not to mention all those aleatoric texts, stochastic or chaotic texts
> >or imagery, multi-media codeworks, generative works, generative works fed
> >into themselves (resonance-work), specialized editors which refuse the
> >WYSIWYG...
>
> John (Cayley)
>
http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
