[-empyre-] Towards a theory of digital poetics (in process and open to debate - in the bar)
Towards a theory of digital poetics (open to debate - in the bar) Dawkins has argued that people are the carrier of and reproductive instrument for genetic code. He has also sought to conflate genetics and human language, with his concept of the Meme - the proposal that an idea can reproduce itself through the code of language and its exchange between humans. Dawkin¹s concept of the Meme could be considered a theory of language. Turing¹s original conception of computation did not involve a computer as we understand it (a box of electronics). Turing¹s early attempts at creating a computational system, derived from Gödel's theoretical work with number systems, focused on a symbolic notational system where the symbols carried meaning that not only could be processed, leading to an outcome, but also carried the directions for that processing, including their own modification. This was a writing system that explicitly carried within it the capacity to re-write itself. In Turing¹s first experiments the instrumentality of this was himself (with a pen and paper). Electronic calculators were soon developed to a sufficient complexity that this instrumentality could be transferred from human to machine. To some degree there seems to be a congruence between Dawkin¹s concept of the Meme and Turing¹s of computation. The geometry of the conceptual models involved are very similar. It is in the instrumentality of the systems where the primary differences are apparent (in Turing¹s model of writing it is the computer that is instrumental, in Dawkin¹s the human). It could be argued that these are actually the same system (writing) in different modalities. Dawkin¹s model of the Meme places the human as the means by which language can reproduce itself whilst the approach initiated by Turing seeks to automate this process, in the form of the computer (in the sense we understand it today). What has this to do with digital poetics? Poetics is the creative practice of association. That is, the relationships between things are creatively evoked in a dynamic and often unstable manner such that new relational dynamics can be revealed. This practice can be applied to many media and through diverse disciplines. Conventional poetry (text poems) is just one instance of poetic creativity. Digital poetics is that creative form of poetics that engages, in a profound manner, the implications of Turing¹s theoretical work. It is a practice that seeks to bring poetics and a certain conception of language, of writing (in the expanded sense), together a conception of language which explicitly evokes both content and the means of self-modification. Digital poetics is an approach to poetics where the self-reproductive character of language is made explicit in every instantiation of writing. This often involves the use of a computer, but it need not. Turing¹s concept of computation does not have to involve a (electronic) computer it does not need a machine to assure its instrumentality. It can also employ the human. Perhaps other forms of instrumentality also exist? A text by Mez can be regarded as digital as it contains within it the explicit directions for how the reader, as the instrument of the text, can evoke all the instances it might assume. A Jim Rosenberg diagram also has this capacity, although they are more typically executed by machines. However, a Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries digital-text-video does not appear to share these characteristics. It could be argued that a YHCHI work does not carry within it it¹s own means of modification. It depends on the interpretation by a human to become modified - little different to a conventional poem. However, as has already been argued, it is not in the instrumentality of the system that the system¹s definition lies. It could be that the process of interpretation, as executed by a human, is another example of instrumentality. Returning to the initial point made above, writing is writing because it has the capacity to re-write itself, or be re-written, regardless of instrumentality. Whether it is enacted by humans or through the automation of machines would not seem to change anything about language and writing. This raises the question whether poetics has always been digital? In the process of automating writing, and re-defining the technology of what it is to be human, the outcome has not been the invention of the computer but a new apprehension of and relationship with language. If so, then the work of YHCHI is as poetically digital as Mez¹s work is digitally poetic. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Laura Borràs
With no personal relationship to Laura or her University, it's hard for me to say anything substantial about the situation beyond my gut response: 1) She's a scholar who is obviously a leader in her field. Without ever having any personal interaction with her, I am still very familiar with who she is and what she does. There are people who are well-known because they excel at something in particular. There are people who are famous because they associate with people who excel at things. But in Dr. Borras' case, I think she is something else altogether. Her intelligence comes across in her writing. And she is very well-networked. But beyond that, she seems to be authentically open-minded in who she engages with and what she promotes through her work. As someone who can negotiate an emerging field in several languages, you'd have to be. And, still, she gives time and attention to people who aren't necessarily well-known, but who are doing great things. I always get happy whenever I find an academic who is really open-minded, who is working on doing something for the world, rather than working on their careers. 2) The abrupt sort of termination, without any formal appeal process or review is really scary. I understand that sometimes people don't fit at an institution for whatever reason, and I don't even know that I am too terribly hung up on tenure (at a time when working people everywhere, from adjunct faculty to widget makers, are getting the shaft, it seems inappropriate to get too loud about tenure without making a general complaint about what all working folks deal with.). But, regardless of formal rules protecting workers, the underlying issue is justice. If you are getting canned, you have a right to know why. You have a right to make your case to people higher up the ladder. (And, of course, there do need to be formal rules that make sure this happens). From where I am standing, it seems like Dr. Borras has not been treated justly. The letter I wrote to her school basically said this: Please make sure that you review this decision is reviewed by an outside party. It looks to me like she is being treated unjustly, and that your school runs a substantial risk in being perceived as unfair. More importantly, you are losing an amazing scholar who is widely recognized as a great colleague and a leader in her field. But to answer other people's concerns, I don't know that this is particularly something that targets new media scholars. Many schools see us as commodities that everyone needs to have. Where we tend to suffer is where humanities suffers in general. The humanities always needs to be defended from marginalization and elimination when competing ideological impulses are ascendant (whether they be technocratic or barbaric). Technology and new media are considered to be great capitalist endeavors, and so hiring a new media faculty member can be seen as a means to shift the focus of the humanities in a technocratic direction. Which might explain why some of us don't seem to fit in our humanities departments. It also explains why administrators get disappointed when we teach humanities. My approach to this problem has been to fight for the humanities and liberal arts, and to avoid teaching professionalism. This means you tangle with people who don't value the humanities, but that you make allies among those who do. As far as long term strategies are concerned, I think lists like this, which help us spell out what it is that we do, can help us protect our vocations from elimination. Definitions of e-poetry, while they might be ephemeral, help us commit to a certain approach. Similarly, answering the question, What are the humanities? and Why should we teach them? also might help us see our way out of the woods. For philosophical reasons, many of us are reluctant to articulate in positive terms, what it is that we do as teachers. But we need to do that from time to time. We can revise our answers when we need to. But we do need to defend some of the traditional functions of the University, even if it means getting our hands dirty with metaphysical dirt from time to time, if we want to argue that our subjects should be taught (and, that, as workers, we should be treated humanely). It's better than having to justify your job strictly in economic terms (which is metaphysical in its own way). Does anyone know if they are going to look at the decision again? Peace! Davin ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] from Laura Borras
Laura Borras response. It is very exasperating because they never gave me the opportunity to be personally interviewed, to present my own point of view, and to answer those who accused me of whatever I may have done and that I have never been said. My dismissal has been sudden and immediate and has happened just one week before my Master students had their qualifications. That's why right now they are in the middle of a big trouble in the virtual classrooms because they are against this decision and they consider it a vulneration of their rights as students. They have payed a lot of money (6.000€) for this Master to be treated like this. In this moment there is a team of 20 lecturers that have refused to go on teaching if the affair is not solved or I'm not in the Academic Direction of the Master any more. But besides this there are all the things that the university doesn't seem to have had into account taking this decision that (besides what the President says, was not unanimous). I'm talking about the 50 students of the Master that I created that have been neglected, the organisation of e-poetry to which I had obtained more than 30.000€ in research projects and actions and that they are keeping now and so attempting to its celebration, a subject that has been cancelled in the undergraduate level and the students have been unattended, several PhD students and Master Thesis neglected too, not to talk about innovation and research projects besides e-poetry such as the GPS, that was funded by the Spanish Ministry with 90.000€. So this answer is very disappointing since it's final reason is to make everybody believe that I am a bad person or that I have done something terrible for a institution, when the truth is completely different. Because they know that: 1. - My dismissal has been unfair and unjustified. 2. - I have not received any explanation of the reasons and never received any sort of warning before (as some other colleagues have received during the last difficult months). I just want to let you know that the Spanish law considers that 3 warnings allow a legal dismissal and so the worker has no right for an severance pay. Anyway, the UOC has a completely unique juridical nature that keep all their workers in a office collective agreement, which means that there is no distinction for academics between workers. So the standard procedure for academic staff is not the same that in other universities in Spain. This leaves us in total defenceless. 3. - But in my case, there is no any academic nor labour reason that justifies this dismissal. Because of that they have recognized, from the beginning, that it is a legally inapplicable dismissal and have offered me a compensation of 45 days for worked year, the maximum that allows the Spanish law. 4. - The reasons used in the dismissal letter are: an evident, continued and voluntary decrease in the level of work which is completely false and can be easily checked. 5. - They are using this excuse of the confidentiality in a very perverse sense, since I have not established any pact of silence with anybody. I don't have anything to hide and I haven't signed any confidentiality clause. I use the occasion for greeting you and thanking you wholeheartedly. Next week I will have an interview with the Catalan responsible for Universities, which has been informed by several of my colleagues about the situation, and specially the Director of the National Research Plan of which Experts Panel I take part. But I'm quite downhearted. It's so unfair! 10 years of work that they want to erase! It's so hard to cope with this. Anyway, I'm working hard to try to keep the e-poetry going on. You ask me if you can do anything else, but the only thing would be to keep asking them for the academic reasons for the dismissal, the defence mechanisms that I had to react to this situation, or the guarantees of the whole process. You can also use e-poetry as an alarm of such an incredible behaviour for an Academic institution.. Thank you very much for your help. Laura ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] Academic Freedom and Tenure
All. Please do read the threads about Laura Borras, a leader in the E-Poetry field, who was recently fired without appeal or concrete reasons, despite having tenure. Obviously her situation is specific to her University. BUTI'm interested if there are others on the list who feel that notions of tenure in academia are being reduced/watered down or just eliminated. This is particularly relevant to E-Poetry as most artists and scholars are fairly new academics and are also in an often misunderstood and still largely experimental and growing fieldand having that academic security can be a boon to creation or a road block and or lead to the insecurities of losing the position and the drive to continue creating. I personally have wondered if, should I lose my job in such a way as to hurt my chances of finding another academic position, would I continue being as involved in the field. I'd like to say I would, but given the need for food and shelter.those of you outside of academia, know how hard it is to juggle an active practice in E-Poetry and a full time job. cheers, Jason ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
