Building Nothing Out of Something

Goldsmith in his infinite fur-coated wisdom writes, “Why atomize, shatter, and splay language into nonsensical shards when you can hoard, store, mold, squeeze, shovel, soil, scrub, package, and cram the stuff into towers of words and castles of language with a stroke of the keyboard?”

The simplest answer is to say why not atomize, shatter, and splat language, but if you want a more philosophically sophisticated answer, it lies in everything ever written by the Dadaists and the Futurists. Now, I don’t necessarily disagree with Goldsmith—I like to stuff words into towers too, and there are masterpieces made in doing that—however I must bring up an argument made in our class by the subtly aphoristic Dave “The Mean” Levine who said that art movements love to base themselves on the negation of all art before themselves. Goldsmith doesn’t really throw out everything before him—he says Flarff is “[f]using the avant-garde impulses of the last century with the technologies of the present,”—but he is still saying that the old stuff isn’t as good as the new stuff. Stealing is better than breaking, mink is better than fox.

The question of aesthetics, the question of what is appealing, comes to mind. Earlier in the semester Erin brought up the topic of liking a piece of art for its aesthetic, non-philosophical appeal alone, and isn’t that enough. My answer is that it is enough if it is good. John Cayley’s “Translation” for instance was ugly as hell, the music atonal and awkward, and the text illegible. It’s appeal is in its philosophy, and what it stands for, or really, what it stands against, that makes it a good piece of art. It stands against harmonies and readability that we usually associate with good art. Understanding brings appreciation. “Translation” is meant not to be understood, and is therefore unlikeable. However, the fact that it is meant to be “ugly” in all ways, creates understanding, and therefore makes it beautiful. Q.E.D.

But even so, Dave is still right. “Translation” is made to negate all art before it, and in doing so it promotes itself as worthwhile. Is it really worthwhile? How worthwhile is it compared to a van Dyke painting. Most people would not want to compare the two because of the philosophical space that separates them, but what if you take out the philosophy? What is left?

Liberalism and Free Internet

At the small press festival on Saturday Oren, our dear friend Oren, got confrontational with Lori’s husband, Ben, over (it seemed) the differences between what the Internet professes to be and what it actually is. Is it a space where the copyright laws are nullified by open source code? Or is it still commodified by software companies and internet providers? (Wait for the day when Google buys Comcast. Mark my words…)

This little flare up at the small press fest has sparked a little debate among our MFA circles, based mostly around trying to figure out what liberalism is. The simple definition, it seems, is the belief in liberty and equal rights, which is a broad definition that almost doesn’t get us anywhere at all. What constitutes freedom on the Internet? Is it access to digital art or is participation a requirement? If it lies somewhere in the middle of those two, how does one discern the gradient between access and full participation? A Flash piece for instance, like YH Chang, is access with no participation, while Brian Kim Stefans’ Letter Builder is all participation, with the access being pointless without movement from the reader.

As the person in the back said, we must remember that most of the world doesn’t have access to a computer or the Internet and the software to make digital art is even more prohibiting. But I hate that statement. A lot of people in the world have never heard of James Joyce, but that doesn’t mean we should stop talking about him until everyone has read Finnigan’s Wake. We work in a very privileged field, but it is still a field that raises a lot of questions and needs a lot of answers. It is not pointless, in other words, and the question of whether the Internet is actually free or not lies at the core of that Marxist-like class argument of who has the means? I don’t see the Internet as exclusionary, even though lots of people are excluded from it. But it does not exist because people are excluded from it, unlike democracy (although that seems like a stretch too). It is theoretically possible for everyone to have access to the internet, even though it probably won’t happen. But there is all the difference in the world between “probably won’t happen” and “impossible.”

A Defense of Cynicism

Apropos of out conversation from last class, I want to talk about cynicism and Brian Kim Stefans’ The Dream Life of Letters. The argument was that this piece is cynical because it took a Duplessis feminist essay and disintegrated it, destroyed it, blew it up, and picked through the remains to make something that does not address the essay or the theories and implications, involved in the work. And according to his intro, Stefans couldn’t figure out the essay and therefore his response was something that cannot be understood (at least in a grammatical sense). Dream Life was likened to hipsters who only criticize and destroy without creating anything positive in return.

By saying Dream Life is cynical is saying that it is not a positive creation. And since it is indeed a creation, that much I am sure, if it isn’t positive, it is a negative creation. I find this to be a unjustified heirachization, the bane of literary theorists (MAs, PhDs mount your steeds! To battle! To battle!). To assume that Dream Life is a negative creation is to assume that Duplessis essay was a positive creation. I am not arguing that it wasn’t, but I am arguing that because Dream Life is in dialogue with it, we assume the first to be correct. I have defended this piece in two classes now, and both times it is just assumed that the feminist approach was inherently better than what Stefans produced. Yes, inherently. No one has read the fucking essay! How can we say that Dream Life is cynical if we don’t know what it is destroying? For a hyperbolic argument, what if Dream Life took the words from a Mussolini speech and made them beautiful. Essentially the piece would be the same, with the same movement and colors and whatnot, but the creation would be positive (assuming a Mussolini speech is a negative creation). That is the problem with calling a piece of artwork cynical. It creates a positive out of nothing, and vice versa. Doesn’t a creation of artwork boil down to just being a creation, even if it is in dialogue with another piece?

I feel that this is the Conan O’Brien argument for cynicism, the argument that nothing good will ever come from cynicism and therefore there it is only destructive and only harmful. I consider cynicism to be our political pain, a feeling that tells us something is wrong. It is impossible to notice something is wrong and have a replacement, or answer, instantaneously. Duplessis wasn’t wrong, of course, and Dream Life was not an extemporaneous response. But to deem a destructive response as automatically a negative one, I find jumping too far ahead.

Alternumerics and the 1 to 1 ratio

Paul Chan in his introduction to his Alternumerics makes some hefty claims:

“Alternumerics explores the intimate relationship between language and interactivity by transforming the simple computer font into an art form that explores the fissure between what we type and we what mean [sic]. By replacing the individual letters and numbers with textual and graphic fragments that connect and signify what is typed in radically different ways, “Alteranumerics” transforms the act of typing into a digital performance and any computer connected to a standard printer, into an interactive art making installation.”

To say that he his project has transformed the act of typing into a performance is assuming that the act of typing isn’t already a performance. Notice he doesn’t say, “transforms the act of typing from ______ to a performance. The question of what is being transformed is never addressed only assumed not to be a performance. However, the act of typing is very much an act. It is a simple act, and one that is overlooked easily, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a performance, a creation of some sort. While Chan’s graphic fonts more fully reveal the “fissure” or signification processes that we experience when we type, that does not mean the new fonts created that fissure. It’s always been there, it’s just not very apparent because we are so used to it (I feel like this is a phenomenological problem, but I’m definitely not smart enough to figure it out).

This leads to other issues. The fonts Chan created aren’t so much fonts as they are a simple code, a one to one ratio. “A” is represented by a certain type of squiggly line, “B” is a different squiggly line. When you read writing typed in this Squiggly font, you can read it if you internalize the cipher, the same way people can read computer code, or read phase space diagrams. Reading this is even simpler than learning a new language since the grammatical structures don’t change. (It reminded me a lot like reading A Clockwork Orange.) The next logical step might be that all fonts are code. That doesn’t mean that all language is code, necessarily, but fonts, maybe. Fonts after all are all graphic depictions of alphanumerics, and Zaph Dingbats or Wingdings does the same thing that Chan is doing with his graphic fonts.

The House as a Horror Story

Mary Flanagan’s The House is a horror story, a physical and psychological haunted house in the vein of Danielewski’s House of Leaves. The horror of the piece is derived from its alogical spatiality, its non-directionality floating architecture, which forces a sort of agoraphobia onto the reader. The shrinking and enlarging of the boxes provides the semblance of movement and therefore control of one’s surroundings, while simultaneously remaining elusive, tangential, to the reader’s control, and mocking of the logic of human movement. The mocking of the human perception of space is a very Dadaist trait in terms of self-negation. The stripped down architectural elements both reflect the essence of structure (the literal building blocks of architecture) but are simultaneously subverted by their own ungroundedness and maneuverability. The reader’s body is denied placement and control, although given the illusion of both.

This is similar to House of Leaves, which gives the illusion of walls, doors, and staircases but stretches their representations to the point of the infinite, thereby negating their meaning altogether. The point of a door is to lead to somewhere else, but in infinite space, one point is the same as the last. The boxes of Flannigan’s piece are obvious constructions, which sets them apart from the surrounding grey space. However, because the grey space is infinite (at least from my perception) the structure is negated, as its placement in space can never be found.

In this way Flanigan’s piece reflects Kandisky’s description of clowns:

“‘Clowns in particular, build their composition on a very definite alogicality. Their action has no definite development, their movements are incongruous, their efforts lead nowhere and indeed, they’re not meant to.’ Lack of motivation and of clear direction: these elements contributed to a ‘depthlessness’ and play which disputed the absent authority of the ‘paternal’ text” (Nichols 236).

Flanagan’s piece the grammar of the text is removed, once again giving the semblance of language but without its supporting structures. The text can be read backward and forward, upside-down and from behind, negating the spatial structure on which we depend to derive meaning from the language.

The negation of that spatial language structure is once again reflecting the Dada negation of itself, leaving “absolute irony as the only valid mode of self-consciousness” (Nichols 232). The House is aware of its own horror, its own arbitrariness, and its spatial existence is an anathema to human spatial existence. That is the point. The text is ostensibly about human relationships, as described by the author, and human relationships, are, indeed, horror stories.

The Death and Rebirth of Time and Space

“Time and Space died yesterday.” Marinetti’s eighth postulate in his Manifesto. Not exactly true, or if it was true at the time, it is no longer true. For futurists, Time is dead because “We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed.” And that was written in a time when mail was a letter, not a binary coding. The speed we have witnessed and experienced since Marinetti wrote this manifesto is exponentially more than what they had experienced. However, our great speed, and the conquering of outer space (kinda), has revealed that the speed of our “life” is far from “absolute.” The material limits we have discovered have reigned in the infinity perspective that the futurists seem to revel in. Even while digital poetics has opened up new experiences of immediate time and space (works can be viewed simultaneously from anywhere at anytime), the field has become very aware of its own limitations. A new quantum technology is being put into iPods because there just isn’t the space to add anymore parts that aren’t on the atomic scale. Digital artists know operate in the limits of what a program can do, even if they don’t know all it can do. Alan Sondheim’s programming poetry is taking programs and pushing them to their limits to see what happens. But he always finds a limit.

It is interesting that the futurists were invested in such boldly material typography but still thought the “absolute” was essential. Apollinaire, I gathered from the reading, thought the same thing. There seemed to be a real cognitive dissonance with the futurists, where they tried to force a perception of the world without fully investing themselves in the consequences. Their wanting to “destroy…feminism” is their retaliation against being “human”, a title that men claimed in the previous centuries. Essentially, they are saying men are now machines, and women are now human. Our proof is that we say so. Shucking the material of the person, they turn to the material of the letter and got nuts with it. Maybe in this sense, women are the writings of men, a proposition with which I just bet Kelly will have a problem.

Walter Benn Michaels, You Are Not the Boss of Me

In The Shape of the Signifier Walter Benn Michaels structures his arguments in terms of very imperialistic dichotomies where “if you think the intention of the author is what counts, then you don’t think the subject position of the readers matter, but if you don’t think the intention of the author is what counts, then the subject position of the reader will be the only thing that matters” (11). (I will assume this is his argument, although I can’t quite tell. He just calls it “the” argument.)

A note to all scholars, you can’t tell me what I do and don’t think. My ability for cognitive dissidence holds no bounds, so if I want to believe in both the intention of the author and the subject position I will, goddammnit.

While WBM’s logical progression to make this divisive statement appears sound enough, it also doesn’t seem to allow for a grey space, a space (under which I was impressed to believe) is where everything lies. McGann calls a poem an experience that has movement and temporal elements associated with it. The movement can fall into the virtual space between author intention and subject position, where all sorts of incomplete canoodling occurs. (This is the space occupied by the cyborg, an entity that takes in dichotomies without hierarchizing either polarity and mixes them into a nice goulash of incomplete shiftiness [not a direct quote].)

A grey space that might cause problems in WBM’s theory is Jörg Piringer’s Soundpoems. Not only is his website entirely grey, Piringer’s sound projects are extremely simple, theoretically complicated, and insanely fun. I want to focus on Soundpoem 1, which operate a little differently than 3-6, although all share similar principles.

Piringer’s SP1 and SP2 function as software for the creation of sound poems. And while it may seem that it looks like software from 1993 with limited permutations (compared to GarageBand, SoundBooth, or Audacity), there is deceptive depth to what can be created from such basic elements. In SP1 an operator can place nine buttons in four squares to make combinations of sounds. However, there is no limit to how many buttons can be placed in the squares, which means opens up exponentially more permutations (not infinite, I don’t think, because the beats loop). The authorial intention here is based in the material limitations of what we are given. There are an infinite number of sounds that could be used to create a sound poem; we are given eight and a pause. I think it is hard to ignore such limiting boundaries that Piringer has placed on the subject. However, the subject-position cannot create anything without Piringer providing the software. Whatever poems we create, however diverse and divorced from Piringer’s intention, are all limited by his construction.

If the “only thing that matters” is either the author-intention or the subject position, nothing will be created in SP1. The program/poem does not create sound on its own, but without the program/poem the subject cannot create a poem either.