|
'''Generative literature''' refers to [[Letteratura|literature]] that is completely or partially generated by an [[Autonomous System|autonomous system]], a [[:en:Non-human|non-human]] entity such as a [[Computer Programming|computer program]], that is algorithmically producesinstructed generatedto literaryproduce generated texts. Closely— linkedwhich tosubsequently themay fieldbe ofread as literature — independently from a human [[generative artAutore|author]],.<ref generativename=":6">{{Cita literatureconferenza|titolo=What is oftenGenerative seenArt? Complexity Theory as itsa subset,Context asfor bothArt artisticTheory|conferenza=6th formsGenerative relyArt onConference|autore=Philip anGalanter|data=January autonomous2003|url=www.philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_paper.pdf|lingua=en}}</ref><ref system,name=":7">{{Cita recognizedlibro|autore=Philip asGalanter|curatore=Christiane aPaul|titolo=Generative non-humanArt entityTheory|url=http://cmuems.com/2016/60212/resources/galanter_generative.pdf|edizione=1|anno=2016|editore=John thatWiley produces& theSons, literaryInc|città=New textYork|lingua=en|p=146}}</ref> independentlyVery fromclosely arelated humanto authorthe field of [[generative art]], forgenerative literature is its literarysubset, as both forms rely on an autonomous system for artistic production.
== History ==
{{vedi anche|Arte generativa}}
Generative art's increasing popularity in the late [[XX secolo|twentieth century]] was due, in part, to the computational possibilities offered via computers, which gave generative art a new platform. Art historian [[Grant D. Taylor]] notes that [[computer art]]’s introduction in [[1963]] sparked outrage, mostly from non-computer artists who feared that the written poem, representing “communication from a particular human being” and “one last refuge for human beings” would no longer serve that function in the computer age.<ref name=":0">{{Cita libro|autore=Grant D. Taylor|curatore=Francisco J. Ricardo|titolo=When the Machine Made Art: The Troubled History of Computer Art|collana=International Texts in Critical Media Aesthetics|anno=2014|editore=Bloomsbury|città=New York|lingua=en|pp=5-6|volume=8}}</ref> Computer art was often seen as “another example of the vulgarization of science, where besotted artists, dallying with the latest scientific and technological media, produced what was tantamount to science as kitsch,” paralleling the fascination of computer art with modernist responses to the development of pure sciences in the early twentieth century.<ref name=":0" /> Prior to the mainstream acceptance of computer poetry as art in 1990s, people had hoped that machines would fail, having coveted art as a “refuge from the onslaughts of our whole machine civilization.”<ref name=":0" /> The stigma attached to computer art was voiced by artists such as [[Paul Brown]], who lambasted the use of computers in art as the “kiss of death”<ref name=":0" /> to describe computer artists who were rejected from galleries once it was revealed to curators and directors that computers played a role in their work’s creation.
The definitions and history of generative art often serve as the reference for describing the origins of generative literature.<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://hybridpedagogy.org/what-is-generative-literature-introducing-the-generative-literature-project/|titolo=What is Generative Literature? Introducing “The Generative Literature Project”|autore=Mia Zamora and Matt Jacobi|data=2015-07-19|lingua=en|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/save/http://hybridpedagogy.org/what-is-generative-literature-introducing-the-generative-literature-project/|dataarchivio=2019-06-06|urlmorto=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cita pubblicazione|autore=Daniel C. Howe and A. Braxton Soderman|anno=2009|titolo=The Aesthetics of Generative Literature: Lessons from a Digital Writing Workshop|rivista=Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures|volume=|numero=6|lingua=en|doi=10.20415/hyp/006.e04|url=http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz06/essays/the-aesthetics-of-generative-literature-lessons-from-a-digital-writing-workshop.html}}</ref> According to generative [[Artista|artist]] and [[Critica artistica|critic]] [[Philip Galanter]], generative art is as old as art itself,<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://www.artificial.dk/articles/galanter.htm|titolo='Generative art is as old as art'. An interview with Philip Galanter|lingua=en|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/save/http://www.artificial.dk/articles/galanter.htm|urlmorto=no}}</ref> though generative art gained popularity in the late [[XX secolo|twentieth century]], as a result of, in part, the computational possibilities offered via computers, which gave generative art a platform for popular recognition.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7" /> [[Storia dell'arte|Art historian]] [[Grant D. Taylor]] notes that [[computer art]]’s introduction in [[1963]] sparked outrage, mostly from non-computer artists who feared that the sanctity of the [[Poesia|written poem]], as “communication from a particular human being” and “one last refuge for human beings," would be at risk in the computer age.<ref name=":0">{{Cita libro|autore=Grant D. Taylor|curatore=Francisco J. Ricardo|titolo=When the Machine Made Art: The Troubled History of Computer Art|collana=International Texts in Critical Media Aesthetics|anno=2014|editore=Bloomsbury|città=New York|lingua=en|pp=5-6|volume=8}}</ref>
=== Jean-Pierre Balpe ===
[[File:Jean-Pierre Balpe.jpg|miniatura|[[Jean-Pierre Balpe]] in 2000.]]
One of the first, most prominent uses of generative literature as a term can be traced back to [[Francia|French]] generative writer and theorist [[Jean-Pierre Balpe]], who, inspired by [[Surrealismo|surrealism]], explored automatic text generation’s artistic potential in the mid-1970s. Balpe defines generative literature as “the production of texts that continually change since they are based on a specific dictionary, on a set of rules and the use of algorithms.”<ref>{{Cita libro|curatore=Peter Gendola and Jörgen Schäfer|titolo=The Aesthetics of Net Literature: Writing, Reading
and Playing in the Programmable Media|anno=2007|editore=Transcript Verlag|città=Bielefeld|lingua=en|p=13}}</ref><ref>{{Cita libro|curatore=Peter Gendolla and Jörgen Schäfer|titolo=The Aesthetics of Net Literature: Writing, Reading
and Playing in the Programmable Media|anno=2007|città=Bielefeld|lingua=en|p=25}}</ref> Balpe believes that all literature, to an extent, is generative<ref>{{Cita testo|lingua=fr|autore=Jean-Pierre Balpe|titolo=Fiction et écriture générative|editore=|città=|data=|url=http://chatonsky.net/files/pdf/jean-pierre-balpe/jpb_fiction.pdf}}</ref> and that generative texts dismantle normative reading habits of temporally situating texts in relation to texts encountered earlier because “[t]he [[Narrativa|narrative]] is not totally built in advance but put together from a lot of virtualities which are — or are not — actualizing themselves in the course of reading.”<ref name=":5">{{Cita web|url=http://www.dichtung-digital.de/2005/1/Balpe/|titolo=Jean-Pierre Balpe: Principles and Processes of Generative Literature|autore=Jean-Pierre Balpe|lingua=en|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524104407/http://www.dichtung-digital.de/2005/1/Balpe/|anno=2005}}</ref> Readers of generative literature neither see the same texts presented to them a second time nor read the same the text as another reader.<ref name=":5" />
Balpe worked on several computer-generated [[Novella|novels]] online spent the early [[Anni 2000|2000s]], including ''[[Trajectoires]]''<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://nt2.uqam.ca/fr/repertoire/trajectoires|titolo=Trajectoires|sito=ALN {{!}} NT2 Le Laboratoire de recherche sur les oeuvres hypermédiatiques|lingua=fr|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/save/http://nt2.uqam.ca/fr/repertoire/trajectoires|dataarchivio=2019-06-06|urlmorto=no}}</ref> (2001) and ''[[Fictions d'Issy|Fictions]]''<ref>{{Cita web|url=https://fiction.maisonpop.fr/|titolo=FICTIONS (fictions) Roman interactif et génératif|autore=Jean-Pierre Balpe|curatore=Maison Pop|lingua=fr|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20190606092718/https://fiction.maisonpop.fr/|dataarchivio=2019-06-06|urlmorto=no}}</ref> (2004) and exhibited the poetry generator ''[[Babel Poésie]]'' (2004), which generates [[Poesia|poems]] from a [[Base di dati|database]] of [[Lingua francese|French]], [[Lingua italiana|Italian]], and [[Lingua spagnola|Spanish]] words, in the form of a [[Videopoesia|video poem]].<ref>{{Cita video|autore=Jean-Pierre Balpe|titolo=Babel Poèsie|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUzgHS2HAA|accesso=2019-06-06|data=2014-08-27|lingua=fr}}</ref> Poems from ''Babel Poésie'' cannot be generated more than once, and while the content of its poems has been criticized as “trash language, word garbage, chaos speak,” the poems’ forms have been praised as “a new poetry which works with boundless text flow and is conceived as an associative and endless process.”<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://www.p0es1s.net/en/projects/jean_pierre_balpe.html|titolo=P0es1s.digitale Poesie|lingua=en|accesso=2016-06-12|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524104047/http://www.p0es1s.net/en/projects/jean_pierre_balpe.html|dataarchivio=2019-05-24}}</ref>
=== Jean-Pierre Balpe and surrealism ===
Unlike generative art, the introduction of generative literature did not receive such negativity. One of the first, most prominent uses of generative literature as a term can be traced to [[Francia|French]] generative writer and theorist [[Jean-Pierre Balpe]], who in the mid-1970s, was inspired by [[Surrealismo|surrealism]], which fueled his exploration of automatic text generation’s artistic potential. Balpe defines generative literature as “the production of texts that continually change since they are based on a specific dictionary, on a set of rules and the use of algorithms”<ref>{{Cita libro|curatore=Peter Gendola and Jörgen Schäfer|titolo=The Aesthetics of Net Literature: Writing, Reading
and Playing in the Programmable Media|anno=2007|editore=Transcript Verlag|città=Bielefeld|lingua=en|p=13}}</ref> and that understanding the complexities of generative literature requires awareness of its “''niveaux d’engrammation''” or different "levels of engrammation" that specify modes of communication between humans and machines behind the generativity.<ref>{{Cita libro|curatore=Peter Gendolla and Jörgen Schäfer|titolo=The Aesthetics of Net Literature: Writing, Reading
and Playing in the Programmable Media|anno=2007|città=Bielefeld|lingua=en|p=25}}</ref> Balpe believes that all literature, to an extent, is generative.<ref>{{Cita testo|lingua=fr|autore=Jean-Pierre Balpe|titolo=Fiction et écriture générative|editore=|città=|data=|url=http://chatonsky.net/files/pdf/jean-pierre-balpe/jpb_fiction.pdf}}</ref>
Balpe spent the early 2000s working on several computer-generated novels online, including ''Fictions'' and ''Trajectoires'' (2001), including creating the poetry machine ''Babel Poésie'' (2004), which produced poems by generating [[Lingua francese|French]], [[Lingua italiana|Italian]], and [[Lingua spagnola|Spanish]] words. Poems from ''Babel Poésie'' cannot be generated more than once, and while the content of its poems has been described as “the poetry of trash language, word garbage, chaos speak,” the poems’ forms have been praised as “a new poetry which works with boundless text flow and is conceived as an associative and endless process.”<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://www.p0es1s.net/en/projects/jean_pierre_balpe.html|titolo=P0es1s.digitale Poesie|lingua=en|accesso=2016-06-12|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524104047/http://www.p0es1s.net/en/projects/jean_pierre_balpe.html|dataarchivio=2019-05-24}}</ref> According to Balpe, generative texts dismantle normative reading habits of temporally situating texts in relation to texts encountered earlier on the diegetic axis because “[t]he narrative is not totally built in advance but put together from a lot of virtualities which are — or are not — actualizing themselves in the course of reading.”<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://www.dichtung-digital.de/2005/1/Balpe/|titolo=Jean-Pierre Balpe: Principles and Processes of Generative Literature|autore=Jean-Pierre Balpe|lingua=en|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524104407/http://www.dichtung-digital.de/2005/1/Balpe/|anno=2005}}</ref> In other words, readers will neither see the same texts presented to them a second time nor read the same the text as another reader.
=== Codework poetry ===
The idea that code can be read, analyzed, and written as literature is not unprecedented. Codework poetry, known as the construction and stylization of verse using a mixture of programming languages with natural languages to produce literature, is a literary treatment of data. Using programming languages like natural languages by giving them syntactical and semantic meanings produces a concrete poem-esque effect when juxtaposed together in the same context. Published anonymously in the networked discussion system [[Usenet]], “Black Perl” (1990) serves as an example of a codework poem. Written in the programming language [[Perl]] (short for “Practical Extraction and Report Language”) as an example of Perl Poetry, “Black Perl” was intentionally written in valid Perl commands so that it could be understood by computer and human reading. The step-by-step commands listed in each line of the program transform into a narrated event when read line-by-line as a poem. The code’s form, such as the inclusion the asterisks and parentheses, influences the readability of the code as a poem, as various punctuation marks serve different semantic purposes when read in Perl than in [[Lingua inglese|English]], for example. However, “Black Perl” was intentionally written as a poem, meaning that this particular codework poem has more in common with practices of constraint writing than generative literature. In fact, “Black Perl” is not generative for the reason that it is not program-generated output but, is, instead, the program itself. The usefulness of this poem, however, is to demonstrate the duality of human and computer readability in “Black Perl” and how programming languages are not completely devoid of literary value.
== Controversy ==
Despite the loose parameters for what qualifies as art today, the debatable literary status of algorithmic outputs has been an ongoing contention even amongst [[new media]] artists. Digital technology theorist [[Yuk Hui]] called algorithmic outputs “algorithmic catastrophes” rather than anything worth studying at all, defining outputs, or “the product of automated algorithms,” as “the failure of reason,” not even “material failure.”<ref>{{Cita pubblicazione|autore=Yuk Hui|anno=2015|titolo=Algorithmic Catastrophe—The Revenge of Contingency|rivista=Parrhesia|volume=23|numero=|p=123|lingua=en|url=http://whatishappeningtoourbrain.rietveldacademie.nl/pages/brain/parrhesia.pdf}}</ref> Portuguese experimental poet [[Rui Torres]], whose corpus of creative works includes presenting poetry in hypermedia contexts, asserted, while fielding questions after a talk delivered at the [[Università della California, Berkeley|University of California, Berkeley]] in April 2016,<ref>{{Cita video|autore=Rui Torres|titolo=Rui Torres – Unlocking the Secret Garden: Electronic Literature from Portugal|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKSo0iqdvPk|accesso=2019-05-24|data=2016-05-04|editore=Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley|lingua=en}}</ref> that algorithmic outputs can never transpierce the literary realm, thus barring algorithmic outputs as literature and siding with Hui’s idea that algorithmic behaviors suggest a “failure of reason.”
To address this skepticism maintained by Hui and Torres, as well as other generative art skeptics — that algorithmic output cannot qualify as art — inevitably attracts past debates on art’s definition that have been hashed and re-hashed out since the emergence of the avant-garde. According to generative artist [[Philip Galanter]], the oft-discussed question of “What is art?” within art theory does not go unnoticed when formulating generative art theory. If art is to be understood as a product of expression, then generative art, Galanter notes, faces another obstacle, namely, the frequently encountered question within artificial intelligence discourse: “Can it be claimed that a computer can and will express itself? Alternatively, when the computer determines forms not anticipated by the artist, does its creation still qualify as the artist’s expression?”<ref>{{Cita libro|autore=Philip Galanter|curatore=Christiane Paul|titolo=A Companion to Digital Art|edizione=1|anno=2016|editore=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.|lingua=en|p=169|capitolo=Generative Art Theory}}</ref>
== Examples of generative literature ==
=== Raymond Kurzweil's "Cybernetic Poet" ===
[[File:Raymond Kurzweil, Stanford 2006 (square crop).jpg|miniatura|[[Raymond Kurzweil]] speaking at [[Università di Stanford|Stanford University]] in 2006.]]
First introduced sometime in the mid-1980s, [[Raymond Kurzweil]]’s Cybernetic Poet is an online program that generates poetry by reading an extensive collection of poems written by human authors. On his website, entitled “CyberArt Technologies,”<ref>{{Cita web|url=http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php|titolo=Kurzweil CyberArt Technologies Home Page|autore=Raymond Kurzweil|lingua=en|urlarchivio=http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php|dataarchivio=2019-05-24|urlmorto=no}}</ref> Kurzweil introduces the Cybernetic Poet’s functionalities in greater detail:
First introduced in the mid-1980s, [[Raymond Kurzweil]]’s [[Cybernetic Poet]] is an online program that generates poetry by reading an extensive collection of poems written by human authors. According to Kurzweil, "RKCP [the Cybernetic Poet] uses a recursive poetry-generation algorithm to achieve the language style, rhythm patterns, and poem structure of the original authors whose poems were analyzed. There are also algorithms to maintain thematic consistency through the poem. The poems are in a similar style to the author(s) originally analyzed but are completely original new poetry. The system even has rules to discourage itself from plagiarizing."<ref>{{Cita libro|autore=Ray Kurzweil|titolo=The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence|anno=1999|editore=Penguin|città=New York|lingua=en|p=163}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cita web|url=http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php|titolo=Kurzweil CyberArt Technologies Home Page|autore=Raymond Kurzweil|lingua=en|urlarchivio=http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php|dataarchivio=2019-05-24|urlmorto=no}}</ref>
Also functioning as a “poet’s assistant authoring tool,” the Cybernetic Poet aids human authors, Kurzweil claims, by “assist[ing] and stimulat[ing] a (human) poet in finding the right verbal images and phrases,” which “are often intriguing and surprising.”<ref name=":1" />
RKCP [the Cybernetic Poet] uses a recursive poetry-generation algorithm to achieve the language style, rhythm patterns, and poem structure of the original authors whose poems were analyzed. There are also algorithms to maintain thematic consistency through the poem. The poems are in a similar style to the author(s) originally analyzed but are completely original new poetry. The system even has rules to discourage itself from plagiarizing.[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]]
The Poet’s ability to produce original poetry by reading, first, an extensive selection of poems by one or several authors mimics a writing process that could very well be practiced by human poets — especially if we recall that novel literary forms and styles often emerge from the influence and desire to depart from current and preceding literary movements. Kurzweil has seemingly programmed the Cybernetic Poet to function like a human author, as its abilities to “maintain thematic consistency through the poem” and “discourage itself from plagiarizing” all suggest the development of an authorial personality. Functioning as a “poet’s assistant authoring tool,” the Cybernetic Poet aids human authors by “assist[ing] and stimulat[ing] a (human) poet in finding the right verbal images and phrases,” which, Kurzweil notes, “are often intriguing and surprising.”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn3|[3]]] The Cybernetic Poet’s participation aids the human author in a way that could potentially contribute to the authoring process as a co-author, even though it does not replace the role of human authors by writing for them, as they could always reject the bots’ suggestions.
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] “Kurzweil CyberArt Technologies.”
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Kurzweil (1999), 163.
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Kurzweil, “The Cybernetic Poet.”
=== William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter's "Racter" ===
{{Citazione|Slide and tumble and fall among<br/>
In spite of its popularity, the Cybernetic Poet was not the only poetry generator from the mid-1980s. William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter’s Racter, whose namesake derives from ''raconteur'', is a software written in the programming language BASIC that generates prose on an IMS (Information Management System) computer without prompts from a human operator. A collection of Racter’s early fiction was published in a book entitled, ''The Policeman’s Beard is Half Constructed'' (1984), and aside from spelling mistakes corrected by Chamberlain himself, the text is completely computer-generated. Racter writes from a database containing 2,400 words to match nouns with contextually appropriate adjectives, and it ensures continuity by tracking used phrases,[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]] allowing the book to have some form of cohesion that we might call a narrative (even though there are human-drawn sketches that serve as visual aids that potentially contribute to this cohesion). Racter’s choice of words is completely random, producing senseless text that literary critic Jack Barley McGraw calls “empty text” resembling “Dadaist nonsense” that cannot be close read. Any attempt at close reading Racter’s “disturbingly superficial” prose, according to McGraw, would be a futile exercise in “conceptual justification (seemingly out of thin air) for vaguely related strings of words.”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]]
The dead. Here and there<br/>
Will be found a utensil.|[[Racter]], "[[The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed]]"|lingua=}}
In spite of its popularity, the Cybernetic Poet was not the only poetry generator from the mid-[[Anni 1980|1980s]]. [[William Chamberlain]] and [[Thomas Etter]]’s [[Racter]], whose namesake derives from ''raconteur'', is a [[software]] written in the [[Linguaggio di programmazione|programming language]] [[BASIC]] that generates prose on an [[IMS]] (Information Management System) computer without prompts from a human operator. A collection of Racter’s early [[fiction]] was published in a book entitled, ''[[The Policeman’s Beard is Half Constructed]]'' (1984), and aside from spelling mistakes corrected by Chamberlain himself, the text is completely computer-generated.<ref name=":4">{{Cita libro|autore=William Chamberlain|titolo=The policeman's beard is half constructed : computer prose and poetry by Racter ; [the first book ever written by a computer ; a bizarre and fantastic journey into the mind of a machine]|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/311319022|accesso=2019-06-02|data=1984|editore=Warner Books|lingua=en|OCLC=311319022|ISBN=0446380512}}</ref> Racter generates text from a [[Base di dati|database]] containing 2,400 words, matching [[Sostantivo|nouns]] with contextually appropriate [[Aggettivo|adjectives]], and it ensures continuity by tracking used phrases.<ref name=":2">{{Cita libro|autore=Roberto Simanowski|titolo=Digital Art and Meaning: Reading Kinetic Poetry, Text Machines, Mapping Art, and Interactive Installations|anno=2011|editore=University of Minnesota Press|città=Minneapolis|lingua=en|pp=96-97|volume=35}}</ref> In the preface, Chamberlain writes that Racter’s goal is to “replicate human thinking” — or, in other words, represent a utopian actualization of the vision that certain people had for computers during the mid-1980s, precisely that computers were “designed to accomplish in seconds (or microseconds) what humans would require years or centuries of concerted calculation effort to achieve,” and, in some cases, were absolutely needed, as certain tasks could not be accomplished without the use or assistance of a computer.<ref name=":4" />
Racter’s choice of words is completely random, producing senseless text that literary critic [[Jack Barley McGraw]] calls “empty text” resembling “[[Dadaismo|Dadaist]] nonsense” that cannot be [[Close reading|close read]]. Any attempt at close reading Racter’s “disturbingly superficial” [[Prosa|prose]], according to McGraw, would be a “conceptual justification (seemingly out of thin air) for vaguely related strings of words.”<ref name=":2" />
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Simanowski, 96-97.
=== Nick Montfort's ''#!''===
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Ibid. Quotes are Simanowski’s quotation of McGraw.
{{Citazione|form intends intense verse crease to tense form tense vent verse tone verse form crease form vent tends to crease to tends form form vent form crease tone verse tense|[[Nick Montfort]], "[[#!]]"|lingua=|lingua2=}}More contemporary examples of generative literature include [[Nick Montfort]]’s book entitled ''#!'' (2014) but pronounced ‘[[Shabang|sha-bang]]’ (which means “the set of all circumstances.”)<ref>{{Cita video|autore=Nick Montfort|titolo=Nick Montfort: "#!" {{!}} Talks At Google|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L19iQjE71Ws|accesso=2016-06-03|data=2014-12-11|editore=Talks at Google|lingua=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cita web|url=http://counterpathpress.org/nick-montfort|titolo=#!Nick Montfort – Counterpath|lingua=en-US|accesso=2019-06-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cita libro|autore=Nick Montfort|titolo=#!|anno=2014|editore=Counterpath Press|lingua=en|ISBN=978-1-933996-46-2}}</ref> Published thirty years after Racter and Kurzweil’s Cybernetic Poet, ''#!'' contains generated poems and their [[Algoritmo|algorithms]]. The book is divided into sections that introduce the algorithm, followed by print out of its output on the following pages. Some of the outputs end with ellipses to signify that they could not be printed due to their infinite length. ''#!''<nowiki/>'s title is also a valid [[Python]] command: the placement of a [[hashtag]] before any given text commands the computer not to read any text following the hashtag.
In a review of ''#!'', [[Critica letteraria|literary critic]] [[John Cayley]] writes that the programs are meant to read by the program producing the output, but the inclusion of both program and output in ''#!'' makes the code “a (constitutive) facet of the poem. It is (also) the text.”<ref>{{Cita web|url=https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/poetry-and-stuff-a-review-of/|titolo=Poetry and Stuff: A Review of #!|autore=John Cayley|lingua=en-US|accesso=2019-06-02|urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20190602210941/https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/poetry-and-stuff-a-review-of/|dataarchivio=2019-06-02}}</ref>
Prefacing the book, Chamberlain writes that Racter’s goal is to “replicate human thinking” — or, in other words, represent a utopian actualization of the vision that certain people had for computers during the mid-1980s, precisely that computers were “designed to accomplish in seconds (or microseconds) what humans would require years or centuries of concerted calculation effort to achieve,” and, in some cases, were absolutely needed, as certain tasks could not be accomplished without the use or assistance of a computer.[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]] Chamberlain’s description of Racter parallels Kurzweil’s Cybernetic Poet in the sense that the goal of both poetry generators is to make creative choices that a human might make. This commonality between Racter and the Cybernetic Poet not only reveals the utopian appeal of computers that some people held during the late twentieth century, but also reveals the hope that people had for computers to be their friendly, helpful companions rather than representative extensions of themselves that may threaten the role of humans in the creation of humanity, as now discussed in many posthumanist discourses of the twenty-first century.[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]]
== Contention ==
The literary status of algorithmic outputs has been an ongoing contention even amongst [[new media]] artists and critics: [[Tecnologia dell'informazione|digital technology]] theorist [[Yuk Hui]] called algorithmic outputs “algorithmic catastrophes” rather than anything worth studying at all, defining outputs — or “the product of automated algorithms” — as “the failure of reason,” not even “material failure.”<ref>{{Cita pubblicazione|autore=Yuk Hui|anno=2015|titolo=Algorithmic Catastrophe—The Revenge of Contingency|rivista=Parrhesia|volume=23|numero=|p=123|lingua=en|url=http://whatishappeningtoourbrain.rietveldacademie.nl/pages/brain/parrhesia.pdf}}</ref> Portuguese [[Letteratura sperimentale|experimental poet]] [[Rui Torres]], whose creative works include presenting poetry in [[hypermedia]] contexts, asserted, while fielding questions after a talk on Portuguese [[Letteratura elettronica|electronic literature]] delivered at the [[Università della California, Berkeley|University of California, Berkeley]] in April 2016,<ref>{{Cita video|autore=Rui Torres|titolo=Rui Torres – Unlocking the Secret Garden: Electronic Literature from Portugal|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKSo0iqdvPk|accesso=2019-05-24|data=2016-05-04|editore=Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley|lingua=en}}</ref> that algorithmic outputs have no literary value.
According to [[Philip Galanter|Galanter]], the oft-discussed question “[[Arte|What is art?]]” in [[Storia dell'arte|art history]] does not go unnoticed when conceptualizing a generative art theory. Generative art, Galanter notes, however, additionally faces the question frequently encountered within [[Artificial Intelligence|artificial intelligence]]: “Can it be claimed that a computer can and will express itself? Alternatively, when the computer determines forms not anticipated by the artist, does its creation still qualify as the artist’s expression?”<ref name=":3">{{Cita libro|autore=Philip Galanter|curatore=Christiane Paul|titolo=A Companion to Digital Art|edizione=1|anno=2016|editore=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.|lingua=en|pp=169-171|capitolo=Generative Art Theory}}</ref>
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Chamberlain, ''The Policeman’s Beard is Half Constructed'', Introduction (no pagination).
== References ==
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] For literature on computers representing extensions of selfhood, refer to Sherry Turkle’s writings on the second self.
<references />
== Bibliography ==
=== Nick Montfort's ''#!'' ===
More recent examples of generative literature include Nick Montfort’s book of computational poems, entitled ''#!'' (2014) but pronounced ‘she-bang,’ which, from the dictionary, means “the set of all circumstances.” Published thirty years after Racter and Kurzweil’s Cybernetic Poet, ''#!'' contains poems written by algorithms and the algorithms that generated the poems. The book is divided into sections; each section begins with the algorithm, followed by its output on the subsequent pages. Some of the outputs end with ellipses to signify that they could not be printed due to their infinite length. ''#!'' is also ambiguous in its intended readership, as its title, for example, is a valid Python command; the placement of a hashtag before any given text commands the computer not to read any text following the hashtag. In this interpretation, “#!” conveys surprise — a reaction that summarizes the general sentiment when attempting to read or make sense of this book.
* Aarseth, Espen J. ''Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature''. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
In a review of Montfort’s ''#!'', Cayley writes that even though the programs are meant to read by the program producing the output, but the inclusion of both program and output in ''#!'' makes the code “a (constitutive) facet of the poem. It is (also) the text.”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]] In this way, both the code and its output become the text — but only if they are considered as such in relation to each other. The effect of sharing the source code, according to Galanter, not only further creates confusion as to whether the source code is the text but also allows other artists to create variations of the output, which “breaks with the paradigm of the heroic single artist creating a ‘fixed’ masterpiece.”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]]
* Aquilina, Mario. “Text Generation, or Calling Literature into Question.” ''electronic book review'', August 6, 2017. http://electronicbookreview.com/essay/text-generation-or-calling-literature-into-question/.
* Cayley, John. “Beyond the Codexspace: Potentialities of Literary Cybertext.” ''Visible Language'' 30:2, 1996. 164-183.
* Funkhouser, Chris T. ''Prehistoric Digital Poetry: An Archaeology of Forms, 1959–''1995. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007.
* Funkhouser, Chris T. ''New Directions in Digital Poetry''. Edited by Francisco J. Ricardo. Vol. 1. International Texts in Critical Media Aesthetics. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2012.
* Gendolla, Peter, and Jörgen Schäfer, eds. ''The Aesthetics of Net Literature: Writing, Reading and Playing in the Programmable Media''. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2007.
* Hayles, Katherine. ''Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary''. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
* Hayles, Katherine. “The Time of Digital Poetry: From Object to Event.” Edited by Adelaide Morris and Thomas Swiss. In ''New Media Poetics: Contexts, Technotexts, and Theories''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
* McCormack, Jon, and Alan Dorin. “Art, Emergence, and the Computational Sublime.” Second Iteration, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Generative Systems in the Electronic Arts, Victoria, Australia, 5-7 December 2001.
* McCormack, Jon and Mark d’Inverno. “Computers and Creativity: The Road Ahead.” ''Computers and Creativity'', edited by Jon McCormack and Mark d’Inverno, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 421-424.
* McCormack, Jon, Oliver Brown, Alan Dorin, Jonathan McCabe, Gordon Monro, and Mitchel Whitelaw. “Ten Questions Concerning Generative Computer Art.” ''Leonardo'' 47, no. 2 (March 20, 2014): 135-141.
* Nake, Frieder. “Construction and Intuition: Creativity in Early Computer Art.” ''Computers and Creativity'', edited by Jon McCormack and Mark d’Inverno, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 61-94.
* Simanowski, Roberto. “What Is and Toward What End Do We Read Digital Literature?” Edited by Francisco J. Riccardo. In ''Literary Art in Digital Performance: Case Studies in New Media Art and Criticism'', 10-16. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009.
* Simanowski, Roberto. ''Digital Art and Meaning: Reading Kinetic Poetry, Text Machines, Mapping Art, and Interactive Installations''. Vol. 35. Electronic Mediations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2011.
== See also ==
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ibid.
*[[Letteratura elettronica|Electronic literature]]
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Galanter (2016), 171.
*[[Poesia elettronica|Digital poetry]]
*[[Arte generativa|Generative art]]
*[[Hypermedia]]
*[[OuLiPo|Oulipo]]
== ComputationalExternal sublimeLinks ==
The “computational sublime” addresses this fascination voiced by generative art critics and generative artists respectively, that code could be programmed to produce writing that may have discernable meaning and make sense. Termed by digital poets and critics Jon McCormack and Alan Dorin in 2009, the computational sublime borrows from the notion of sublime established in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: the fear of being unable to experience or quantify the totality of all that exists to be experienced in the world while also feeling overwhelmed (but potentially in a pleasurable way) while acknowledging this fact. Per the authors’ formulation, the computational sublime is:
the instilling of simultaneous feelings of pleasure and fear in the viewer of a process realized in a computing machine. A duality in that even though we cannot comprehend the process directly, we can experience it through the machine — hence we are forced to relinquish control. It is possible to realize processes of this kind in the computer due to the speed and scale of its internal mechanism, and because its operations occur at a rate and in a space vastly different to the realm of our direct perceptual experience.[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]]
The feeling of dual pleasure and fear that programs can produce text that, from a human perspective, could pass as human-authored is exacerbated by an awareness of a computing machine potentially becoming or, at least, approaching the status of a creative equal to humans. Furthermore, the loss of control allows humans to experience the work through the machine and through an understanding of the machine’s computational abilities rather than engaging with the output directly. The feeling of being overwhelmed by the recognition that machine operations “occur at a rate and in space vastly different to the realm of our direct perceptual experience” draws a concern echoed by generative and computer art critics, namely the possibility that computer programs, generating surprising and unexpected output, could either amount to or supersede the human capacity for literary production.
McCormack and Dorin’s computational sublime echoes generative artist Marius Watz’s notion of “genuine surprise,” defined as “a temporary loss of subjectivity, as a relinquishment of one’s subjective intention, either to another’s control or to objective forces beyond one’s control.”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]] According to Watz, the experience of surprise is key to generative art, and one way of aesthetically judging generative art might depend on the work’s ability to induce surprise. It is, however, arguably anxiety-inducing when program-generated outputs and human-authored literature cannot be confidently differentiated, as such was experienced in new media artists Daniel C. Howe and Braxton Soderman’s undergraduate digital writing workshops at Brown University from 2007 to 2008. Having discussed Watz’s genuine surprise with their students, who created and analyzed generative literature, Howe and Soderman reported that program-generated texts often prompted students’ anxieties about the texts’ meaning and authorship, supported by their fear that the computer might even have an “individuality.” As the article will later discuss, the problem of authorship is always central to debates regarding generative literature, providing interesting perspectives on questions of authorship that have been central to criticisms of existing literary forms.
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] McCormack and Dorin, 78.
[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Howe and Soderman, “The Aesthetics of Generative Literature: Lessons from a Digital Writing Workshop.”
== References ==
<references />
* Jean-Pierre Balpe, [https://fiction.maisonpop.fr/ Fictions]
== Further reading ==
*Jean-Pierre Balpe, [http://nt2.uqam.ca/fr/repertoire/trajectoires Trajectoires]
<br />
*Raymond Kurzweil, [http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php The Cybernetic Poet]
*Nick Montfort, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L19iQjE71Ws #!]
{{Portale|arte|letteratura|informatica}}
<!--
[[Categoria:Algoritmi]]
[[Categoria:Arte digitale]]
[[Categoria:Computer]]
[[Categoria:Elettronica digitale]]
[[Categoria:Intelligenza artificiale]]
[[Categoria:Generi letterari]]
[[Categoria:Letteratura]]
[[Categoria:Poesia]]
[[Categoria:XX secolo]]
[[Categoria:XXI secolo]]
-->
|
