Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 11:04, 24 mag 2019

Versione delle 11:11, 24 mag 2019

Riga 1:

'''Generative literature''' refers to [[Letteratura|literature]] that is completely or partially generated by an autonomous system, such as a computer program that algorithmically produces generated literary texts. Closely linked to the field of generative art, generative literature is often seen as a subset of generative art, as both artistic forms rely on an autonomous system, recognized as a non-human entity that produces the literary text independently from the human author.

<br />

== History ==

Generative art increasing popularity was due, in part, to the new computational and algorithmic 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.[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]] 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.[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]]  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.”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn3|[3]]] 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”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn4|[4]]] 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.

Riga 26 ⟶ 27:

Balpe’s citation of surrealism as an influence draws comparison of how both styles involve the withdrawal of a conscious human in the writing process.  Surrealism’s contention with authorship derives from the conscious abandonment of logic and reason to allow the subconscious to potentially uncover some degree of truth when least expected.  In generative literature, the human author cedes creative control to allow the program to generate output, similar to how the surrealist willingly retreats from a state of consciousness to relegate creative control to the subconscious. The difference, however, between these two forms is that while surrealists were actively seeking to be surprised by their subconscious when they ceded conscious control, surprise has been interpreted as a source of both positive and negative fascination amongst generative art critics.

=== Codework Poetrypoetry ===

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) exemplifies codework poetry.  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.  Run on a computer, the poem compiles without producing output (which means that this codework poem is not generative) but when read by humans in English, the “output” may vary: 

Riga 43 ⟶ 44:

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Galanter, “Generative Art Theory,” 169.

== Examples of Generativegenerative Literatureliterature ==

=== Raymond Kurzweil's "Cybernetic Poet" ===

Riga 80 ⟶ 81:

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Galanter (2016), 171.

== Computational Sublimesublime ==

== The Problem of Analysis ==

The problem of analyzing generative literature is two-fold.  The first element is the surprise elicited when source codes produce outputs that do not follow the commands as expected, and the second is the confusion in determining whether the text is in the source code, its output, or even both.  In addressing the second form of the problem of analysis, critics have often voiced uncertainty regarding the roles of non-textual elements as literature.  The confusion of locating the text is often the central contention amongst new media scholars, as echoed by digital poet and theorist John Cayley, whose earlier essay, entitled “The code is not the text (unless it is the text),” summarizes his stance on the topic, especially when asking, “Does language exist if it cannot be humanly read?”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]]  Galanter compares this contention to a problem already encountered in conceptual art, using the example of conceptual artist Sol LeWitt’s wall drawings.  Produced from 1969 to 2007 by other artists following his directions, the wall drawings feature differing interpretations of LeWitt’s instructions prompted critical responses that questioned whether the art was the wall drawings done by others, the paper containing LeWitt’s instructions, the instructions themselves, or a combination of all three.

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Cayley, “Poetry and Stuff: A Review of ''#!''”

== Computational Sublime ==

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: