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

Versione delle 21:53, 2 giu 2019

Versione delle 22:00, 2 giu 2019

Riga 9:

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 [[Linguaggio di programmazione|programming languages]] with [[Lingua naturale|natural languages]] to produce literature, is a literary treatment of data. Using programming languages like natural languages by giving them [[Sintassi|syntactical]] and [[Semantica|semantic]] meanings produces a [[Poesia concreta|concrete poem]]-esque effect when juxtaposed together in the same context. Published anonymously in the [[Forum (Internet)|networked discussion system]] [[Usenet]], “Black“[[Black Perl”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 [[:en:Constrained_writing|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 [[Letteratura sperimentale|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.”