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

Versione delle 22:00, 2 giu 2019

Versione delle 22:26, 2 giu 2019

Riga 5:

=== Jean-Pierre Balpe and surrealism ===

[[File:Jean-Pierre Balpe.jpg|miniatura|Jean-Pierre Balpe in 2000.]]

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

Riga 14 ⟶ 15:

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 Perl]]” (1990) serves as an example of a codework poem. Written in the programming language [[Perl]] (“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.  [[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 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“[[Arte|What is art?]]” within art theory does not go unnoticed when formulatingconceptualizing a generative art theory.  If art is to be understood as a product of expression, then generativeGenerative art, Galanter notes, faces another obstacle, namely, the frequently encountered question within [[Artificial Intelligence|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 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|ppp=169-171|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 “[http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php CyberArt Technologies],” Kurzweil introduces the Cybernetic Poet’s functionalities in greater detail:

"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>

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.”<ref name=":1" /> 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. 

=== William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter's "Racter" ===

{{Citazione|Slide and tumble and fall among/

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 generates text from a database containing 2,400 words, matching nouns with contextually appropriate 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> 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 “[[Dadaismo|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.”<ref name=":2" />

The dead. Here and there/

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-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. Racter generates text from a database containing 2,400 words, matching nouns with contextually appropriate 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> 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 “[[Dadaismo|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.”<ref name=":2" />

PrefacingIn the bookpreface, 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<ref>{{Cita Tuan/Generativelibro|autore=William Literature#%20ftn1Chamberlain|[1]]] titolo=The Chamberlain’spoliceman's descriptionbeard ofis Racterhalf parallelsconstructed Kurzweil’s: Cyberneticcomputer Poetprose in the sense that the goal of bothand poetry generators is to make creative choices that a human might make.  This commonality betweenby Racter and; [the Cyberneticfirst Poetbook notever onlywritten revealsby thea utopiancomputer appeal; ofa computersbizarre thatand somefantastic peoplejourney held duringinto the late twentieth century, but also reveals the hope that people had for computers to be their friendly, helpful companions rather than representative extensionsmind of themselvesa that may threaten the role of humans in the creation of humanity, as now discussed in many posthumanist discourses of the twentymachine]|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/311319022|accesso=2019-first06-02|data=1984|editore=Warner century.[[Utente:Lydia TuanBooks|lingua=en|OCLC=311319022|ISBN=0446380512}}</Generativeref> Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]] 

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Chamberlain, ''The Policeman’s Beard is Half Constructed'', Introduction (no pagination).

[[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.

=== Nick Montfort's ''#!'' ===

More recent examples of generative literature include [[Nick Montfort’sMontfort]]’s book of computational poems, entitled ''#!'' (2014) but pronounced ‘she‘[[Shabang|sha-bang,]]’ (which, from the dictionary, means “the set of all circumstances.”) Published thirty years after Racter and Kurzweil’s Cybernetic Poet, ''#!'' contains generated poems written by algorithms and thetheir [[Algoritmo|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.  ''#!''<nowiki/>'s title 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.

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]]]  

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ibid.

In a review of Montfort’s ''#!'', [[Critica letteraria|literary critic]] [[John 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<ref>{{Cita web|url=https:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1/electronicbookreview.com/essay/poetry-and-stuff-a-review-of/|[1]]]  In this way, both the codetitolo=Poetry and itsStuff: outputA becomeReview theof text#!|autore=John — but only if they are considered as such in relation to each otherCayley|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>  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<ref name=":Lydia3" Tuan/Generative> Literature#%20ftn2|[2]]]  

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

== References ==

<references />