Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature: differenze tra le versioni
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
Nessun oggetto della modifica |
|||
Riga 14:
=== 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 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.”▼
According to generative artist and critic [[Philip Galanter]], the oft-discussed question of “[[Arte|What is art?]]” does not go unnoticed when conceptualizing a generative art theory. Generative art, Galanter notes, faces another obstacle, namely, the frequently encountered question 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>▼
== Examples of generative literature ==
Riga 36 ⟶ 32:
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">{{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>
=== Nick Montfort's ''#!''
More recent 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 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: 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 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> 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.”<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>
▲== Controversy ==
▲
▲According to generative artist and critic [[Philip Galanter]], the oft-discussed question of “[[Arte|What is art?]]” does not go unnoticed when conceptualizing a generative art theory. Generative art, Galanter notes, faces another obstacle, namely, the frequently encountered question 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"
== References ==
<references />
| |||