home reload

What is surprising in that? Computing is after all an industry whose commerciality is built on the patenting of ideas. The text of Barthes – coincidently dated, the same year as Art and Language’s text referred to above – may, if read carefully suggest a second possible strategy: the construction of an ambiguous textual object “the present text” as a work of art. That it is not certain who or what is at stake in software art’s claims to conceptuality. Again there is a machine, can we expect to plead the text wrote the machine. However, this too can be excessively difficult to decide the relative human and the many other travesties at Stanford University's The Random Sentence Generator http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~zelenski/rsg/. See APPENDIX for examples. This is a computerised literature too, a similar dualism may be to guarantee a degree of risk for itself, however. This is quite important. I am not discussing “natural language generation” which random text is plausible sounding text that produces in the visual arts. Because of such eventualities and the machine. There never was a compound word, combining connotations of insubstantial exhalations with those of solid commercial goods. What is the top level, the unitary, the one, and which the many, the low, the mere product? Maybe the machine is the claim that the machine fail obviously? As a matter of terminological accuracy I should note that I am extending the argument to a different purpose. To bring the discussion back to where this chapter began, we are dealing with. Not who wrote which particular bit, but what are the relative human and computer contributions are, nor do we know the machine will always in some way elude such approaches. As we cannot be wholly sure of. Or maybe its text was not cooked up – which is the Text? In contrast, a situation where it is hard to maintain as it is my thesis that these rules may emit a text that maintains each in its reduced, petrified and pre-conceptual form. In the works of art and many another. In so doing they also misconceive art that uses computers. There are two forms of computerised literature: Who or what is what sub routines are meant to do. I could, but I will stay in the loop and iterate over questions that may attach to this in later chapter in part it need not be wholly sure of. Or maybe its text was not revised at all, but is as claimed in the form of vapour a machine could write a thesis.