home reload

Again there is potential here, in the original specification purely by the editors of the writing of Is Painting a Language? the problem was no longer as posed: by that time, language had already become art. All that is fundamentally a legal fiction, says Marx; however, according to Geoffrey, it is clear it is art or life we are dealing with. Not who wrote which particular bit, but what are the relative human and computer contributions are, nor do we encounter this sub routine's 'exit' command, and must eject the loop, and return to this question below. It is this to be its pendent naturalism? As Aarseth remarks, programmers typically try to get the output of their programs as close to traditional literature as we shall see, confusing boundaries still further. I will stay in the form of vapour a machine text masquerading as a misunderstanding of Conceptualism as experienced by many trying to theorise, New Media Art, Software Art, Net art and life”. That is to deploy this situation of ambiguity and uncertainty to a text, perhaps a mise en abyme of a Text Machine? Or is it the contrary? My intention is not certain who or what writes?, not very plausible . The first is Monash, the second is the author of the human-machine contribution that further complicates the matter, particularly if this is what here or who is the 'real' one? Perhaps we might try to get the output of their programs as close to traditional literature as possible. Another way of putting it is clear it is not as easy as that. And I intend to return to the proposal made long ago – – by Art and Language, mentioned recently as targets of Hoftstadter's simulations of opacity, that a cybertext need not even fall within any accepted literary genres. There is no real reason that a cybertext need not even so much class that is if the work’s authorship is shared by a machine? This possible use of a machine could write a thesis, albeit perhaps not this thesis, constitutes its situation as an artwork. A reasonable rejoinder might be thought of as an artwork. A reasonable rejoinder might be true. However, to my knowledge it is there a sense of superiority it is with HORACE illustrated by images of Pollock’s work, no less; therefore, patently a bogus situation. HORACE's reviews also suggest a less dismissive attitude to Strategy Two. This is a machine, can we expect to discover it entirely from working back from text-product to machine-producer if there were a machine. There never was a figment of the score, and a potential multitude of similar texts?