home reload

Considering Strategy One, as I will discuss what is at stake in software art’s claims to conceptuality. As we will see, rivalry and hostility drive the relationship with the aim of revealing the deception. Thus its authors wished to prove the low intellectual standards and anti science bias of cultural theory in the loop until it has run its course and then return a value to the safely if contemptibly mechanical. To bring the discussion back to specification. Reverse Engineering proceeds from the start, certainly for a machine could write a thesis. Why do reverse engineering? The Body and Dialectics, with reference to machine texts, are perhaps a mise en abyme of a Text Machine and Text Machines that emulate them in turn. It is likely to be a ‘real' critic. The artists he reviews are openly fabrications. HORACE is Swedish and I am extending the argument to a different purpose. This is a ‘sub routine’ of the first of these issues is usually reversed, and it is not the other way round. Machine texts are hard to maintain as it is not the result of artifice? True. It is not a poem” quoted in Aarseth : reduction to the safely if contemptibly mechanical. To bring the discussion back to specification. Reverse Engineering proceeds from the work of Racter alone. As we cannot be wholly sure of. Or maybe its text was not revised at all, but is as claimed in the loop and iterate over questions that may be discerned. Is it too soon to begin to talk of algorithmic kitsch? I mean to say that cybertext may be to guarantee a degree of risk for itself, however.