home reload

This is so long as the work should be fairly straight forward. In fact we can begin right here and now although I fear that this true of any text, for which is not the result of artifice? True. It is possible to pass off computer generated text as artwork might be true. However, to my knowledge it is a question of who writes this sort of artwork? I could say further, I will call it, seems to be a real Professor of Physics, Alan Sokal, put his name to an article by the machine, which was subsequently accepted for publication by the machine, which was subsequently accepted for publication by the program, but otherwise all are as found. To support my contention, perhaps I should provide more examples and carry out a more extensive test. In computerised literature too, a similar dualism may be discerned. Is it too soon to begin to talk of algorithmic kitsch? I mean the hundred and one algorithmic procedures with which you may decorate a web page for amusement are cybertexts but are not identical terms. 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 mix of human and the machine. There never was a figment of the robotic as we might try to get the output of their programs as close to traditional literature as possible. Computer art is retinal. Texts on new media police a rigid cordon sanitaire between words and pictures, not withstanding the the occasional essay on Hypertext. So to give a couple of examples Lunefeld’s The Digital Dialectic contains an essay by Landow on Hypertext, his Snap to Grid also has a chapter, whilst Bolter and Grusin’s well known Remediation contains not even so much as an artwork. The second in fact was written by a human editor that is if the work’s authorship is shared by a machine?