Difference between revisions of "Conversation"
(Created page with "In his essay “Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," Christopher Funkhouser argues that "Digital poetry i...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In his essay “Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," Christopher Funkhouser argues that "Digital poetry is not a fixed object; its circuitry perpetuates a '''conversation'''." He goes on to explain that, "Poetry is a socially constructed art form, always situated within other texts (not limited only to poems) and extended by readers. Meaning and significance are not completely dependent on the verbal material itself; they are formed in the mind of the reader, who synthesizes various tiers of influence (inputs) and, potentially, extends them (outputs)." Still, Funkhouser's description begs the question: a conversation with whom? Funkhouser’s analysis supports the idea that poetry creates a personal, subjective experience; electronic poetry is particularly so, with interactive components encouraging an intimate relationship between the reader and the content. With electronic literature so oriented around the individual reader, however, I wonder if there’s a point at which the art becomes too insular. Conversation and dialogue require outward engagement. Although Funkhouser contends that electronic poetry achieves collaboration by “building a widely conceived philosophy of text,” it’s unclear how this actually establishes an interaction with others, rather than creating a disjointed amalgamation of singular, detached viewpoints. | + | In his essay “Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," Christopher Funkhouser argues that "Digital poetry is not a fixed object; its circuitry perpetuates a '''conversation'''." He goes on to explain that, "Poetry is a socially constructed art form, always situated within other texts (not limited only to poems) and extended by readers. [[Meaning]]and significance are not completely dependent on the verbal material itself; they are formed in the mind of the reader, who synthesizes various tiers of influence (inputs) and, potentially, extends them (outputs)." Still, Funkhouser's description begs the question: a conversation with whom? Funkhouser’s analysis supports the idea that poetry creates a personal, subjective experience; electronic poetry is particularly so, with interactive components encouraging an intimate relationship between the reader and the content. With electronic literature so oriented around the individual reader, however, I wonder if there’s a point at which the art becomes too insular. Conversation and dialogue require outward engagement. Although Funkhouser contends that electronic poetry achieves collaboration by “building a widely conceived philosophy of text,” it’s unclear how this actually establishes an interaction with others, rather than creating a disjointed amalgamation of singular, detached viewpoints. |
Representation is utterly important and the fact that digital poetry allows for greater representation is one of its strongest features, in my opinion. Still, representation is empowered by intercommunication when it comes to addressing social concerns. I loved the Young Hae Chang piece that was shown in class for this very reason. Because the kinetic form emphasized different perspectives and forced the audience to confront multiple viewpoints, it encouraged greater understanding and contemplation. Even though there is beauty in the responsive freedom that digital poetry affords the individual, it’s also interesting to consider how such a form might also have the capacity to initiate purposeful conversations amongst its greater audience. | Representation is utterly important and the fact that digital poetry allows for greater representation is one of its strongest features, in my opinion. Still, representation is empowered by intercommunication when it comes to addressing social concerns. I loved the Young Hae Chang piece that was shown in class for this very reason. Because the kinetic form emphasized different perspectives and forced the audience to confront multiple viewpoints, it encouraged greater understanding and contemplation. Even though there is beauty in the responsive freedom that digital poetry affords the individual, it’s also interesting to consider how such a form might also have the capacity to initiate purposeful conversations amongst its greater audience. | ||
Revision as of 22:05, 9 October 2017
In his essay “Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," Christopher Funkhouser argues that "Digital poetry is not a fixed object; its circuitry perpetuates a conversation." He goes on to explain that, "Poetry is a socially constructed art form, always situated within other texts (not limited only to poems) and extended by readers. Meaningand significance are not completely dependent on the verbal material itself; they are formed in the mind of the reader, who synthesizes various tiers of influence (inputs) and, potentially, extends them (outputs)." Still, Funkhouser's description begs the question: a conversation with whom? Funkhouser’s analysis supports the idea that poetry creates a personal, subjective experience; electronic poetry is particularly so, with interactive components encouraging an intimate relationship between the reader and the content. With electronic literature so oriented around the individual reader, however, I wonder if there’s a point at which the art becomes too insular. Conversation and dialogue require outward engagement. Although Funkhouser contends that electronic poetry achieves collaboration by “building a widely conceived philosophy of text,” it’s unclear how this actually establishes an interaction with others, rather than creating a disjointed amalgamation of singular, detached viewpoints.
Representation is utterly important and the fact that digital poetry allows for greater representation is one of its strongest features, in my opinion. Still, representation is empowered by intercommunication when it comes to addressing social concerns. I loved the Young Hae Chang piece that was shown in class for this very reason. Because the kinetic form emphasized different perspectives and forced the audience to confront multiple viewpoints, it encouraged greater understanding and contemplation. Even though there is beauty in the responsive freedom that digital poetry affords the individual, it’s also interesting to consider how such a form might also have the capacity to initiate purposeful conversations amongst its greater audience.
