History for CodeworkWorkshopDay2

added:

From center Wed Apr 9 16:53:21 -0400 2008
From: center
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:53:21 -0400
Subject: Con.Kludging Remarks by way of Introduction - Talan Memmott
Message-ID: <20080409165321-0400@clc.as.wvu.edu:8080>

var Introduction=new Array();
Introduction[0] = "I'd like to begin this talk by introducing a few keywords, keywords that have been uttered or have remained utterly unspoken over the duration of this workshop. Much of the workshop has been spent establishing taxonomies, ontologies, even cosmologies that tie text to code, writing to code, writing code to writing text, the textualization or literarification of code to the encoding, decoding, recoding of text as code.  That being said, there are however"

Introduction[1] = "I'd like to begin my talk today by offering some concluding remarks. This statement sounds a bit odd – this being the introduction to a conclusion which is in fact, or has already been an occlusion of the statement. The marks are remarked but shifting, resisting their own overcoding or centralization by remaining hopelessly off-topic.  Let me shift gears a moment. This in fact not what I wanted to say at all…  I'd like to begin my talk by"

Introduction[2] = "I'd like to begin my talk today by addressing a few key concepts, keywords perhaps but surely not skeletonkeywords. Much of the program of this workshop has locked as many doors as it has opened. Over the past few days we have been exposed to taxonomies, ontologies, even cosmologies that both bind code and text and free code from text, from the process of writing (vice versa).  In three months time the terms and concepts introduced today will have been punctured or subsumed by the new, by the next … remediated by the immediate next. The nomad has already left the building. Upgraded, the device, the soon to be ghostly device will be"

Introduction[3] = "I'd like to begin my response by offering an apology. The response will not so much be a response as a pouncing, a self-serving talk or paper. In this regard it is a virus, or could be … will be … or at least viral, but very short lived.  Perhaps word will spread. What I would really like to address, or undress as it were, are a number of concepts that have been on my mind. But, in the time allotted the undressing can only be, will only be a kludge of ideas. Presenting an original talk when a response is what has been requested is perhaps a fatal error"

Introduction[4] = "I'd like to begin my talk today by offering a warning. What is new is already not. What is will soon not be. What I am referring to here is not obsolescence per se, but how we consider its effects. The problem of obsolescence is already promised in the technological. I suggest that we consider altering the phrase to read perhaps – the problem of obsolescence is the promise of technology, or the promises of technology are always already obsolete, or technology is the promise of its own problem. To a certain extent this problem/promise is not about obsolescence but the realization of a system of obsoletics.  Offering problem as promise, collapsing problem and promise to produce the next, the continuation of the problem/promise…  I will show"

Introduction[5] = "I'd like to begin my response by saying I am very sorry.  I originally intended to give a glorious presentation filled with rich poetic and critical language, backed by a string quartet and a fully animated PowerPoint presentation.  Due to a rather severe Swedish virus – not on my computer, in my body – and extreme jetlag I am left with a few scratched notes on a couple of sad and simple concepts. Most of what has just been stated is in fact a lie. That being said, with the time allotted for this response I will only be able to kludge together a few comments on some of the keywords of the proceedings. I hope"

Introduction[6] = "I'd like to begin my comments here by referring to a problem that … uh … I see … uh … by a problem that I see … or … I can't read this … uh … turning to … let's see … referring to a problem that … uh … I'll just … uh …is as… uh … I don't know what I am saying here … turning a varied or variable set, recollection or recollation of technical, creative or inventive practices into taxonomic monuments… That's the problem. If we look at the variable and kinetic, invented and individually applied practices of creative cultural practitioners using and misusing, if not abusing technology we do not find neatly packaged classifications of objects or orientation. We find a messy taxonomadic culture, or cultures of one rendered as the applied poetics of any given practitioner. This sort of phenomenon, which is based on a number of factors, resists classification. Examples could be"

Introduction[7] = "I'd like to begin this talk by responding to some of the key concepts introduced during the workshop. First however there are a number of key concepts I would like to introduce now. This being technically the final talk of the workshop, I will present the concepts only as terms, unstable terms, undefined – so to speak… Following the introduction of these new terms I will begin my response by tying each of the new terms to concept introduced during the two days of discussions and position papers. Time permitting"

Introduction[8] = "Narcisystems, inventuality, obsoletics, translucidity, taxonomadism, cadavatar, metastrophe, DIYnamics, narractivity, a.noolectics … These are just a few of the concepts I would like to address in my talk today.  Since this talk is meant to be a response to the Codework Workshop I will try to tie these concepts to concepts introduced in the many position papers. Before I begin however, there is one matter that must be addressed. Though you do not have the end user license agreement in front of you since it is subject to its own internal end user license agreement you must agree to the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of this talk before I will proceed"

Introduction[9] = "I'd like to begin this talk by responding to or presenting my own position on issues of techno-hegemony, especially how it relates to my own presentation and the technologies at use. First, let me shut down my computer.  Rose Art is a corporation.  Though their dry eraser markers are proprietary, and will allow me to inscribe, to encode this talk regrettably there is no open source community for dry erase markers … nor is there for white boards. I have attempted to decode the chemical components of the dry erase marker so as to recode my own and was planning on doing this today but there will not be time. So, let me continue"

Introduction[10] = "I'd like to begin my response to the previous proceedings by proceeding forward on a tangent, a stray thread perhaps, to produce an opening, to follow a path not-yet-a-path by linking what has and has not been covered here … what is yet to be discovered, discovered by what has been covered and has not been covered here. Let me first touch upon a couple of points that have been addressed both thoroughly and with some nonchalance. 1) conductivity is more significant than connectivity. 2) poetics trumps poetry. Both of these points are probably old news to anyone familiar with my own work. That being said"

Introduction[11] = "I'd like to begin my talk today by asking a question.  Who writes code anymore?  You don't need to answer this question. I hope you won't, for the moment. I am of course addressing this question to digital poets more than software engineers…   I suppose it is a matter of what you want to call code, what you want to call script, what you want to call text. At some level, for creative practitioners who are for the most part consumers of production software scripting, which is still programming, plays a more significant role than code in creative practice. It could be said that what is being produced out of this scripting, and use and misuse of production software is not software at all, but – to introduce another term – plushware. There is evidence"

Unfortunately, I've spent so much time on the introduction I won't be able to present the paper I intended to deliver.  So, we'll just rip that up and move on to the figures and illustrations…