Comments on: Reading Processes: Perloff’s Radical Artifice http://grandtextauto.org/2005/07/15/reading-processes-perloffs-radical-artifice/ A group blog about computer narrative, games, poetry, and art. Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:43:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: noah http://grandtextauto.org/2005/07/15/reading-processes-perloffs-radical-artifice/comment-page-1/#comment-67074 noah Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:47:06 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/?p=868#comment-67074 Mark, I think I generally agree with you about when process succeeds, but I'd put it in different terms. Of course, I think the final measure of any work has to be the work as a whole, not one isolated element. A process that sounds good in isolation, but doesn't contribute to a successful whole, can be an interesting experiment -- but that's all. Perhaps it'll be an experiment that, like an innovative use of language or an innovative stanza form, will find its way into successful works via someone other than its originator. Frankly, most work in story generation strikes me as this sort of experimentation. It's interesting innovation on the process level, but the data being employed is such (that is to say, so bad) that it will never produce a successful complete work. But the process innovations that come from these experiments may one day be employed in much more interesting artworks. More of this sort of thinking appears toward the end of my post from this morning on <a href="http://grandtextauto.org/2005/07/21/reading-processes-hartmans-virtual-muse/ " rel="nofollow">Hartman's <i>Virtual Muse.</i></a> Mark, I think I generally agree with you about when process succeeds, but I’d put it in different terms. Of course, I think the final measure of any work has to be the work as a whole, not one isolated element. A process that sounds good in isolation, but doesn’t contribute to a successful whole, can be an interesting experiment — but that’s all. Perhaps it’ll be an experiment that, like an innovative use of language or an innovative stanza form, will find its way into successful works via someone other than its originator. Frankly, most work in story generation strikes me as this sort of experimentation. It’s interesting innovation on the process level, but the data being employed is such (that is to say, so bad) that it will never produce a successful complete work. But the process innovations that come from these experiments may one day be employed in much more interesting artworks. More of this sort of thinking appears toward the end of my post from this morning on Hartman’s Virtual Muse.

]]> By: mark http://grandtextauto.org/2005/07/15/reading-processes-perloffs-radical-artifice/comment-page-1/#comment-67020 mark Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:16:56 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/?p=868#comment-67020 An interesting issue I don't really have a good answer for is where to draw the line between process as an interesting part of an artwork (whether music or poetry or whatever), and as merely a <i>gimmick</i> to lend some backstory to an otherwise uninteresting work. For me personally, I tend to judge this based on whether I find the resultant work itself somehow interesting or inspiring---but of course, I typically view the resultant work with the knowledge of how it was produced, which may influence my judgment. Still, even if an interesting backstory gives it an initial boost and makes me inclined to give the work the benefit of the doubt, the end result can't be utter crap. Perhaps the clearest example to me of a gimmicky process is the album <i>Nymphomatriarch</i>, a collaboration between Venetian Snares and Hecate (both vaguely well-known experimental electronic musicians). All sounds on the album are taken from recordings of the two artists having sex, which are then sampled, distorted, arranged, and combined to form electronic music. The end result isn't particularly interesting though---it's a mixture of samples distorted to the point where they sound like a drum machine or beep or something, and samples that are still recognizable. The same effect could've been achieved much more simply just by using an <i>actual</i> drum machine and beeps, and using some sex samples for the recognizable parts. So the end result, IMO, isn't particularly interesting---the idea was intriguing enough to give it a listen, but the final judgment is "just a gimmick". NON (Boyd Rice), on the other hand, I think strikes the right balance between process and the actual output of the processes, although someone with a low tolerance for noise in their music might disagree. I'd probably commit some sort of blasphemy if I were to confess that I find most of John Cage's stuff to fall into the "gimmicky" category of <i>Nymphomatriarch</i>---interesting ideas that failed to produce interesting music. An interesting issue I don’t really have a good answer for is where to draw the line between process as an interesting part of an artwork (whether music or poetry or whatever), and as merely a gimmick to lend some backstory to an otherwise uninteresting work. For me personally, I tend to judge this based on whether I find the resultant work itself somehow interesting or inspiring—but of course, I typically view the resultant work with the knowledge of how it was produced, which may influence my judgment. Still, even if an interesting backstory gives it an initial boost and makes me inclined to give the work the benefit of the doubt, the end result can’t be utter crap.

Perhaps the clearest example to me of a gimmicky process is the album Nymphomatriarch, a collaboration between Venetian Snares and Hecate (both vaguely well-known experimental electronic musicians). All sounds on the album are taken from recordings of the two artists having sex, which are then sampled, distorted, arranged, and combined to form electronic music. The end result isn’t particularly interesting though—it’s a mixture of samples distorted to the point where they sound like a drum machine or beep or something, and samples that are still recognizable. The same effect could’ve been achieved much more simply just by using an actual drum machine and beeps, and using some sex samples for the recognizable parts. So the end result, IMO, isn’t particularly interesting—the idea was intriguing enough to give it a listen, but the final judgment is “just a gimmick”.

NON (Boyd Rice), on the other hand, I think strikes the right balance between process and the actual output of the processes, although someone with a low tolerance for noise in their music might disagree.

I’d probably commit some sort of blasphemy if I were to confess that I find most of John Cage’s stuff to fall into the “gimmicky” category of Nymphomatriarch—interesting ideas that failed to produce interesting music.

]]> By: noah http://grandtextauto.org/2005/07/15/reading-processes-perloffs-radical-artifice/comment-page-1/#comment-66820 noah Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:20:04 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/?p=868#comment-66820 Raph -- Good idea. I need to look around for some work that tries to interpret Antin's processes. Also, on an unrelated note, did you get an email from me a couple weeks ago? I tried sending it to the email address you give the form when you comment here, which I realize may be a decoy... Raph — Good idea. I need to look around for some work that tries to interpret Antin’s processes. Also, on an unrelated note, did you get an email from me a couple weeks ago? I tried sending it to the email address you give the form when you comment here, which I realize may be a decoy…

]]> By: Raph http://grandtextauto.org/2005/07/15/reading-processes-perloffs-radical-artifice/comment-page-1/#comment-66530 Raph Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:09:05 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/?p=868#comment-66530 Maybe look into some of David Antin's talk poems? My recollection is that several of them were very process-driven. Maybe look into some of David Antin’s talk poems? My recollection is that several of them were very process-driven.

]]>