When does a word become more than just a word? When it is put into a sentence? And once it’s put into a sentence does the writer of that sentence then own it? What if the sentence has been written before? Would the re-writing of a very commonly used sentence such as “I sat down” be plagerism because it has been written before? Or, is it ok to copy some sentences and not others? When is plagerism not plagerism anymore?
Florian Cramer has a lot to say a out these questions is his book Words Made Flesh. Cramer discusses the issues of language ownership, and the question of whether or not computer generated art is a valid form. Cramer talks about the Dadaist movement and it’s relationship to the question of ownership. According to Tristan Tzara, all one has to do to create a poem is to cut out words from somebody elses article, put them into a hat, and write dowm every word in order as they are drawn out of the hat. Once this is done, according to Tzara, “there you are—an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.”
Italo Calvino began the movement toward machine generated literature. He determined that literature is simply “a combination game,” Poetry can be derived from combining and rearranging words.
Oulipo came along and moved the boundries of poetry even further. Oulipo is a group that creates poetry and literature by using rules and restraints. For example, an entire novel must be written without the use of the letter “E.”
Overall, I thought the reading was very interesting and brought up some very good questions. I really liked the idea that “software controls its users yet it sells the illusion that the user is fully in charge.” I think that’s very true, but an easy thing to forget. Computers seem like these magical tools that conform to our needs, but we’re conforming to the needs of the program we’re using. I was also very interested in McLuhan’s discussion on machine generated art: “the technology itself bears the meaning instead of being its neutral purveyor.” It’s an interesting statement, and brings up many question on what exactly the limits of art are.