Hi Billy,
of course language is the material for writing and the writing of poetry,
but language is context responsive too.
Writing given as an improvised talk (say Fiona Templeton or David Antin or
Steve Benson or myself even) is very different when witnessed 'live' to if
viewed as indirect testimony on video.
Writing which is made specifically for spatial sonic projection, with
architectural placement in respect of points of listening an important part
of the mobilisation of the syntax of the work, will probably not be well
served on a single earpiece stuck into the socket of a dictaphone.
Writing that is made using Flash or Shockwave plug-ins on the web, layers
revealed only when the mouse passes over for example, is not meant for the
page. (It might recontextualise but not necessarily and possibly not well -
although a verision might be produced that is of interest)
Writing which is made for the page will not necessarily look interesting on
these screens (as we know, sometimes to our cost and frustration).
Writing is context specific. Increasingly so. This doesn't mean that it will
not or cannot be recontextualized and even improved in that moment. It
doesn't translate into that byte grab from McLuham 'the medium is the
message', although he was onto something of continuing interest. It does
suggest that the specificities of new media (I mean the application of
digital as distinct from analogue tools for creative transformations and
distributions and interaction and suchlike - mediated arenas) will be
integral to the writing,
and be so to a sufficient extent that writing cannot be translated from one
platform or medium to another without being reworked. That's why versioning
is more of what we have now than finished product.
Does that make sense to you? I don't mean do you like it or agree with it,
but does it go someway to answering your query?
love and love
cris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|