I'm not dismissing transitive commodity production, a la Duchamp, as art.
Yes, there can be an art to code, and elegance / symmetry in language
as well as in math, but I'm talking more about something beyond "code
as art." We're not speaking about clever databases. Though what
Cayley and Memmott are doing is more like film and music than poetry.
Still, even beyond information in poems, I think there's a lot to be
said for programmer / writers with a much more powerful set of logics,
patterns, and ways to build objects "on the tips of their tongues"
than poets who aren't grappling with machinery with language all the
time.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 23:29 -0800, Catherine Daly wrote:
>> there is so much more and various out there than that
>
> Catherine, sorry, I really must disagree. What you are claiming as so
> much more is transitive commodity production. To this, I can never
> agree, best chris jones
>
--
All best,
Catherine Daly
[log in to unmask]
|