Accidental Collaborators
While writing this analysis of Bjørn Magnhildøen's "Plaintext Performance," I found myself grasping for the appropriate terms. Should I refer to this piece as "e-lit," or as new media art? Should I describe the piece's audience as readers, viewers, or both? Does the piece as it exists online qualify as a performance, or is simply a recording of Magnhildøen's original, "autographic" performance at the Center for Literary Computing in 2006?
These terminology problems address the larger issue of the relationship between people and the technology they use, something "Plaintext Performance" illustrates through its oddly jarring blend of automated movement and interactivity. Are we passive receivers of information, or do we collaborate with the programs we use to create art, scholarly analysis, or videos on our computers? This exercise in granulating e-lit made me reflect on the workflow assignment we completed in the second week of class. I do not have as much control over my own work as I might think.
These terminology problems address the larger issue of the relationship between people and the technology they use, something "Plaintext Performance" illustrates through its oddly jarring blend of automated movement and interactivity. Are we passive receivers of information, or do we collaborate with the programs we use to create art, scholarly analysis, or videos on our computers? This exercise in granulating e-lit made me reflect on the workflow assignment we completed in the second week of class. I do not have as much control over my own work as I might think.
Previous page on path | Commentary, page 5 of 11 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Accidental Collaborators"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...