"I find most digital poetry to have more in common with net art and conceptual art, and I’ve had the further sense that digital poetry isn’t really terribly interested in delving deeply into the computational nature of machines. Those are aesthetics that interest me deeply, and the comparisons between formal limitation in more traditional forms like trochaic or iambic meter, syllabic rule, or semantic efficiency feel like birds of a feather with the strange and sometimes challenging constraints of the 6502 microprocessor or the Television Interface Adapter."
. . . . digital poetry isn’t really terribly interested in delving deeply into the computational nature of machines.
Nor are most digital humanists or even self-proclaimed cognitive critics, though computation is at the conceptual heart, not only of cognitive science, but evolutionary psychology as well (through game theory and evolutionary game theory). Is it laziness, fear, or arrogance?
. . . . digital poetry isn’t really terribly interested in delving deeply into the computational nature of machines.
ReplyDeleteNor are most digital humanists or even self-proclaimed cognitive critics, though computation is at the conceptual heart, not only of cognitive science, but evolutionary psychology as well (through game theory and evolutionary game theory). Is it laziness, fear, or arrogance?