electronicliteraturereview

Posts Tagged ‘experiment

#ELRFEAT: Entrevista a Joesér Alvarez (2017)

leave a comment »

O ELR – Electronic Literature Review (Revista de Literatura Eletrônica) tem a felicidade de publicar esta entrevista realizada por Maíra Borges Wiese, doutoranda do programa “Materialidades da Literatura“, da Universidade de Coimbra. A entrevista com o multiartista brasileiro Joesér Alvarez inicia a nova série deste blog, a divulgação de entrevistas escritas por outros.  #ELRFEAT

 

Maíra Borges Wiese: Poderia nos contar como chegou a se interessar em criar poemas, no começo do anos 2000, com os recursos multimídia do computador?

 

Joesér Alvarez: Depois de um flerte com alguns poemas concretos e outros visuais, bem como, ao abrirem-se as possibilidades de novas experimentações com animação em flash e vídeo, ou seja, quando os recursos necessários (hardwre & software) começaram a chegar em minhas mãos é que comecei a fazer os primeiro experimentos em poesia digital.

 

Maíra Borges Wiese: O seu manifesto «Escalpoético» (2002) tem um caráter notadamente antropofágico, mas poderíamos dizer também “digital” (por ser algumas das principais características presentes na produção de objetos digitais a remediação, o aproveitamento, a colagem, etc): “interferência e apropriação”/ “ponte entre o tipográfico e o eletrônico”/ “sincronia-diálogo com o estabelecido”/ “o passado presente”/ “autoria contrautoria diautoria transautoria”/ “palimpsesto virtual”/ “take it new!”. Como você vê esse aspecto em suas experimentações digitais?

 

Joesér Alvarez: Principalmente com os olhos. Mas, brincadeiras à parte, a antropofagia, depois de 22 é uma regra sem excessões para quem quer criar algo dentro de uma cultura tão diversificada como a brasileira. O digital é antropófago por sua própria natureza: saber utilizar um sampler talvez, seja o espírito da coisa.

 

Maíra Borges Wiese: Para você, qual o grande diferencial dos recursos digitais na produção de poesia? Em outras palavras, por que criar poemas multimídia, e não os “tradicionais”, impressos? (poderia comentar tomando como referência alguns de seus trabalhos, como “Oraculum” (2004) e “Scalpoema” (2001)?)

 

Joesér Alvarez: O grande diferencial é  a variação de mídias, efeitos estéticos e sonoros que encorpam uma proposta aparentemente simples, complexificando sua recepção. Por que criar poemas multimídias? Por que a possibilidade está posta – é um desafio. Por que ir aonde todos já foram? Por que não conhecer outras possibilidades? E, se vc pode abrir novos caminhos ou tecer novas tramas, eis um desafio interessante, melhor que trilhar os já consolidados caminhos. Oraculum e Scalpoema, por exemplo, são possibilidades poéticas e estéticas que não se dizem da maneira tradicional, impressa, e são mais ricos em sua forma digital, plástica e sonora. Penso que uma das  missões do poeta, se é que essas existem, seria criar um cardápio variado, inusitado, que provoque não só a reflexão, mas também um estranhamento crítico. E esse tipo de reação tem que começar com o próprio criador em seu fiat lux.

 

Maíra Borges Wiese: Seus últimos poemas digitais foram feitos ainda na primeira década dos anos 2000. Alguma razão por não ter desenvolvido mais trabalhos desse gênero? Considera ainda restrito o interesse por obras literárias digitais?

 

Joesér Alvarez: Não. Meus últimos poemas digitais estão sendo realizados desde 2013, e são hiperlinkados através de um vocabulário semântico em construção – chamando-se provisoriamente de “Haikunins”, ou “haikais bakhunianos” – versos com pretenções anarco-políticas. Um processo, projeto, enfim, uma experimentação. Outras experimentações tem se dado com a utilização do unicode, na própria página do projeto e em outras plataformas, mas sem pretensão alguma a não ser a experimentação pessoal, uma escolha estética, também em processo.

Razões para não desenvolver mais trabalhos nesse gênero não faltam – o que falta muitas vezes são razões para desenvolver novos poemas digitais, novas abordagens. Então, como essas razões tem mais a ver com intuição, deixo que aterrisem no devido tempo, quando surgem, sem me impor qualquer rtitmo de produção que não seja o do desejo. Sem dúvida penso  que o interesse por obras literárias digitais é restrito, que há um reduzido público, e que esse panorama pode mudar futuramente. Mas, como meu foco não tem sido o público, e sim a obra, não perco muito tempo pensando a respeito, pois para mim, essa seria uma questão secundária – em 1º a criação.

 

Maíra Borges Wiese: Mantém algum interesse pela literatura/poesia digital? Se sim, quais autores, no Brasil e no mundo, mais lhe chamam atenção?

 

Joesér Alvarez: Sim, sem dúvida. Gosto muito dos trabalhos de Jorge Luiz Antônio, Regina Pinto, Mello e Castro, Jim Andrews, Clemente Padín, bem como de muitos outros autores ligados à poesia visual e concreta.

 

Alguns trabalhos de Joesér Alvarez:

«Scalpoema» (2001)

«Agora» (2001)

«Oraculum» (2004)

«Cuba» (2004)

Participação em «Ovelhas de Quixotes» (2006)

 

Resumo biográfico

Natural do Rio de Janeiro/RJ, 1962. Vive e trabalha na Amazônia (Rondônia) desde 1982. Criador e Coordenador do Coletivo Madeirista, e Coordenador do Ponto de Cultura ACME, atua principalmente nas seguintes temáticas: net.art, network, cinema e vídeo digital, intervenções urbanas, site specific, performance, fotografia, literatura, gravura, design gráfico, cerâmica, artivismo, patrimônio imaterial e produção cultural.

 

Formação:

Bacharel em História pela UNIR – Universidade Federal de Rondônia, Porto Velho/Brasil, 2002;

Pós-Graduação em Jornalismo e Mídia pela UNINTES – Porto Velho/Brasil, 2003;

Pós-Graduação em Artes Visuais, Cultura e Criação – SENAC, Pólo Cuiabá, 2013;

Pós-Graduando em Cinema – Estácio de Sá/RJ, 2017;

 

Advertisements

Written by ELR

May 20, 2017 at 10:00 am

Interview with Andy Campbell

with one comment

co-edited by Maíra Borges Wiese

ELR: Andy Campbell, since 1999 you publish your works on your website Dreaming Methods. How did you get involved in the field of digital fiction?

Campbell: When I was in my teens I worked in a large warehouse on night shifts unloading deliveries of sand and cement. During the daytime, when I wasn’t asleep, I taught myself to program video games for the Commodore Amiga, until eventually I became accomplished enough to make money out of it. I also started writing fiction.

I bundled a few of my games with prologues or epilogues that could be read from the screen or printed. I made disk-based short story collections for distribution in the Public Domain. My games and ‘digital writing anthologies’ were reviewed around 60 times during the early-mid 90s in the international computing press, and often featured on magazine cover disks and CDs.

During 1998-2001 my writing became heavily audio/spoken word-based, and I did a lot of performance gigs at local (and not so local) cafes, arts centres and theatres. I also began to experiment more seriously with ‘electronic fiction’ or ‘digital fiction’ – and in 2000 registered the domain name Digital Fiction which is now Dreaming Methods.

ELR: The visual composition in your works is very impressive, for its complexity, originality and high quality. How important is aesthetics in your works?

Campbell: For me, very important. I spend a lot of time on the visuals – months. I get many of my ideas and inspiration from the life and work of my grandmother, who was a painter, and even these days I imagine her sitting with me and looking at my work and commenting on its appearance and colours. If she approves, in my mind, then I’m happy. If she thinks it sucks, I work on it more, until I get the reaction I think she’d have if she were here.

ELR: Many of your digital fictions have game features, like Inkubus and #PRISOM, especially for using navigation and immersion tools to make the story progress.  How do you consider the ludic aspect of works of digital literature in general?

Campbell: Because of my background in programming games on earlier home computers, I’ve always had a ‘video game style’ approach to this kind of work. Dreaming Methods is about extreme experimentation, risk-taking, pushing the written word into unusual/unexpected digital places. It’s also about creating glimpses or ‘portholes’ into atmospheric, often short-lived worlds, where text exists as an integrated part of the fabric. The technology that powers video games provides a fantastic platform for that kind of realisation. Game-style mechanics allow for reader/player exploration through common control systems. And, for me, game engines allow many layers of media to be mixed in ways that would be very tricky through browser-based technologies alone.

ELR: Some of your works, like The Dead Tower and #Carnivast, mix programming code language with verbal language in the composition of their textual parts. How to read them, or interpret their functionality (especially to readers that are not used to programming code language)?

Campbell: You are referring here to my work with Mez Breeze, which began in 2012 with The Dead Tower.

I’m fascinated by the idea of ‘digitally born’ narratives that carry little or no obvious ‘baggage’ from the ‘traditional’ writing world. Much of my non-collaborative work (including The Flat, Glimmer and Dim O’Gauble) was written spontaneously into software GUIs (Graphical User Interface) and edited/modified ‘live’ as the work evolved. Mezangelle appealed to me as an entire poetic language born out of digital, and, after being lucky enough to collaborate with Mez, is now a beautiful part of a series of increasingly rich and evolving narrative worlds.

Although Mezangelle can exist in print, I see it primarily as a kind of ‘liquid’ or ‘quantum’ language; challenging to uninitiated readers, of course, but also infused with meaning and ripe with dazzling aesthetic potential. Mezangelle can be experienced in as many ways as it can be interpreted, from studious unpacking to an almost mesmerising visual flow.

ELR: Many of your digital fictions have a kind of enclosed atmosphere, like Glimmer, Duel and The Flat, and sometimes provoke a mix of feelings of curiosity, fear and anxiety. Why is this atmosphere common in your works?

Campbell: For me, digital is a multi-layered medium which invites a curious but also fearful exploration, a drawing back of curtains behind curtains, lies inside truths inside lies. Stories don’t just start at point A and end at point B, they ripple and twist and duplicate and rewrite and mutate and bend in on themselves, much like human memories and experiences. That can be frightening, but also compelling and rewarding.

My work started out extremely enclosed and dark (Fractured, Facedown for instance) – far more than it is now. Some of it is rendered in black and white. Chaotic, scrambled, enigmatic, bordering on horror. When I look back, I feel like that was my direction ‘being born’. I was finding my way, shedding a sense of confusion and anxiety about the world around me as a young person no doubt, but also as an artist getting to grips with a complicated medium.

Interview with Dene Grigar

with 5 comments

ELR: Dene Grigar, you have been working in the field of media art and electronic literature since the mid-1990s. Could you tell us something about your background and how you became involved with electronic literature?

Dene Grigar:  Actually, it goes further back than that.  In fall 1991 I took a graduate course from the new faculty member, Nancy Kaplan*, who specialized in something called hypertext.  We studied books by George Landow and Jay David Bolter, explored software called Storyspace, and read afternoon: a story by Michael Joyce.  Having owned a Macintosh computer since 1986 for designing, I took to using it quite easily for writing––and reading.  Because of that course and my exposure to electronic literature, I began collecting works from Eastgate Systems’ inventory.  A part of my collection comes from those early purchases.

*Nancy was Stuart Moulthrop’s partner at the time; they have long since married.

ELR: You are a professor, a researcher and you also have successfully directed or curated a number of conferences and exhibits centred on Electronic literature. What can you tell us about your latest project?

Dene Grigar:  “Electronic Literature and Its Emerging Forms,” which was the exhibit hosted by the Library of Congress and part of the Electronic Literature Showcase, posed a large challenge for my co-curator, Kathi Inman Berens, and I.  What I mean by “challenge” is that the Library of Congress is probably one of the most venerable institutions in the U.S., and it had not yet been actively involved in collecting electronic literature.  Our exhibit was the first one of this nature the Library had ever done, so we wanted it to be memorable.  To that end, I rented large iMacs and brought in two of my own vintage Macs for showing older works, shipping all seven of them across the country to Washington D.C.  [Getting them through the Library’s security due to the necessary precautions took close to three hours.]  I hand-carried works of electronic literature from my own collection, from Vancouver, WA to D.C., to show along with the electronic literature works found online and the wonderful books and other media the Library contributed.  I also brought eight undergraduate students and one alumna with me to assist as docents at the exhibit. This was one of the smartest things I did because the students were immensely well-trained, passionate about electronic literature and the field, and exceptionally hard-working.  So, when the exhibit filled up with visitors, there were 11 of us who could answer questions and guide visitors through the electronic literature, instead of only Kathi and me.

Probably the most interesting challenge to surmount, however, was finding the best way to integrate electronic literature with the Library’s collection of books. Originally, when Kathi and I were first invited to curate the exhibit, the discussion centered around remounting the show we had done at the Modern Language Association 2012 convention .  That exhibit was very large, with 160 works and 10 computer stations.  Once she and I conducted a site visit at the Library of Congress and saw the Whittall Pavilion, the space where the show would be held, and gave some thought to the kind of collections the Library has at its disposal, we changed our minds.  I hit upon the “antecedent” idea and developed a set of parameters for the show that would make sense for the time and place with which we would be working (e.g. a three-day run in a gorgeous but small space). Drawing upon my research into the electronic literature and artists like Anna Maria Uribe and thinkers like Ted Nelson, it seemed to make sense to lay out the show so that we could make the argument that electronic literature is not some alien art form that dropped down to Earth some far-out planet but, rather, is part of a long tradition of experimentation with literature that has been going on for ages.  As someone who studied ancient Greek literature for my PhD, I always wondered what the Homeric poet’s contemporaries were saying (not writing, of course) when they saw that he (or she) was writing the story of the Odyssey.  That, in itself, constitutes a literary experiment as strange and exciting as Uribe animating Typoemas.  Dante wrote the Commedia in the vernacular––yet another grand experiment that we living over 700 years later do not even give a thought to.  So, the idea was to demonstrate that the drive to create something new and experiment with form in different ways are what visionary artists do.  With that idea in mind, I came up with five approaches––concrete to kinetic, cut up to broken up, pong to literary games, the Great American Novel to multimodal narratives, and artists’ books to electronic art.  This plan made it possible for Kathi to research the Library catalogs and identify works from the collections that fit well with this vision and, so, made our case.  She also developed the third aspect of our exhibit:  the creation stations.  This was a “maker” area where visitors could create literary art themselves.  For example, visitors could look at ee cummings’ concrete poem, walk across the aisle and see Dan Waber’s kinetic poem,“Strings,” and then walk across the aisle and make their own concrete poem on the typewriter that Susan Garfinkel, our collaborator from the Library, brought from her own collection.

To be honest, a lot was riding on the exhibit.  Obviously, we were promoting electronic literature to a new audience, moving it from academic conferences to a library, where Literature (with a capital L) is generally found.  It wasn’t just any library but the most important one in the country.  So, the show had to be good.

But more than good, the show had to make it clear that curating counts as scholarship.  This was a personal goal that I set for myself for “Electronic Literature and Its Emerging Forms.”  You see, I work in the intersection of media art, digital humanities, and media studies.  While my colleagues in media art are very comfortable with the notion that curating is a scholarly activity, the other two fields are still deliberating about it and trying to figure out how curating counts for tenure and promotion.  Books like Burdick et al’s Digital_Humanities go far in helping to make my case, but I thought that, perhaps, if scholars from these two fields see the intellectual processes, the conceptual thinking, and deep research that go into mounting an exhibit like this one, they would understand that curating is a scholarly activity.

I was very happy to learn that the exhibit was mentioned by scholars in blog posts and articles and was delighted that it was reviewed by Leonardo Flores at I ♥ E-Poetry and by Illya Szilak and Melinda White at The Huffington Post.

ELR: Could you tell us what you consider to be the main distinguishing features of new media literacy, with regard to the shift from traditional reading to multiliteracy or transliteracy?

Dene Grigar:  I used Vince Dziekan’s Virtuality and the Art of Exhibition for a course I taught on curating last fall and was taken by his notion of the multimedial museum.  By multimedial he means interactive, experiential, and participatory.

It seems to me that this idea can be mapped on to other aspects of our lives touches by digital media.  Anyone reading a Facebook post, for example, is reading participatorially, right?  Our posts can receive a “Like” from our Friends almost as quickly as we hit the “send” button.  The interactivity of this environment provides enough feedback to keep us online for hours, whether it is chatting with Friends or playing one of the many games Facebook makes available to its users.  Finally, we see the experiential aspect of Facebook in the way we design our “covers” or in the photo we choose of ourselves to represent us.  These three elements are going to be part and parcel of everything we read in this early age of digital media and perhaps even years beyond.  It is important for publishers to understand these three elements and make use of them in the media they publish.

ELR: On your website you write that “the computer is not a tool but rather the medium in which I work”? Can you please explain this “conceptual shift”?

Dene Grigar:  That is an easy one, thanks 🙂  I think a lot of people who work with computers see the computer as separate from what they do––that the computer is a tool that helps them do whatever it is they do.  This may make sense if someone is an accountant and uses computers to crunch numbers.  But it does not make sense if one is a media artist whose main medium of exploration is a computer and everything she creates takes place on a computer screen.  My own mother was a painter who worked in oils.  She would never say that the canvas and the paints she used were separate from the art of oil painting.  They were her medium.  I feel that the same way about my computer and HTML/CSS or PhotoShop, etc.  The computer does not “help” me––it is what I do.

ELR: In some works of digital literature we find a combination of text with audio-visual effects. What do you believe are the implications of new media technologies in relation to the aesthetics of a work of digital literature?

Dene Grigar:  Obviously, one of the biggest implications is finding a way to talk about it, of reviewing it, and critiquing it in a way that takes into consideration how all of the parts contribute to the whole.  N. Katherine Hayles suggests media specific analysis as a method.  Jessica Pressman, Jeremy Douglass, and Mark Marino suggest close reading.  These are both excellent ways to make sense of multimodal literature.  I also think an approach that brings in the various kinds of critique indigenous to the art form is also helpful.  This would mean that if a work of digital literature has sound, visuals, and words, then someone critiquing that work would need to address all three of these features with some level of expertise and, then, synthesize them into a larger discussion of how the work works.  This depth of knowledge, of course, is difficult since we generally develop strengths in particular art forms.  The bottom line, however, is that we need to find ways to talk about, review, and critique digital literature in order for it to be brought into the traditional academic realm as a scholarly topic of discussion and mainstreamed to the public for enjoyment and consumption.