> Invented would assume intelligence within nature which has a few
> nasty rings
> to my ear
yes. i agree. do we say, then, that our play has no inventor? no
'intelligent designer', not 'intelligent' in any conventional sense other
than perhaps some taoist notion where the tao is the way of water that
follows the path of gravity. not so much 'intelligent' as 'processual'?
am reading 'the blind watchmaker' at the mo by richard dawkins. written in
the eighties. very well done. it purports to explain how some biological
wonders --that are so seeminly 'well-designed' (such as eyes and bat
sonar)--can have evolved with no 'intelligent designer'. he's doing an
admirable job of it, so far.
> but otherwise I do like the sound of this Jim, having it uncut I
> mean instead of wrapped in a rather pointless opposition of
> humanly crafted
> against the supposedly uncorrupt nature, a pastoral illusion for
> all I know
> Besides the cheating part resonates fairly well with a text I just wrote,
> here at
> Intended more for a strictly literary oriented audience perhaps,
> this is a
> test-run for a kind of rhetoric that would be more suitable to our present
> condition than the waving of terms like modernism or avant-garde or even
> cult, alternative what-have-you, things that surprisingly enough are still
> widely used, even and especially among the literary gifted who should know
> better by now, one would think.
interesting. i've read several people saying that there is no avant garde
now. in the sense that the term 'avant garde' typically describes art that
is primarily reactive against a status quo of art. the idea being that there
is no status quo of art now.
it's an interesting argument, but i'm not so sure it holds. first, i don't
think of the avant garde as existing primarily as reactive against the
status quo. it can have a more positive primary direction/motivation, which
may or may not be in conflict with the general trends of society at the
moment. and that is to experiment with the content and materials at hand
towards art with relevance and strength. sometimes such art makes it to a
wider audience, sometimes it doesn't.
> It still surprises me everyday how little the established world of
> literature cares about the radically changes aspects of writing,
> and if they
> do start to care they revert to these silly ideas about avant-gardism,
> battle and victory of Truth over Darkness, which _finally_ debases every
> reader into a thickheaded swallower or follower of the one and only Big
> Guide to Salvation. On the other hand the tradition of well crafted
> literature isn't something you'd want to altogether throw away, or even
> tamper with more than was required, I mean who needs any
> normative rhetorics
> Still I believe some kind of adapted rhetorical play ought to be
> inited at
> this point replacing the old answers to the need for clarity in
> the minds of
> readers, common or uncommon. Without the need for progress to
> some Glorious
> End we still need to _progress_, proceed I mean in an inspiring and joyous
> manner, or we might just all end up in smelly muddy waters
> yelling I'm the
> man to each other.
> But then, to end on a more pessimistic note, perhaps it is still way too
> difficult to read onscreen what is altogether much too easy to write away,
> safe for further linking to a any nearly non-existent reader, or to the
> uncaring Reader of All.
> So that we're just running our head off into a future that is comfortably
> writing itself. Anyway if our play was in any way invented for us
> (we could
> also fool ourselves into believing just that as a required suspension of
> disbelief), I'd say it's our turn to make a move just about ...
> now. But then, isn't it always?
> Dirk Vekemans
The notion that eyes and bat sonar and the countless other truly uplifting,
amazing 'designs' of nature are created without an intelligent designer, or
even a designer at all, are important not only to science and evolutionary
biology, but to art in the sense that we are at a point where we need to
understand how this can be. Not just intellectually understand it, but
understand it intuitively and through art. Generative art. Algorithmic art.
Where the beauty is mainly in the emergent behavior.