about hypertext

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Rachel Greene wrote:

> does anyone have good hypertext resouces to suggest? think of someone whose
> motto is 'I hate hypertext' – what would you send them to change their
> mind, or to get them to appreciate this form. I am more interested right now
> in hypertext analysis than hypertext work… thanks, rachel

Well, IMHO, it depends on who that person is. Since so much hypertext
theory develops out of other disciplines, seeing the web within the
metaphors of older media, you have to ask yourself what sort of person
that "someone whose motto is 'I hate hypertext'" is–what metaphors they
will see as natural.

If that person revels in post-sturucturalist theory and always has a copy
of Barthes or Derrida under their folded arm, George Landow's Hypertext
2.0 is a good one to send them.

If the person is into gaming and spends time bouncing from MUD to MOO,
Espen Arseth's Cybertext:Oerspectives on Ergodic Literature should be the
pick.

If they are a graphic designer or are visually literate, send them Mark S
Meadows's book Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative.

If they are a film studies guru, and their black turtleneck is imblazoned
with the phrase "Vertov this!", then Lev Manovich's The Language of New
Media would be right up their alley.

If they like tossing McLuhanisms like "the medium is the message!" into
casual conversation, then they'll find themselves taken by Jay David
Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation: Understanding New Media.

If they like comics, then Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics will get
them thinking in ways that suggest new forms and McCloud's Reinventing
Comics particularly points to digital media.

If they like experimental poetry and are always trying to start up a new
lit mag, then Loss Pequeno Glazier's Digital Poetics will be perfect.

And if they are a computer scientist, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick
Montfort's The New Media Reader collects a historically based series of
essays that discuss the computer as an artistic medium.

Best,
Brandon Barr
http://texturl.net
http://bannerart.org

Rachel,

out today, online, and free
Susana Tosca and Jill Walker (eds)
Hypertext Criticism: Writing about Hypertext
Journal of Digital Information
Volume 3, Issue 3
http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

greetings
Reinhold
2003 Net Art Links
http://www.netzwissenschaft.de/kuenst.htm

hey rachel,

Assuming you mean hypertext as distinguished from hypermedia, I respect mark bernstein. He is at the crux of the current discipline in a lot of respects, and seems a balanced apologist for it:

http://www.MarkBernstein.org
http://www.eastgate.com
http://www.enarrative.org
http://www.hypertextkitchen.com
http://www.tekka.org

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rachel wrote:
does anyone have good hypertext resouces to suggest? think of someone whose motto is 'I hate hypertext'

I'm person who quit smoking.Is there anythithing for me in your library?
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "Brandon Thomas Barr" <[email protected]>
To: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
Cc: "rhizome list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertext


> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Rachel Greene wrote:
>
> > does anyone have good hypertext resouces to suggest? think of someone
whose
> > motto is 'I hate hypertext' – what would you send them to change their
> > mind, or to get them to appreciate this form. I am more interested right
now
> > in hypertext analysis than hypertext work… thanks, rachel
>
> Well, IMHO, it depends on who that person is. Since so much hypertext
> theory develops out of other disciplines, seeing the web within the
> metaphors of older media, you have to ask yourself what sort of person
> that "someone whose motto is 'I hate hypertext'" is–what metaphors they
> will see as natural.
>
> If that person revels in post-sturucturalist theory and always has a copy
> of Barthes or Derrida under their folded arm, George Landow's Hypertext
> 2.0 is a good one to send them.
>
> If the person is into gaming and spends time bouncing from MUD to MOO,
> Espen Arseth's Cybertext:Oerspectives on Ergodic Literature should be the
> pick.
>
> If they are a graphic designer or are visually literate, send them Mark S
> Meadows's book Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative.
>
> If they are a film studies guru, and their black turtleneck is imblazoned
> with the phrase "Vertov this!", then Lev Manovich's The Language of New
> Media would be right up their alley.
>
> If they like tossing McLuhanisms like "the medium is the message!" into
> casual conversation, then they'll find themselves taken by Jay David
> Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation: Understanding New Media.
>
> If they like comics, then Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics will get
> them thinking in ways that suggest new forms and McCloud's Reinventing
> Comics particularly points to digital media.
>
> If they like experimental poetry and are always trying to start up a new
> lit mag, then Loss Pequeno Glazier's Digital Poetics will be perfect.
>
> And if they are a computer scientist, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick
> Montfort's The New Media Reader collects a historically based series of
> essays that discuss the computer as an artistic medium.
>
> Best,
> Brandon Barr
> http://texturl.net
> http://bannerart.org
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, manik wrote:

> I'm person who quit smoking.Is there anythithing for me in your library?
> MANIK


Of course, it depends on the brand.

If you smoked Parliments, then go for Meadows's book.

Camels, you'll prefer Bolter and Grusin.

Marlboro: Read 'em all, you hoss.

Kool: You won't like any of them.

Winston – see advice for Kool.

GPCs, you'll like Manovich's book. But it's expensive.

Anyone smoking non-Anglo brands: there's nothing on the hypertext market
that will interest you, yet. Wait a few years.

Tognue deeply in cheek,

Brandon
http://bannerart.org/
http://texturl.net/

> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Brandon Thomas Barr" <[email protected]>
> To: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "rhizome list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:43 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertext
>
>
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Rachel Greene wrote:
> >
> > > does anyone have good hypertext resouces to suggest? think of someone
> whose
> > > motto is 'I hate hypertext' – what would you send them to change their
> > > mind, or to get them to appreciate this form. I am more interested right
> now
> > > in hypertext analysis than hypertext work… thanks, rachel
> >
> > Well, IMHO, it depends on who that person is. Since so much hypertext
> > theory develops out of other disciplines, seeing the web within the
> > metaphors of older media, you have to ask yourself what sort of person
> > that "someone whose motto is 'I hate hypertext'" is–what metaphors they
> > will see as natural.
> >
> > If that person revels in post-sturucturalist theory and always has a copy
> > of Barthes or Derrida under their folded arm, George Landow's Hypertext
> > 2.0 is a good one to send them.
> >
> > If the person is into gaming and spends time bouncing from MUD to MOO,
> > Espen Arseth's Cybertext:Oerspectives on Ergodic Literature should be the
> > pick.
> >
> > If they are a graphic designer or are visually literate, send them Mark S
> > Meadows's book Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative.
> >
> > If they are a film studies guru, and their black turtleneck is imblazoned
> > with the phrase "Vertov this!", then Lev Manovich's The Language of New
> > Media would be right up their alley.
> >
> > If they like tossing McLuhanisms like "the medium is the message!" into
> > casual conversation, then they'll find themselves taken by Jay David
> > Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation: Understanding New Media.
> >
> > If they like comics, then Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics will get
> > them thinking in ways that suggest new forms and McCloud's Reinventing
> > Comics particularly points to digital media.
> >
> > If they like experimental poetry and are always trying to start up a new
> > lit mag, then Loss Pequeno Glazier's Digital Poetics will be perfect.
> >
> > And if they are a computer scientist, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick
> > Montfort's The New Media Reader collects a historically based series of
> > essays that discuss the computer as an artistic medium.
> >
> > Best,
> > Brandon Barr
> > http://texturl.net
> > http://bannerart.org
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Hypertext considered only surface,there's no sense at all?I blow that
already.How about LUCKY STRIKE?I didn't mint on brands.Nicotine is what I
mean.Poison.You know,specific substance which make you addicted.It's not a
brand.I deeply salute all that distinguished names in your short essay about
misunderstanding.Tongue deeply in bad teeth.Tongue over ill body.
Sincerely
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "Brandon Thomas Barr" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertext


>
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, manik wrote:
>
> > I'm person who quit smoking.Is there anythithing for me in your library?
> > MANIK
>
>
> Of course, it depends on the brand.
>
> If you smoked Parliments, then go for Meadows's book.
>
> Camels, you'll prefer Bolter and Grusin.
>
> Marlboro: Read 'em all, you hoss.
>
> Kool: You won't like any of them.
>
> Winston – see advice for Kool.
>
> GPCs, you'll like Manovich's book. But it's expensive.
>
> Anyone smoking non-Anglo brands: there's nothing on the hypertext market
> that will interest you, yet. Wait a few years.
>
> Tognue deeply in cheek,
>
> Brandon
> http://bannerart.org/
> http://texturl.net/
>
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Brandon Thomas Barr" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "rhizome list" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertext
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Rachel Greene wrote:
> > >
> > > > does anyone have good hypertext resouces to suggest? think of
someone
> > whose
> > > > motto is 'I hate hypertext' – what would you send them to change
their
> > > > mind, or to get them to appreciate this form. I am more interested
right
> > now
> > > > in hypertext analysis than hypertext work… thanks, rachel
> > >
> > > Well, IMHO, it depends on who that person is. Since so much hypertext
> > > theory develops out of other disciplines, seeing the web within the
> > > metaphors of older media, you have to ask yourself what sort of person
> > > that "someone whose motto is 'I hate hypertext'" is–what metaphors
they
> > > will see as natural.
> > >
> > > If that person revels in post-sturucturalist theory and always has a
copy
> > > of Barthes or Derrida under their folded arm, George Landow's
Hypertext
> > > 2.0 is a good one to send them.
> > >
> > > If the person is into gaming and spends time bouncing from MUD to MOO,
> > > Espen Arseth's Cybertext:Oerspectives on Ergodic Literature should be
the
> > > pick.
> > >
> > > If they are a graphic designer or are visually literate, send them
Mark S
> > > Meadows's book Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative.
> > >
> > > If they are a film studies guru, and their black turtleneck is
imblazoned
> > > with the phrase "Vertov this!", then Lev Manovich's The Language of
New
> > > Media would be right up their alley.
> > >
> > > If they like tossing McLuhanisms like "the medium is the message!"
into
> > > casual conversation, then they'll find themselves taken by Jay David
> > > Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation: Understanding New Media.
> > >
> > > If they like comics, then Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics will
get
> > > them thinking in ways that suggest new forms and McCloud's Reinventing
> > > Comics particularly points to digital media.
> > >
> > > If they like experimental poetry and are always trying to start up a
new
> > > lit mag, then Loss Pequeno Glazier's Digital Poetics will be perfect.
> > >
> > > And if they are a computer scientist, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick
> > > Montfort's The New Media Reader collects a historically based series
of
> > > essays that discuss the computer as an artistic medium.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Brandon Barr
> > > http://texturl.net
> > > http://bannerart.org
> > >
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>

This is a peculiar field. It seems forced.

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/editorial.html

By reading this discussion of hypertext, I get a peculiar sense of
pointlessness (not that there is anything wrong with that). The majority of
it is dedicated to justifying its own premise. Does hypertext need its own
form of criticism? Before I would answer that question, I would question the
question itself. Where is the question coming from? Why does one even get
the urge to ask that question?

The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
established critical theories feel forced.

Note this passage from this page:
http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/Higgason/truth.html

<quote>
As a result, Barthes (1994) suggests that we should forgo the whole search
for truth in the text. Instead, he states that criticism can be better
served not in the "decipherment of the work's meaning but the reconstruction
of the rules and constraints of that meaning's elaboration". (p. 49) This
means instead of providing interpretations, or critical readings, about what
the work means, a critic should analyze the structures with the text that
make any meaning possible. For a hypertext critic, such a process could seem
daunting. After all, any particular lexia could have multiple contexts. The
meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at the
"rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
performance of the text. How can critics illuminate the structure of works
that do not present an illusion of sameness?
</quote>

I don't have a copy of this particular writing of Barthes, but from reading
the sentence quoted above, I interpret Barthes' argument to be referring to
how the meaning of the work is expressed within certain rules and
constraints of the language (in a broader sense of the term) of the
artist/writer. The point of this isn't to analyze the medium of the
communication. The medium itself, in this instance, is reduced to function
as a device to which the rules and the constraints of the artist are
applied. Analyzing the rules and the constraints of the medium itself would
be misguided. It would be equivalent to analyzing the range of colors that
is possible with oil paints. The important difference here is whose rules
and constraints they are.

"The meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at
the "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
performance of the text."

This line is particularly troublesome. The fact that the meanings could
easily shift is not an effect of some unique nature of hypertext, but is the
original point of Barthes' argument for not seeking the meaning, which is
not specific to any medium. The complex facade of hypertext does not make
the task any more "daunting" than any other medium. The complexity of the
medium is irrelevant in this.

In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be
filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any
deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own.
Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in
the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between
Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface level
of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.

Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I
have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous.
Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate me
on the issue further?

-Dyske

When you first time touch PC,you are part of this Planet.What's your
problem?
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]>
To: "rhizome list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertext


> This is a peculiar field. It seems forced.
>
> http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/editorial.html
>
> By reading this discussion of hypertext, I get a peculiar sense of
> pointlessness (not that there is anything wrong with that). The majority
of
> it is dedicated to justifying its own premise. Does hypertext need its own
> form of criticism? Before I would answer that question, I would question
the
> question itself. Where is the question coming from? Why does one even get
> the urge to ask that question?
>
> The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
> existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
> established critical theories feel forced.
>
> Note this passage from this page:
> http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/Higgason/truth.html
>
> <quote>
> As a result, Barthes (1994) suggests that we should forgo the whole search
> for truth in the text. Instead, he states that criticism can be better
> served not in the "decipherment of the work's meaning but the
reconstruction
> of the rules and constraints of that meaning's elaboration". (p. 49) This
> means instead of providing interpretations, or critical readings, about
what
> the work means, a critic should analyze the structures with the text that
> make any meaning possible. For a hypertext critic, such a process could
seem
> daunting. After all, any particular lexia could have multiple contexts.
The
> meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at
the
> "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
> performance of the text. How can critics illuminate the structure of works
> that do not present an illusion of sameness?
> </quote>
>
> I don't have a copy of this particular writing of Barthes, but from
reading
> the sentence quoted above, I interpret Barthes' argument to be referring
to
> how the meaning of the work is expressed within certain rules and
> constraints of the language (in a broader sense of the term) of the
> artist/writer. The point of this isn't to analyze the medium of the
> communication. The medium itself, in this instance, is reduced to function
> as a device to which the rules and the constraints of the artist are
> applied. Analyzing the rules and the constraints of the medium itself
would
> be misguided. It would be equivalent to analyzing the range of colors that
> is possible with oil paints. The important difference here is whose rules
> and constraints they are.
>
> "The meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look
at
> the "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
> performance of the text."
>
> This line is particularly troublesome. The fact that the meanings could
> easily shift is not an effect of some unique nature of hypertext, but is
the
> original point of Barthes' argument for not seeking the meaning, which is
> not specific to any medium. The complex facade of hypertext does not make
> the task any more "daunting" than any other medium. The complexity of the
> medium is irrelevant in this.
>
> In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be
> filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any
> deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own.
> Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in
> the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between
> Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface
level
> of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.
>
> Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I
> have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous.
> Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate
me
> on the issue further?
>
> -Dyske
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

> Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I
> have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous.
> Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate me
> on the issue further?
>
> -Dyske

You've simply read a bad, muddled article. I haven't read much hypertext
criticism either, but I hope that this is not representative of it as
criticism is needed for progress in any field.

yvonne

Date sent: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:53:18 -0500
From: brandon barr <[email protected]>
Subject: RHIZOME_RARE: Re: about hypertext
To: [email protected]
Send reply to: brandon barr <[email protected]>

Thanks for the great annotated bibliography!

>
>
> If that person revels in post-sturucturalist theory and always has a
> copy of Barthes or Derrida under their folded arm, George Landow's
> Hypertext 2.0 is a good one to send them.
>
> If the person is into gaming and spends time bouncing from MUD to MOO,
> Espen Arseth's Cybertext:Oerspectives on Ergodic Literature should be
> the pick.
>
> If they are a graphic designer or are visually literate, send them
> Mark S Meadows's book Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive
> Narrative.
>
> If they are a film studies guru, and their black turtleneck is
> imblazoned with the phrase "Vertov this!", then Lev Manovich's The
> Language of New Media would be right up their alley.
>
> If they like tossing McLuhanisms like "the medium is the message!"
> into casual conversation, then they'll find themselves taken by Jay
> David Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation: Understanding New
> Media.
>
> If they like comics, then Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics will
> get them thinking in ways that suggest new forms and McCloud's
> Reinventing Comics particularly points to digital media.
>
> If they like experimental poetry and are always trying to start up a
> new lit mag, then Loss Pequeno Glazier's Digital Poetics will be
> perfect.
>
> And if they are a computer scientist, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick
> Montfort's The New Media Reader collects a historically based series
> of essays that discuss the computer as an artistic medium.
>
> Best,
> Brandon Barr
> http://texturl.net
> http://bannerart.org
>


Myron Turner | http://www.room535.org | –land safely in cyberspace–

Hi Dyske,

I must admit, I'm not much of a fan of straight hypertext literature (or of hypertext criticism).

Here's my beef, written 11/2000:
http://www.spark-online.com/november00/discourse/cloninger.html

in which I conclude:
"In the final analysis, hypertext literature may prove to be the deconstructivist critic's secret fantasy realized: a literary genre better known for its literary criticism than for its actual literature."

I have been accused of underestimating the power of the linking event, and I have started to take it less for granted, but in contexts beyond merely joining text.

<rant>
a lot of sucky artists are dialoguing with a lot of sucky critics these days. It works like this – artist and critic both learn this chic, digerati, 1993-era, well.com-derived "neato/lingo/wired/encodo" formalism. Artist makes shallow art using said "vocabulary." Critic "gets it" and decodes it using said "vocabulary." But it's all an insider's end run around actually communicating anything or criticising anything. The only thing ever hashed (and rehashed and triple-hashed over and over and over and freaking over again) is "da_nature_of_da_medium."

As for me and my house, we're taking it through another door. Viva La Lester Bangs!
</rant>

how can you laugh when you know i'm down,
curt



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dyske writes:
In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own. Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface level of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.

Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous. Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate me on the issue further?

Dyske:

I completely agree with your worries. Hypertext theory IS limiting in
some ways that I'm not particularly comfortable with.

////you said:
The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
established critical theories feel forced.
////

I think part of the reason is that "hypertext theory" exists on the fringe
of literature circles instead of art circles, The problem is that
literature circles are much less likely to accept "outside(r)" work (I'm
thinking geometrically, not politically). So HT crit spens a lot of
(unfortunate, I think) time justifying itself as a discipline–to deans,
to other bibliophiles, etc.

This wouldn't be the first time Rhizome has had the "hypertext is
pointless" debate; it happens a lot because net.art communities and
hypertext communities are often aiming their work and crit at two separate
audiences, and they butt heads.

I was really trying to be a little critical with my lists–I think that
hypertext criticism is a pretty limited field that is still feeling itself
out with metaphors of old media. And, as Noah WF pointed out on another
list, the field has appropriated Nelson's term "hypertext" but in some
ways stripped it of it orginal flexibility and multimediac sense.

FWIW,

Brandon
http://texturl.net/
http://bannerart.org/

Same thing with comics, on the 'fringe' bit…also why I feel like many of the great indie comics of our time often have tropes attempting to justify it as a valid artform…self-referentiality…maybe like net-art

>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:44:05 -0500 (EST)
> Brandon Thomas Barr <[email protected]> Dyske Suematsu <[email protected]>cc: rhizome list <[email protected]>
> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertextReply-To: Brandon Thomas Barr <[email protected]>
>
>Dyske:
>
>I completely agree with your worries. Hypertext theory IS limiting in
>some ways that I'm not particularly comfortable with.
>
>////you said:
>The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
>existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
>established critical theories feel forced.
>////
>
>I think part of the reason is that "hypertext theory" exists on the fringe
>of literature circles instead of art circles, The problem is that
>literature circles are much less likely to accept "outside(r)" work (I'm
>thinking geometrically, not politically). So HT crit spens a lot of
>(unfortunate, I think) time justifying itself as a discipline–to deans,
>to other bibliophiles, etc.
>
>This wouldn't be the first time Rhizome has had the "hypertext is
>pointless" debate; it happens a lot because net.art communities and
>hypertext communities are often aiming their work and crit at two separate
>audiences, and they butt heads.
>
>I was really trying to be a little critical with my lists–I think that
>hypertext criticism is a pretty limited field that is still feeling itself
>out with metaphors of old media. And, as Noah WF pointed out on another
>list, the field has appropriated Nelson's term "hypertext" but in some
>ways stripped it of it orginal flexibility and multimediac sense.
>
>FWIW,
>
>Brandon
>http://texturl.net/
>http://bannerart.org/
>
>
>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————

Hi Curt-

"Like Dadaism, some things are better in theory than in execution. The iconoclastic idea of Duchamp's urinal as art is much more impressive than the urinal itself. And of course, that was Duchamp's point."

( http://www.spark-online.com/november00/discourse/cloninger.html )

I think the reason why Dada was such a success was that the theory *was* the art…that is, if you look at any of Hugo Ball's or Tristan Tzara's "critiques," they are themselves a kind of Dada poetry.

Maybe the Duchamp bit still stands. However, Dada's inherent secondariness (born of disgust, referenceless (apparently…?) awareness of the art/culture/politics of the time, the "zeitgeist" whatever) may make it seem dependent on theory and context.

Maybe they are. But I thought Dada's point was to destroy that theory and context, so that we are to take in Dada as itself, and nothing more.


Vijay



>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:05:24 -0500
> [email protected] curt cloninger <[email protected]> RHIZOME_RAW: Re: about hypertextReply-To: curt cloninger <[email protected]>
>
>Hi Dyske,
>
>I must admit, I'm not much of a fan of straight hypertext literature (or of hypertext criticism).
>
>Here's my beef, written 11/2000:
>http://www.spark-online.com/november00/discourse/cloninger.html
>
>in which I conclude:
>"In the final analysis, hypertext literature may prove to be the deconstructivist critic's secret fantasy realized: a literary genre better known for its literary criticism than for its actual literature."
>
>I have been accused of underestimating the power of the linking event, and I have started to take it less for granted, but in contexts beyond merely joining text.
>
><rant>
>a lot of sucky artists are dialoguing with a lot of sucky critics these days. It works like this – artist and critic both learn this chic, digerati, 1993-era, well.com-derived "neato/lingo/wired/encodo" formalism. Artist makes shallow art using said "vocabulary." Critic "gets it" and decodes it using said "vocabulary." But it's all an insider's end run around actually communicating anything or criticising anything. The only thing ever hashed (and rehashed and triple-hashed over and over and over and freaking over again) is "da_nature_of_da_medium."
>
>As for me and my house, we're taking it through another door. Viva La Lester Bangs!
></rant>
>
>how can you laugh when you know i'm down,
>curt
>
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Dyske writes:
>In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own. Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface level of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.
>
>Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous. Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate me on the issue further?
>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————