As someone who’s new to coding(I’ve been doing this in class for less than a year) this was a very useful set of tutorials for me. I’m still trying to figure out how to communicate with computers. I liked learning about the different shortcuts to make this communication easier. I think the one that I enjoyed the most was the ‘wild card’ character the dot. . It’s very simple, useful, and looks nice in the program!
This tutorial was pretty fun to go through. The first half or so wasn’t too difficult because most of the special characters were ones that we covered in class. In that sense it was a nice review. It was also extremely helpful to see exactly which part of the sentence matched to the regex that I wrote. The stuff in the later half was pretty cool though, especially the ability to capture certain parts. One thing that confused me was whether or not this tutorial is using Python syntax or if everything it explained is generic to regular expressions in all languages.
Like many of the readings we’ve done thus far, “The Renewable Tradition” focuses on the state of modern literature. In the same vein, it’s in desperate need of a breath of fresh air. Mark Amerika’s solution is the ‘remix.’ He draws inspiration from Keith Burrows and Kathy Acker, and their cut-up methods. While it seems counter-intuitive to revitalize a dying art form by using another artist’s work, or “pla(y)giarism,” Amerika’s method results in an interesting development for literature. Built upon the Acker’s reasoning that taking from another artist allows the remixologists to tap into the unconscious of the original author, Amerika’s remixes add a new understanding and unique perspective. Based on the small examples of his remixes, his method seems to be as follows: scramble or re-order parts of an original text add one’s own elements. The end result is an interesting piece that has some past or other foundation, but is still a piece of literature in it’s own right.
In addition, I enjoyed the layout of the text, that it was structured like a poem, I almost thought this text had been ‘remixed.’ The quotes in the text are indented and marked with a different font, rather than purely by quotation marks. This makes the text like the smaller remixes that Amerika presented, with pieces from other works sprinkled around other content.
I think this site was really helpful. But I would have liked the information to be bullet pointed to make it easier to read. It reminded me of CodeAcademy, but it was easier to give up. Because instead of giving you a brief explanation you can see the exact solution. I think my biggest problem right now is just remembering syntax. Because it isn’t quite natural. Things like curly versus square brackets tripped me up a little. Also just learning how much you can do with regex was interesting but because I could just click solution I did that instead of reading the lesson because it was faster and did exactly what I needed.
If I didn’t get it wrong, the article talked about how old literature could be broken down into pieces and re-organize and remix into a new piece of literature work, and the new piece is avant-garde. In this process, the old literature became an old tradition and the new piece opens a new tradition. I agree with this idea, because nowadays generating a new piece of literature out of cut up old pieces is pretty avant-garde, this trend of making literature just started no more than 50 years.
However, when we consider the copyright problem, the works belong to this new trend has some tendency to be plagiarisms. Not only because the sentences were taken from the old ones, new works also break the ideas and their initial meanings of the old ones. Innovations of human brain would be limited and constrained by the works that already had been done.
New works of this trend are all criticisms on the old ones because they come from the old and expressed their new ideas, forms and thoughts. I don’t feel positive for the future of this trend because it would limit the future artists to only become critics but not creators.
I think this is a really cool concept. Just from looking at the title of the page I guessed that it was some sort of cut up text. So when I started reading I started looking for some sort of pattern to how it may have been coded. It appears to be more cohesive than most cut up texts we have been reading, so I clicked to the link about the project. When reading it the flow didn’t seem to unnatural unless you tried to read paragraphs that were a few paragraphs apart. It seemed that a key word was chosen from the last few lines of the paragraph and then that would turn into the main focal point of the next paragraph. I am still a little confused how remixed it is, but the fact that it’s a remix makes the referencing other authors a little confusing, because it seems that sometimes the pronouns don’t quite match up. It also has the effect of suspending time, as the tense is mixed up as well. At the same time it seems very intentional the flow, but it also seems off. The line breaks make it seem poetic, or at least like an art piece. I think it is meant to provoke thought, but for me I just want to find a pattern to how it is written. It also feels like some sort of cut and paste as it is largely stripped of punctuation and upper case letters. The first word of each paragraph is upper case and new lines feel like they should be new sentences, but nothing is explicit.
and in the process remixologically
inhabit its historical body while pushing tender buttons
all along the way
And thus the writer becomes a post-production medium, a (h)activist, a pseudoautobiographical performer, writes America.
Literature cannot survive without human culture because human culture cannot survive without literature (i.e. so much depends on literary presence). Even the networked environment depends on language. But is language literature?
Is this then the death of culture? Or is this pla(y)giarism, this hyperimprovisation this remixology, this oscillating digression culture?
What is the point of remixing, where is the art in post-production, in embodying -and embedding- an interiorisation of someone else’s work? Is the Renewable generation too saturated to create, feel, write or think anything new? This self-contradictory implosion, with and against imagination, with and against the medium, with and against the messenger -how is this redundancy relevant to humanity?
Perhaps it is better to not create anything at all.
Since English is not my mother tongue, I find this article really hard to read even though its form is really interesting. It is a paper, but it appears like a cut-up poem.
I am impressed by the quote at the beginning of this paper. The idea that “we move, and as we move we leave things behind” is really interesting. If we step back a little bit, we will find there was no single form of literature to be avant-garde for a very long. There was always a trend at certain time period. Just like water, which does not have a fixed shape, literature doesn’t have a dominating form. It is always changing.
In this digital era, people, not only professional writers, do remix. Unfortunately, most of the audience cannot get rid of their fixed image of remix, that is an advanced version of copy and paste. However, there are some artists fight for remix. According to them, remix is not copy and paste, but it is a new form of art, and it allows people to view literature in an different angle.
I went to remixthebook.com, which is the website conducted by the author and her colleague to encourage people to do remix. On this website, you can feel their effort that they want to push the boundary of literature and their idea of rebel of traditional. Remix/Postproduction/Readymade are not copy, but original.