—————–
“There is no mathematics
more lost than love.
I do not see her water,
her peace, her rest.
It is I who become her.
My throat a sea
in the depths and
penurious enough to guess.
The vast wrists, little wrists, huge
wrists of a broken sail, like conscious
toils.
The dead prizes offer.
Someone toddles a craft,
where sails and
eyes and transports
bring sombreness.
Where mathematics brings its love.”
“Like a Proof”
by Erica T. Carter
(a.k.a ETC3)
—————–

Jim Carpenter at the Wharton School has designed a piece of software called Erica T. Carter (ETC3)—an algorithm for writing poetry automatically at the behest of a reader. Carpenter has tinkered with this algorithm in order to study the linguistic principles by which a machine might eventually generate artful speech. His software raises questions, of course, about the degree to which computer-produced poetry might become a literary artifact worthy of canonization by its readers. He suggests in fact that, if the act of composing such programs can constitute an act of writing (in which the programmer must create precise, elegant, texts)—then surely such programming can take on all the qualities of a literary exercise, suitable for study in our aesthetic, rather than our technical, departments at our universities. He almost suggests that the qualities required for a technician to write a “good code” might resemble the qualities required for a versifier to write a “good poem.” In both cases, the work must aspire to a rigorous structure, verging upon perfection; otherwise, it might fail in its function….
ETC3 allows its users to select the parameters for the composition of some random poetry, based upon the “styles” of other poets, whereupon the software goes on to create a text that conforms to these preassigned constraints (be they in the form of a chosen subject, a chosen grammar, a chosen lexicon, etc.). The resultant, aleatoric verse often competes favourably in style with the lyric poems written by actual people. The work might instill a sense of unease in some readers because, of course, the “messageless monstrosity” of these works does lack any authorial intention; yet nevertheless, these poems might still invite a whole array of hermeneutic expositions by experts in poetics. The program itself represents the result of a wilful action, but its output remains completely unforeseen—and thus the agency of the writer has all but disappeared from any “communication” between such literature and its readership. We see that “from this vantage point,” according to the programmer, “one comes to realize that the author hasn’t just died—the MACHINE has annihilated him….”
Bear in mind that the software can even set its own parameters for the creation of its outputs without any intervention from the reader at all (aside, of course, from the pushing of a single button…). You can play with the toy online at this link.

11.30.07 PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5)

This entry was posted on Friday, November 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Criticism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.