Asemic Writing for Mail-Artists

Comment

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 29, 2011 at 3:58pm

but if nobody wants my writing HERE, i'll be happy to take it somewhere else! ;-D

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 29, 2011 at 3:05pm

anything containing information can ultimately be compressed down into binary form. binary is just a number system. all things in existence can be expressed mathematically in some way, even your state of consciousness can be broken down as a code and reassembled from that code, given the proper tools. i'm not meaning to diminish your art in any way, i'm merely attempting to loosen its boundaries. i feel such a definition is too constrictive to capture the essence of what i see as asemic WRITING. ;-D

Comment by cheryl penn on May 29, 2011 at 2:06pm

OK - this is me sticking my neck out on Sunday!  Guys, I'm with Bruno here.  If you look at the group title - Asemic WRITING for mail artists.  Asemic writing to me falls in the shadow writing systems. I have used that terminology MANY times before.  I think of it therefore as a writing system that falls at the edges of the consciousness.  It is a personal writing system that is not decipherable, but to me is NOT meaningless.  I DONT do meaningless things.  Whats the point? For example: when I tackle asemic writing, I am ALWAYS thinking and writing what I am thinking - but NOT in English/standard writing systems. I write maybe all over, or maybe left or right or right to left, but it does not follow prescriptive, standardized writing formulae.  It may be illegible, may be calligraphic, may bear the influences of something I have just seen etc.  I dont think of computer text as asemic.  Those look like/are binary systems - something else completely. I'm NOT saying these things are not of value/important textual alterations/variations - WHATEVER - but asemics? No, I dont think so. Bruno - Michaux's asemics - FAB - a GOOD example.

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 29, 2011 at 11:23am

it was from the link you gave earlier, no?

 

and i already took my daily vitamin. ;-D

but thanks!

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 29, 2011 at 12:21am

the first:

Asemic writing is a wordless open semantic form of writing.

word has a few, but the common them seems to be:

word: A distinct unit of language.

but you cannot have "no distinct units of language"

there are always units.

if rendered on a computer screen, it all comes down to pixels, unless you're talking about non-renderable writing, but still you would have basic building blocks of bits and bytes, which really are still renderable. outside of computers, you have atoms, or subatomic particles floating about in the paper and ink. but there will always be a base layer of information which can be extracted and analysed.

 

by the picture you posted below, it seems to me the concept you are trying to get across is that asemic writing should look like garbled, erratic flow of hand, with pen, on pad. but i'm saying i don't think it needs to look similar to *that* in order to be asemic. i feel asemic can, and SHOULD be open to a wider range of mediums.

 

i think asemics are a state of mind in the reader (or in the writer while attempting to create writing dissociated from their inner language). all things, even thought are writing in a sense; a record etched in the tablet of the universe. everything we see, touch, hear, smell, taste, and even those things which evade our basic senses are information. whether or not we are able to make sense of it, is another question.

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 28, 2011 at 11:16pm

i took it from the wiki for "asemic writing"

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 28, 2011 at 9:34pm

b'GAWK b'GAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK bawk
bawk BAWK BAWK b'GAWK BAWK BAWK
BAWK BAWK BAWK b'GAWK BAWK b'GAWK
BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK b'GAWK
BAWK b'GAWK b'GAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK
bawk BAWK b'GAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 28, 2011 at 9:30pm

i took a look at the page, but don't have time to delve into the pdfs.

i'm on a tight time budget!

 

but, according to wikipedia definition: asemic means "having no specific semantic content."

 

i'm saying that you can abstract away semantics from anything. all things can become interpretable when placed into a different context. one person sees a chicken and wants to eat it, another to keep i as a pet, a more sadistic may want to torture it. and someone else may want to just let it be. i think chickens are very asemic. They are full of interpretability!!!

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 28, 2011 at 8:02pm

i really like this discussion, btw.

it makes my brain hurt.

in a good way.

Comment by 1cgqtuoblpeqc on May 28, 2011 at 8:02pm

so what if i use words instead of dots?

substitute each braille character with a pronounceable word?

or do the reverse, take something intelligible like the bible or moby dick and encode each word as some seemingly meaningless symbol, but keeping the pattern; is it then asemic?

 

i think words have meaning because we assign them meaning, but there is certainly information to be found through the structures found in repeated patterns. but it is all  in accordance with context. I can look at magnified DNA and see pattern, but it means something entirely different to me than it does on the microscopic level, perhaps if i had the intellect, time, and the tools to modify the code at my disposal, i should take more interest in learning the precise semantics of the language; but in my current state of being, if i were to look at enlarged DNA structures, it would be purely "asemic."

 

i think the same can be said for the cuneiform, or any other language which i do not have a good understanding of. and to take that thought a step further, i think it is possible to "switch mindset," and put yourself momentarily in the mode of someone who hasn't got a predetermined reaction to a certain sequence. then you could look at moby dick and see forms and patterns in a different way. and to take that a step further, you could say the mind is merely a given state of the machine at a given time, always changing, you will always see something differently and all meaning to be extracted is ultimately reliant on the state of this organic thinking machine. therefore, everything is asemic, all of the time.

 

there is no absolute truth.

all truths belong to context.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 341
• 342
• 343
• 344
• 345
• …
• 380
• Next ›
• Page