Sunday, February 12, 2023
Sunday, February 5, 2023
Asemics as Some Sort of Technology: The Return of Theuth and Thamus / EZE, 2023
Some Sort of Technology of Writing?
As a kind of writing, is asemics a technology?
Saturday, February 4, 2023
street sign / EZE, 2023
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Generators for Asemic Writing / EZE, 2023
Saturday, January 21, 2023
lowerlevelletters / EZE, 2023
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Tuesday, January 3, 2023
vowel / EZE, 2023
Friday, December 23, 2022
Thursday, December 22, 2022
L.E.D. Braille / EZE 2022
Friday, December 2, 2022
type face/EZE, 2022
Sunday, November 27, 2022
particulate / EZE, 2022
Saturday, November 26, 2022
One More Strategy for the Meaningless / EZE, 2022
The way Terry Eagleton reads T.S. Eliot is as a split text: at least one level of meaningless/at least one level of collective (un)consciousness. With asemics and polysemics and the interplay between them, we often have a single source of text and thereby an interplay of meaning/not meaning on what is usually a single plane. But the split Eagleton invokes gives us another textual problem: the identity of the text under interpretation. And this split creates yet another problem: the prioritization of the interpretation(s).
See what you think:
Poetry was not to engage the reader's mind: it did not really matter what a poem actually meant, and Eliot professed himself to be quite unperturbed by apparently outlandish interpretations of his own work. Meaning was no more than a sop thrown to the reader to keep him distracted, while the poem went stealthily to work on him in more physical and unconscious ways ... . (Terry Eagleton: Literary Theory: An Introduction, 35)
Sunday, September 18, 2022
Saturday, September 17, 2022
sport / EZE, 2022
Monday, September 12, 2022
vort / EZE, 2022
Saturday, September 10, 2022
fish writing fish / EZE, 2022
Sunday, September 4, 2022
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
conformal blurb / EZE, 2022
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
Category Theory for Asemic Writing / EZE, 2022
Writing is a mapping onto a graphic space. What does that mapping consist of?
For writing that entails graphemes, writing generally entails the construction of words and the composition of text, and a standard definition of writing is to produce text with semantic meaning. What happens when writing is not so mapped? when the purpose of writing is not to produce text with such meaning? Does writing that does not produce such text become graphic art? To some extent, yes.
In on some hypothetical categories of asemic writing, Marco Giovenale entertains four categories for writing that does not produce text with semantic meaning, and such writing, Giovenale generally deems asemic writing.
(1) concrete asemic writing (asemicrete),
(2) visual asemic writing,
(3) glitchasemics, and
(4) abstrasemics.
However, Giovenale criticizes the use of the "asemic writing" label for 1) "abstract or realistic paintings (pictorial works, photographs etc.)" and 2) "legible alphabets and texts ... [used as] monotonous decorations that would hardly be taken for words or sentences".
In sum, Giovenale finds writing to be something produced in a graphic space, and he tends to define asemic writing as writing that displaces immediately semantic text as its product.
Inadvertently, by pointing out the (ab)use of the asemic label, Giovenale gives the use of the label asemic writing another purpose: as a method to displace the semantic writing in a presentation.
While Giovenale sees it as a technique weirdly, perhaps badly, used, this method is no less a means to make writing asemic. After all, to declare "asemic writing" is perhaps a heavy-handed way to declare C'est ne pas un pipe.
As to other mappings, how about Category Theory?
on some hypothetical categories of asemic writing / marco giovenale. 2022
Perhaps it is possible, in the field of asemic writing, to distinguish a few ---completely hypothetical--- categories. I insist that these are mere hypotheses, and that I am not interested in structuring a rigorous theory.
We can say we have (2) visual asemic writing when we see the asemic symbols are intertwined, superimposed or when they ---in any other way--- simply share the page with abstract or realistic images.
We have (3) glitchasemics when an asemic text is evidently disturbed by some kind of glitch: it may even be severely disturbed, but not so much as to make the asemic part completely disappear.
We can say we have (4) abstrasemics when an abstract drawing or image turns itself into something resembling an illegible text, an asemic piece. Or, on the contrary, when a fragment of asemic writing gradually loses any vaguely linguistic aspect and is transformed into an abstract image.
Sunday, August 28, 2022
soli / EZE, 2022
jiyiy jiyiy / EZE, 2022
Saturday, August 27, 2022
about / EZE, 2022
between / EZE, 2022
litter-letter / EZE, 2022
Friday, August 12, 2022
oyugui / EZE, 2022
Wednesday, August 10, 2022
Tuesday, August 9, 2022
Saturday, August 6, 2022
frusp / EZE, 2022
Thursday, August 4, 2022
rusp / EZE, 2022
Tuesday, July 26, 2022
statement / EZE, 2022
Saturday, July 16, 2022
Monday, July 11, 2022
stump / EZE, 2022
Sunday, May 29, 2022
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
bump / EZE, 2022
Sunday, May 15, 2022
Saturday, May 14, 2022
Thursday, May 12, 2022
baci / EZE, 2022
Saturday, April 30, 2022
missing letters / EZE, 2022
Monday, April 25, 2022
Saturday, April 23, 2022
Sunday, April 3, 2022
Voided Semantic Function and (Emergency) Interpretation / EZE, 2022
What is Semantic Reconstruction?
Visual and Phonetic Semantic Interplay
Reconstructive Linguistic History (PDF)
Semantic Gaps in Interpretation
Reading Onto the Information (Semantic Image [Re-] Construction)
Daniel Cremers on Semantic Reconstruction
Semantic 3D Reconstruction of Heads (PDF)
Build your own (emergency) interpretation. Hint: Understand what the (human) function is and build it by other means. The gist of (this) artificial intelligence is to bring the asemic into the semantic whereby it can be mapped to the () semantically known. In comparison, asemic practice often tends to refuse this mapping, i.e., it refuses the construction of meaning, especially as a mapping to a () path.