Notes and Quotes
John Cayley
(beginning on page 307)
We must keep asking
ourselves, what is code? What is the relationship of code and text in cultural
objects that are classified as literary and that are explicitly programmed?
(307).
Code that is not the text
may instantiate—as durational performance—the signifying strategies of a text
(308).
Atoms or instances of
language are not things, but processes (309).
For an object to be identified
as a process there must be some way for its state to change over time and
perhaps enumerate the temporal sequence of such states (310).
Five provisional
categories that “code” is used in discussions of codework: Code as language,
code as infecting or modulating natural language, code as text to be read if it
were natural language, code as a system of correspondences, and code as
programming (311-312).
The author wants to read more critically about the code that is hidden, and possibly operating, as we read (312-313).
The author wants to read more critically about the code that is hidden, and possibly operating, as we read (312-313).
The idea that the
signifier is multilayered, with shifting and floating relationships of
correspondence between the layers, is well known and widely accepted in
criticism (314).
Coding applied to
textuality in new media allows us to perceive, if not the coding itself, then
the unambiguous effects and consequences of that coding (315).
What the punctuation does
is set up a time-based revision of the atomic meanings of and within the
sentence (316).
No reading takes place
without a process of reading (320).
Textuality as
instantiated in programmable media realizes the potential for a more radical
restructuring of the culture of human time (321).
Many hypertext theorists
and researchers would say that the Web falls short of even the fundamental
requirements for a properly hypertextual system (322).
The author is, more
specifically, discussing programmed signification in which codes and coding
operate to generate or modulate texts substantively (322).
For Nelson, “a document
is really an evolving ONGOING BRAID” (323).
The Nelsonian docuverse
and the “permascroll” (323).
The textual event is
defined culturally, by cultural institutions and media technologies (324).
Criticism must address
the cultivation and articulation of temporality in this work as well as an
analysis of the code that guarantees and drives literal temporality (327).
List of reasons for a
necessity to elaborate this distinction (distinction on bottom of page 327)
listed on 328.
Code is presented to us a
special type of linguistic archive (328).
No comments:
Post a Comment