After listening to Shannon's presentation at the symposium I was overtaken with questions for myself about my own views on art and aesthetics and where the digital entries fit within that spectrum. In my 295 class we were talking about Janice Radway who wrote an essay about how she wishes that academics would focus more on “middle brow” works rather than “high brow” because you get little pleasure from “high brow” works other than the bragging right of having completed them and they re just too threatening. Sometimes that is how I feel about “art” or what people define as art. I like going to museums and looking at paintings, but I hate that overwhelming feeling that I'm not understanding that deeper meaning or whatever it is that the art critics or historians have decided that I get from this. Now a days, so much is available online and, like Shannon articulated, it is so hard to tell or define what is art. Again, in my English 295 class we were talking about what fits in each category and how throughout the years things have moved categories and have fit in different areas. Art, just like everything else, is relative (in my mind). In this case someone brought up Blogs and where they fit. Prof. Richards said that he believes that currently blogs fit into the “low brow” sector, but he believes that within the near future that they will make their way to the “middle brow” and maybe even move into the “high brow” depending on the genre and the author**. He went on to say that he wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years Mary Washington offered a course in analyzing blogs. That got me thinking about this course and its location in the university. A lot of people hear the word “code” and think of computers or ciphers, but few people think of the art that is behind it.

While perusing the Only Revolutions forums I ran into a post that suggested that the double parallel lines that are displayed on the binding and other places in the front of the book are connected to Java Boolean Logical Operators.
I don't know if any of you are computer science majors or know anything about Logical Operators but, I know very little. Still, I was fascinated by this idea because it connects the book more closely to code and the idea it is trying to emulate the digital in some way.
In Java Boolean Logical Operators the || symbol is the short-circuit OR (as in "a OR b") operator there is also a | symbol that is the regular OR operator. From the site I linked to above, "if you use the || operator instead of the | operator and if A is true then java will not evaluate B(assuming it is a expression)." So if A is already true in the expression then java decides there is no need to look at the second variable, B. The reason having a function like || is helpful in coding is if you run into a situation when B depends on A being true or false to function properly.
If we apply this idea to the novel we see that the stories are not OR (|) in the way you can read just Sam OR Hailey. In a | situation it doesn't matter if one is true and one is false. When we subject their stories to a short-circuit OR (||) then one story, if it is true, automatically pulls in the other story with it as true. If we start on Hailey's side and determine it is true then Sam's must all be true following the logic of the function through. The same goes if we switch around the order (Hailey's true-ness being contingent on Sam's story being true). The value of the second story is contingent on the first story. Even more crazy is the fact that if the first variable is true there is no need to evaluate (read?) the second variable.

The world has gone mad! I never before really enjoyed April Fool's Day but watching last night's massive email chain unfold might have gotten me in the mood. Several places on the web have joined in the festivities, including Google (excuse me, I meant Topeka) YouTube, and xkcd.

xkcd remains a source of witty comics, but the interface has been converted to command line. Much like the ARG games we explored a little over a week ago, I began typing in all sorts of commands in an attempt to navigate the system. Most of my guesses failed initially, but then I found a few that returned some witty responses. For example, I first tried some of the Linux commands I know to see if I could navigate any to any of the directories returned by "ls." I tried "man cat" and got the response: "You are now riding a half-man half-cat." Also, trying "pwd" to see my current directory returned: "You are in a maze of twisty passages all alike." I did finally hit a winner with "cd forums" which successfully opened the forums index page. Once there I was able to search out some other fun command prompts on recent threads [see here]. Apparently, the changes are all for amusement (in honor of the holiday).

With all he thinking about the paper I think I might be a bit less mentally capable than normal. Anyhow, Blog posts wait for no one! As I was reformatting the notes from back in the middle of February I got to thinking about the things we read in The Code Book and about the intrinsic human element of code and its affects on the creation of the code and in the solving of that code. Code, of course, was invented by people and from the beginning of this communication there were semi-mechanized versions of code like the “scytale” that required that the strip of paper with the code on it be wrapped around a shaft to be read properly. However, The Enigma machine was the first of its kind. It employed moveable plates and keys that functioned sort of like a type-writer. At first, this new machine seemed to be almost unbreakable until that fateful (and unfaithful) Schmidt sold the secrets of the Enigma. Without his help the Enigma could have remained unsolvable indefinitely or until another person was willing to give up the secrets behind it. Human involvement in this situation was paramount in the creation of this code, but even more important in the solving of the code. Currently, computers are being employed in an attempt to create a code that is as random as something can get without it being Uranium (which apparently, according to the code book is the only way to get a truly random thing). The way people solve codes is to figure out the patterns and then apply those patterns to ones that occur in language or in codes with already know to figure out the meaning of the code, so if one code create a code that was completely random (and somehow keep the key a secret as well) then they would create an unbreakable code. There are two problems with this and both involve the people that create the code: 1. It would be too easy for someone to slip up and have the key be discovered or stolen. 2.

The debate of a true definition for aesthetics is an infinite one, but when viewed through the lens of art constructed out of code, specifically a DNA portrait by DNA 11 the debate can be narrowed and finally conclusions can be reached.

What the DNA 11 does is quite simple. There is no tampering with the original DNA sample to make it more traditionally aesthetically pleasing, only a slight color tweak. The beauty lies in the simplicity and in the scientific value it has. Not only is the bright blue striped work reminiscent of a piece of modern art, it is also entirely unique to that particular DNA set. It represents an identity inexorably tied to a person.

Masterpieces it is traditional said should be viewed three times in ones life: youth, middle age, and old age. Each viewing will see the piece take on a new meaning as we combine our experiences and project onto the work. The surreal sense felt when a connection with a flat portrait or painted landscape emerges is one notion of aesthetics. In the same way, the DNA Portrait gives us a picture of ourselves in the simplest terms. To most people an immediate connection with a portrait of another person is more available than a connection with simple lines, but that is what makes a DNA Portrait aesthetically pleasing. A frisson occurs when we see ourselves belittled by not being able to understand ourselves in the simplest terms nature offers. While reading expressions (a much more complicated feat) occurs instinctually, reading DNA requires study. The definition of aesthetics provided by this work by DNA 11 gives us the notion that a connection with something we cannot understand about ourselves is beautiful.

The diagram series is a collection of poems by Jim Rosenberg made within the constraints of an object made of computer generated symbols. Most likely, the poems are to be read on a linear path from top to bottom. The poem I will be focusing on is diagram 4.2. Diagram 4.2 consists of a set of verses, traveling down three paths, on either side of the objects and down the middle. Due to the placement of these verses, particularly with stanzas being parallel to one another, it is difficult to know what order to read the poem. One strategy I’ve used is to pick a side and read straight through. In this strategy, the middle row stanzas will be read for either poem. Sadly, using this strategy, there is no apparent set rhythm or unified message.

At this point the art work takes the role of rhythm or at the very least direction. Based on Rosenberg’s object design, the shapes, and path of shapes, cause the viewer to want to read the poem in a traditional linear fashion. The code or pattern in this work is both transparent and opaque. We can understand how Rosenberg wants us to read the poem through the combining of an artful structure and text, but ultimately the poem is incomprehensible. Aesthetically, the work is confusing. More questions than answers are revealed.

Vpoem 14 by Ladislao Pablo Gyori begins with an introduction to the thoughts of the artist as he was constructing his work:

"Assume the function of destruction and decomposition, but as an accomplishment and not as a negation of being'.

Is there any way you could respond to/interpret these themes in order to produce some virtual works?"

From there, the artist throws up a background of infinite darkness, and constructs a play of words upon it, twisting the viewer's perspective on many axis, even as our perspective of each word changes. The code here is not initially transparent, but the artist's idea reveals itself like an onion with a bit of applied thinking.

First we must consider the obvious: we see words being thrown around, suffixes attached, prefixes, sometimes two or more are cut-and-pasted, but always proceeding with an understandable connection. I was immediately reminded of a thesaurus, and, what's more, the synapses of the brain. Certainly, if you've ever uttered a non sequitur, you are aware that although your train of thought appears to be disjointed, there was something that bridged the gap between the thoughts. This unusual connection is how our mind can put unfamiliar thoughts together, and is a step in the learning process. The more connections you have between synapses, the easier your brain can access ideas--which reminded me of code. Essentially, codes are a relationship between one (usually obscure) thought to another. If they weren't, cryptographers would be unable to break them. Even if their relationship is trillions of steps apart (like in the Enigma machine), they are still related.

Secondly, the actual computer/program coding that went on behind the scenes of this video provides an intriguing layer to what is already interesting.

I am very interested in the way in which, code, and, language, are similar, practically the same in my eyes. Code and language are most similar in the way in which both can provide the means to obtain or understand concepts, ideas, information maybe even feelings that one language or code cannot fully project. Even understanding the code in a person’s native language can be difficult because so many people create their own code to communicate with only those who can also understand the rhetoric. Code and Language both possess this ability because each are the medium which information can be obtained; information always grants power thus making the ability to understand several types of coding or languages an advantageous skill as a world citizen. The multilingual people of the world are exposed to information that I will never understand until I too can comprehend a different language. Each code and each language is its own specific and unique means of communication; meaning that not everything translates nicely from one language to another. The inherent exclusivity which a language is made up of creates an interesting duality; meaning that language (and code) can be both congregator as well as a divider. For the monolingual people of the world (which is the minority of the world’s population) we are at a disadvantage because we will never understand the concepts that English just cannot portray. We cannot join the conversation until we learn how to understand and manipulate the codes in which another culture uses to communicate. This is why exposure to languages and different cultures is an important and beneficial aspect of human existence.

I went running today. I'm no frankdevar of course (check out his old blog entry about marathon running), but I run often enough to experience good and bad days if not on a professional level. Having not run since the Attack of the Snow, I had a pretty rough day which got me thinking about code (ha!). So far we've focused almost exclusively on code that is deliberate, code someone wants sent. When I run, however, most of the code that is sent is code I don't want sent. It's code from my brain to my body that continually plays that little Satan on my shoulder telling me to stop via aches and pains. Eventually (though I've never experienced this) you can push hard enough that your brain doesn't just send code that tempts you to stop, it makes you stop.

That kind of ultimate power of the brain (and Gatorade!) seems a resource science would be scrambling to tap into. If they can unlock the code that tells our bodies to shut down and change it, would we be able to run forever? That I suppose brings up the concept of transhumanism (sorry Frank, I'm overstepping my bounds a bit in this post) and the concept of maybe, aging. Aubrey de Grey explains how close we are to defying aging, but his radical ideas are working directly against the natural code of our bodies.

In Cory Doctorow's Little Brother, Marcus can easily show us that his school principal is not only antagonistic, but also a completely clueless fuddy-duddy. He quotes him pronouncing "w1n5st0n" as "w-one-n-five-s-t-zero-n", when anyone with a passing familiarity with l33t-speak - or even an idea of how whimsical Internet spelling tends to work - can tell you're supposed to say "Winston".

Since a major theme in this book is the culture divide between the young, particularly the young techno-geeks, and the established adults, this could be seen as an example of how the former differentiate themselves from the latter. It takes no more effort to type "w1n5t0n" the way it is conventionally written, but this is a form of posturing, of marking a certain intellectual space as belonging to a certain generation. Certainly, this can be overdone and come across as a bratty grab for attention...

Note that this is a webcomic, a form of new media that you would expect to be on the side of Marcus' crowd.

(Casey and Andy, (c)Andy Weir)

...But it still serves as a marker of identity and a way to confuse the uninitiated.

Slang as a form of inclusion/exclusion functions for groups other than the young, of course. Urbandictionary.com may lead one to believe that any innocuous phrase may mean something obscene to someone, and close-knit occupational groups like circus folk have terms like "First-of-May" to mean someone new to the job.

The important thing to remember about slang is not only is it horizontal, pertaining to all forms of society, but it is vertical through time.

[Because I've always been under the impression that using Calvin and Hobbes without permission makes Mr. Watterson weep somewhere in the Ohio woods, I am just quoting a relevant strip.]