do you define your work--what categorizations/classifications
(traditional or otherwise) would you use to distinguish
e-poetry in general and your work in particular?
My work/style begins with the
termina][o][l.ogical - the style m.ployed is called "mezangelling"
and the projects/code poems produced are "net.wurks";
open source writing packets that are circulated via email
and various other communication technologies ][eg International
Relay Chats][. Identity swapping and the use of code conventions
is also crucial to the formulation of these texts/net.wurks;
by constantly shifting name-tags, an avataristic & collaborative
approach is n.voked. This net.wurked formulation is what I
consider is crucial in defining both my work and that of others
that are d.voted 2 this method of "e.poetry".
are you doing in e-poetry that cannot be done in more traditional
modes (such as linear paper)?
My net.wurks use new technologies
in such a way as 2 utilize the dissemination functions that
are intrinsic in email & chat software. "Deadtree
media" cannot m.brace the collaborative & immediate
rite-of-reply that email texts can; this idea of constantly
rewriting a text via fluid/fluxionic interpretation produces
net.wurks that are constantly e.volving & radically
accessible ][via email node points & code echos][.
you "collaborate" with others (for instance, outsource particular
technological aspects of a "poem"), do you feel this affects
the poem's "authorship?"
Of course. This slippery auteur/authorship idea is one that
underpins my revolving ][author][identity-tags; I've found
that this n.courages others 2 adopt a projective quality
that both obscures and n.hances multilogue-authorship &
Who are your readers and how are you interacting with
them? How is youraudience similar to and/or different from
that of the traditional poet's?
My readers are those that are ][or choose 2 b][ x.posed
2 the net.work & that are curious enuff 2 x.plore &
rethink in terms of the technological; those who access
my website are virally inducted in2 mezangelled texts via
email lists and chat sessions in which I broadcast my wurk.
The difference b.tween a traditional audience and the readers/
intra.actors that view/absorb/construct my work is one of
scope - an intra.actor can decide to re/deconstruct the
work itself, or interact via immediate feedback, or simply
rewrite the work as they see fit. The poetic boundaries
are revamped substantially in terms of this type of potentially
excites you about this new medium for poetry? And what particular
drawbacks (if any) does working with electronic technology
What x.cites me about using new media is the way it can
turn canonized notions of acceptability & ][boring][quality
n.side-out without sacrificing expressive greatness
x.posed 2 ][& also creating][various net.wurks that
seek 2 utilize the very grain and grit of new media , that
rip in2 preconceived artistic/poetic notions and n.gage
the intra.actor in a sphere of information that is not prescriptive
nor predic][ated][table is terrifically stimulating. The
drawbacks revolve around the contextual comprehension gaps
- an audience may not b keen 2 delve b.yond their textual
][and cultural][ familiarity zone, which will hinder meaning
trends/connections with the works themselves.
How are you integrating/embracing other media such
as sound, animation, and navigation?
kind of aesthetic is emerging in the field?
There is no singular m.mergent
aesthetic in the field of epoetry/net.wurking
concern of mine is code poetry; this idea of creating poetry
that is drenched in the very mechanisms that act 2 display
it is one of the most n.teresting e-poetic contemporary
do you think the future holds for e-poets and e-poetry?
Much, d.pending on how e-poets
choose 2 harness the amazing potentialities of the network.
Hopefully most creatives working in this field will choose
2 reflect the very nature/differences n.herent in the medium
itself, rather than relying [and constantly re-iterating]
the parameters of a deadtree media format.