Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

On Peter Howard's "Haiku Generator," the Javascript program generates haikus (pl: haikis?) and tankas based on a predetermined vocabulary that adheres to the constraints of the poetic forms.  Users designate whether the program will use words from specific vocabulary lists with words that are, for example, "standard,"  "erotic," "silly," and "noir."  Simply clicking the designated button begins the process and a haiku or tanka is generated automatically.    So, for example, the following haiku was generated using the "standard vocabulary": 

Smoothly rough stars burn.
Arrows melt yet priests return.
Cruel stars carouse.

Or:

Hell turns fair hatred.
Kindly kind poverty walks.
Feared rain strokes stanzas.

This program seems completely nonsensical--generating phrases simply from a standard vocabulary.  However, there is something completely sensical about it, too.  I'm reminded particularly of Umberto Eco's discussion on dictionaries and encyclopedias; specifically, individual dictionaries define concepts (in a one-to-one fashion) whereas encyclopedias function in the form of inference.  Or, as Eco writes, "[T]he encyclopedia is a semantic concept and the dictionary is a pragmatic device" (85).

On the surface, then, the vocabulary used by Howard's program would function in Eco's dictionary sense--words that mean something by equavalence but are not culturally relevant or significant.  However, the lines of the haiku might also function in the encyclopedic sense, as well.  Specfically, the lines do mean something. 

Their meaning is in the absense of their meaning.  Let me explain:  these "dictionaries" of vocabulary reflect the absense of meaning.  Technology can't "think" (although the title of Ron Burnett's book How Images Think might challenge that notion); these haikus are really saying nothing.  They're just words put together in a pattern that is recognizable because they fit within the conventions of language.  The meaning that would be attributed to them would come from the readers' experiences.  Just as Eco writes, "signs exist only for a philosophical glance which decides to see them where other minds see only the fictive result of an analogical 'musement'" (9); in other words, signs only mean anything when someone decides the signs mean something.  The haikus do not mean anything because I don't attribute meaning to them.  They seem nonsensical to me.  But, I attribute meaning to the fact that they are generated automatically by a computer.  The meaning is that there is no meaning.  Technology doesn't attribute meaning to language, humans do.  Cognative understanding is a function reserved for humans, not machines.

Burnett, Ron.  How Images Think.  Cambridge, MA :  MIT Press.  2005.

Eco, Umberto.  Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language.  Bloomington : Indiana UP.  1984.

"Peter's Haiku Generator."  http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/haikugen/framset1.htm

posted by: rgregory at 01:54 | link | comments (2) |

Comments:

#1  07 October 2005 - 00:09

 

Rochelle,

I worry about the statement: "The haikus do not mean anything because I don't attribute meaning to them." Even if you do not attribute meaning to haiku (I think haiku is both singular and plural) does not mean that no meaning exists. It might simply mean you are missing the meaning. One thing you will need to do is consider some of the theory regarding the significance of movement in electronic art. This link might help. It is Dr. G's lecture on elit: http://www.nouspace.net/dene/5273/lecture_elit.doc In other words, if you can bring in some discussion of the unique features of the electronic literature into your discussion (I mean as opposed to print), your analysis will probably be strengthened a great deal. The haiku is actually saying a great deal--especially if you contextualize this "non-haiku" with print-based creations. Whenever a genre is moved from one medium to another, meaning is transferred but also reaccentuated. You need to read Hayle's _Writing Machines_. I'll lend you my copy if you want.

I agree with your last two sentences very much. Moving haiku into this new environment provides a new way to make meaning that depends on the old ways of seeing poems.

I hope that helps! Cheri

Anonymous

#2  07 October 2005 - 02:41

 

Thanks so much for your analysis. I know how busy you are and how crazy things are with the semester, so I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read my stuff. This type of criticism--medium-based analysis--is so different from anything I've done before. Feels like I'm way over my head a lot of times. But, I'm just going to keep busting my butt and hope things start to get a little clearer.

Dang you know your stuff. Brilliant.

And, I appreciate your input. I'm going to take it into consideration and revise my analysis so that it is clearer and more detailed. Then, I'll repost the revisions.

Again, thanks so much.

rgregory

Comments: