Last Day

As for what helped me the most of what we did in class, I think when we would run through a technique a couple times so that I could physically do it, I understood it a lot better than when we would run through it quickly.

I think some of the readings helped me to think about what the boundaries were and how to push them, and interspersed with the Flash work, helped make sense out of what I was doing rather than simply giving me a new toy to play with.

I enjoyed getting feedback on my work and ideas for what to do differently...it's very easy to paint yourself into a corner with an idea and opening the door for other people to help is a good idea. I like the idea of working with a partner on a project, but would be interested to see it take another form other than a conversation project...maybe something where students build off of it and give it back to the other to experiment with what they added, like that kid's game where one person starts telling a story and people add to it, one line at a time.

I also enjoyed the open forum style of the class, how ideas are on the table and there is no defined right or wrong, just a free flow.

What could have been done differently?...other than having the class later than 8 am? I guess I wish that certain ideas could have been explored more, i.e. sound and video. Ultimately, I'll get to play with those ideas in my own time, but I might have enjoyed learning how better to navigate through that stuff.

Overall, very happy with this class even when Flash would frustrate me and freeze or suddenly switch into some ridiculous mode. I enjoyed pushing boundaries and putting time into these pieces.

Faith...Final

October 27

In regards to the ontological perspective, when translating writing or artwork into another medium, there is inevitably both something lost in the translation and imprinted on the work by the technology used. For example, when someone takes a photograph of say, a 10' by 14' painting, they at first lose the effect of size of the original and second, transform the painting into a digital etching on a disk. Next, when they transfer that image onto a computer, the image now becomes a series of pixels that can be manipulated using editing software. Lastly, the photographer can print a representation of the painting that is smaller, pixelated in nature and vastly different from the original.

The text refers to this phenomenon in stating that "even if the essential messages remain intact, the respective medium imprints its signature into the code; consequently, every medium creates something new, even if it works with preexistent codes." I disagree, however, with the assertion that because "that which is perceivable reflects the underlying structures" that it is therefore "not a surface," and simply an emergence of interaction of other levels. To go back to the painting, there are multiple layers of paint on the canvas, each building on one another and interaction as a whole. When complete, the finished piece is more than just the sum of different layers of parts. Another level has been created that is more concrete and alive that the individual layers.

Similarly, when someone begins to use computers or Flash to communicate or to create art, they are creating something beyond just all the layers. It's like putting all the pieces to a puzzle together only to find out that when the last piece is in place that the puzzle is alive like some jigsaw Frankenstein monster. Yes, it is true that the monster could not live without the existence of each layer, but nor could the layer fulfill its potential without the life of the whole.

How I use Flash in this context is to remember both sides: that each layer is important and vital and consists of bits and pieces that have the potential to live and also that only when every layer is in place can there be hope for life. Referring to the idea that things will inevitably get lost in the translation, I think that absolutely true, but not necessarily as a kind of failing. Moreover, often what happens when I plug all my ideas into Flash is something beyond what I saw in my mind. The technology contributes and polishes the ideas I have and creates something better...well, normally it's better. On occasion, the technology distorts and twists my intentions, but normally it's the former.

Lastly, what I find interesting about this process, as we refer to it as translating and encoding, is that, like two foreigners trying to communicate despite language differences, that there are ways to break through and to understand. Flash teaches me and shows me its version of what I'm telling it to do, even though I might stutter with the syntax and accidentally tell it something different. My original intention is lost in my own lack of knowledge of the language of Flash, but sometimes the accident is better than the intention. In this way, I learn from my mistakes and create more than I intended.

October 1

One idea in this writing that intrigues me is the concept that writing effectively takes the place of memory. Where ancient poets committed entire works to memory, they no longer are forced to, freeing them to experiment with individual form as opposed to memorization. This concept, that writing thus transformed what language was by freeing the author makes sense and as we explore various technologies and how they can make us even freer, we discover new ways to communicate our own voices.

Also, the idea that writing was really the translation of language from spoken form into written form, rather than a capturing of the speech is interesting. I think a lot of people carry the misconception with them that all of a sudden in history scribes showed up and started putting pen to paper each letter and word spoken verbatim. However, because language spoken is such a different beast than language written, there must be a filter by which the reader can understand, albeit it in different way than the listener understands.

Often people speak about how speech differs from the written word—“people would never actually talk like they do in novels”—and likewise, writers who would never dare to violate a stroke of grammatical law may be heard throwing around slang words and run-on sentences in haphazard fashion. Neither way is better; they each have their own rules and each serve a specific function.

Another idea that interested me was that writing changes language as much as it records it. If we can see how slang words seep into the written word, we can also see how written words seep back into spoken language. Writers create new words and concepts and everyone cheers and spreads those ideals around and around until speeches are given or other works are written to spin the original idea. Everything is in flux and everything changes with time. This is as true now in the printed age as it was before, when poets used to update and take stories, making them their own but relying on the same basic outline. Stories once changed with every telling. And while language is still in flux and ideas are still in flux, written language give a semi-permanent record of what language was like at that moment. We can hear our history through written volumes and thus try to imagine what language was back then, who the people were in times past. Writing records a version of the truth, but only a version.

What have I learned

There's a lot I will take away from this class. Learning how to tell a story using images as well as words will help me be a better writer and a better journalist. Sometimes words are not enough and using images or fonts or animations can provide me a new voice to communicate with. Also, I think this form of expression will help me reach a wider audience with my work and give me a leg up when I'm looking for a job.

Most importantly, however, is that as an artist, flash gives me a new way in which to express myself and to pour out what is inside myself into these animations. By using this software and getting better at it, I feel like I can communicate better, can integrate different styles of my art--photos, paintings, collages--better and write better. The articles and different things in this class have shown me the importance of writing outside of convention and of writing for an audience. That translates outside of this class and even into research type papers...I'm not convinced that essays have to choke other people with boredom. I want to engage and entertain and provoke. This helps me do that.

In Class Feedback

The feedback I received indicates that I was overall successful in this section of the animation. Different people caught pieces of it--the complexity of faith, that it is something serious and abstract. The font and the contrast both seem to be working for people which is cool.

Where will I go from here? This piece is intended to be a short story describing how I arrived where I am with my faith, how it isn't a picture perfect journey and how life beat the hell out of me in some ways before I woke up to what God was trying to say to me. I would like to make the distinction that while faith is essential in my life--it moves me and motivates me and holds me together--that it didn't transform me into some robot either. I can be a "Jesus freak" without losing hold of myself. There is more than one layer to who I am.

In Class

I think that what I'd like to hold onto is the various meanings of the word novel express sometimes opposite ends of the spectrum but are all simultaneously valid at different instances.

Sometimes novel is new and commercial and ridiculous. It's fed to the consumer with no real focus on contributing value; the focus is on receiving value from the author's standpoint.

Other times, things that are novel are creative and innovative and are meant to change lives; these works focus more on the audience. They are new, but the focus is not so egotistical and self-centered.

Lastly, there are times when both is true. Authors produce work to be commercial, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the work is real and vibrant and that it touches people.

One more thing as an aside, even the most douchebaggerous work from an egotistical, commercial mess of an author can impart meaning to someone, even if it was not intended. The meaning comes ultimately from the consumer, not from the author, whatever his intention.

READING...WRITING

One of the ideas I find particularly interesting here is that innovation, by itself, contains no value unless value is assigned to it. Innovation then, is not synonymous with creativity. Meaning found in the text or work is derived from the audience then, and not the author. The artwork and the audience communicate with one another and people derive an identity based on what of themselves they find in the work.

People become people through their engagement with their environment, and subsequently, with art. This communication with the creative aspects--i.e. the work "speaking" to the individual--is in a way illusion in the sense that is subjective. Two different people will communicate different with the same work. In another sense, however, it is very much real because the message cuts to the core of who the person is. If I read a poem and associate it with violence and you read it and associate with control, then where is that violence coming from? It comes from within.

Readers, sometimes seeing things in a piece that would frighten them if they thought it came from within, search for the author's motivation. They can pass the blame to another and not deal with the emotions stirred within. They can become excited by frantic scenes in a Stephen King novel and call the man deranged. But that text speaks to them, so who is deranged?

This internal voice, though, is not deranged in most cases. People are multi-faceted and in communicating with a work they are actually communicating with a part of themselves too often hidden. If they push themselves to find meaning, if they face it and do not back down, if they let that conversation happen, then there is the opportunity for real change and real creativity.

Creativity in this sense does not come from the author's pen or the painter's brush. Remember that creativity is only assigned to things of value and the audience places the value.

The best artwork and the best writing stirs emotions, makes people see the world in a new way and leaves them different. But it is only a conduit. If creativity is a light bulb, then the coil in the middle is the art. It stands there, dull and unlit. When an individual approaches that bulb, it is as if an electrical charge is waiting to jump on and complete the circuit, creating light--creativity. The conversation and the creativity happen because of the individual. Without the person, there is only darkness.

If the class went on

If the class went on, I would want to learn how to tweak what we're already doing in a way to tighten the message. For images, I would like to be able to dissect and rearrange and fit things together more clearly. I would like to be more familiar with shape tweens and how to use them more effectively. I would like to be able to break apart sound, to muffle it when I want or to make things louder or quieter within a file. I feel that I have a lot of tools, but want to become more familiar with them, want them to become more second nature.

I also would like to figure out ways to make things seem more polished, stripping away some of the rough edges or sputter-stop ticks within some of my animations. I would like to see full pieces that make clearer sense in their own context.

On my own, I'll be experimenting with all of these things, I think. I'll also be pulling in more of my own writing into my work and possibly tying in my artwork and examining those creations in this format to see what they can tell me here.

What do I know now?

I have always believed that words have the power to draw people in and make connections, to fuse emotional ties between authors and audience and to provide an outlet of expression. What I have learned, however, is that there doesn't have to be as much of a "lost in translation" moment.

Often when I write, I put onto paper the closest representation of what is playing in my head and hope that people are able to understand it enough. Now that I have some different tools to play with, I don't have to settle with a veiled understanding of my work. I'm never going to show a completely clear picture, but by incorporating images, sounds and animations, I am able to focus the lens a bit. The picture is less fuzzy for people. They can understand my voice and to be heard is a wonderful thing.

I understand this process as freedom. Words don't have to live in tiny boxes. Sometimes the bold face type just doesn't cut it, but enlarging a word or accompanying it with a hard-hitting sound might make my point. I am free to give my own definition to words in a way, amplifying or softening as I need, expressing what I'm feeling without the confines of language and without a string of adjectives a mile long.

I have also learned to look at writing differently and to see how very specific choices can convey a specific message. I don't just look at the words anymore. There is depth and meaning behind them and so I search for the clues that will lead me to that.

Short Animation--Feedback

One of the things I wanted to know was whether or not what I had construed chaos like I wanted it to to. The feedback all echoed that the chaos was effective. The flower stilled the chaos a bit like I wanted it to. One person mentioned using sound, which while it was something I hadn't thought of, makes sense to me.

What I would like to do from here is to construct a door, something solid looking, that has a word/concept/idea on it and it would be opened to the chaos. Out of the chaos, different views of what that word/concept/idea are would come up to the door, wanting to be let in. The door would be slammed in each view's face. Eventually, something true to the actual word/concept/idea would show up and be "let in."

I'm hoping that there's a way to muffle sound somehow at various points throughout the piece so that it's quieter when the door is closed. As for feedback, I guess ideas on how to make a door swinging open would look semi-realistic, what kind of sound might be appropriate and just comments on how the idea sounds overall.

Writing Can Be Mine

I'm going to have to disagree with the assertion that "writing can be seen, not as an individual personalized achievement, but as a series of strands in a larger social-spatial textual fabric (the network)." I believe that writing can be seen at times as an individual personalized achievement, not strands but a whole.

I would agree that at times, writing acts as a thread through society, pulling things together. But other times, experience that is individual to the writer allows him to produce work that is private, that is precious, and that is whole. This work does not have to be shared with the rest of the world for it to have value. Every time the writer looks at it, it is a part of himself.

If all writing was simply a strand tied to another strand, tied to another strand and so on, we would be left with a blur of ideas. No one could find the beginning of the string, everything would become one and no one could truly appreciate the work of the individual. When a writer pours himself into a work, it is his and if he chooses to share it, he can then tie a piece of it into the network.

As for the idea that because experience is shared and we are all influenced by each other that our work is the product of the collective mind and conscious, I would say that not all experience is shared. Not all experience is common to man. What happens in my mind and my world can produce a completely different result than the man next to me experiencing the very same. It is the individual pieces of ourselves, the private worlds within, that shape who we are and what our writing is. Without the individual, writing will disappear. Without the individual, there are no strands to tie to the network.

What can be said then is that both the individual and the network exist, though not always in the same space. People can choose whether to link into the network, but this is by no means mandatory or inevitable. Some writing will never be anything but a note tucked away in a drawer that brings daily comfort to the author. Some writing will take on a life of its own and become a piece of each of us. Some of it will do both, retaining the individual while maintaining the connection. Nothing is for certain and all things are in flux.

Plan for Thursday

For Thursday, Amanda intend to attach the additional sequences necessary to complete the piece. I also need to tweak some of the sequences I've completed so that they run smoother and look more polished. We're also trying to figure out why, despite saving the file with a particular shape tween in place that when we reopen the file, Flash removes it as if it's upset that it even exists. Also, we've run into some differences as we transfer files between my PC and Mac software that we're trying to iron out.

Final Project

For my final project, I hope to use many of the techniques I've learned in this class to drive the writing. Understanding that we are to allow the process to drive the writing, I am excited to see how the technology drives what I will write. I hope to incorporate more visual images or pictures. Some of the more powerful example I've seen in class have tied images in to give explanation when words alone would not be enough. My initial idea is to use the theme of faith in some format because my faith is something that drives me, motivates me and inspires me. I am interested in expressing how faith is a reality in my life. The past seven years were only survived through my relationship to God and how I believe He has been speaking through my life and I think that journey would be interesting to translate. I think shape tweens will probably be effective as well as finding new ways to distort and emphasize different parts of that journey.

Inantimate Alice: Episode 1

I think the person who created this was trying to construe the desperation of looking for her father through the eyes of a child and also how they are disconnected from society in such a way that family is all they really have.

The piece talks about how the father leaves for stretches to look for oil, how there is no restaurant for 500 miles and how they are driving in utter darkness with nothing to see. The desperation is also seen in how the main character tries to distract herself from the reality of missing her father with her game, making lists and drawing. It seems like her mother makes her shut it off so she doesn't have to be alone in her fear and it works. The daughter gets afraid. There is relief when they finally find him, but there is still that feeling of isolation.

The images that were the most powerful to me were that of the empty road, the blueprints of the base camp and the one where the game was shut off, pushing the girl into a more fearful place.

I think this is more successful than a traditional approach because it grounds you in the reality of the story. When she speaks of the buzzing of electricity in the sky, you can hear it. When she's taking pictures of flowers, you have to move the mouse over the flowers and actually take the pictures. There is a drawing of the base camp, very technical, that seems to imply that this isn't home. A child would draw home very differently. If this were words alone, you wouldn't be in that place and you wouldn't feel the desperation as clear.

The piece works because it moves at a pace that is appropriate and uses images and sounds that put the viewer there. The blinking map of China, the words scrolling at reading speed, the interactivity of the game that distracts the viewer like it distracts the child--all work together to put the viewer there.

What I like about this piece that I would like to put in my own work is both the sense of pacing and the fact that it draws you in to the point where you must see some kind of resolution. It would be very hard to "opt out" mid way through, just like a cliffhanger novel or a serial tv show. To be able to hold someone's concentration in that kind of way would be awesome.

Short Project Idea

My idea for a short project is to take a word or idea that is charged and misconstrued on a regular basis and have the word/idea start spewing out all the misconceptions into maybe a garbage can or something. In the end, the truth behind the charged word would begin to be typed beneath the actual word, much like a dictionary entry.

Tammy McGovern

I plan to research Tammy McGovern because of all the writers I looked at, her work made me the most uncomfortable and I want to understand why she goes about putting together her pieces the way she does. There must be a method behind the madness, as it is, and I’d like to figure that out.

For research I plan on first viewing most of her work, then looking up different writing both on her and by her hoping to cast some light. As for producing 5-7 pages, I believe that there are so many things present in her work, from the speed of video clips to the disjointed sound and to the interactivty of pieces such as videoKeyboard, that I won’t really have a problem constructing a paper.

As for help, any information on where to find the writings I’m looking for would be appreciated. Also, if perhaps you have any material discussing this type of work and how it developed.

As for a schedule of research, I see myself maybe looking at one new video/piece per day, and looking up an article or essay every few days. I will probably do most of my research online unless I find an overabundance of material at the library.

Drucker

As it applies to us, Drucker seems to focus on how in the mid-1920s there was a movement both in literature in art and that “the relations between form and expression” were dependent on “the capacity of the image, the poem, the word, or the mark to be, to exist in its own right.” She later discusses the importance of art/words to be rather than to represent. The notion is that words are not merely a gate into seeing a fuller picture, but that they themselves are the picture and should be presented in such a way as to be seen stand alone.

Introducing then, the power of words and the pattern poem to express more than words could previously, Drucker delves into the work of Mallarme who clearly distinguished his poetic form from the work of others. This avant-garde approach helps one realize that things as simple as font size, style and placement can radically alter the perception of a work.

This, among other ideas, led to other writers and artists paying closer attention to how others would perceive their creations. Spatial distribution is equal to word choice in many ways in the sense that it can express ideas as clearly or delve into abstraction. That notion, while not new to me, is brought to the forefront and I am able to see it more clearly. If I pay attention to all aspects of a work, it creates a more powerful, cohesive piece that can communicate volumes even in simplicity.

Many people refuse to experiment with writing because they are locked into form. To change font size or spacing mid page or mid sentence seems a many a way to break from cohesion. What they don’t realize is that by staying rooted in old patterns and forms that they are ruining cohesion. There is no way to break a boundary. There is no way to communicate parts of the message and so cohesion is lost.

For my own work, I think I need to be more aware of the placement of letters and also, what a certain font or placement communicates. If I have a message that I want viewers to comprehend, I must produce it in whatever language they will best understand. Readers respond to variance, to change and to abstraction. While it is true that some will not be able to break from their own boundaries in order to properly read this language, it is present for them should they wish to. That is what a writer should do—use every tool on the table and wait for someone to read.

Conversation Project

For the conversation project, Amanda and I are going to present an argument on smoking bans. We have located several websites with pros and cons of implementing such bans. Using these websites, we will compose an argument with a pro voice and a con voice. We have decided to represent the pro voice with black letters on a white background, and the con voice with white letters on a black background. This will function to show which “voice” is speaking at any given time, as well as show that this argument tends to be “black-or-white”, with few people falling into the “grey”. We also want to experiment with graphics. For example, having an image of a cigarette slowly burn down as the argument runs its course. From this cigarette image, we might try to experiment with having letters of words come out of the smoke from the burning end to arrange on the screen. In addition, we would like to incorporate a surgeon general’s warning into this piece. We have located a Marlboro font that we would like to use to stay within the theme of our argument. Knowing that trying to keep pace with the words might be difficult for the viewers, we will try not to incorporate too many words. We will try making fewer words work to get the point across, and try not to overwhelm the readers’ senses.

Ask Me For The Moon and New Orleans

One of the things that intrigued me was that both of these pieces were a translation of a different genre of known writing, poetry and persuasive respectively. The imagery and, in the case of "Blue Velvet," sound, helped contribute more to the conversation than the written word alone could have.

In "Ask Me for the Moon," one of the things that struck me was how in this format, the poet was able to control how the reader viewed the work. Not all the lines came at once. some were drawn out and some led quickly into others. The imagery in the background of the buildings helped give a background to the piece. When a reader normally confronts a poem, he or she can scan it at leisure or pass over lines at a time. The reader here is not allowed to do so. Provided that the viewer remains on the webpage, they will consume the poem closer to how the poet intended. This is the power of technology to transform writing and help people get inside the mind of the writer. Also, we get some of the sense of disillusionment here. The lines show up on the screen as loose thoughts, as if they could be our thoughts. It works.

In "Blue Velvet," the author is attempting to make an emotional connection with the viewer. There is an interactivity here, where the viewer must click on certain words to gain all the information available. This keeps the viewer interested and connected. The sound, the pounding percussion and dramatic tones, give us the idea that what is here is important and indeed it is.

Most discussions of what happened in post-Katrina New Orleans are flat--facts on a page with no personality. The other accounts are overly dramatic, but touch only on the emotional aspect of the story. What is done here, and quite nicely, is the tying together of the facts and the emotional nature of the story in such a way that the viewer is engaged and horrified at the same time. Simply reading facts on a page would bore the average reader and allow them to disengage. Here, we are constantly reminded of the reality of the situation.

When you click on a word, it splashes through the land, reminding us of the after-effects of the storm. The persuasive essay form at the bottom of the page isn't arranged in classic rows of type, but in varying sizes that draw the eye around the page. The videos from the Katrina wake can be accessed from the page, reminding the viewer's soul of how it felt in that situation.

Also here, the words used are not arbitrary at all, but meant to gain a response. Liberty.Activist segregation Privatization. These words are meant to move. And the way the site moves, they are meant to tell a story in an engaging and new way. This format educates, informs and effects emotions in a way possible only by the format.

So then, while these two pieces vary widely in subject manner, they accomplish the same thing. Both expand the conventions of the written word and redefine those conventions using technology. "Blue Velvet" is more effective because of its complexity and interactive nature. It takes a hot-button issue and expounds far beyond normal in an innovative way. It combines images, sound and words to make an argument against the atrocities experienced throughout New Orleans.

"Moon" claims to be one account of the reality in Hawaii and how it is a place overrun with tourists that outnumber citizens. While it is visually pleasing, it doesn't push the envelope in the way "Blue Velvet" does. It doesn't move me to change or to make any decisions about anything. It is a commentary where "Blue Velvet" is almost a manifesto for change.

Word Animation

Link to Word Animation

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/mtray/blood2.html

October 1

Writing changes language. I think this can occur in a variety of different ways. For example, writers may coin new phrases or invent new words that actually change the language. Words exist now that didn't exist last week or last year. Also words change meaning through their use. An easy example is the word "gay" transforming from an adjective meaning happy into a term for a homosexual. But beyond this, language can also be transformed through writing whenever a writer chooses to push what a word means, casting a blanket over a word and implying that it means more than what the dictionary says it does.

If I decide that words that I encounter are not enough to express the thoughts I have, I may use the words at my disposal to try and convey an idea. If I am successful, this may expand the definition and so I have redefined language, if but for my audience.

As for words changing consciousness, the same idea comes into play. I may use words in new ways, interject them where they seem inappropriate, or utilize them to express new ideas. If I am then expressing an idea using these new conventions I have created for these words, the consciousness of others can be drawn into my own stream. My audience adopts my usage or my formula, if only for the sake of driving through my writing. In turn, I might see another writer using a word or phrase in a new way and adopt it into my consciousness. If enough people do this, we have changed language,

Michael Ray and Brendon Dorn

Words in and of themselves have no power unless they are presented in such a way as to convey a message. It is when they are viewed through a filter, whether the filter of technology or restructuring or manipulation, that they are given their power. Every time an envelope is pushed and a boundary broken, there becomes a new boundary.

Art and writing is a radical expression, not for the weak hearted or the drone. The man who stays in the confines of his box and keeps plucking the same note, keeps writing the same way without change, will not leave an impact on anyone. Pushing and changing and adapting to technology requires athletic stamina and commitment.

It is not enough to just experiment with form. One must master it, then move onto the next level. Communication is key. There is no check box for the writer--no do it this way and then you are done. Understand how to manipulate form. Find out what the ceiling is and then break through. Define what the future of writing and communication looks like for you.

Michael Ray and Kendal Kirby

One difference that sticks out in these newer writings versus some of the older is that they are more academic in nature and lack passion. When communicating how to break boundaries and to stray from form, it is somewhat contradictory because they themselves are restricted to a box. This makes the arguments less persuasive and less able to move the reader.

However, they contained facts and information that is necessary if we wish to learn the skills necessary to create passion, unconstricted writing. In that sense, I believe that the academic leads into the creative. Ultimately, it would probably be most effective to combine the information of these later pieces into the style and freedom-pushing mantras of the earlier, more passionate work.

Concrete Poetry, Technology and Words

Technology is an extension of the written word. Words become pictures. Pictures become words. Artists then create work through an extension of themselves. Technology is as much a tool as words themselves are.

Push the envelope of what words are "supposed" to be. There is no single message, no single image that conveys the mire in your head. But an image might give a piece of the picture and a word another. Stack them on top of each other; run them through your mind; add some words and more images. Is the picture more in focus? Can you see it?

Poetry is not a "beautified discourse." How can words alone, words that tear and bite and stack themselves up in codified piles of nonsense, possibly tackle beauty? Words can become a part of something more. Arrange your l e t t er s on a page a little different and see what happens. Are there messages you haven't seen? Are the words you're reading e v e n w h a t y o u t h i n k t h e y a r e ? Words are a tool. Can you see it?

Poems "formulate the appearance of reality" but are not reality. Typing my own name does not create a new me. How can I expect you to see who I am through two simple words. Michael Ray. It is too simple then. We need more to see. Structure can bind or can liberate. Technology can illuminate or distill the reality. All things are tools, for good or for bad. Learn to use them.

No one can make us stay within the verbal limits of a word. Within Mary is an army. Within Michael, He [can] claim...something more. Get on the road. Can you see it?

Edward is a drawer or a reward and is contained inside him. Pull words apart; play with them. Deconstruct and find the pieces. Put them back together in different orders. This is a game. Structure vs. Anarchy writing--which is better, more true? What game we are playing makes for different answers.

The pen is an extension of the hand is the extension of the mind is the extension of the heart and it beats. The television, the name called into the night, the scrawl of a child, blocks stacked on top of one another--all can take a single word and make it mean something more. And we should allow ourselves the liberty to do it. Push words off buildings. Stack them on top of one another. Strip off the extraneous. Let words live. See it.

Word Idea

SO after very little thought actually, I have chosen the word "blood." I don't plan on playing around in some macabre wonderland, but instead would like to trace the word through a Biblical eye.

For example, the blood of Isaac almost shed by Abraham's hand, the blood above the doors during the passover and the blood of Christ as He hung on the cross.

Ideally, I would integrate renaissance artworks into the animation and use them more or less as canvas to draw on top of and to have the word play across.

More Responding

As a poet, I tend to get more caught up in the perfect word to capture an idea that is playing around in my brain. What this series of poems helped me understand more clearly is that sometimes there is no perfect word, but by arranging the words on the page and structuring them in different ways, that the idea can be conveyed just as well if not better than words alone.

For example, in "A Plan for a Curriculum of the Soul," the structure to me reads almost like an equation. Poetry and math don't normally seem to fit together in this sense. Sure, there is the meter and line structure ideals, but this is different. What I learn then is that structure is not confined to any particular school of thought. We can pull pieces from math or science or anywhere and introduce them into writing. And somehow, the dullness of math translates into something interesting--it makes the piece come alive in a way that is new.

Lay all your ideas on the table. Plan out your poem. Pick the words. Then see how the idea can be twisted or distorted through structure to better convey your meaning or perhaps to distort it beyond recognition. Why be bound to structure? Poetry does not need to be ababcdcdefefgg nonsense. We can invent new ways to put our hearts on paper. We can create new revolutions and new styles. We can be more than poets, better communicators, and make the world listen.

Pool Poem

So I look at this and want to think of something profound, that jumps out and grabs me and sends me spiraling down the rabbit hole of geniusness. But I can't. It's a poem and the first few times I looked at it, it kind of bored me.

And then I saw it or I think I saw it. Poetry is often about rhythm and rhyme and meter. The Pool Poem reads more like a list, and so I assumed that there was no real rhythm here. But there it is, in the way each lines flows into the next by their placement on the page not necessarily because it's profound or deep.

Deep. Do I need to scratch my head at a poem and wonder if I'm one of the enlightened for it to be good? Or can the aesthetics of the way it is set on the page capture me as well. Obviously, most people shoot for both. Is it present here? Yeah, though it took me a while.

It is a list, of places and memories, of pools and other things that flicker through Murray's head as he's writing. It's like a freestyle pouring out of thought, just simple phrases that help him see those places and that time. And it's simple. One word. Two. Three. It doesn't take much but it still makes sense. The flow comes through because of how it's presented. Were this just a list, left indent and go!, it wouldn't work at all, any more than a grocery list would be considered art.

So then, if I can achieve rhythm not only by phrasing and words, but by placement, I have another tool to help me communicate with my audience. I can speak of rain and give the feeling through groups of words shaping raindrops. The possibilities go on, and the raindrops idea might be cliche but the idea works. Break it up. Let's let our words flow, let our sentences flow, let our thoughts flow. Then there is less lost in translation. Then my brain can spill more into yours. Maybe you don't want that, my brain is a mess. But we have options.

If anyone made a list of the places their mind travels through the course of a day and charted it on paper and arranged it in such a way that we could see all the interconnectivity and the flow and the person through the page, then we could touch consciousness within one another and come as close as possible to reading thoughts.

If we can list our memories and draw them out through words on a page and link them and color them with adjectives or any other tool we have, then we can better understand ourselves and where we come from and how and why we are what we are.

If I see this poem as just a list, if I look at it and say "Hey, a boring list of pool names," then I rob from myself and no one else. And honestly, I'm not as excited about Foghouse Nick and the Long Pool as I am about what the form can do for me.

The Last Y

Break Every Rule and Rant

Is a war against the confines placed on the imagination the same as a war against the constructs of writing, thoughts, prose? I think we tie together the two.

I think that where "Rant" leaves us, "Break Every Rule" picks up. It is not enough to let your imagination loose, to create your own little world. The problem is the word little.

Do we want to be little? Do we feel that this war is only a war for ourselves? It is not enough to constrain ourselves to only ourselves. When we push further, we will see that pushing down the barriers of our imagination and tapping into the stream that is welled within us is one door. Walking through it is freedom and the country before you is the rest of the world, stuck behind their own little doors.

What to do then. "Break Every Rule" seems to encourage us to knock on other doors. Behind each door is a person in bondage. And we don't knock politely if we want them to answer. We pound on the door, disrupt our "social contracts." At stake is freedom.

If I am free, do I not want everyone else to experience the same? If I delight in my freedom, does it not make sense that I want to share it?

First my imagination, then your imagination. I want to tap into your mind, thoughts, life and I can see how that seems intrusive. But if we are one, if this a war of the worlds, if language is capable of utopia, then part of me is is in bondage as long as anyone wears chains.

Imagination loosed, then loose the filter. I will not be watered down. I will be heard. Not one door opens and another one closes, one door opens and other doors follow. Knock them off their hinges.

Y...Hebrew and Middle English

Maso-Break every rule

Playing by the rules keeps us in the box. And since as people we are by nature, out of the box, why should we communicate as if the only interesting things about us are that which fit in the box? Are we not more than the constructs, the form, the function, the little world set by social norms? Do we have to play by the rules, live in the center not on the edge and be constantly understood only by the piece of us that fits in the norms?

Or are we more and can we be more?

If we are breaking function, breaking rules, letting it all slip aside, are we condemning ourselves to the fringe...are artists and geniuses appreciated in their time...are we going to be left behind if we break the rules?

Will we be concerned visionaries or mad men? Chain-breakers or lazy bastards? Are we afraid to explain the area outside of the boc, outside of our home, over the fence and down the street and into blackest night?

We stay in form because it is the easiest way, not because it is the best. The box has a roaring fire in the middle that we cuddle up in front of. Lack of form is a wall of ice. People know how to see in our box. Lack of rules comes with blinders.

The box is a prison, a jailer, a regime and a madness infecting. Form is shadows and mirrors that lie and the fire is facade. Brilliance is beyond the madness, beyond the ice, break through it, live through it and make it what you will. Maybe you will fall off the earth, maybe be cast into a corner, spat upon and die in a twisted pile of yourself. But you are yourself, not a man in a box, not a woman in bondage, not a life never lived

Form

Form is constraint. If everything is, by nature, chaotic and haphazard, then any attempt to constrain it is form. In this case, however, constraint is not a bad thing. To properly communicate chaos, that is, to present it in a way that others are able to register and understand it, form is key. It is to toss chaos through a pre-assigned filter. The rules are there and we know them. It can be difficult to toss our chaos through the filter, kind of a wood chipper exercise that is both cathartic and heart-breaking. But in the end, there is form.

Form is a social construct. We need to communicate with one another to fill some void within ourselves and form gives us one of the tools needed to do that. In the end, this conformity can strip away some of the message we intended to give. The idea in my head is never perfectly the idea that ends up on paper; something is lost in the translation. But if the idea remains only in my head, it is unable to grow, to bounce off other ideas, to inspire others in any form or to stir the emotions it has stirred in me. This is a social norm that is necessary. Without it, we are many. With it, we can become one.

The Letter Y

The letter

y carries for me the sense of enigma and, when I'm being all math-nerdy, of variance.

y is a question, a place-holder and unlike its often-time associates, Wh,

y can stand alone without looking the fool.

y takes the shape of a tobaggon,

flying down a hill in winter,

the rider half blown back by the wind

and clinging for dear life.

y is a sentence in itself, no punctuation needed

y is a philosophy, a lifestyle, a pursuit.

y needs no introduction, lives in the mouth of every child and gone unanswered,

y confuses, frustrates and sends grown men on adventures.

y is a myth and a mystery,

a character always remains,

a thought in every mind,

a friend in every life.