Search results for "C_THR86_2305 Latest Study Guide š Reliable C_THR86_2305 Test Sample ā C_THR86_2305 Braindumps š„ Open [ www.pdfvce.com ] and search for [ C_THR86_2305 ] to download exam materials for free š¤²Test C_THR86_2305 Lab Questions"
| Results 351 - 360 of 1053
|
Page 36 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[ā¦]metafictional definition the writer-narrator gives of his ars poetica, directing himself to āus[e] all five senses, to make her (and you) experience the text as an object in the world, real as a brickā (284). Against what the narrator calls a ālinear plotā (75), thus, a multimedia operatic scheme is devised, juggling semiotic networks, with the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk by tutelary Richard Wagner, who is conjured up twice (71-367), along with his āRhine maidensā (19), even if the narrator also summons Friedrich Nietzsche (71), which might be an invitation to qualify the reference to Wagner. This reliance on a trans-artistic [ā¦]
[ā¦]is both simple and ambitious: that the results will amount to āmore than the sum of their parts [and] possess emerging qualities, which were not visible at a lower levelā (Moretti 53). How could we transpose this logic to the ELMCIP and its current potentialities? Ā One example is Scott Rettbergās use of the modularity algorithm to identify network communities (Cf. Rettberg). Rettbergās visualizations display several clusters of data, each revealing closer relationships between certain networked records. As they pertain primarily to creative works, these clusters can be reflective of a variety of commonalities: genre, production year, language of the work, [ā¦]
[ā¦]silently written word can be silently erased, and the Internetās textual cornucopia tempts us to forget all that Google does not know. The notion of live writing and the performance of writing has interested poets and literary scholars for decades (at least), leading to many experiments in creating more nuanced spaces on the page and in public readings for the performance of poetry and other literature. At its roots these modes of performance serve to construct our own identities as players on the cultural stage: Adam Smith more or less founded his entire theory of moral philosophy on the importance [ā¦]
[ā¦]of publication, characterized by circulation, commentary, and archiving. The works are subject to complex corporate toolchains, software updates, social media, etc. A work is no longer just the work but the entirety of this field. Publication is no longer a single event or a single thing. Perhaps this was never the case: publication was always already a complex event, tied to institutionsāof formalization, location, dating, and so onāsuch as the authorās name, the ISBN, the title. āFormat disruption,ā according to Andrew Savikas, CEO of Safari Books, results in āradical changes in how continued demand for the form [that is, the [ā¦]
[ā¦]refers to states of order that are produced in chaotic systems. āWeak Emergenceā refers simply to fortuitous organizations that take place as many small operations aggregate themselves into more powerful process. āStrong Emergenceā refers to those spontaneous orders that resemble intelligent activity. While emergence has been used in fields like evolutionary biology and economics, I am specifically interested in its use in digital culture. Increasingly, this term is used to describe change as a benign and specifically digital determinism, a kind of inevitable cultural progression facilitated by machine intelligence. I wonder what it means to subvert the prevailing order when [ā¦]
[ā¦]of numbers. At the original time of this talk, one of the stated goals on the ELO āAboutā page[1] was: āto bring born-digital literature to the attention of authors, scholars, developers, and the current generation of readers for whom the printed book is no longer an exclusive medium of education or aesthetic practiceā. This is an excellent aspiration. My personal inspiration for this talk originated from commentary by my students in digital performance and creative writing at the Rhode Island School of Design. I realized that many of them werenāt interested in engaging with materials archived by the ELO and [ā¦]
[ā¦]Herbrechter explains, Heidegger envisions technology, broadly defined, as a means by which ā[t]he human speciesā¦does not need to adapt to its environment but instead transforms its environment according to its needsā (152). In turn, as Herbrechter recommends, ā[A] critical posthumanism would have to take up the Heideggerian challenge to think of the essence of technology as something non-technicalā (158). Such a challenge, as the book proposes, supports the posthumanities as āinterdisciplinary practiceā and Derridaās āuniversity without conditionsā (174-76)āthat is, without having limits on academic freedom. While Herbrechter, then, would agree with Neil Badmington, quoting his remark that such freedom is [ā¦]
[ā¦]Funkhouser explicitly and repeatedly aligns digital poetry with modernism and postmodernism: ā[t]he aesthetics of digital poetry are an extension of modernist techniquesā and theoretically digital works are āin many ways typical of the postmodern condition of the textā (3). While this may be true for the poetry that Funkhouser spends most of the book analyzing, his conviction that those works āset the stage for contemporary works and can be used as a reference point for future formsā (8) is more doubtful. There are already digital poetic works that do not readily adhere to avant-garde aesthetic principles or political aims (works [ā¦]
[ā¦]advocate pollution, rejoicing in the illegitimate fusions of animal and machineā (180). In my latest work, Queerskins, I explored the politics of gender through a kind of literary drag performance, in which I mingled scenes and feelings from my own autobiography with that of Sebastian, a young gay physician from a rural Catholic Missouri family who dies of AIDS at the beginning of the epidemic. When I presented this work to a class at Bard College one woman asked if I was concerned by my failure to speak (that is to say adequately copy the voice of a real gay [ā¦]
[ā¦]rather than numb, engagement. By employing affect as an analytic, Houser opens questions about how to compose scholarly writing that does not nullify its own analysis, through evacuating its inherent emotional intensity. How can writing that seeks to maintain a critical distance adequately, or accurately, she asks, express or contain engagements with affect? While Houser does not discard critical distance, she rightly insists that we āmust take methodological inspiration from the literature we analyze and bring different ways of knowingāfrom scientific experiment to embodied feelingāto bear on each other. Following this procedure, interconnectedness becomes method and not only theme or [ā¦]