EXHIBITION 012
SOLO/Mary-Anne Breeze: dam(b)a({n}d{a})ged poetry
Works | #Types.of.Und.Fineable.Ware[z]#, _ID_Xor-cism_, LinGUIdity Funct ion, _What_: Streaming of New Theory utilizing Twitter software mechanics, .RE_____________(AD.HTM, Cutting spaces, ___Death of Spa[rrow.of.time.presen]ce, ______dis[ap]posable_ | Curated by | _____fratha__ | Opening | 5 November 2007
—
mez, netwurker, data[h!]bleeder, ms post modemism, mezflesque.exe, ova.kill, net.w][ho][urker, Purrsonal Areah Netwurker, Phonet][r][ix ... The psydomyms of the Australian Internet artist Mary-Anne Breeze are as multifaceted and multilayered as is her artistic work.
Since the beginning of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990ies she has developed her own language of artistic creation called mezangelle (or: mez.angelle, _mezangelle_, m[ez]ang.elle, …). The playful appliance of aspects of form and content like orthography, semantics and punctuation are mixed with the hybrid use of segmented code and programming languages, Internet-slang and literary texts. Mary-Anne Breeze creates open poetic writing processes at the intersection of speech and Internet publishing applying her own code-system to all forms of media-communciation. She uses mezangelle not only as her personal form of expression but also as a critique and reflection upon the actual tendencies of contemporary artistic and cultural production on the Web. Her texts, “mangled” through associative techniques are readable by readers of English, but only at the cost of tremedously slowed reading speed. Single words, split up in different semantic units and altered by code snippets, can be interpreted in many different ways and disrupt the traditional conventions of language with the aim to create an open and process-oriented form of communication modalities or as definded by Alan Sondheim: “Codework is a practice, not a product.”
With mezangelle you have created your own language of artistic expression. It is highly complex and consist of a dense and continuous chain of songs and letters which results in semantically concentrated but syntactically not fixed texts. How can one image the process of creation, the way you are working on it?
i dreamt about this question the other nite: appropriate really……
dreamt::phase-changing micro-moments shifting thru exte[c(ute)ha]n[nelle]ded realities
dreamt::horr[l]o[ve]r.all rolled.around.my.trailing.motion.fingers
…on waking i began teasing apart the mezangelled process.
1. a trigger is in[itially.e]volved [could b ph(r)ase/code strings, a sensory cue, +/or information spark(s) via aggre(p)gation trawling].
2. a syn[es]t[ling]ax [dr(p)a(rsed)wn from my data absorbing at that time] then w[b]ra[nches]ps around the trigger.
3. then come the mechanisms employed 2 diffuse the impulse 2 use a [self]conscious authorial voice 2 construct the work.
they include:
/music [l(em)o(tive)ud]
/fracture-tasking [like multitasking but demanding a type of staggered attention between consciousness projecting + an intense bombarding of stimulus: eg game.system.flitting or focused.stimulus.expansion+conTr[ee]action via data absorption].
[if i let myself create in my primary authorial voice via focused/conscious attention normally associated with the creative process, all i'd produce is source code or dam(b)a({n}d{a})ged poetry].
[regulati(c)on(trol) of whe(n)re i'm creating is also a plus: this can be internally moderated (i tend 2 have outrageously expressive idea_channelling whilst trying to block out annoying passengers on long-range train trips, tho this could have 2 do with music pumped @ ear-bleeding lvls;)].
4. then comes the compiling: pie[r]cing 2gether via a streaming process of generating>constructing>analysing>re[m({h}ash)ix]constructing>m[f]ixing>optimizing etc blah until it has some type of internal consistency.
5. my wurks r never really finished; they kinda hang together in a faux_fixed state, rdy.4.the.next.incarnation.
—
tags: 404, appropriation, immateriality, infinity, language, link, literature, loop, selfreferentialism, urlWordPress | Zero | Newsfeed