From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art

At 02:57 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
 >if i'm not mistaken, mez here is proposing the works exist in a
 >certain communicative channel...they're a flow of data////like all
 >things really are////

_form from_

or even

_form form_

 >my question would be (and the answer to this would actually help me
 >distinguish between works): where does the data come from? where does
 >it flow to?

_net.wurks_ u.se[e] information.

<d.fine: information?>

_in form_

 >one can say (as in romanticism): well, the data comes from somewhere
 >up there: it flows into me, and then out:::::all of which is true////
 >

up there: no
in2: no
out: no

[a trip.tick.ler of nos].
[think no.dic[k]|x.plosive, la[la laaaa li]terally.]

 >but the works i like best are those in which data comes from several
 >sources (not simply repsawning my own): data comes from you, and you,
 >and you, and you, and you=====and goes to you and you and you and
 >you////

u & u & u.

[ewes & use = cul.pa[lata]ble comprehension].

 >this is interesting to me because it's pointing to an epitemology of
 >net art (or at least an epistemology of mez's work, which interests
 >me greatly)////
 >
 >but i still don't understand why they're not texts? how would you
 >define a text, mez? and what is the distinction between that and what
 >you do?

i _net.wurk_.
[u text b.coz u r].
[i net.wurk b.coz i am
w.here.].

[u purr.[d]sist in b.ing .here.]

oppositional here|w.here.