by Kunal Basu-Dutta

At the University of Chicago, we have the tendency to be wrapped up in the past. Many of the texts we read are to give us a solid foundation built upon ‘The Canon.’ Life does, however, progress, and I believe that it important to understand the modern world. We tend to overlook modernity’s effects on areas, specifically the arts. When we think of the effects of technology, we always consider the socio-economic effects; yet, we fail to notice the ripples within litero-poetic communities. There are currently several influencing figures that are bridging the supposed gap between technology and poetry. Two such figures are Chicago’s own Judd Morrissey and Mark Jeffery (for bios, see below).

Recently, both of them came to my poetry class to talk about themselves, their new project, and answer some of our questions.

Judd started out by talking about his early works, his first being “The Jew’s Daughter”—one of the canonical works of e-literature. The hypertext embedded in the piece creates a sense of liquidity in the reading. It is here that the idea of a “very fluid and circular reading,” seen in later works, begins. This type of new connectivity is prevalent within the works of many electronic writers because it is a never-before-seen facet of the electronic medium.

“My Name is Captain, Captain” was one of Morrissey’s next major published pieces. However, if you try to find it online or in the library, you will run into some difficulty. Why? Simply because it was published on CD. Technology advances at a rapid pace, and everyone must try and rush to keep up with it. When CDs first came about, they were perfect for carrying large quantities of data which made them seem to be a viable medium. Now-a-days, CDs are seen as outdated and difficult to manage, especially with P2P sharing and the ease with which personal websites can be created. The effect of outdated electronics on e-lit is indicative of technology’s force in general. Also, the poetry cannot be reproduced in website form due to a legal contract. This should serve as a warning to all artists to check the sustainability of the medium and the control of reproduction.

Mark Jeffery and Judd Morrissey: Rehearsal of The Precession

While these two themes of fluidity and new technology prevail over e-poetry, they do not give a real sense of what the term means. The first part of the term “e” seems simple; it refers to ‘e’lectronic, meaning that the work must actively involve technology, usually computers, in some form or fashion. The electronic component can be anything from hypertexts and links to video and sound editing to e-distribution i.e. blogs, RSS feeds, etc. This range lends itself also to the poetic side of things. With the new electronic medium, poetry comes off of the page and, even, leaves the realm of text at times. In fact, the mobility allowed by technology fuels many artists to new and unknown realms and media, whether in the form of a website, a video, a performance, or a textual piece.

This fusion of bytes with letters is something that everyone should watch since it heralds the new age of poetics. While it is important to read Ovid, Byron, Frost, and other canonical poets, a fresh canon is being created right now, right here. The future of poetry is being written at this moment and we should pay attention. Soon, the three words of Judd Morrissey will be highlighted in modern arts and poetics-“Choreography, context, and chorus.”

Welcome to an age of “less writing and more parsing.”

Judd Morrissey calls himself a “code artist” and fuses the electronic/technological with the poetic and performance. He did not start as a poet and, in fact, had never really done a serious writing workshop before college. It was late in college when one of his thesis review professors, the esteemed poet Robert Kelly, pointed him to the MFA at Brown where he was introduced to hypertext programming and literature, such as the program Story Space and the piece “Patchwork Girl” by Shelley Jackson. He went on to release “The Jew’s Daughter,” “My Name is Captain Captain,” and “The Last Performance.” Currently, he is working with Mark Jeffrey on a project called “The Precession (Living Newspapers Version” which will be happening June 1st through June 25th at the MCA (Museum of Contemporary Art) and teaches at the SAIC (School of the Art Institute of Chicago).

Mark Jeffery proclaims he is “not a writer” but a performance artist. After growing up in very rural town ‘across the pond,’ he received his training at Dartington College of Arts, which he compared to the familiar Black Mountain College. His background influenced his predilection to symbols such as milk and black soot. Mark is well known for being one of the core members of the Goat Island Performance Group which is based in Chicago. He and Judd Morrissey actually met through Goat Island and have since done several works together, including the upcoming event. Mark also teaches at SAIC.

by Dahlia Rizk

The year’s technology: hands-on and hassle free.

This past week the streets of America have been abuzz with technological news regarding items that until recently, we never knew we needed, but now, will never be able to live without. One such item has been the Apple iPad—the iPhone with the really big screen and a personal message that says, “Hey, you, average consumer. Give us more of your money for redundant-but -flashy gizmos. Love, Apple”. But that is not the technological wonder I am recommending you today. No, this device of which I speak is far more humane and comforting than the feel of cold steel and plexiglass in your palm.

Meet Roxxxy, the lady robot powered for your own hands-on experience. Marketers have labeled her the most advanced talking sex robot yet. According to her home at TrueCompanion.com, she comes complete with soft silicone “skin”, voice recognition and speech-synthesis software, and even 5 distinct personalities in varying friskiness to match the consumer’s, er, preferences. She even has sensors in her womanly organs that are to gather a vocal response when touched. Barring any major malfunctions, and as long as her battery doesn’t run out, she is yours for about $7,000. While her creators have assumed that Roxxxy is only meant for a niche clientele (or at least one hopes) preorders have been flooding in, in the thousands, since her debut at the Las Vegas Adult Entertainment Expo last month.

This story is disturbing on so many levels, but where to begin? For me, personally, it’s not the idea that there are thousands of lonely (and gullible) men who are actually eager to spend $7,000 on a sex robot than say, on a high end prostitute, who is, at the very least, a real-live person. (I’m not trying to make an argument for prostitution; I’m only trying to argue the alternatives to such an investment). Rather, it’s the idea that today’s technology, as embodied by Roxxxy, can be manipulated and marketed to replace what is arguably the most human and intimate of functions—human procreation. Now, in 2010, there is no real need for single, lonely men who “have trouble meeting girls” to do anything to establish a real personal connection with a member of the opposite sex if they consider the idea just too horrifying or haven’t left their house for the past two months since they’ve started to build the next supercomputer by hand.

Similarly, the iPhone application Brushes offers “mobile painting”, and such “paintings” have actually appeared on the cover of the New Yorker several times. Why bother, Brushes argues, with years of training and tuition and messy paints when all you need is a gizmo on an iPhone? Once again, with the right amount of greenbacks and with not a whole lot of self-esteem, technology is trying to make things that are supposed to be difficult, very easy. Creating and sustaining relationships that might involve sex can be one of the most exhaustive things one can ever do, and yet, today, a high-tech blow-up doll has managed to do just that. Roxxxy may never turn into a real live human being, but hey, at least we humans are willing to settle for what we pay for, without having to put in too much effort. A Brushes painting may have not taken the training or contemplation that a normal painting would require, but if the New Yorker can put it on its cover, then clearly then it must be art enough, no? In other words, we’re finding all kinds of ways for the instrumentality of technology to replace tasks that would usually require input from our emotions, our moral judgment and human esthetic, and I’m starting to wonder if one day we’d like to get rid of these purely human capacities altogether. Just as long as we get the job done, we’re starting to care less and less how it’s done.

Well, as with my take on sex with robots, I think I’ll just have to say no.