. |
Creativity in the Age of Computer Networks*** Christiane Heibach Some historical remarks on the notion of authorship Some of the great epical
authors in the late 12th century, at the time,
when scriptographic storing began, show a consciousness of
authorship that can be compared to that of the modern times
(Bein 1999, p. 306). They mentioned their names or the names
of others mostly embedded in their literary
narration, as Gottfried von Straßburg or Walther von
der Vogelweide did. But these evidences are quite rare and
rather have the status of exceptions than that of a
standard. Medieval authorship was mostly bound to
authority only authorities acknowledged
by the church had the right to be mentioned as authors. The
development of print technology that allowed to produce many
copies of the same work and to distribute it over wide areas
changed this authoritarian notion of the author as soon as
the print technology was not only seen as a new storing
system, but as a communication system that could be used to
widely distribute all kinds of information (Giesecke 1998,
p. 318). The communication network was significantly changed
and extended; the author became necessary for the recepients
to locate and structure the available information.
Nevertheless it took almost
300 years from the invention of the printing press to the
modern concept of the author as analyzed by Foucault.
According to him this notion of the author developed with
the re-birth of literature
under the premises of the discovery of language as an
independent system with specific rules and structures
(Foucault 1990, p. 358). The possibilities of individual
formation of language in literary production constructed the
author. Foucaults investigation does not include the
specific conditions of the literary system that developed
out of print technology, but analyzes the construction of
the author out of an archeology of knowledge. But Knowledge
itself is nevertheless deeply interwoven with the leading
technology by which it is stored and distributed, and which
influences as McLuhan has demonstrated the
conditions of the specific epistemologies. So we have two
different theoretical approaches parting from which the
construction of the author can be analyzed: the materiality
of the print medium, including the whole literary system on
the one hand; the specific forms of knowledge construction
on the other hand. Both approaches cannot be separated from
each other, as the one always influences the other, and it
is nearly impossible to tell the cause from the effect. Thus
both theoretical approaches are important, when we try to
summarize the specific characteristics of the modern notion
of the author as follows (Jannidis/Lauer/Martinez/Winko
1999, p. 5-8) Poststructuralist theory now
concentrates on only one of these characteristics the
stylistic individuality, and even there it does not see the
author, but the text as creator of style, mainly of the
différance between rhetoric and literal meaning of
the text. But this concept is bound to the print medium and
has to operate with fixed words on paper to deconstruct the
predetermination of the signifier and the signified, it
still needs the author to demonstrate the blindness
and insight of literature and its interpretation, that
means: even poststructuralist theory operates with
intentionality, although hidden behind the ontologized text.
Thus I suppose that the notion of the author is still alive,
even in the most radical literary theories. This is not only
a consequence of theory, but also bound to our cultural and
social construction of the literary system. That means, that
our practice of literary production is deeply connected to
the whole system of print technology which demands material
closure, naming (title and author) and
identification. Now, as we witness a change
of media as important as that from scriptographic to
typographic writing, we have to ask ourselves, which impact
this change may have for the notion of the author in
theoretical and practical (i.e. concerning the literary
system) respect. New media create new forms
of writing and thus should logically have deep influence on
the author function. Statements of hypertext theorists like
for instance George Landow depart from the text, not from
the change of the communication system or the different
materiality of the medium when they state that hypertextual
writing and reading causes a revolution on the notion of the
author who disappears behind the volatile structure of
multi-linearity. But the wreader (Landow 1994,
p.14) the reader who creates the story apart from
authorical control in choosing links and compilating his own
story out of the offers the author presents to him seems to
be a too moderate concept to really appear as a revolution.
Reader response theory developed the theory of the
construction of the individual story in the readers
mind on the basis of print literature, and it seems to me
rather an increase of confusion than an increase of liberty,
when the reader is presented more texts than he/she can cope
with. In fiction he/she has no chance to choose
intentionally; he/she is forced to follow the links randomly
without knowing where he/she is taken to. There is still one
identifyable author, the producer of the text, and thus the
reader is still concerned with trying to get a glimpse of
the authors intention, trying to reconstruct the
intended meaning. Thus, hyperfiction mostly causes more
confusion than pleasure. To grasp possible changes in
the notion of the author caused by the new media, we have to
transcend the text and at first try to describe the medium
we are dealing with. Due to the limited time, I will focus
not on the computer as medium which of course has
implications on the authors function as we have to
deal with the gap between limitation and scope caused by the
technical basis of software. Computer generated texts
include software as an authorical element, and there the
author is no more the creator of individual style but the
designer of text transformation rules. But this is a
different, although related point which I will not further
explore. In the following I will concentrate on the changes
caused by networked computers, and there on the most
extensive form, the internet. My main thesis concerns the
ontology of this medium: I suppose, that it was developed
and grew that enormously because it is the answer to one of
the basic human desires: the desire to communicate, to meet
and talk to people without being limited by time or
space-differences. Networking does only make sense, when
connections are used, and they are used in two ways. The
first way can be formulated as the connection between people
by means of the machine (which is the computer and its
communication with other computers on the basis of
protocols); the second way is the communication between user
and the networked machines when he/she browses through the
internet by using links, and compilates information from
different places. This can also be the core of literary
production, as the Project The first and maybe most
pragmatic one is the cooperation of technicians, designers
and writers. The complexity of the computer demands
abilities that can rarely be met by one single person. Thus
cooperations become more and more important that make it
possible to use and maybe also extend or transgress the
possibilities of the medium. The latest work of Mark
Amerika, What is really interesting
is the development of different forms of procedural
authorship as Janet Murray calls it (Murray 1997, p.
185 ff.). Procedural authorship is bound to a deep change in
the first characteristic I mentioned above as part of the
modern notion of the author: It eliminates the individual
style and replaces it by combining different authors to a
project- or text-network. There are multiple examples of
cooperative writing and/or designing, that can be
distinguished by the ways they treat the author. Projects
that establish a thematical frame for example mostly mention
the individual author, as for example the trace project
"Assoziations-Blaster",
created by the two Germans Alvar Freude and Dragan
Espenschied, is more radical in using networked writing (see
review
in dichtung-digital). The "Assoziations-Blaster" consists of
keywords, to which everyone can contribute her/his
associations. That means clicking on a keyword will make a
randomly chosen text appear which is stored
under this category, in this text every word that is a
keyword is linked, so that the user can click through an
associative network of texts. The linking is done
automatically according to the keywords, and therefore has
no semantical meaning. The user now can contribute his or
her own associations to one text, after having done that at
least three times he/she is allowed to create his/her own
keyword. The "Assoziations-Blaster" is based inherently on
the instantaneous communication opportunities, the user
communicates directly with the text he/she responds to. This
differs from noon quilt in the communicative
function of writing, that means, that the author becomes
involved in a rather immediate communication with other
authors. This is emphasized by the existence of a very
lively forum, in which the people discuss their thoughts
concerning the project or certain texts, so that the
communicative character of the project culminates in a real
communication network. In this project the focus lies rather
on cooperative communication than on the production of
individual texts. While noon quilt
and the Assoziations-Blaster store their
entries, other forms of communicative and cooperative
writing exist only in the moment of their realization. This
is the case in Virtual Worlds, where people meet and
communicate through text. Of course one could argue, that
this has nothing to do with literature, but what is
literature? If you focus on fictionality as one of the main
characteristics of literature you are not able to
distinguish between literature and non-literature anymore,
as computer-mediated communication has a very low empirical
verification level. You can never be sure that the one you
talk or - correctly - write to is
the one he/she pretends to be. These are only three
examples, each representing different forms of writing, of
course one could find much more manifestations of these
three types of cooperative creativity. Now lets turn to the
consequences of these networked forms of production for the
notion of the author. The three characteristics of
individuality, intention and
owner of ideas shall now be examined according
to the new conditions of networked writing. As far as
individuality is concerned, I referred to this
time and again during describing the three projects. The
focus of all projects lies on communication more ore
less immediate and this subverts any form of
artificiality and demonstration of individual literary
skills. It emphasizes a notion of literature that is bound
to social processes, not to individual psychic dispositions.
It is not important anymore to form an individual work out
of the language material, but to co-create something in
more or less immediate communication with
others. The process becomes more important than the result.
As a consequence, the individual creator steps back behind
the project as a communicational phenomenon. This is less
the case in projects like noon quilt, where
networking is not that much emphasized, but becomes more
important in works-in-progress like the
Assoziations-Blaster and represents the core of
the playground of virtual worlds. We could say that in these
projects two forms of authorship appear: The authorship of
the initiators of the project who create the thematic and
technical frame, and the communicative authorship where
people realize the given scopes and vitalize the
project. Departing from these two
forms of authorship it becomes clear, that intentionality is
also double-faced: On the one hand there are the initiators
who mostly intend for a certain purpose, on the other hand
there are the participants who may not care for this purpose
but act on the basis of realizing the intentions of their
communication partners. Paradoxically, here the
individuality becomes important again, as in reacting to a
text (especially concerning the
Assoziations-Blaster and the case of virtual
worlds) one reacts to the author of the text although this
may not be perceivable for the readers. The notion of
intentionality concerning the initiators still resembles the
one of the traditional author it may play a role for
the contributors but it mustnt (as the construction of
a print authors possible intention may be interesting
for the interpretation or not), but the intentionality of
the participants may be at first to communicate and
therefore to realize the intentions of their co-creators.
This is a social notion of intentionality that is based on
the immediate communicative situation, and it is necessary
for the success of communication and thus of the
project. The author as owner of ideas
disappears completely in these forms of writing. The
internet in its decentral and open distribution forms does
not yet allow the restrictions of copyright although not
everyone supports this freedom. The discussion on copyright
questions shows that the individual author still is the
dominating one. When the software Third Voice
was introduced that allows to leave comments on any web site
and thus constitutes a sort of metatext, this horrified many
home-page-owners, as they saw this as a non-contollable
interference to their territory. But if we do
not want the internet to be a big commercial circus we will
have to say goodbye to the concept of an original owner
which, as the discussion on intertextuality shows
is as much a fiction as the genius. In this contribution I
focused on the author function, which as I suppose
due to networked environments will change from the
original creator to the co-creative collective. The further
consequences of these forms of literature as immediate
communication are the procedural, never closed, and
at least partly ephemeral character of the projects.
Quality criteria as complexity, beauty of language,
innovative treatment of plot or language etc. are not
important here, what is important is the creative and active
participation within the given rules rather a game
than a work. In literary theory we will not be able to
describe these phenomena without a theory of communication
this may become more important than text theories.
The core of this author function is communication, and this
corresponds to the ontology of the medium, as I stated it
above. Thus, we indeed face a revolution: not the
disappearance of the author, but the metamorphosis of its
notion from the individual originator to the distributed
collective author as a result of social dynamics. ***This text is a talk given at the Digital Arts & Culture-Conference, Aug. 2-4, 2000, in Bergen. (top)
- Bein, Thomas: Zum
'Autor' im mittelalterlichen Literaturbetrieb. In:
Jannidis/Lauer/Martinez/Winko, Die Rückkehr des Autors,
p. 303-320. your comment |