|
|
|
Christian Bök
Poetic Machines 03----------------- in iron revealing
"Poem #18450" (at the time of this posting) is currently "alive," and so far it has lived for 896 days, 3 hours, 28 minutes, and 6 seconds—but its fate nevertheless rests upon the selective pressures of Darwinian evolution, since its "fitness" gets tested everyday within an ecology of competing mutations, some of which thrive or vanish, depending upon the beauty of their words. If this poem continues to appeal to us readers who, like deities, determine the parameters for such fitness, then the poem gets to lend some of its influence to a subsequent generation of poems, each one likewise subject to the same selective pressures. "Poem #18450" has arisen from an originary reservoir of 1200 randomly combined sets of words. Two of these sets, all generated by computer, get paired off for comparison—and then readers vote online for a "winner," doing so by assessing the poetic merits, for example, of the permuted lexicon, of the aleatory imagery, or of the oracular meaning, after which excerpts from the winning options go on to become randomly permuted with each other, generating new candidates for comparison. We thus guide the evolutionary trajectories of these "poems" by making aesthetic decisions about their "viability." Poems unfit to impress us cannot lend any part of their "genome" to future poetry, and thus their own unique series of phrases must eventually go extinct. "Poem #18450," for example, is the "offspring" of two interfused, ancestral lines, drawing for its parentage upon "Poem #12331" (currently alive) and "Poem #17863" (currently alive). Both of these influences have constituted a kind of "genetic reserve," which has lent part of its matrix to a hybrid entity—one that has gone on, so far, to survive in the face of changing fashions among its relentless readership. We can thus see a random series of words evolve towards intelligibility. "Poem #18450" has also spawned four of its own descendants: "Poem #18766" (currently alive); "Poem #18767" (currently dead); "Poem #19905 (currently dead); and "Poem #19906" (currently alive). The poem is interesting, because it almost seems to refer to the conditions of its own production. I might suggest that, despite the impassive processes of evolution, in which "nature stands/ considered/ forever/ in iron/ with cold knowledge," the mechanical procedures of both admixture and selection have, nevertheless, revealed the "dream" of the poem itself—caught on the fly, if you like, because someone has deigned to love it. David Phillip Rea, the author of the algorithm that performs these tasks, has even gone so far as to assign one of two "species" (A or B) to every poem in the initiating population. Two poems of the same species have a 100% chance of "mating" successfully, while two poems from variant species have only a 20% chance of interbreeding. When poems of the same species mate, there also exists a 20% chance that any offspring might have an extra A or an extra B added to its designation, and over time, the chance of any two poems mating successfully begins to decline as these "speciations" become more stringently complicated. Rea has thus created a kind of "ecology" where species of poetry must arrive at an optimal balance between, on the one hand, special adaptations to an environment of specific, literary tastes and, on the other hand, general versatility in an environment of changing, literary trends. The algorithm provides a machine for exploring these conditions of "fitness"—and just as nature has produced surprising innovation under such evolutionary restrictions, so also might we discover, by accident, unusual, literary mutations amid the welter of unfit poems, all composed by computer and then compared for our aesthetic judgement. Poets who might wish to play God with this kind of "living poetry" can do so by clicking here. CommentsThe Darwinian Poetry site is fun and addictive. It is oddly similar to the experience of defining words to donate grains of rice at freerice.com. Whle the one set of judgements about words is supposedly a creative judgement based on opinion and the other an objective judgement based on fact, the certainty on the Darwinian site feels as certain and the "truth" aimed for just as real. It would be fascinating to track different people's preference patterns and correlate them with their demographics etc. Thanks for this link, Annie |
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS
Christian BökStephen Burt Daisy Fried Rigoberto González Major Jackson Reginald Shepherd A.E. Stallings STAFF WRITERS
Michael MarcinkowskiEd Park Fred Sasaki Don Share Elizabeth Stigler Nick Twemlow Emily Warn PREVIOUS WRITERS
Kwame DawesKenneth Goldsmith Jeffrey McDaniel Ange Mlinko Patricia Smith Rachel Zucker RECENT COMMENTS
Evidence, But of What?, a Mini-Essay on Form (6)more scots, less porn (8) The Anatomy of Pleasure (16) Happy Birthday, George Gordon, Lord Byron (4) The Nude Formalism (6) RECENT POSTS
Evidence, But of What?, a Mini-Essay on Form (Daisy Fried)Illness and Poetry (Reginald Shepherd) The Bride-Choosing (Daisy Fried) Good Night, Sweet Ladies: A Thought About Slightness (Daisy Fried) The Anatomy of Pleasure (Daisy Fried) CATEGORY ARCHIVE
Poetry magazineAWP Arts Awards Biography Books Criticism Distribution Education Film Music Obituaries Outrageous Photographs Poems Poetry Out Loud Poetry and the Internet Politics Readings TV poetryfoundation.org AUTHOR ARCHIVES
Christian BökStephen Burt Kwame Dawes Daisy Fried Kenneth Goldsmith Rigoberto González Major Jackson Jeffrey McDaniel Ange Mlinko Ed Park Fred Sasaki Reginald Shepherd Patricia Smith A.E. Stallings Nick Twemlow Emily Warn Rachel Zucker Subscribe to the RSS feed. ![]() What is RSS? |

