ࡱ> CgDRoot Entry@  F{bwP Data$%&'()*+,-./0 56789:;<=;1TableEFOHIJKLMNPUVWXYQ WordDocumentopuvwWz0  !"#$%&'()*+,-./_123456789:O<=>?@ABQRSVXYZ[\]^`abcmnopqrstuvwxyzSummaryInformationInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8pCompObjeX^0Tablel- [<@<Normal 1$ddCJPJmHnH :`: Heading 1$@&5B*OJQJ>`> Heading 2$@&5B*CJOJQJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font:O:Definition Term >O>Definition Listh(O( Definition6.o.H1$@&5KH$OJQJ&O&H2$@&5CJ$2o2H3$hh@& 5OJQJ"O"H4$@&5&O&H5$@&5CJ&O&H6$@&5CJ.O.Address 6<o< Blockquote hh CJOJQJOCITE6$O$CODE CJOJQJ$X@$Emphasis6(U@( Hyperlink>*B*8V@8FollowedHyperlink>*B* 0O0Keyboard5CJOJQJfOf Preformatted0  # ~= z9!v% CJOJQJ\O\z-Bottom of Form!$1$$d<CJOJPJQJmHnH VOV z-Top of Form"$1$&d<CJOJPJQJmHnH $O1$SampleOJQJ W@A Strong50OQ0 Typewriter CJOJQJ$Oa$Variable6,Oq, HTML Markup<B*"O"Comment<@>@@Title)$<@&5CJ KHOJQJ,@,Header * !, @,Footer + !&)@& Page NumberFt,t !!       N$-^5=EF oNdf6!D!%%%)))h+,6-H-o-//H1\112!55566!7988:k:===>>?6BkEF`' `' `'7r`' `' `' `'7r`' `' `' `' `' `' `' `'7r`'  `' `' `' `'7r`' `'  `' `' `' `' `'7r`' `' `' `' `'"together" as I ever get. Jay introduced a comment about hypertext by joking, "Hypertext ... do you remember hypertext?" And its true, hypertext had a lot of promise but that promise has, in many ways, largely evaporated. Hypertexts, paradoxically, take it too farthey are object and action, but the action seems to primarily be about the object. Hypertext unites our actions on the text and in the text so closely with the form of the text that we, in fact, tend to worship the text itself outside of any other purpose. Which brings us, in a stumbling way, to Hegel's definition of architecture: Hegel defined architecture as anything in a building that "did not point to utility" (Tschumi, Architecture, p. 32). The forms of hypertext that seem most action and object are also the forms most outside utility, which isnt where I wanted to head. In a surprising way here, then, architecture here becomes the Derridean "supplement," the meaning outside of the text. And this is what I want to talk about today (at last): writing or textuality as postmodern architecture. Why Postmodern Architecture? In many ways, architecture comes at the object/action split from the opposite direction that composition approaches that split. Postmodern architecture gets at what I claimed was my goal here: to think of writing as both an object and an action, without falling into the trap of seeing the object as the total focus of action. In postmodern architecture, as theorists and practitioners like Koolhaas, Venturi, Rauch, and Brown, and Tschumi articulate it, architecture is both space and action--but the actions are not necessarily determined automatically by the space or related primarily to the space. Postmodern Architecture: Six Concepts I'd like to end here almost before I've really begun, with some general suggestions for additional thinking, working, and learning in texts as postmodern architecture. These are pretty sketchy, I have to admit, and part of a larger project. But these tentative connections suggest some important ways that to think about our work in text. Earlier I made the distinction between text as functional architecture and text as postmodern architecture. I don't want to negate the importance of those functionalist approaches--information architecture, for example, will continue to grow in importance as increasing amounts of our lives are spent online. But I want to add to those beginnings by positing six concepts the table in the handout for a postmodern architecture of textuality, drawn from Tschumi's essay, "Six Concepts," in Architecture and Disjunction. Tschumi here attempts to frame a response to Vince Scully's dismissal of postmodern architecture as 'a moment of supreme silliness that deconstructs and self-destructs' (qtd. in Tschumi, "Six Concepts," p. 228). PRIVATE
QualitiesArchitectureText
defamiliarization
make the visible the familiar (uncanny)large antenna on Guild Housereading &writing space
mediated metropolitian shock
overcome information overload/numbing(japanese architecture: locomotive, robot)visuals in textual space, animation (multimedia)
destructuring
deconstructionGlass Video Gallery, Portman's LA Bonaventure Hoteldeconstructing hypertext
superimposition
layering representation (across time, subject, etc.)Eisenman's sketches for Arts Center, Tschumi's sketches for Parc de la Vliet texts laid across each other (not linear series of quotations, but overlapping)
crossprogramming
juxtaposition of different activities in same spaceweddings in zoos, art museumWAC, odd rooms in MOOS
event
putting people in action in spacesbacklash against Le Courbuiser's photographic techniques (people-less)inhabit (nearly literally) texts The table in the handout condenses, in an overly simplistic way, Tschumi's six concepts for postmodern architecture and maps them against textual possibilities. The textual object/events that I discuss are of relatively recent introduction to composition theory and practice, but I think they're readily available to most of us. So in the handouts I've concentrated on providing examples from architecture that you may or may not be familiar with, especially in the contexts and purposes that Tschumi's six categories would put them. 1. Technologies of Defamiliarization Guild House: Antenna The first concept Tschumi offers for postmodern architecture is the necessity for using contemporary technologies to defamiliarize daily life, to make us see things in an unfamiliar way to point out or problematize common relationships. In the first figure, you can see the Guild House, a senior citizen housing development designed by Venturi and Rauch, Cope and Lippincott Architects in the early 1960s. As Venturi argues (Complexity, p. 116), the Guild House uses conventional elements to strike odd chords with inhabitants and passersby. Venturi says, for example, that "[T]he antenna, with its anodized gold surface, can be interpreted in two ways: abstractly, as sculpture ... and as a symbol of the aged, who spend so much time looking at T.V." (Complexity, p. 116). Venturi here defamiliarizes, placing objects in new ways to make critical self-comments about the sort of lifestyle his very project engenders. This powerful technique can be taken up in a postmodern architecture of textuality through the the act of structuring texts as spaces in ways that contradict our normal expectations about textuality. I think MOOs, in general, do a good job at this, in particular the little bots that people write, if we consider bots as texts (something Jay suggested in a comment about artificial intelligence as a form of text in Writing Space). In the MOO we're using now in a grad seminar at Purdue, several of the people in the class are are programming 'bots in ways that make these objects act as texts, interacting with ongoing conversations by other MOO participants. These sorts of 'bots are common on many MOOs; in several ways, they defamiliarize two different concepts in the MOO--both texts (which now, literally, talk back) and the participants themselves. As Sherry Turkle points out in her book Life on the Screen, some 'bots are so complex that it becomes impossible to tell them apart from humans--especially since so many MOO participants would gleefully pretend to be a 'bot in order to fool someone. 2. The Mediated "Metropolitian" Shock Although we frequently talk about the final arrival of McLuhan's "global village," especially in terms of the World Wide Web, it seems clear that the contemporary mediasphere is something much closer to a metropolitian city than a village, with high-speed traffic, congested sidewalks, and the dull roar of commerce and entertainment. But the city, in architectural theory terms, is a difficult situation: it is hard to make architectural meaning out of mere difference, of mere separation; what is required is shock. The second example in the handout is Takamatsu's Origins III. What's striking about this buidling--what's shocking, what makes us look--is the confusion of scale and context here: Takamatsu's building (like so much of his architecture) looks toy-like, an anime cartoon that demands our attention (if not understanding). As with metropolitian spaces, shock remains one of the last tools we have for generating new meanings and social relationships. Shock is important in a postmodern architecture of text: The sheer media load of the World Wide Web urbanizes political and social debate in potentially damaging ways. Although we speak frequently of the ability of minorities to voice their opinions on the World Wide Web, it is probably more likely that the general public will see a minority viewpoint in the newspaper or on TV, where those voices fade easily into the noise of Internet. Audio is a good example here--how many of us have been in the midst of a class discussion, only to have the tinny strains of Metallica trickle out of the speakers on the computer in the back of the room, where a student has been keeping one eye on you and another eye on a metal-head website? Although we tend, unfortunately, to dismiss shock value as cheap and immature, it also is frequently the only way to capture attention, to get a conversation started. 3. Destructuring In the third concept, Destructuring, Tschumi provides images of a glass video gallery that uses rigid structure but, simultaneously, questions that structure, uses it against itself: walls that are not walls but are invisible. More shocking is the prospect of moving through this space--the grid would seem to be completely predictable and logical, the height of cartesian thought. But because the walls themselve are visually permeable but not physically permeable, entering into the different spaces of the gallery requires us to constantly renegotiate our path. This sort of destructuring is actually one that many of us will be the most familiar with, since it grows pretty directly out of Derrida's work. Hypertext, especially postmodern hypertexts such as Moulthrop's Victory Garden Guyer and Petry's Izme Pass do a very good job at interrogating textual structure, although I'm not sure we tend to continue this work in our classes--we should. 4. Superimposition In a related way, the structuring of meaning-making in textual space rather than about or primarily of textual space provides an important way for multiplying meanings, superimposing one meaning over another. In architectural theory terms, this superimposition provides buildings a method for meaning many different things at once. In the next example in the handout, Tschumi provides a series of planning sketches for his Parc de la Villette project. In the sketches, actions and structures are mapped on top of each other, with multiple patterns occuping the same space. In this way, Tschumi argues, the architecture and its eventual use by people is held open simulataneously to many interpretations. These tendencies move from a hierarchy of binaries such as "form follows function" into a spaces where form and function are both meaning-making devices, ones not necessarily linked to each other in rigid ways. This approach, in fact, is one of the arguments for readings architecture as text: a building means not merely based on its utilitarian functions but also on its symbolic. Throughout this talk, in fact, I'm arguing for an inversion or acceptance of postmodern architecture's insistence that buildings are texts. Why can't we also say that texts are buildings? 5. Crossprogramming Historically, buildings were constructed around what architects call "program," the specific uses to which a building would be put. And certainly we still often construct buildings for specific purposes. But increasingly we build spaces with multiple programs or systems of use. In the Eisenman study in the handouts, Eisenman layers--in another form of superimposition--a series of histories of the site of proposed art museum, projecting into the future. And in an ironic way, the burned out, tagged house in the picture just above (taken from piece on suburban blight called "Ozzie and Harriet in Hell") the house is shifted violently from a structure for familial living to a violent commentary on the decline of the promise of suburban life. The juxtaposition of events in spaces, then, provides another method for shock in information saturated societies. In composition, we sometimes witness this crossprogramming for a brief instant in the gradual breakdown of genres. If we want to think about cross-programming, we must do more in the way of allowing our students--and ourselves--to make textual spaces function in multiple ways, across time and event. This perspective provides one reading of MOO spaces, where a single portion of the text (such as the garden Teddi Fishman built in tMOO at Purdue) hosts a number of different events, ranging from class discussions to private work to group meetings. In each event, the architectural space is related to but does not determine the specific meanings being made in the space. 6. Events: The Turning Point As Bernard Tschumi put it, there [is] no architecture without event, no architecture without action, without activities, without functions (p. 255). The combination of hetergenous events in spaces is where not only meaning is made, but where meanings are brought together, changed, affected, disputed, and made multiple; it is where hidden repressions are surfaced, where violences are perpetrated but also where healing is done. If we skip ahead to the figure titled "Biddy Mason's Place," Edward Soja reproduces the work of Donna Graves to "[recreate] Biddy Mason's symbolic Place in the history and geography of Los Angeles" (Soja, p. 188). In Graves' reconstruction of Mason's place, she recounts and makes real again the history of Biddy Mason, a nineteenth-century slave who who became an influential and powerful figure in the creation of early LA culture. Grandma Mason, as Soja recounts it in his postmodern geography, Thirdspace, worked as a "midwife, nurse, educator, nurturer, and entrepreneur, a forceful figure engraining an an assertive Black presence in Los Angeles" (Soja, p. 190). The turning point, then, the event in but not necessarily about texts, is what postmodern architecture can help us think about. We look at texts, we think about them, we talk about them, we write new ones--but we are only rarely in texts with each other, making meaning, taking action, working both within and without the text as a postmodern space. The growing use and development of MOOs in writing classes offers, I think, the greatest promise here. But in order to move past our initial fascination with such spaces, we need to make them common. There is much promising work going on this area, and its initial marginalization is giving way to reluctant acceptance. In MOOs and in our thinking about them I see us working toward a postmodern architecture of text, even if we don't yet consider it in quite that way. So here I finally am, at last making my point, the last point of this space and of this talk: This is what a postmodern architecture of textuality can give us: a space for us, together, to make ourselves and each other and the world. Space | action | event | page  PAGE 4  `' `'7r`' `' `'  `' `' 6!D!%%%)))h+H-o-//H1\1125566!798:k:===>6BkEUF~FF******-2y037E6%{Hy14569{HH28Unknownjohnson-eilolaF%'-!8@0( ''))  < C ?F  ;<HJOPDEQRuwZ[V X K M ^ _ h i o p ~  XZVWrs)DYjr-."19mn  08kl*+KNdfC!D!!!""Z$\$$$%%%%!&$&''(((())7+8+7-9-n-o-//6/7///00w1x11111111133m5n5555566 7!728382939X:Y:j:k:====@@AA3B4B5B5B6B[B\BuBvB(C)CTFUFsFF OP,-&' y z ST45QR%&)23?@DYqr,-WX "89mn  78kl*+KNcf5!6!C!D!%%%%%%''))))))g+h+,,5-6-G-H-n-o-////G1H1[1\11122 5!555556666 7!7889888 ::j:k:======>>~>>??0B6BjEkETFUFsFFjohnson-eilolaMspork:erasure.12.1.98:CCCC 99:space-action-event:architecture:space (word 98)@5B5B 9z5BBpfh6!7!C!D!%%%)))H-n-o-///\111555677 7!7:j:k:==========?B5B6BTFUF{F|FFFF@tttlJ@tt`S@tuZ@vLv"b@Nvvf@vvi@vw:r@wwwws@wxy@xxxxyy yyDy@~@Fyy@L@@yD@J@L@GTimes New Roman5SymbolI Arial Helvetica;Helvetica3Times9Palatino7Courier"h33<S, 9 { !d7Gspace | action | movementD"^xyy4yd =D$<nyyy '  )y4 '@   )yl  '    )$y '  &@ )y '' 9 );@y. '&@  )yf' 4 )"^xyy4yd =D$<nyyy ' $E"l8{jU>qhT澠6'`ZI-@7Sΰx8 ۹`+V!S@tH e 5sOz_oI4+F=PnX!KAtxE[?pu`K0ఉV+$ ] q1 W@N^ MZOUI[pur1Ԉ *ńȩƊ!9Yy.e^î2A8 q4f9dw"pOIÿF*~;d"1fz0ɣC[~Qo[_y': e)qߡ3%QA5JU%2mW15H,iXt /~Аix 8W6 >S\ l|"j_33:_B Z o<gl-YΚX,b"b$*KZ,#KS Ƞec3AoCY(͍iy(\BIQ*ڇ*03`@na؃z{ƿ_䍸3br X6eB|\1[X#Ė%Ȼ4;oq`4㶯ܞ _5OxQ"+͸6t3E}9<,wvNsU@<#vSL{U[^5Ѩ,xm|2K]~"SPi~M,!X2)qdM 3X_5̍^Ƒj0]e:t2@VMjƀ擈WyTUF+706Ru.gw_'bG ˧v1ycV۳/)-+rW $=*ON ,: ǘXg:!<<5p L0 r^ߐ޹\21^TUI4)7IQ2+J ʫsC5'sTZԌgLGtg9:>=xRRBGwo c{lit5 _ 0(V0Z]'TE'&bz^#6a)#rl+\)vq´/ءVs^"/03-Awg;@ ZA  ߴ`T] !b `'Yt$"TSNL]aWu/E ٻQVG==[*u}rv4X}N+[xo~f&]7 kZo>ȊYF9+Y1ޝ/g]Y89Œ0^M?j#g䲞."CX{Fbq'ՖY\[KˁA{D$B2ٳ4A=*ހWCo9OjzY1Ȱ3rRoot Entry@  FWcw| Data$%&'()*+,-./0 56789:;<=;1TableEFOHIJKLMNPUVWXYQ WordDocumentopuvw|0  !"#$%&'()*+,-./123456789:O<=>?@ABEGHIJKLMNdefhijk{}~SummaryInformationInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8pCompObjeX^0TableF_ - [<@<Normal 1$ddCJPJmHnH :`: Heading 1$@&5B*OJQJ>`> Heading 2$@&5B*CJOJQJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font:O:Definition Term >O>Definition Listh(O( Definition6.o.H1$@&5KH$OJQJ&O&H2$@&5CJ$2o2H3$hh@& 5OJQJ"O"H4$@&5&O&H5$@&5CJ&O&H6$@&5CJ.O.Address 6<o< Blockquote hh CJOJQJOCITE6$O$CODE CJOJQJ$X@$Emphasis6(U@( Hyperlink>*B*8V@8FollowedHyperlink>*B* 0O0Keyboard5CJOJQJfOf Preformatted0  # ~= z9!v% CJOJQJ\O\z-Bottom of Form!$1$$d<CJOJPJQJmHnH VOV z-Top of Form"$1$&d<CJOJPJQJmHnH $O1$SampleOJQJ W@A Strong50OQ0 Typewriter CJOJQJ$Oa$Variable6,Oq, HTML Markup<B*"O"Comment<@>@@Title)$<@&5CJ KHOJQJ,@,Header * !, @,Footer + !&)@& Page NumberUFt,t!!      N$-^5=UF oNdf6!D!%%%)))h+,6-H-o-//H1\112!55566!7988:k:===>>? B?EVF`' `' `'7r`' `' `' `'7r`' `' `' `' `' `' `' `'7r`'  `' `' `' `'7r`' `'  `' `' `' `' `'7r`' `' `' `' `'  `' `'7r`' `' `' `'  `'  `' `' 6!D!%%%)))h+H-o-//H1\1125566!798:k:===>? B?E)FRFVF******-2z037E6%{Hz14569{HH28Unknownjohnson-eilolaUF%'-!8@0( ''))  < C ?UF  ;<HJOPDEQRuwZ[V X K M ^ _ h i o p ~  XZVWrs)DYjr-."19mn  08kl*+KNdfC!D!!!""Z$\$$$%%%%!&$&''(((())7+8+7-9-n-o-//6/7///00w1x11111111133m5johnson-eilolajohnson-eilola  4 @ LX`hp'space | action | movement0pacjohnson-eilola|ohnNormal-johnson-eilola|58nMicrosoft Word 8.0v@B @`,w@'0w <xcl`u18pU;T ӓ ՜.+,D՜.+,T hp  'alternative textLE>{7G: space | action | movement TitleH@d`\ _PID_GUIDUnknownHead_0_1_0UnknownHead_1_3_0UnknownHead_1_3_1UnknownHead_1_3_2UnknownHead_2_1_0'AN{6263EF80-E349-11D2-9331-C8717B6D971B} ifXn۹VrLJ Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hp'space | action | movement0pacjohnson-eilola|ohnNormal-johnson-eilola|60nMicrosoft Word 8.0v@O @`,w@4w , 92/OJʉ8f) SNO0E&rGĠ@}%[ XPW,pQLXwǯ-I[؅ Glass Video: see, but hard to navigate Postmodern hypertext. Need more. Layering multiple meanings (Parc de la Villette) Texts as buildings Juxtapose events in same spaces (weddings in museums, historical layers of Eisenman s museum, suburban blight) MOOs:T Students writing in these spaces, and writing the spaces themselves (beyond hypertext) Biddy Mason s place: Historical event on and in space to recapture meaning in Los Angeles" (Soja, p. 190). 8 c ,HjbjbSS z11UF+]      ` ` ` 8  ,p (,BBBy{{{{{{,t   BB 4D B By ^~^    yy  y ^
We have long understood the term writing as simultaneously an object and an event. We do writing, we are writing texts, we are reading a piece of writing, we are talking about a writer's writing, things that were written and are also, simultaneously, writing. But while we have succeeded in articulating the term "writing" as either an action or an object, we have done less well in thinking about writing as a space in which action takes place. We have done less well at replacing the either/or with the and/and/and, as Deleuze and Guattari (among others) put it. There are at least two immediate and related exceptions that come to mind when I make the observation that we think of writing either object or action, not both at the same time: online collaboration and hypertext. Exception 1: Online Collaboration Let me take online collaboration first. Writers, in collaborative space, meet in real time or over time to discuss projects, to critique works, and, sometimes, to produce texts. But if we hang around in these spaces for a little longer, if we begin to consider the text that was produced, the text becomes less action and more object. The split reasserts itself. This is overstated, of course, and ignores the wide body of theory and practice that has shown us that readers actively produce texts. Readers re-animate the object, remake the object, contest it, misread it, argue with it, join their voices to it. And this is true, as far as it goes. But I don't think it goes far enough. For the text itself is, visibly, a static object while the reader's work with the text--the action--is mental. Or, even when the reader marks on the text or writes a counter text, the text still remains static, an object. Object and action remain separate. Exception 2: Hypertext Which brings us immediately to hypertext, the second exception to my complaints about writing being either object or action rather than object and action. In hypertexts, in some cases at least, we see text as simultaneously object and action, as readers make active choices in their navigation through a text, choices that affect the ways that the text means. In some cases, in fact--and increasingly on the World Wide Web--these texts allow readers to not only affect their individual concrete reading, but also to affect the shape of the text itself for other readers by adding their own contributions. None of this is very new, of course, but I think it can be articulated to a larger project that has sort of stalled. I need to stop here to make a segue into my real point--I'm finally getting to it, I swear. I knew that waiting until Wednesday night to write my paper would pay off, because Jay said something yesterday afternoon at the IP Caucus meeting that provided the keystone needed to bring this talk together, or at least as   5;CH>DOQ      3 9 T Z b e  Q V |~LXHP)-0j5B*CJOJQJU650J'B*0J'5<B*CJ5CJCJjCJUmH  CJmH jCJUmH FP-' zT5R&(3@E$$$)$)$P-' zT5R&(3@EFr-X9n  8l+LMNd!f!!6%)),x-1/W001F344)6q8999;;<?@*@@A\DG{H   )Z  '(3@DFYjp"17  06M!!I#U##$$$%%&&G(L(w((((++++,,2222ǽ56560J'B*CJOJQJB*CJOJQJ CJOJQJ5B*CJOJQJ0J'5B*CJOJQJj5B*CJOJQJU!j5B*CJOJQJU5B*CJOJQJ=EFr-X$9$$\pt( $9$$\pt( n5555566 7!728382939X:Y:j:k:====@@kAqArA B B/B0BIBJBBB(F)FGFVF OP,-&' y z ST45QR%&)23?@DYqr,-WX "89mn  78kl*+KNcf5!6!C!D!%%%%%%''))))))g+h+,,5-6-G-H-n-o-////G1H1[1\11122 5!555556666 7!7889888 ::j:k:======>>~>>??KAB B B>E?E(F)FGFVF johnson-eilolaMspork:erasure.12.1.98:CCCC 99:space-action-event:architecture:space (word 98)@kAkA 9zkAkApft6!7!C!D!%%%)))H-n-o-///\111555677 7!7:j:k:==========?kAA B B(F)FOFPFSFTFUF@tttlJ@tt`S@tuZ@vLv"b@Nvvf@vvi@vw:r@wwwws@wxy@xxxxyy yyDy@~@z@Fyy@L@@zD@J@L@GTimes New Roman5SymbolI Arial Helvetica;Helvetica3Times9Palatino7Courier"h33?T& 9{!~d Gspace | action | move- [<@<Normal 1$ddCJPJmHnH :`: Heading 1$@&5B*OJQJ>`> Heading 2$@&5B*CJOJQJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font:O:Definition Term >O>Definition Listh(O( Definition6.o.H1$@&5KH$OJQJ&O&H2$@&5CJ$2o2H3$hh@& 5OJQJ"O"H4$@&5&O&H5$@&5CJ&O&H6$@&5CJ.O.Address 6<o< Blockquote hh CJOJQJOCITE6$O$CODE CJOJQJ$X@$Emphasis6(U@( Hyperlink>*B*8V@8FollowedHyperlink>*B* 0O0Keyboard5CJOJQJfOf Preformatted0  # ~= z9!v% CJOJQJ\O\z-Bottom of Form!$1$$d<CJOJPJQJmHnH VOV z-Top of Form"$1$&d<CJOJPJQJmHnH $O1$SampleOJQJ W@A Strong50OQ0 Typewriter CJOJQJ$Oa$Variable6,Oq, HTML Markup<B*"O"Comment<@>@@Title)$<@&5CJ KHOJQJ,@,Header * !, @,Footer + !&)@& Page NumberDt,t!!      N$-5=D 8Ndf6!D!%%%)))h+,6-H-}/11`24T56&6>779(<F<a<<=@CD`' `' `'7r`' `' `' `'7r`' `' `' `' `' `' `'7r `' `' `'7r`'  `' `' `' `'7r`' `' `'  `' `'7r`' `' `'  `'  `' `' 6!D!%%%)))h+CDDD******-2u037E6%{Hu14569{HH28Unknownjohnson-eilolaD%'-!8@0( ''))  < C ?D  ;<HJOPDEQRuwZ[V X K M ^ _ h i o p ~  XZVWrs)DYjr-."19mn  08kl*+KNdfC!D!!!""Z$\$$$%%%%!&$&''(((()))7+8+7-9-..//x0y0J1K1j1k1z1{1_2`24444 5 5S5T566=7>777O8P8 9 999::;;<<%?&???@@@@AAAAAA+B,BVBXB3C4CDDDD OP,-&' y z ST45QR%&)23?@DYqr,-WX "89mn  78kl*+KNcf5!6!C!D!%%%%%%'')))))g+h+,,5-6-G-H-|/}/0111_2`244S5T566%6&6=7>77799'<(<E<F<`<a<<<==@@CCDDDDjohnson-eilolaMspork:erasure.12.1.98:CCCC 99:space-action-event:architecture:space (word 98)@)) 9z))pf6!7!C!D!%%%)))DDDDDDD@tttlJ@tt`S@tuZ@L@@uD@J@L@GTimes New Roman5SymbolI Arial Helvetica;Helvetica3Times9Palatino7Courier"h33;O <!dIspace | action | movementjohnson-eilolajohnson-eilolaDPo!puhHr@ !@ɮqm9hW~~:h GVޢI [F-x^z! VMV\o*$v~W͇dg)8,,GfU˙w2/ЍVyP4D ?2U9cq f@0]N`S\[ T: e0P[r`An,઴ϑ/H>U%_Ix'mentjohnson-eilolajohnson-eilola]      $   8F b ,    ,~    FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8gոv HGͺ$5@4x[m<9> ՜.+,D՜.+,T hp  'alternative textLE>{ G: space | action | movement TitleH@d`\ _PID_GUIDUnknownHead_0_1_0UnknownHead_1_3_0UnknownHead_1_3_1UnknownHead_1_3_2UnknownHead_2_1_0'AN{6263EF80-E349-11D2-9331-C8717B6D971B} ifXn۹VrLJ Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hp'space | action | movement0pacjohnson-eilola|ohnNormal-johnson-eilola|63nMicrosoft Word 8.0v@ @`,w@Bw& 92/OJʉ8f) SNO0E&rGĠ@}%[ XPW,pQLXwǯ-I[؅ 8 c <HjbjbSS |11)F+]      b b b 8  ,\ )*.DDD{}}}}}},   DD 48 D D{ TtT    {{  { 
We have long understood the term writing as simultaneously an object and an event. We do writing, we are writing texts, we are reading a piece of writing, we are talking about a writer's writing, things that were written and are also, simultaneously, writing. But while we have succeeded in articulating the term "writing" as either an action or an object, we have done less well in thinking about writing as a space in which action takes place. We have done less well at replacing the either/or with the and/and/and, as Deleuze and Guattari (among others) put it. There are at least two immediate and related exceptions that come to mind when I make the observation that we think of writing either object or action, not both at the same time: online collaboration and hypertext. Exception 1: Online Collaboration Let me take online collaboration first. Writers, in collaborative space, meet in real time or over time to discuss projects, to critique works, and, sometimes, to produce texts. But if we hang around in these spaces for a little longer, if we begin to consider the text that was produced, the text becomes less action and more object. The split reasserts itself. This is overstated, of course, and ignores the wide body of theory and practice that has shown us that readers actively produce texts. Readers re-animate the object, remake the object, contest it, misread it, argue with it, join their voices to it. And this is true, as far as it goes. But I don't think it goes far enough. For the text itself is, visibly, a static object while the reader's work with the text--the action--is mental. Or, even when the reader marks on the text or writes a counter text, the text still remains static, an object. Object and action remain separate. Exception 2: Hypertext Which brings us immediately to hypertext, the second exception to my complaints about writing being either object or action rather than object and action. In hypertexts, in some cases at least, we see text as simultaneously object and action, as readers make active choices in their navigation through a text, choices that affect the ways that the text means. In some cases, in fact--and increasingly on the World Wide Web--these texts allow readers to not only affect their individual concrete reading, but also to affect the shape of the text itself for other readers by adding their own contributions. None of this is very new, of course, but I think it can be articulated to a larger project that has sort of stalled. I need to stop here to make a segue into my real point--I'm finally getting to it, I swear. I knew that waiting until Wednesday night to write my paper would pay off, because Jay said something yesterday afternoon at the IP Caucus meeting that provided the keystone needed to bring this talk together, or at least as   5;CH>DOQ      3 9 T Z b e  Q V |~LXHP)-0j5B*CJOJQJU650J'B*0J'5<B*CJ5CJCJjCJUmH  CJmH jCJUmH FP-' zT5R&(3@E$$$)$)$P-' zT5R&(3@EFr-X9n  8l+LMNd!f!!6%)),x-1/W001F344)6q8999;;<?@*@@A\DG{H   )Z  '(3@DFYjp"17  06M!!I#U##$$$%%&&G(L(w((((++++,,2222ǽ56560J'B*CJOJQJB*CJOJQJ CJOJQJ5B*CJOJQJ0J'5B*CJOJQJj5B*CJOJQJU!j5B*CJOJQJU5B*CJOJQJ=EFr-X$9$$\pt( $9$$\pt( 9n  8l+LMNd!f!!6%PŰ$9$$\pt( 6%)),x-1/W001F344)6q8999;;<?@*@@A\DG{H8824&484A455.535A5C58888<<CCDDDDJENE{HHHHHHHHHuuuxyy yyFyyyy560J,OJQJmHnH 0J,OJQJj0J,OJQJUOJQJ56-{HHHHH*{HHHHHttuuNvvvwwxFyyy*$x* 00P/ =!8"8#8$%|,,  c ug(,,(d'` bots in MOOs Origins III: Shock Multimedia is a start 5 9n  8l+LMNd!f!!6%PŰ$9$$\pt( 6%)),x-1/W001F344)6q8999;;<?@*@@A\DG{H8824&484A455.535A5C58888<<CCDDDDJENE{HHHHHHHHHuuuxyy yyFyyyyzz560J,OJQJmHnH 0J,OJQJj0J,OJQJUOJQJ56/{HHHHH*{HHHHHttuuNvvvwwxFyyyz*$x* 00P/ =!8"8#8$%|,,  c ug(,,(d'` bots in MOOs Origins III: Shock Multimedia is a start 5 Glass Video: see, but hard to navigate Postmodern hypertext. Need more. Layering multiple meanings (Parc de la Villette) Texts as buildings Juxtapose events in same spaces (weddings in museums, historical layers of Eisenman s museum, suburban blight) MOOs: Students writing in these spaces, and writing the spaces themselves (beyond hypertext) Biddy Mason s place: Historical event on and in space to recapture meaning in Los Angeles" (Soja, p. 190). 8