Reader + +
Related people
Related articles
The question was about the readers, how they interacted, how they read, who the spectator was. What contents were they being offered and how were they being offered so that they could engage in participative reading, how could they perceive and participate? Are there any readers? Or just writers of disperse, unconnected monologues? That was where my questions started.
Is this meaning, this invention being complied with? Are we really facing an enriched and enriching reader? A community reader, a social subject that writes and constructs?
Are there any readers? Or just writers of disperse, unconnected monologues?
The reader ++, the reader that was expected is a generative reader, which has as yet only been achieved by the computer with its programming languages and mathematics, but hypertext does not appear to have managed to generate, pardon the redundancy, a generative reader.
After a few years of uninterrupted work with artistic practices and collective participation, the question is what happened to this dreamed-up relationship of producer/ spectator that together build a meaning, this shared authorship, this communication that is established between the artists, the work and the spectators in the network? The social communication, the changes and dynamics introduced in life. What happened to the spectator that was going to listen, read, relate, understand, interpret, propose and do?
The Reader that was expected was one that having been exiled from meaning and linearity, would struggle against the arbitrariness of hypertext and manage to build his/her meaning, make his/her own writing and become an artist, in other words a reader ++. The number and the diversity of different voices, the generalised deafness, the loss of meaning, the technological invasion, the individual voices, have given way to a reader with no added signs. A text that is as yet not deterritorialised and a reader that has not yet added. I would even dare to say a reader that has subtracted.