Lulú De Panbehchi

Ars Combinatoria Project

Dr. Artur Matuck

May 5^th, 2009

Spring Cleaning: from Bad to Rotten Words Project

One of the most important ways of communication is currently the World Wide Web and its web 2.0 mashups, which are applications written specifically for the Web that “combine[s] data or functionality from two or more sources into a single integrated application.”¹ The main purpose of a mashup is to provide an easy way to find and share information. The concept of the mashup—the combination of data and its practicality—is similar to the concept that rules the tables created by Ramon Llull in the 1200, the literary experiments by the members of the Oulipo group, or the telewriting experiments mentioned by Artur Matuk in “A Theoretical Proposition for Interactive Telemedia Design.” The design of the mashups, the Lullian tables and the Oulipean works allows one product that may have different uses, for example Llull's tables were used a mnemonic and data storing devices; or they may have the only purpose of providing several people with the opportunity to collaborate in an experiment and celebrate an artist life as was the case of “The Hearsay Project,” that paid tribute to the poet Robert Zend. (Matuk 3) However, the writing system that caught my attention was “Épreuves d'écriture” created by Jean-François Lyotard in 1985. There were twenty six authors who had access to a computer network and each one commented on a text created by Lyotard; they also were able to edit their own text and the text by other authors. This activity lasted two months. Lyotard later wrote the afterword for this text. At the beginning, I planned to create a system similar to “Épreuves d'écriture,” but then I asked myself two questions, “What if I create a combinatory and collaborative writing system in which I only provide the means and the medium like Lyotard, but the system produces more than just text, like a mashup?” And, “What if I recycle words that people trow away, in the same way Marcel Duchamp created his ready-mades?

My first proposal mixed elements from the Dadaist movement, Lyotard's Éprevuves d'écriture, Marcel Duchamp's ready-mades, and in a future recycling state a mashup. It was entitled, “Spring Cleaning: The Bad Words Project,” and it called for a collection of words for the purpose of creating a poem and a sculpture in a collective way, and my afterword was a video documenting the process. Word donors needed to write the word on a white sticker and place it then on a piece of colored paper, then the had to place their word on a bulletin board, and at the end they had to record the word. The idea was to ask people to donate “bad” words--words that they no longer wanted to use, they believed were useless or offensive. Due to possible censorship of the actualization of the project and in order to avoid reluctancy from possible word donors, in the second proposal the title and description of required words changed to “Spring Cleaning: The Rotten Words Project.”

The rules that I created for myself were different from the rules given to the participants. My own rules dictated:

1)I will only work with words that people donate to me, this includes: the handwritten words and their spelling, the spoken version of those words (sound), the colors chosen by participants, and the photos and video of collected at the time of the actualization of the project;

2) I can only add punctuation to the written poem and rearrange the words to create stanzas;

3)I will only add music created specifically for this project;

4)the poem and the photos of the words, will have a Creative Commons license and everybody can use it as long as they cite the authors—the VCU community;

5)the copyright or Creative Commons license of any other materials—essays, presentations, videos, web pages, flash pieces, and mashups that I create by recycling the words—will belong to me.

Description and Actualization of the Project

“Spring cleaning” is an American concept and ritual of cleaning the clutter from the winter and getting ready for the summer. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines it as, “the act or process of doing a thorough cleaning of a place.” It is also the idea of better weather and new love or the renovation of it. This year of 2009, the spring brings a very difficult “cleaning process” since a lot of people are angry, because of the economy and the eight years of the Bush administration; others are mad because their candidate lost the election, or because there are several wars going on in the world. At the same time, a lot of people are optimistic because of Obama or any other excuse.

I advertised the event² for about five weeks via Blackboard, Facebook, Twitter, my website (elenes.com/rwp.html), and the classes I teach and take. Several individuals emailed me their words. Others saw me on the hallways or a classroom and told me that they were not going to be around on the the collection day and then gave me their word right there. I received all these words and an explanation of why those words were bad according to them.

On a very windy and sunny Tuesday, March 23^rd I stayed at Shafer Court from 12:00 to almost 2:30 PM collecting words. I had a video camera, two digital cameras, one digital audio recorder, color paper, markers, small flayers with the web site for this project, and a notebook in case somebody wanted to write extra words. I asked students, faculty and staff to write down a word that they wanted to get rid off—profanity and foreign languages were welcome—on a small white stiker; then they recorded the word for me and chose a color for that word—blue, red, yellow, off-white, red, purple, green, pink, or black--; next, they received the piece of paper of the color they have chosen. The last step was to attach both papers to the board. Everyone was able to see the words and colors on the board. Although I had a poster explaining the process, I had to explain the steps and my ultimate purpose to some donors, but no body inquired or talked about the fact that they were giving me permission to use their bad word—written word, color, and sound—in online or print materials.

The rules for the participants are the following:

1. They had to use only one word that they considered bad because they no longer want to use.

2. hey were allowed to donate any word in any language—either because the word represents or means something morally wrong, dirty, bad for one’s health, representative of negative experiences, or impossible to spell—but they cannot use proper names unless they are of philosophers, historical figures or politicians.
3. They were free to post the pieces of paper wherever they wanted to on the board, even if that meant to cover other words.
4. They were able and encouraged to use any language, as long as they provided a translation of the word.
5. They had to say the word (for the recording) like they mean it.
6. Only one person at a time was able to participate, because I only had one person helping me at all times, and two at the beginning.

That day, March 23^rd, I collected 38 words that surprisingly did not contain any proper names, the most common expletives shit and fuck, or words related to unemployment. This is the list of words in the order and spelling I received them: Gloaming, Gypsy, irregardless, incentivize, definitely, Procrastination, CUNT, spic, Retarded, WANG, NIGGA, competencies, BiAS, regret (in Japanese), “Good-Person", Shut-up, Organic, Maybe, Cant, MONEY, FEAR, CANCER, ALiEN, betrayal, unoriginal, CREDIT-DEFAULT-SWAP, KAFFIR, awesome, POLITICA POLITICS, CORRUPTION, Tripe, DUALITY, TAXES, Fecal-Matter, PUSSY, Hate, Interesting, DIS / dis.³ I kept a list of the words that were donated by women, because I was curious to know if the gender had any influence on the colors or the choice or words. Women provided the following words: CUNT, (regret), Shut-up, Maybe, Cant, MONEY, FEAR, CANCER, ALiEN, betrayal, unoriginal, TAXES, PUSSY, and Hate.⁴ Women talked less about race and more about words about the domestic economy. I do not have any intention of analyzing these words from a psychological or feminist perspective in the near future, but it may be useful in case I collect more words.

It is fair to mention that most of my goals were met except for two of them. The wind was so strong that it knock down the small tripod that supported the audio recorder and I lost one sound file with 8 words—CUNT, spic, Retarded, WANG, NIGGA, competencies, BiAS, regret (in Japanese). The list of words and other multimedia materials are posted in my website. They are still waiting to be mashed up, a cycle (or recycle) that will happen during May and June of 2009.

The intended and actual results

A. A sculpture made of the board with pieces of paper in different colors with the handwritten words—I provided the paper and ink. I had no idea what the result was going to be, but I expected three different outcomes; one, all pieces of paper covering the board, with no particular order, similar to the bulleting boards by the stars in the Hibbs building; two, an organized or semi-organized board by groups of words depending on the color or the type of word—expletives, proper names, etc; and three, I had envisioned an organized bulletin form like a Mondrian piece. The final sculpture has took the form of a collage in a bulletin board, with the difference that it is possible to analyze this piece from a psychological perspective, since several words were actually covered by others—“duality” covered “cancer” and “corruption” covered “alien” for example—and five were on the edge of the board—in clockwise order ”fecal-matter”, “Hate”, “DIS / dis” KAFFIR”, and “awesome”.

B. A collection of words that I intended to use in the production of an animated poem or a poster. In actuality, I produced a video with the still pictures of the words in the orders they were donated. I also produced a poster with the pictures and called it “visual poem.” The resulting poem resembles a Dadaist or Surrealist poem. I believe that it has strong language and pieces of emotion, since each word meant something too bad, wrong, dirty, ugly, or corrupt to the donors. Maybe, this poem can be the first one in a series of poems produced in a similar environment.

The stanzas of this poem can be rearranged by color, geder or any other characteristic.

C. A collection of digital images of the handwritten words on pieces of paper, that I promised to make available to participants. The pictures are located in a Picasa album and everybody has access to them from a link in my web site, (http://picasaweb.google.com/tascari/RWP_word?sauthkey=Gv1sRgCKrN_dmuqM749gE&feat=directlink.

Handwriting became important to me the moment I stated to collect the words, because in the university environment it is disappearing due to the heavy use of computers. It also presents the opportunity to regroup the words according to the use of capital or non-capital letters, adornments, extra lines, the place of the writing inside the white sticker, and other issues that a handwriting expert may spot.

D. A collection of sounds, which is the spoken version of the word collected, some of them sound angry. That were intended to be the soundtrack for an online piece made with flash, or even the video documenting the actualization of this project. As mentioned above, the wind took away eight words from me. I plan to record those words myself and use them in the future, and provide the audience with the option to listen the original recordings only. This accidental lost made me reflect about the lost words, which by themselves may be recycled into something else, maybe a visual piece with a title along these lines, ”mute words,” “lost words,” “forbidden words,” or “unlucky words.” Although this solution goes against my own rule: I can only work with what people gave to me.

E. A Flash or video piece that uses the written words, the colors, and the sounds to show how “the sculpture” was created. Instead of the flash piece I created a video with my own music, since I was not able to use the collected word sounds. It shows the progression or “building” of the sculpture.

F. A Flash or video piece that reverses the previous concept, to destroy or to convey the destruction of “the sculpture”. This result will be achieved in the near future. The material destruction of the sculpture may not happen, but rather a visual effect will be used.

G. A list of the words available to participants and website visitors. This list is available at my website, (www.elenes.com/rwp.html), and anybody may use the words, for example John Priestly who is currently working on his eLocute® project.

H. A cathartic experience, maybe. That “maybe” was there since the beginning. This was probably the best experience I have ever had preparing a final project. The simply fact that people were talking and emailing me about the words they would like to give and give up left me with the desire to add more layers to this project or to version 2.0 of this project.

I discovered that people, especially graduate students and professors, really care about the words they use. Some donors wanted me to know at least one reason they did not want to use or even hear that word any longer. Other confessed to me that they were not able to provide me with any of the words they knew because they “may need them in the future.”⁵ I never said or wrote that donors were prohibited from using the donated word again. This was supposed to be a symbolic ritual tied to the artistic—if I can call myself an artist—recycling of words more than to the banning of language. One donor even wrote a very descriptive and educative blog entry about my project and my reaction when they donated a word in another language. Maybe if this project runs near the medical campus or the engineering building will carry and discover other type of emotions.

Artur Matuck suggested since the beginning another layer or rule for this project, that I had to perform in some manner to either collect or present the words to an audience. Later, he and other classmates suggested an installation setting to collect and/or present the words and the resulting sculpture, poem, or other multimedia.

One more result that I have mentioned but was not part of the original proposal is a mashup in which the audience/users can go online and create they own poems by using these words; they can also print or add words of their own and punctuation. This mashup may be used for an installation as well.

Evaluation, or Perhaps a Conclusion

I believe that I designed a combinatory writing system that can be duplicated anywhere else. Although this system has its inspiration on writers and artists from the twentieth century, it also resembles an interactive and collaborative system now common to Internet users—the mashup. The outcome is a poem with heavily loaded words that even thought they were collected in a whimsical and playful fashion, they still resonate in other people's minds. The lose of sound to me translates into a lost of the voices and tones that those words had for their donors. I cannot read this poem in the way the group of people who got rid of them could. But not everything is lost. At least I know now that this was a very ambitious project to be executed with little help. Next time I will have more help and it will probably be inside of a building. Aside from redesigning the next cycle of this project, I plan to rewrite the steps and even this essay to make everything available to other artists and writers so that we can put together either a site, a book, or both about the words that nobody wants anymore, about the rotten words.