Tine Times 2: another unofficial Limited Fork Science extension

the study of interacting visual, sonic, olfactory, textual, & tactile systems on all scales

Emergence (& Rise) of the POAM (product of an act of making) —a little bit of Limited Fork history

Posted by forkergirl on July 12, 2007

**(the viewing of video links in this post requires Quicktime or realplayer. I have not tested these free downloads. Please use your preferred and trusted download sites if you have any doubts.)

Although outcomes of applied Limited Fork Poetics and Limited Fork Science weren’t christened POAMS until a few months after the birth of Limited Fork in October 2004 at the Quality 16 cinema in Scio Township (during the credits of a movie I don’t remember, just some “still playing” film as I seldom go to movies during the first few days of release), the need to find another way to refer to what came out of this actively reconfiguring approach to, initially, making poetry was evident with “The Song of Iota,” a text choreography piece that I made as soon as I got home from the movie. (“The Song of Iota” was initially made in this video poam form. It did not exist first as a print object, but was composed as text choreography. It does exist as a print object after being transcribed and adjusted so to be able to interact—collaborate—with the pages [and their limiting factors] of Gargoyle Magazine 50.) (The limiting factors of the print object pages, the video poam pages, interacting with the limiting factors of the maker and the limiting factors of the maker’s circumstances, & so forth: efforts of a limited community that is configured differently depending on the scale[s] at which consideration occurs at some moment also configured on some scale[s].)

—That is how profound the limited profunity was that arrived simultaneously re/configuring poetry, poetics, and a philosophy of living, constructing in these processes (systems/subsystems) bridges (tines, interactions, bifurcations) that appear/ed simultaneously with the understanding accessed as outcome/s of interacting with those areas of idea, information, and possibility that come into access—a complex system indeed!
—One of those bridges (tines, interactions, intersections, bifurcations, extensions) taking me to, for the first time with a limited fork, and (perma)linking me to “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius, a tine where I have stayed (resident status documented on 5 April 2007 in a special Poetry Daily email fundraising campaign) ever since the credits at the end of a movie, whose makers had no reason to credit Lucretius, ferried me to him in an awareness-igniting action in a process of convergence that seemed instantaneous at the moment of ignition.
—A limited fork is (also) a limited utensil of limited access
—And what I accessed on a Saturday afternoon at the Quality 16 was such a thorough facet of Limited Fork surface that I was unable to leave that surface to access anything else; I was stranded there that afternoon, making “The Song of Iota” as soon as I got home from movie X (within hours giving the 30-minute kinetic investigation of basic Limited Fork principles via text choregraphy that was limited to limiting factors of the application [iMovie, opened for the first time that October afternoon] used to make the initial forked video poam and to limiting factors of the application’s user and practitioner of Limited Fork basics evolving and coming into existence [activated] as needed while being used in the making); “The Song of Iota” was given to a composer/keyboard artist who returned it that night with the music score to which I added vocals completing “The Song of Iota” soundtrack.
—So the shape and substance (think of “Li”: dynamic form in nature) of what I believed, what I could say about poetry, poetics, making, living was so profoundly (subject to caveats & disclaimers like those already mentioned) remade that I could not go to class on Monday and teach what the syllabus, rendered invalid for me (now occuoying just a small possible susbsystem outcome within the, presently, innumerable possible Limited Fork outcomes) by a trip to the Quality 16. The intensity of what I understood, even within the limitations of the Limited Fork’s unanticipated birth (I didn’t know I was pregnant—“DOD: the death of depth” is a movie poam about the conception and birth) had me instructing my classes to abandon the syllabi, to relocate to the Mac classroom that although was not in a Limited Fork preferred learning space configuration permitted more opportunities for applied forking than the classrooms in a building called Angell usually or easily supported. So my classes that fall were infant explorers with me; whether or not they were persuaded by the fork, they knew that I was converted, and they did indeed have another tool; they did indeed leave those English classes with a wider range of options, increased numbers of possible points of connection (possibly transforming what is considered —superfically and otherwise—by the local), and more means to determine which options to select for their inquiries and acts of making whatever they might want to/have to make.

I am indebted to those fall 2004 (after midterm!) graduate and undergraduate students (the first to use the limited fork) for their indulgence. Since then, the limited fork has been attractive beyond, as I’ve long wanted, English majors to include dancers, architects, engineers, medical students, visual artists, student biologists, chemists, and physicists.

The raggedness of this Quality 16 flare up that transformed, to this date, how I understand making, how I make, and purposes of making, appeals to me quite a bit. Before I went to that movie, I’d made nothing like “The Song of Iota,” but as soon as I got home, I knew how to make “The Song of Iota” (so much converged during the closing credits—a final piece that enabled me to apply the understanding that evidently had been simmering for a while, clicked into place). In those moments, I understood poetry as a complex system, and “The Song of Iota” emerged out of investigating some of what that understanding immediately implied.

Every component of poetry previously understood in a particular way became reconfigured according to the emerging rules and behavior of Limited Fork. Perhaps a forked dictionary will (need to) emerge at some point. The transformation of making (including writing) enabled by alignment of that final conceptual piece was so thorough that it was also, as much as I could discern this, instantaneous; so instantaneous that it was also complete—so I cannot return to that prior conviction to another (still viable) poetics whose boundaries cannot account for the forms emerging as outcomes of applied Limited Fork Science and Limited Fork Poetics. So products of acts of making (poams) instead of poems which tend to respond to well-established limiting factors in common usage.

Part of the purpose of using the Limited Fork tool is to identify the forms of making that Limited Fork supports, that Limited Fork predicts so as to also identify the limits (boundaries) of Limited Fork. As I learn them, I will share them while also revealing, bit by bit, the Limited Fork understandings that have already occurred.

In my identity as maker, I didn’t separate the making I did as poet, as thinker, as writer, as educator, student, as loved one and as one who loves, as observer, as transmitter and receiver of information in a range of areas into non-intersecting categories; all parts of me contributed to acts of making, and I made something no matter which component of my identity (all handled by the same brain) seemed to dominate in a given situation. There was/is incredible collaboration occurring all the time—including collaboration with the subjects of the acts of making. Limited Fork requires me to advocate exchange, so I strongly support creative commons share alike licensing.
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

“Poam” is applied generously. I do not want to inhibit the emergence of forms I couldn’t anticipate. I do not want to restrict the validity to making to certain categories of making and maker. Until limits of Limited Fork are identified and understood, the rules of inclusion and exclusion are subject to revision, enhancement, tweaking, configuration and reconfiguration, so the hairdo can be a poam, the reconstructive surgery, the maps of proteins, the preparations and culinary executions on Top Chef and on Hell’s Kitchen, Andrew Zimmern’s bizarre foods, and so forth, sonnets of Shakespeare, drawings and writings of Blake, the quilts of Gees Bend, the pattern of my lipstick on my husband’s cheek, a rosy flat ring preserving a small patch of smooth skin.


Posted in art, experimental video, fusion, making, philosophy, poam, poetry, science, sound, systems, Uncategorized, unified theory, writing | Leave a Comment »

A Forked Film: OSTRICH CULTURE OF SNOWMEN (more limited fork philosophy)

Posted by forkergirl on July 5, 2007

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

A video poam by forkergirl investigating interactions in multiple visual (including writing systems), sonic, and textured systems on multiple scales simultaneously. A bent simultaneity to be sure, with the speeds of the various behaviors out of sync. Only in this 2D model do the video poam’s (product of an act of making) elements make what is apparently direct contact with other. This may be (another instance) of false intimacy because if the volume were reinstated, the rules of what is/isn’t apparent would change owing to some of these elements existing within extended dimensionality. The clustering into 2D establishes a closeness that may not be felt, but even in this flattened out location, man and ostrich do not directly commune. Notice how he approaches, closer and closer without really arriving, this snowman of Elea-ville (is a certain Top Chef former contestant possibly a descendant, closer and closer to the title without ever actually arriving?) —he does not get his ostrich. Whatever the ostrich has that he wanted, he does not obtain —except that being relatively immortalized here does grant man and ostrich a perceptual marriage.

This Limited Fork investigation pursued and pursues simultaneity, but did not, does not catch up with it.

Posted in art, experimental video, fusion, making, marriage, philosophy, poetry, science, sound, systems, Uncategorized, unified theory, writing | Leave a Comment »

Hello world! A Tine of Limited Fork Science is forming here

Posted by forkergirl on July 5, 2007

Limited Fork Science is the study of interacting language systems: visual, sonic, olfactory, and tactile systems/subsystems on all scales, in all locations, (some of it) occurring in (apparently) synchronized and unsynchronized simultaneity.

The outcomes of applied Limited Fork Science are Poams: products of acts of making.
There are both boundary Poams (usually indicated by uppercase P) and bounded poams (usually indicated by lowercase p); most are both or one or the other at various times in various locations in various interactions.

Limited Fork Science is the marriage of various arts and various sciences, but unlike terminal interfaces of various arts and various sciences that come together to execute this project or that project, and unlike those encounters that come out of casual or even promiscuous and ultimately temporary hunger for interdisciplinarity, encounters that do not resolve the need to feed again; unless those breakable links between art and science, Limited Fork Science sustains the relationship as it studies the interface itself, as it inhabits the fusion, because it’s not a form of another science or a bastardization of exisiting art forms (though Limited Fork Science can be used to understand them/to make them for different purpose: come to the fork, all my made children), IT IS ITS OWN AREA OF INQUIRY, a tool whose use can result in investigations that can have implications for any of the fields, fused and unfused, that contribute to it.

Limited Fork Science supports exisiting forms, generates new forms, and predicts forms that further research may eventually be able to usher into an existence detectable within visual, sonic, olfactory, or tactile system(s).
Limited Fork Science investigates the complex and dynamic system of interactions in visual, sonic, olfactory and tactile iterations.

The Limited Fork loves to play, and is aware of the diversions that are outcomes of a variety on interactions on a variety of scales in a variety of locations.

Blogging itself, and connecting in the many, growing, dynamic tines —or bifurcations— is a poam made of many poams. This post is a poam made of poam. The writing system itself is a poam made of poams, each alphanumeric character, the binary code —poams.

This tine is fresh; the metal isn’t yet solidified, so using it here and now (which will not be the same “now” when you read this, but certainly a “now”) can easily modify it (and that might be the point of a/the tine).

For more right away, check out the further extended TINE TIMES: an Unofficial Limited Fork Extension and its companion TINE TIMES cyberworkshop & Limited Fork playspace blog where Activity Tines are forming.

To see more video poams, click on and visit the forkergirl channel at youtube or let the following video poam take you there:

You can also visit a Limited Fork library of poams in three Limited Fork podcast libraries at iTunes:
Limited Fork,
Limited Fork Music, and The Limited Fork Video Anthology which festure work by student practitioners (at least until their grades were posted, but not in a public blog) of Limited Fork Science, formerly known as Limited Fork Science.

Thanks for reading this writing system inaugural imprint of tines of the limited fork at wordpress!
Please use the limited fork to enrich participation in the range of existence.

your forkergirl.

Posted in art, experimental video, fusion, making, marriage, philosophy, poetry, science, sound, systems, Uncategorized, unified theory, writing | 1 Comment »