Yes, I like your play on want and need. Lucky I didn’t include the carnal pics. But continuing on your observations I must say that what I found dissappointing in the end was that the process reduced the amount of meaning in the pic or at least made it static. If the pic was actually saying something to contrast the word — like a car crash or a pizza box and static on a TV — there is a deeper level of meaning. But just finding a pic that matches the word and blending the 2 into an ASCII image just isn’t enough, a search engine and remediation. OK. I love generators and so the fact that this is an automated response doesn’t phase me. It is the human designers who created a program that doesn’t have cleverness built in. The only way this could be interesting and fun is through human ingenuity. Like entering the word ‘abstract’ or ‘piety’ or ‘formant’ and seeing what happens. This makes the entertainment user-driven whereas the whole idea of delivering a word for picturfication or ASCIIfication seems to imply to me that the program was going to supply some surprise.]]>
Let me know if I’m hearing/reading your queston correctly?
If “lost its gloss” means lost its satisfying effect then….(I switch to my two-bit Lacan impersonation)
More than just pulling the curtain back from the illusion, your realization of the mechanism seems an extension of the lack you have already foregrounded in the image itself. The words as image at first seem to become what they signify. At the point at which we recognize their letters in the image, the image deteriorates and its relationship to the words that make it prove as arbitrary as the relationship between the image and the thing. The focus shifts to lacks and gaps (to borrow some ideas from our psychoanalytic friends). In this emphasis on language as the pixel-stuff of our images, comes a redoubled sense of the gap between all the signifiers and the thing we want, and perhaps, between the thing we want and the drive that makes us want it, or what it represents.]]>