When we were still called CONVERGENCE, there was a lengthy debate about our longterm name. And that's when werdwurk came into its own. Even though it didn't become the name of the group, it seemed to be a good idea for our net-stuff to be called werds and our process to come under the title: werdwurk. Adrian says it well:

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:20:36 +1000
To: "convergence" <convergence@coollist.com>
From: Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@bowerbird.rmit.edu.au>
Reply-To: convergence@coollist.com
Subject: RE: convergence: domains and names
Precedence: list
Mailing-List: convergence@coollist.com
MIME-Version: 1.0

hi all

this might be out of context now (i'm working from home so my email arrives in the fits and starts of dial up) but i'm going to argue out of self interest for

<drumroll>(using quicktime midi tracks)

werdwurk

</drumroll>

and i plump for http://www.werdwurk.org.au or http://werdwurk.org.au

the self interested explanation (laid out so you can quote and cut
criticism/reply:

a) .au code
as i've said already i think it is good to identify us as australian.
i *hate* that .us does not need to be put on .us domains. i regard
that as *utterly* colonialist and just against the, heck, spirit of
all this. it is transborder etc but that does not mean the loss of
the local. eliterature.org probably is ok since though chicago based
they have some idea of being international, but as some of the
examples presented indicate, why should something like
film-festival.org (or whatever it was) be a Danish film festival??

b) werdwurk: werd
i like werd. it is phonetically "word" but mutates in that way that
is an index of digital or the electronic or whatever you want to call
it. so it signals that we do stuff with words but that there is an
edge, even a disrespect for the solidity of the given word.

c) werdwurk: werd
i like werd because it is about words and not literature. i think i'd
like to think of this group (and this could be fraughtly
controversial) as on the edge of literature, as not particularly
wanting to 'literary' if that means words on pages. that what is
valued is something not stable and outside. of course this doesn't
mean we don't want the work recognised. but it's to be recognised for
what it is, not criticised because it isn't a book, or whatever.

d) werdwurk: werd
i like werd rather than lit. or whatever because i (here this is very
much my own view out of self interest) see that as too constrictive.
i write/make academic hypertext/hypermedia. it is published in peer
reviewed journals like good academic's ought to do. it is about
words. it is not about affective diegetic experiences and i wouldn't
regard it as poetry though it is often self reflexive, playful,
multivocal, and always multilinear and can only 'live'
electronically. i want this work be within the umbrella provided by
the selected name. i also make lowbit rate interactive video, some of
which are poems. some of which are kinepoems (and not that silly mtv
film poetry stuff doing the rounds). some of which are not poems. but
all have the above qualities, and are about relations of word to
image to sound. anything with lit. in the title for someone from my
side of the fence already feels like a fence. :-)

e) absolute self interest
i have a work called 'this is not a werd'.

tear it to bits gang

adrian m

Back to ergence