>> I tend to think David is right that you need to involve a computer in live coding. Sometimes those computers are humans, animals, nature, or analogue machines. (See Hayles' book "My Mother was a Computer").
> I think I agree with you here. and its giving me a headache. Is there
> really nothing that distinguishes a computer from a system? Does
> Hayles' say no?
I like to compare it to painting. The computer is like the canvas, the
paint is like the language, and the actual painting is like the
program. I guess the machine is as important to live coding as the
canvas is to painting. Its your space in which you can operate.
Imagining a painting is not painting. Electrons are as real as
pigments.
In this sense livecoding is the act of creating a real time-dependant
system. For me, learning to code was learning that algorithms are
real, and that systems can be a medium for art. I found this also
politically extremely important, because coding for beauty means going
in opposition against technocracy and positivism, against the horrible
notion that technology is just a tool to increase efficiency. Not
saving the program is an act of rebellion. Livecoding makes the fact
that technology alters its environment immediately visible.
2015-12-27 13:38 GMT+01:00 Tristan Strange <tristan.strange_at_gmail.com>:
>> Great to see a discussion happening on a mailing list and not on that awful Facebook!
>
> Fair enough - I don't see why everyones so down on the comment
> section. Its got more of a forward thrust than mailing lists sometimes
> what with easy quoting and what not. I also find I worry a lot more
> about what I'm saying on than I do on mailing lists. You never know
> which pricks going to weigh in on FB. Horses for courses.
>
>> I tend to think David is right that you need to involve a computer in live coding. Sometimes those computers are humans, animals, nature, or analogue machines. (See Hayles' book "My Mother was a Computer").
>
> I think I agree with you here. and its giving me a headache. Is there
> really nothing that distinguishes a computer from a system? Does
> Hayles' say no?
>
>> I once wrote a paper on the difficulty of defining live coding. That's why the title became "Herding Cats" - it might be relevant here.
>
> Thanks Thor, it's bonkers how much of human endeavour boils down to
> some form of cat herding. I think I've heard it said about every job
> I've ever done except for shelf stacking. Really looking forward to
> having a read. Ta.
>
>> I wonder if you can live code lying on your back in the dark (like Beckett) writing code in your minds eye, and not bothering about an interpreter or an audience?
>
> In that situation isn't your mind the interpreter and audience?
>
> On 27 December 2015 at 11:59, thor <th.list_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Great to see a discussion happening on a mailing list and not on that awful Facebook!
>>
>> I tend to think David is right that you need to involve a computer in live coding. Sometimes those computers are humans, animals, nature, or analogue machines. (See Hayles' book "My Mother was a Computer").
>>
>> But on a reflection, I wonder if you can live code lying on your back in the dark (like Beckett) writing code in your minds eye, and not bothering about an interpreter or an audience? A bit like a modernist composer who doesn't give a damn about the listener.
>>
>> I once wrote a paper on the difficulty of defining live coding. That's why the title became "Herding Cats" - it might be relevant here.
>>
>> Thor
>>
>>> On 27 Dec 2015, at 11:38, Tristan Strange <tristan.strange_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26 December 2015 at 16:19, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think a computer must be involved with processing the code. I'm not
>>>> inclined to include a Simon Says game as live coding, for example. But it
>>>> doesn't need to be today's common keyboard-video-mouse setup. And the
>>>> computer could certainly communicate in ad-hoc ways with other people,
>>>> robots, and devices.
>>>
>>> It's funny, I came here expecting to be told that my definitions were
>>> too restrictive - not to be telling other people that.
>>>
>>> If you're using this definition what distinguishes just using a
>>> programmable computer program (lets say Excel) from live coding?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
>>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/6YN3PsRb6a6znz2nS93s5Y
>>>
>>> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/70exJrb1n4wf0zbnxNmtKK
>>
>> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
>
> --
>
> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> http://lurk.org/r/topic/3hqGGGS2bW2ZVqSy4Pme1D
>
> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/4VB5MWGRkIDXPvJeOglJkx
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Sun Dec 27 2015 - 15:54:29 GMT