Hi Tristan,
On 26/12/15 11:02, Tristan Strange wrote:
> On 25 December 2015 at 14:00, David Griffiths <dave_at_pawfal.org> wrote:
>> While music may or may not be a good application of livecoding 'as a
>> tool' - it even might be the case that computation *is* music, and by
>> experiencing it's construction by a performer, we may be able to learn
>> something about the algorithmic world we live in.
>
> I could dig that if I dropped enough acid.
One of the most exciting things (for me) about livecoding is that it
exposes a wonderful confusion we have about subject and object - is
music the outcome or is the code? Do we manipulate sound in order to
understand the code we're writing, or manipulate code in order to make
people dance? It's rarely one-directional or simple.
This shifting and reasoning with sound also becomes very apparent if you
use music to teach children how to code.
>> In a similar way, livecoding also has potential to expose clearly a
>> secret aspect of technology - the way it's pursued in a fumbling, zigzag
>> approach with many restarts - rather than the smooth, planned series of
>> 'innovations' that people who want us to invest in their companies would
>> like us to believe.
>
> I think the above is one of the reasons I might want to study live
> coding. Thank you for stringing those words together.
>
Glad to be of service! :)
cheers,
dave
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/5w6Iy6CLb2X7prkYQUJXmL
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Sat Dec 26 2015 - 12:06:40 GMT