You could explain that your motivation was the same as his, wanting what's
best for the students.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Alan Blackwell <afb21_at_cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Got myself into trouble last night, as a result of this discussion.
>
> Have been coaching a group of 14 year-olds who provided live-coded
> interludes during the local high school end-of-year talent show.
>
> My role last night: stand-up argument with school head of drama who told
> the lighting guys to turn off the projector during one of the acts - "we
> need to be careful with the projector, because we're going to be using it
> for important stuff after the interval"
>
> Any suggestions for how to word my diplomatic apology this morning will be
> welcome!
>
> Alan
>
> > On 17 Dec 2014, at 19:10, David Ogborn <ogbornd_at_mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I think that's one of the areas, broadly speaking, that really excites
> me: proliferating "secondary notations" for live coding. A simple thing
> (could be tweeted!) would just be live commentary by "expert" observers,
> sports event style - as in Stephen Ramsay's Algorithms are Thoughts,
> Chainsaws are Tools video.
> >
> > Yours truly,
> > David
> >
> > On 2014-12-17, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
> >> That raises an interesting tradeoff, between concision and
> >> viewer-friendliness.
> >>
> >> I like to keep function and other names as short as possible, subject to
> >> the constraint that someone familiar with the context should be able to
> >> guess what a word stands for. For instance, I generally use "cond"
> instead
> >> of "condition" because in the problem domains I code for, there's
> generally
> >> no other word that "cond" could stand for. (In a real estate context it
> >> might be confusable for "condemn" or "condominium", but in a music
> context,
> >> no obvious alternative interpretations spring to mind.) But the
> programmer
> >> will be a lot more familiar with the context than a livecode audience
> >> member.
> >>
> >> One could offer the best of both worlds if a second screen contained
> >> definitions of the functions and objects being used in the first.
> Perhaps
> >> updated automatically to reflect whatever is nearest the cursor. Perhaps
> >> reacting to tweets from the audience.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:27 AM, David Ogborn <ogbornd_at_mcmaster.ca>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Chiming in... I think the visual disposition of the code can present
> quite
> >>> different messages to a crowd about whether the code is supposed to be
> >>> pertinent to them or not, independently of the sonic result or
> "underlying"
> >>> algorithm. So I think in discussions of whether audiences are
> friendly to
> >>> algorithms or not, we shouldn't forget to consider whether the
> algorithms
> >>> are being presented to them in a friendly manner or not - it's a two
> way
> >>> street!
> >>>
> >>> Small fonts and walls of code can say "you don't/can't/shouldn't really
> >>> attend to this closely."
> >>>
> >>> Big fonts, going step by step, interjecting comments can say "this is
> as
> >>> much a communication with you the audience as it is a communication
> between
> >>> the performer and the computer".
> >>>
> >>> Yours truly,
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On 2014-12-16, at 12:13 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
> >>>> Well the algounfriendly aside (you cant please those people!), I think
> >>> its surprisingly accessible.
> >>>>
> >>>> I recently did a concert in St. Johns, Newfoundland, which included a
> >>> telematic live coding performance, to an audience of mostly
> non-composer,
> >>> non-programmer, non-experimental, mostly classical music people, and
> they
> >>> really got and loved it. They thought it was virtuosic, intriguing,
> >>> musical, funny
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course they liked the Cage piece we did too, so perhaps they were
> >>> just an exceptionally receptive crowd! ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> S.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 16 Dec 2014, at 17:02, Amy Alexander <amy_at_plagiarist.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Scott,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes! I like to watch the performative activity too. But I think this
> is
> >>> not
> >>>>> universal for everybody, as it's a new thing for people. As with John
> >>>>> Cage's performance for the 1960 TV studio audience (and some
> >>> contemporary
> >>>>> YouTube viewers), many people aren't sure what to make of livecoding
> >>> yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm guessing it's easier for algoliterate or at least algofriendly
> >>>>> audiences to appreciate livecoding performance than it is for people
> who
> >>>>> are put off by code and algorithms. Although a lot of people are
> >>>>> algofriendly these days, I get the sense it's still a leap for them
> to
> >>> deal
> >>>>> with algorithms in the performative context. It's just much different
> >>> than
> >>>>> what they're exposed to in the context of music (or visuals, etc.)
> >>> Sort of
> >>>>> like the people trying to grok Cage's blender and bathtub as music -
> >>> they
> >>>>> understood blenders and bathtubs, and that blenders and bathtubs make
> >>>>> sounds, but the idea that everyday sound could be music was still a
> leap
> >>>>> for them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't expect livecoding to follow the same trajectory toward
> >>> acceptance
> >>>>> as Cage's work, as there's a lot different culturally. It's possible
> >>> that
> >>>>> once everyone is algoliterate the idea of livecoding will seem so
> banal
> >>>>> we'll have to project nanophysics instead...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Amy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The algofriendly get that it's performative, where as the
> algounfriendly
> >>>>> just see it as typing code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Scott Wilson <s.d.wilson_at_bham.ac.uk
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Amy,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 16 Dec 2014, at 06:03, Amy Alexander <amy_at_plagiarist.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think what confuses audience members is the part about
> understanding
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> performance. Someone may not know how to play the violin, but
> there's
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> direct visual -> auditory connection between bowing & fingering and
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> sound that's produced. Wind instruments are arguably more
> complicated
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> understand because it's harder to correlate fingering to pitch -
> but
> >>>>>> people
> >>>>>>> generally don't care because the direct correlation is still there.
> >>> With
> >>>>>>> livecoding the correlation is a little more complicated - the text
> >>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> usually change in sync with the sound.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I usually think of it slightly more generally: Things like playing
> the
> >>>>>> piano, violin, electric guitar, or even the contrabassoon have in
> >>> common
> >>>>>> with live coding that there are aspects of those activities which
> >>> remain
> >>>>>> largely opaque to audiences. Classic cartoons in which a conductor
> >>> changing
> >>>>>> her or his gestures results in different pieces of music show how
> >>> shallow
> >>>>>> the actual understanding can be for many audience members. The
> >>> difference,
> >>>>>> however, is that those are what we might call received sorts of
> >>>>>> performance, and are considered self-evidentally performative.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When I first saw projected live coding, what very much surprised me
> was
> >>>>>> how much of a performative activity it seemed to be, in contrast to
> so
> >>> much
> >>>>>> laptop performance. The fact that it was in a language that I didnt
> >>> know,
> >>>>>> and therefore couldnt entirely understand, was not a particularly
> >>> important
> >>>>>> factor. What was important was that it *was* obviously performative,
> >>> and
> >>>>>> even dramatic. That it could become a received form of performance
> >>> seemed
> >>>>>> clear!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One contrast with much music was the obvious aspect of more extended
> >>>>>> preparation for events, but that made it more performative to me,
> not
> >>> less.
> >>>>>> There is an arc of expectation as a live coder gets ready for her
> next
> >>>>>> execution! So showing code was not about facilitating understanding
> >>> from
> >>>>>> my perspective that didnt matter so much but more about making it
> more
> >>>>>> self-evidently a performance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> S.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> >>>>>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/1HDTrGqI8Zk67qXLcfbP5K
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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/4l1ZwmDnTTrATWhOJRasiB
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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/5lzHq6EDxO6N4U8o2UCmEi
> >>>>
> >>>> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following
> >>> email subject: unsubscribe
> >>>
> >>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Dr. David Ogborn, Associate Professor, Multimedia
> >>> Acting Chair, M.A. in Communication & New Media
> >>> McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
> >>> +1-905-525-9140 ext 27603 http://www.d0kt0r0.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> >>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/6othXWxEiinF2LvBPyfruh
> >>>
> >>> 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/6704EjNEXQW2RTVBCDtM1v
> >>
> >> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following
> email subject: unsubscribe
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dr. David Ogborn, Associate Professor, Multimedia
> > Acting Chair, M.A. in Communication & New Media
> > McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
> > +1-905-525-9140 ext 27603 http://www.d0kt0r0.net
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> > http://lurk.org/r/topic/yI6imbVGhAKaub6hzEg9a
> >
> > To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following
> email subject: unsubscribe
>
> --
> Alan Blackwell
> Reader in Interdisciplinary Design, University of Cambridge
> Further details from www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> http://lurk.org/r/topic/srOfWWysKiWC0372ea0Of
>
> 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/1WUlRZPyNnxTNalxGXs8gO
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Thu Dec 18 2014 - 08:48:15 GMT