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
Received on Wed Dec 17 2014 - 19:10:26 GMT