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
Received on Wed Dec 17 2014 - 14:28:18 GMT