I added some thoughts on Twitter as well around the same time, but I'm a bit busy right now - would you care to copy those in Alex, as an 'attachment' to the main conversation?
Will read through all of this when I have a bit more time!
A
> On 4 Dec 2014, at 09:28, alex <alex_at_slab.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's excerpts of a discussion which took place on facebook on
> projection in livecoding. You can see the complete discussion here:
> https://www.facebook.com/yaxupaxo/posts/10152410909151851
>
> Alex:
> Really interesting discussion after my talk in York today, very
> critical of conspicuous live coding projection. Feels like time to try
> turning off the beamer.
>
> Martyn: I'd say if there is a way of screen casting the coding action
> to mobiles or a little screen somewhere for those that are interested
> that would be less conspicuous / intrusive to the dancing.
>
> Alex: That's more or less what Charles suggested Martyn.
> I've always been uncomfortable with projecting, caught between on one
> side needing to share the activity behind what I'm doing, on the other
> creating an unwanted impression that people are supposed to read and
> understand the code. Have tried obscuring it in different ways but
> often you just have to use the projector+screen the venue provides.
> I did like the Fiber Festival + Steim extreme of projecting the code
> on all the walls, so it was omnipresent and therefore somehow less
> distracting.
>
> Heather: Noooooooo! Don't hide the code! Code needs to be *more*
> conspicuous in digital culture, not less. :) Though as I've said
> before, I get a bit of code fetishism when I watch your performances,
> and that might not be so great either, though is enjoyable to me. I
> definitely don't feel like I need to read/understand it when I watch.
> I just enjoy the rhythm / vibe of watching it.
>
> Kassen: There could also be other lights, either controlled
> procedurally or by a external light-controller, or the code could be
> displayed in a way that links to the music and mood beyond the
> contents of the text/symbols displayed. In a regular club I'd never go
> for a projected screen as the single source of lighting. Probably not
> as the most visually prominent either. Simply projecting words or text
> on its own, in a otherwise normal club context, doesn't seem to
> intrude on dancing, at least not that I ever noticed. As a entirely
> unrelated remark; some mainstream systems for control of advanced
> lighting rigs (stuff like displays made up of led strips and so on)
> let you live-edit text. Even when the display doesn't allow for
> readable text this makes performative live ASCII-art a option (or so I
> discovered to my joy)
>
> Martyn: I can see a simple WebRTC setup working with atom (
> https://github.com/seansay/atom-tidal ) I imagine there is a plugin
> for that already. So you set up a bitly that points to it and any
> phones or tablets that want to can see the code change live.
>
> Kassen: "but often you just have to use the projector+screen the venue
> provides." If you don't already; talk with the local techs ahead of
> time. In my experience too few organisers do as they don't seem to
> realise that a venue may have local techies when can and will
> accomplish a lot and think along if only they get the time to prepare
> in advance. As a performer you may want to try to do this directly and
> bypass other layers. I have had situations as a performer where a
> organisation would say "no, impossible", while the local techs took
> pride in showing how easy what I wanted would be.
>
> Alex: Yes Heather I think this expectation of understanding code might
> only be something people who already understand a programming language
> get (not that I'm assuming that you're not an excellent coder as well
> as everything else. :) This really needs ethnographic research. I
> never feel like reading code projections either, by the way..
>
> Alex: Kassen yes all good thoughts.. Getting the projection right in
> algorave style things needs this kind of thinking I reckon.
> I've not had good luck getting the message through to venues that I
> need stereo monitoring lately, so find the idea of trying to talk to
> them about projection set up ahead of time a bit exhausting..
>
> Kassen: I try to read them. When I don't understand what is going on I
> still feel impressed by small changes in the visual display that lead
> to large yet musically sensible changes in the sound.
>
> Alex: Recently I did a performance where a previous performer stood
> over her laptop and mouthed the words to pop songs using her vulva,
> into her webcam, projected on the wall behind. This is an interesting
> comparison with live coding I think, at least it tells me it's best
> not to rely too much on shock/novelty value, or you'll have nothing
> left when you get upstaged.
>
> Alex: I look at the screen and enjoy the movement and build up of
> code, but can't concentrate on reading the code. Then again I don't
> really read my own code in detail when performing, I'm too busy
> writing it.
>
> Kassen: Alex, if you like I can ask a good friend of mine who is a pro
> at doing lights at dance events and does so with considerable skill,
> taste and emphasis on live performance (by which I mean; he plays
> light mixers like he is jamming along on some sort of organ) whether
> he'd like to be put in touch with you and share thoughts on the
> matter. I have long felt that the lack of communication between
> visiting sound artists and local light-techs is a missed chance. At
> one of my first gigs I only heard after I was done playing that
> thingsAmy Alexander I think you're on a good track with "I look at the
> screen and enjoy the movement and build up of code, but can't
> concentrate on reading the code." That to me is what's interesting
> about livecoding - the "live" part, not so much the "coding" part.
> When I do text-based visual performances, I try to think of the
> on-screen text as something akin to song lyrics. When you listen to a
> rock band with a vocalist, you generally don't listen to every word
> and focus on the story, e.g., and you don't worry that you can't make
> out every word, or if you missed a chunk of the lyrics, etc. The
> lyrics mainly wash over you as part of the whole experience of the
> performance. So you could experiment with ways of making the
> projection less about literally reading every word of the code, and
> more about the movement. Which could take any form from defocused
> projector showing only the fragment of code that's being typed, to
> projecting a webcam image of you typing the code on screen (i.e. hands
> with part of rescanned screen) processing the text through PD to
> display it more graphically, etc...
> That probably all sounds prescriptive and too aestheticized, but
> actually I'm just brainstorming some possible ideas in between "no
> code" and "full readable code." could have been a lot easier and
> better if only I had known that I could hand a MIDI clock to the
> VJ.... who had been right next to me for the hour that I played so any
> random spare cable from my bag would have done.
>
> Alex: Yes that'd be interesting Kassen, thanks. BTW I didn't mean
> people shouldn't want to read my code, I meant people shouldn't feel I
> want them to read it, just because I'm making it visible.
>
> Kassen: Yes. I get that. It is the difference between playing a guitar
> live and shoving the specific fingering and plucking techniques into
> their unsuspecting face. Violin players at town-squares come to mind.
>
> Masaaki: how smartly you are producing music has nothing to do with
> how good the result is .. pc had become a normal instrument
>
> Amy: I think you're on a good track with "I look at the screen and
> enjoy the movement and build up of code, but can't concentrate on
> reading the code." That to me is what's interesting about livecoding -
> the "live" part, not so much the "coding" part. When I do text-based
> visual performances, I try to think of the on-screen text as something
> akin to song lyrics. When you listen to a rock band with a vocalist,
> you generally don't listen to every word and focus on the story, e.g.,
> and you don't worry that you can't make out every word, or if you
> missed a chunk of the lyrics, etc. The lyrics mainly wash over you as
> part of the whole experience of the performance. So you could
> experiment with ways of making the projection less about literally
> reading every word of the code, and more about the movement. Which
> could take any form from defocused projector showing only the fragment
> of code that's being typed, to projecting a webcam image of you typing
> the code on screen (i.e. hands with part of rescanned screen)
> processing the text through PD to display it more graphically, etc...
> That probably all sounds prescriptive and too aestheticized, but
> actually I'm just brainstorming some possible ideas in between "no
> code" and "full readable code."
>
> Oliver: I'm glad to see this is still a debate.
>
> David: I still think there is still a lot of "potential" in various
> circumstances in insisting on projection... Or even things like later
> screencasting honestly a performance where the screen was not
> projected, from the standpoint of sharing code.
>
> Mike: In my locale, audiences have been captivated by the projected
> code and really seem to like it. I suspect it's partly because live
> coding is kind of a novelty here. I do see that audiences get sucked
> in to just watching projected code; I do wonder if they are missing
> half of the details in the music. With the inherent latency in typing
> out a musical idea, watching the code might make up for the time spent
> waiting for a change in sound - otherwise the listener is wondering
> what they're waiting for. I have performed a couple of times when the
> projection didn't work due to lighting - the audience didn't know any
> different; the only people interested in my code were other artists I
> was performing with (they just had a general curiosity about how I
> made sound). I've really hit live-coding hard over the past year, and
> the longer I do it the more I'm interested in the algorithms and
> language capabilities to produce unique sounds than showing my screen.
> Ultimately, it's the sounds that are leading me to new places, but
> I'll keep projecting my screen as long as the audiences here want to
> keep seeing it.
>
> Masaaki: these days .. turntables are just there to do their job ..
> some guys are good at making the operation look cool and some do not
> even care .. and i think it's gonna be the same for pcs too .. it's
> just sooner or later
>
> Giovanni: Thanks to all for the interesting debate. Thanks Alex for
> recognising the importance of etnography in this context
>
> Gavin: Seeing the code creates the essential causal visual reference
> that was missing from computer based performance. I don't see the
> precise place a violinist puts there fingers but it's part of the
> performance that I see them play. Seeing the code is part of
> developing the language of computer based performance.
>
> Simon: I was in the audience for your talk and performance. Great
> stuff - don't turn off the code projector!
>
> Dan: I would much rather see the protection at a live coding event,
> give me the opportunity to learn something.
>
> Alex: Coming to the conclusion that projection, or at least being able
> to see screens is important (e.g. by live coding within the audience),
> but how the projection is done is also important.
>
> Thor: Under normal circumstances I don't think a person performing
> with a laptop needs to show what they're doing. Ideally the music
> itself is sufficient.
> I do find that much live coding (not all) is actually an audiovisual
> performance of realtime composition, and as such the visual element is
> important. Most often there are periods within the performance where
> musical timing suffers due to the performer being caught up in coding.
> Understanding that timing would be lost to the audience if they could
> not observe the progression of the performance.
> That's a strong reason for me. There are many of others, some
> expressed above, such as audience engagement, aesthetics, sharing,
> education, recontextualising the performer's body, advertising your
> system : ), etc.
>
> Ben: nobody likes google glass, but I wonder what happens if you give
> each person the choice of what to see of the live coding? like
> personal subtitles setups
>
> Jenny: Hi Alex. If you want a layman's perspective, I came to
> Liverpool event recently, mainly because I'm interested very generally
> in process in music and performance, and in audience experience at
> different types of event. And I'd seen clips and heard good things
> from epic Algorave groupie Dr Mooney. I really enjoyed it, and it was
> great to experience something so totally new to me (I am an opera
> scholar) and I think the visual coding element was key to that,
> because I was very much in my own space immersed in watching and
> listening and feeling it and learning. Another thing - from talking to
> people, there were certainly a lot of audience members there who were
> regular ravers but unaware of the live coding process. Although they
> could see it, they didn't necessarily connect or perhaps have that
> level of interest in process. So they had a clue, but if it wasn't
> there then any point of interaction on that would disappear and they
> wouldn't know or wonder about that at all. So I think it's important
> in order to stimulate interest in process.
>
> Alex: Thor, I think *all* music performance is audiovisual, for those
> who can see. The activity you see is intrinsic to the music.
> I think I probably could tell you the exact number of beats that had
> passed since the last time I made a change at any moment during a
> performance. Being continually aware of the passing of musical time is
> so important to me that I avoid getting caught up in longer term
> coding tasks by making a language that is fast to use. I think you are
> the same with ixilang, no?
>
> Thor: Yes, that's one of the goals with ixi lang. But I was trying not
> to talk about myself and said that I find this often important in the
> live coding performances I've seen - i.e., I'd rather have the visuals
> for the reasons that the coding is an integral part of the
> performance.
>
> Ernest: Often in live coding, normally in fact, the showing of the
> code is a kind of side effect or augmentation on the experience. It
> seems to me that the issue you are concerned with Alex is to what
> extent can the code be an actual component of the audiovisual artwork.
> I don't think anyone has solved this but I see it as a vital problem.
> If is is part of the work, everything about it matters: the quality of
> the image, the font, the layout, colour etc and, most of all, the
> experience of reading it, so the language itself. Some lessons from
> research in end user programming, for example, might be helpful.
> Perhaps we don't have to understand the code fully but just get a
> sense of what is going on etc. From this point of view, we shouldn't
> see it as similar to hearing a reading of a Shakespeare sonnet whilst
> reading the notes about the poem. We should see it as an integrated
> audiovisual experience. Can this be done?
>
> Patrick: Needs to be a panel on that at ILCP!
>
> Jonathan: How about materializing the code in another way without
> introducing too much interpretation? I always liked the thought of
> distributing a printed-on-demand booklet of performance code at the
> end of the evening. Maybe you'd even make some cashmoney
>
> Alex: Well Antonio was going to do live coded VJing with my screen as
> input for one gig, that would have been interesting if the curator
> hadn't intervened
>
> Antonio: We'll do it one day! I really like Fluxus as there is a
> direct connection between the code and the visual output. I'm not sure
> how you would make the music more visual and interesting to look at.
> As Alex mentioned I've been wanting to use the code output as a
> texture for visuals but haven't yet had a chance to do this. One day
>
> Alejandro: One interesting part of live coding is the experience of
> getting into someone else´s desktop. It is like someone inviting you
> home. Maybe is a good idea not to focus so much in the information
> avialable by showing the code but the experience of inviting people
> into your pc. This could be meaningful if it is done with inventive. I
> think showing the screen potentially is a very powerful tool. ¡¡¡Show
> us the screen!!!
>
> Tanya: Ahh, the debate... to project or not to project your code, that
> is indeed the question! Least we forget the manifesto to rule all
> manifestos: "Obscurantism is dangerous. Show us your screens ... Code
> should be seen as well as heard, underlying algorithms viewed as well
> as their visual outcome ..."
>
> Dan: This is an interesting one for visual livecoding - most of my
> live work so far has had code overlaid, and this has been
> appropriate/appreciated for things like algorave events or
> performances of that kind. I've since moved into using my live work in
> other spheres, particularly around chiptune visuals, at which point
> the code becomes something I'm using the generate visuals but I don't
> feel adds to the experience - in fact when working with fairly
> intricate fast-moving live visuals the code overlaid would be a
> distraction I think?
> One of the next things we're adding to Cyril will be the ability to
> manipulate multiple code frames with external editors, for this exact
> reason. Definitely depends on the context though - I'm certainly of
> the opinion that just because livecoding is something I'm using, I
> don't necessarily have to share everything warts-and-all if it doesn't
> add anything to share.
> Although when I did Superbyte I inserted a comment into my projected
> code asking if anyone could bring me a beer, which worked nicely. So
> there's that.
>
> Amy: One video I show my audiovisual performance students is Edgar
> Winter Group's Frankenstein. We discuss it in terms of how performers
> of a new type of instrument (analog synths) dealt with an instrument
> that, on its own, made it hard for the audience see the performance.
> There's the DIY keytar, and also a few other strategies. A lot of it
> looks awkward now, but the point is, we have to experiment and try not
> to worry that some things will work and some won't. Social media tends
> to make people self-conscious about making fools of themselves, but we
> have to suck up and do it anyway.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1mV_5-bRPo
>
>
> --
> http://yaxu.org/
>
> --
>
> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> http://lurk.org/r/topic/5Mwkd5rlKVRngizupitvSz
>
> 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/5YeqGSyVGpkKZ8hKe9K35E
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Thu Dec 04 2014 - 10:46:06 GMT