I just remembered a nice description by Fabrice Mogini earlier on this list:
"I use live coding mainly for composing; in that case, the live aspect is not about a performance but for bringing together improvisation and composition.The real-time feedback while editing code is useful to prevent compositional systems from getting out of hand and forgetting about perception (eg: serialist techniques)."
Live coding is hard to define. I see it as a technique, and at some point in the future the term will dissolve, as it will become a natural tool to pick up from the toolbox of compositional and performance techniques.
thor
On 14 Aug 2013, at 11:10, alex wrote:
>
> On 14 Aug 2013 01:57, "Andrew Brown" <algorithmicmusic_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm sure it is true, as Georg states, that live programming environments and practices may have general utility - as Sorensen advocates. There seems to (should) be an assumption that 'live coding' is performative and that 'coding' is live (i.e., an activity), so a coding or programming distinction seems unnecessary as does, I hope, the need to add 'performance' to the end of 'live coding' in order to be understood.
>
> I think I disagree. Live performance is the most visible and easy to communicate context for live coding but is not the only or the original one.
>
> "Performative" doesn't imply an audience, it means that words are deeds (cf Austin), which is mostly true of all programming but has a special resonance with live coding.
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity
>
> Alex
>
Received on Wed Aug 14 2013 - 10:39:12 BST