On 14/01/2013 1:00 AM, Konstantinos Vasilakos wrote:
> If someone agrees then, undeniably live coding consists of a new
> performance and "inevitably" a listening's paradigm.
> Is in the audience choice then, either he will stick on the flow of
> the programming craftsmanship a performer may have or he will just
> enjoy the music of it.
Indeed the audience may (or may not) have a choice about what to attend to.
I think there is still a question about what is intended, or perhaps
even what underlying ontology motivates the performance. I would go so
far as to suggest that there are a number of opposing or partially
incompatible positions. Off the top of my head, there are a couple of
Platonist options:
I. elucidation of the reified algorithm as concept-art by means of
computerised sound (and/or image)
II. expression of a musical (etc) ideal, mediated (expressed through)
computer programming and sound synthesis.
And visceral variants:
III. the kind of live coding where the medium rather than the materials
are brought to the fore (eg. Collins v. Wang at ICMC 2005)
IV. stimulation of an (auditory) experience by means of a (live)
programmed computer.
To get back to the original question, clearly I and III are more
difficult to appreciate without programming knowledge. In II it may add
something to know programming (this is like knowing how counterpoint
works adds something to listening to Bach). In the case of IV it is
undesirable to even try to engage with the work at the level of
percieving the programming of it.
Whether all of the above qualify as live coding I'm not sure.
Ross.
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 14:33:13 GMT