On 4 March 2010 17:19, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
> On reflection, perhaps it would be better to re-create the live coding
> page, which would be readily justifiable by coverage in the mainstream
> media, and move the TOPLAP page to a section on there. I think the
> practice and contribution of live coding is more notable than the
> identity of TOPLAP. Currently live coding has been moved to a
> subsection of computer music, which doesn't make much sense.
>
>
I fully agree. Actually I wanted to write the exact same. TOPLAP is
relevant to us but I don't think it's generally taken very seriously as a
organisation. That's probably a good thing as much of the time we ourselves
aren't very serious in a non-ambiguous way. On top of that there are groups
of livecoders who don't identify with TOPLAP.
Livecoding as a sub-section of computer music makes about as much sense to
me as considering digital synthesisers a sub-section of computer music. The
emphasis is on the mode of expression, not on the tool, as such.
I also feel that it's valid for Wikipedia to exclude user-generated content
like websites and blogs and only consider sources like mainstream media
publications and peer-reviewed papers. Still, it would bother me if
livecoding could or would be defined according to those sources. I feel
quite attached to the collaborative and dynamic way in which our field is
continually being defined. I personally don't feel like jumping through
Wikipedia's hoops, I'd rather note that it's interesting that some things
might -because of their nature- not be noteworthy according to Wikipedia.
Of all the phenomena, concepts and things that aren't noteworthy according
Wikipedia there must be one that affects most people. I wonder what that
would be. It may well be some taboo subject, something that make makes
people so uncomfortable that it would hurt magazine sales
or academic reputations to write about it at all.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Thu Mar 04 2010 - 17:18:21 GMT