I think its worth having this argument on the livecode list, or why
have it at all?
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:36 PM, alex wrote:
>
>> I don't remember fudging the meaning of those.
>
> I was referring to a previous discussion on the openlab list. I
> haven't got the thread but I think you were arguing for max/msp
> performances at openlab. I remember Robert pointing out you should
> call it "closed not-lab" in that case.
>
Robert has sense of humor.
>
>> I feel that at the end of the day, we
>> don't need to fight battles amongst ourselves over issues like what
>> percentage of livecoders in a performance makes it a livecoding
>> performance.
>
> That's not the issue, it's what's suitable for a livecoding showcase.
Its totally the issue. What's the point of an "intellectually pure"
livecoding event, except as group intellectual masturbation for a
select few who understand what's going on? As it is, audiences barely
get the idea. Does livecoding only exist to promote itself in "pure"
form? Can't it be part of something larger? I thought Dan's point
about the "focal point" of a performance was very interesting, and
should be properly debated. Much more interesting than arbitrary
percentages.
Why 50%? Because you can round up? Why not 51%, the threshold at which
a person takes ownership of a public company? Why not 60%, the
threshold percentage of votes which some governments require to pass
bill? Why not a plurality? Why not require your father to have been a
computer science professor? I was only half-kidding about Jewishness;
outside Judaism people consider themselves "part Jewish" if they have
a Jewish ancestor somewhere down the line; inside Judiasm, you're only
Jewish if your mother is. Period. Which model does livecoding take?
Or open software? Or any intellectual argument, race, or creed? Why
stop there? Intellectual rigidity is a virtue, right?
Alex, it sounds like you need a nap.
Cheers,
Evan
Received on Tue Dec 08 2009 - 22:48:14 GMT