Oops, I see someone (Evan?) added the whole livecode list to this car
crash of a private thread, unannounced. Thanks for that. Here's my
reply anyway, although I would have written it differently if I'd have
known it was going to a couple of hundred people. Behind it all is
some good news at least -- Michele is putting together a fine
livecoding event at an old operating theatre in London in January.
Aside from that, sorry to bother you folks.
2009/12/8 evan.raskob [lists] <lists_at_lowfrequency.org>:
> The operating word here is "see" - livecoding on a big screen is still
> livecoding.
I didn't say it wasn't.
> 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.
> I think what you're trying to say is that given the choice between being
> intellectually pure vs. conceptual inclusive, I'd choose the more inclusive
> version, which is absolutely correct.
Yes, that was my point. I think intellectual rigour is far more
important than this kind of inclusiveness. Of course I'm all for the
notion of inclusiveness in general, who could argue against that? For
example a definition of inclusiveness based on sharing ideas, free
access to languages, tools, documentation and community help is one
that TOPLAP adheres to pretty well. But if you define inclusiveness
as having performances with modalities dominated by "not-x" at an "x
event" then that seems fairly pointless to me.
> 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.
I'm happy with Michele's judgment on this.
> Otherwise, we're back to Godwin's Law again.... what percentage of
> Jewish means your a Jew?
Hey Evan, remember publicly berating Kassen for using the term
'Nuremberg defense' in jest? I think you and Jag are well off the
scale compared to that. Maybe you offer him an apology.
> Lastly, VISUALISTS COUNT TOO, GODDAMN IT!
Sure, I didn't say or imply otherwise.
alex
Received on Tue Dec 08 2009 - 21:37:34 GMT