Evan, I wanted to address at least some of your points but as you mentioned
this is a gargantuan email even compared to the leaning tower of debate that
Alex and me build over the past days so I'll cherry pick. This isn't to say
I didn't find all of it a enjoyable and stimulating read!
I think the reality is closer to a livecoding band, where a number of
> people are vying for the spotlight and projecting over the top of one
> another.
I like this analogy, particularly as I tried to make a analogy for
Livecoding before. I think that in a way Livecoding is akin to a single
performer vocally instructing the band he plays in how to play a new song he
has been thinking of. "you play this, then vary on that theme", "you give
accents after the end of a vocal phrase", etc. In that way the process can
be made to make sense even to people who wouldn't normally find a compiler
"expressive". This has nothing to do with how you use the band analogy but
it still struck me.
> But even then, its a tough analogy, because where does emotional meaning
> fit in?
Yes, that is a good question, but how are you supposed to convey my emotions
when you would be in my band? How is a pianist supposed to convey chopin's
emotions?
Do we always *need* emotions on that level? I sometimes very much enjoy
Bach's fugas but I enjoy them on the level of appreceating the beautiful
structures, the pleasing harmonies and general texture of the piece. I'm not
getting strong images of concrete emotions from these. Perhaps I listen to
these in the same way that I listen to some techno where the structure
itself can be very pleasing. Frankly I don't need to listen to songs about
being misunderstood by society by angsty rockers every day. I agree that it
is interesting to wonder whether such emotions could still be conveyed
through this sort of instrument but I don't think there is a absolute need
to demand this.
>
> So livecoding is more than 2 steps down the line from physical experience -
> first, the world exists, then we interpret it internally, then we act on
> that interpretation by livecoding, which involves pressing keys and making
> errors and then finally having a computer interpret the response, then
> something physical happens (visuals projected, audio radiating from
> speakers), then we receive back the sensations and further interpret them.
> Its a far cry from a physical instrument that relies on haptic feedback and
> muscle memory, and something more akin to live poetry performance,
> freestyling, and watching a painter paint (like Jackson Pollock - check
> "Pollock 51" on youtube). Its an intellectual exercise, and as such its
> hard to get emotion into it, except tangentally. You miss the immediateness
> of response of a physical instrument, and even the human voice.
>
Ok, it's further away from the physical experience than playing other
instrument but we could also say it brings the audience member much closer
to the composer's desk. As far fetched as it may sound what I strive for is
a sort of "nakedness" in Livecoding, there may be a physical distance
between us and the instrument but we can strive for a mental intimacy with
the audience in a way that other forms of performance don't allow for. I
realise I'm here describing a idealised performance by a idealised coder
toa idealised audience, that I myself rarely have risen above the level of
a sort of parlour trick but I still feel it's a worthwhile goal.
> Is livecoding meant to be visually interesting? E.g., if you livecode in a
> language that people don't/won't understand, what is the point, other than
> aesthetics?
>
> What are spectators meant to do during livecoding (those poor, poor, oft
> ignored spectators...)? If they try to understand the code, aren't they
> doing what the computer is meant to do? What is their relationship to it?
>
Well, what am I to do with a visible guitar being played? Am I to
contemplate the effect of a certain stiffness of pick on a certain brand of
string? If not then why are those displayed? In this example it's clear that
the questions are silly; we are there because we like seeing somebody
playing a instrument. In this case the instrument is a computer (in the
truest sense of the computer being a instrument, I feel) and it happens to
be played that way.
In guitar-based performance we do sometimes see some of the things we are
protesting. Some guitarists put tape over the labels on their pedals. Is it
important that we can see whether a certain delay is a "Ibanez"? Well, maybe
not but hiding that it is one makes some implications about what is going on
that I'm not comfortable with; it seems to imply that what is being
presented is based on a secret valuable method where the method is more
important than the emotions expressed.
Maybe the real reason to project is not to show the screen but to not hide
it.
> But the rest of this argument sounds, forgive me here for being very
> blunt, but overly-thought-out.
It is, and clearly Alex and me enjoy a good debate as well as intelectual
game or two but I do think that there is a very practical point to this. I
think debates like this one can shed light on strong and weak points in our
mode of performing that should eventually lead to lessons learned. A
guitarist may need to learn scales, contemplate the most suitable amp,
before anything soundwise happens there may need to be a search for the
right kind of wood to build a instrument out of.
We would probably quickly ruin the fun if this list consisted entirely of
debates like this, but do we not also run the risk of stagnating if we don't
confront what we are doing? I like to pause every once in a while and wonder
what I'm doing, what works and what doesn't. I think this topic very quickly
went from Alex's article to questions about whether we are even making any
sense at all. If push comes to shove the only thing we have demonstrated as
a real point to it all is that we find it fun to do.
> Is it for others to see and enjoy, and why? How is it fundamentally
> different from watching Stephen King write a novel in Microsoft Word, except
> that its in a more obscure language and the visuals are more glitchy? Does
> livecoding have a place in traditional performance, or does it fit better
> with workshops and the notion of communal activities based on creating, such
> as a drum-circle?
Well, when I think of marcel's experiments with competitive livecoding in
short bouts I do think it has been shown that under the right conditions the
mixture of analytical thought, creative expression and high-pressure can
lead to engaged lay audiences.
> Do we really need to bring in Wittgenstein and his theories of language
> games?? (Please, please, no... ;)
>
We certainly should heed turning it all into a sort of namedropping
competition on who has read the most obscure phillosophers as I've seen
happen on other lists. However, like good programmers and good musicians we
might be able to steal good ideas. When we might be able to steal from
language philosophers in order to improvise more effective Gabber beats in
order to get phone numbers out of drunk girls (or boys as the case may be,
or just some bucks and free drink for a liveset) we certainly should, I
feel.
>
> Food for thought...
>
Yes, indeed, as is the end of The Glassbead Game.
Cheers,
Kas.
Received on Sat Jul 25 2009 - 17:05:46 BST