On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:43 PM, alex wrote:
> 2009/7/21 Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com>:
>> Livecoding, unlike typical sequencers, allows me to describe
>> that type of structure directly instead of indicate it by example.
>
> So one possibility is that we think in symbols, and that the
> programming language code is a translation of mentalese to ChucK (or
> whatever), where mentalese is some internal human language to which we
> have no direct conscious access. The translation is never perfect,
> but can be successful to a high degree.
>
> Another possibility is that you after learning the ChucK language, you
> think in it, and the code is a transcription of that process.
>
> A third possibility is that we think in terms of a geometry in a
> perceived world of movements in spaces, that symbols are just
> signposts within that world and language falls out of movements
> between learned arrangements of signposts. We can construct ChucK
> sourcecode using such movements which then generate music which we
> then perceive in terms of movements and shapes in spaces, which the
> arrangement of signposts somehow accords with. The concepts are
> natively the shapes in the spaces rather than the symbolic signposts
> though.
>
> I feel a bit stupid suggesting this wacky third possibility but I
> think there could be some truth in it. I've been tempted to start
> drawing ascii boxes to make my point clear but no-one ever replies to
> a post with ascii boxes in it.
>
Why stupid? The 3rd possibility is closer to the truth, me thinks.
The rest are, forgive me for saying so, but so very Western and
formalist. They rely on the implicit notion of a "correct"
unconscious "knowingness" that represents our mental state. Really,
consciousness has been shown by modern neurophysiologists to be a
collaborative mess of a competition by all parts of our mind for
attention, from visual to audio processing to emotional attachment to
memory. Reducing consciousness to a processing of symbols, or an
internal language, is very reductive and does not represent the true
multi-tasking and parallel thinking going on. It implies the
existence of an organ in the brain that consumes symbols, the
homonculus of old, that sits on top of the mental food chain (or
pyramid scheme) and has the last say on what the mind (and thus the
body) does.
Its a good idea to read up on Gestalt psychology, especially Wolfgang
Metzner's classic Signs and Meaning, the classics of Plato and
Aristotle, and then more modern books like Phantoms in the Brain or
Rapt (Attention and the Focused Life). Our existence really is an
interpreted one, where we see the world physically (chemically, even)
on a level that our conscious minds don't have access to, directly.
All we consciously see, think, and hear is a constructed reality of
symbols tied to emotional meanings. We are hard-wired to notice
certain visual and audio patterns, such as harmonies and geometric
shapes made from collections of lines and points, and have no choice
but to see them as "symbols" rather than physical phenomena. You
could discuss how at birth we have the ability to recognize all forms
of language, and for example the Japanese don't use the sound of the
letter "r" in the same way as British and American speakers, and
apparently don't notice the difference (and can't even when they
try), but at some level they physically *do* recognize that sound
stimulus.
So what is livecoding relative to human experience, if you want to
get to the heart of this discussion? Its tempting to draw parallels
between our consciousness and livecoding because, really, our whole
consciousness is a near-fiction designed to reinforce the idea of a
single mind acting with a single purpose, when in reality a multitude
of experiments show that this isn't so, that the mid can know things
on some level (that its missing an arm, for example) and still not
consciously believe it (by refusing to hold a tray laden with drinks
with that one arm, and instead attempting to balance it with a
phantom limb). 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. But even then, its a tough analogy,
because where does emotional meaning fit in? In humans, it is ties
directly to images and sounds and smells, whereas in livecoding it is
the end product and must be *further* interpreted.
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, so to sum up this gargantuan email, I'll ask a few questions:
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?
I think what I'm getting at is what the point is of livecoding to an
audience. Surely, it is a very interesting process from the point of
the performer, and leads to all sorts of creative thoughts and
development. But the rest of this argument sounds, forgive me here
for being very blunt, but overly-thought-out. Yes, we are beings
that break the world down into symbolic objects, and, to a large
extent, we can learn to recognize new patterns of symbols. No
controversy there. The computer can do the same. Livecoding is us
breaking the world down into symbols and processes of symbols,
teaching them to the computer, then learning from that experience and
refining the symbols, teaching those to the computer, repeat ad-
infinitum. But what's the point of it all? Is it a learning /
enjoyable process or intellectual exercise only for the person
creating the symbols and teaching them to the computer? 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? Do we really need to bring in
Wittgenstein and his theories of language games?? (Please, please,
no... ;)
Food for thought...
-Evan
Received on Fri Jul 24 2009 - 11:09:49 BST