Alex;
I told facebook about my blog and now it's republishing my blog
> entries as 'notes', I didn't actively put it there.
>
Ah, yes, I see. I switched computers for browsing and haven't yet switched
my RSS feeds over. At any rate this list may have more people with insights
on this matter than your blog so it should still be a good move.
> Yes group discussion on mailing lists is far, far better than the
> heirarchical permanence of blogs and the temporary commercialised
> backwater of facebook. It's a shame
>
On rare occasions FB works to draw people into discussions they wouldn't
otherwise be in but yes, in general it's quite limited.
Yes true, that is a leap. What I was trying to do was firstly frame
> programming (in general) in novel writing. In arts computing, text is
> often viewed as technical and lifeless. "Screen based works" are
> looked upon with derision in favour of 'tangible interfaces'. In this
> context it's useful to remember the extent to which the (comparatively
> new) artistic medium of the plaintext novel has been embraced. So the
> 'therefore' was trying to say that because the plaintext novel is an
> artistic medium then the plaintext nature of a program does not stop
> it from being so. I agree it failed to make this point, I'll edit
> that a bit.
There I agree. Any text can have artistic value but just consisting of
letters isn't enough for me. I'm not sure I see what issue these "arts
computing" people have with "screen based works"; we don't judge Van Gogh's
work based on our opinion of the majority of 2d pictures either. When I
think of "screen based works" the first thing that comes to mind are movies.
I can't imagine anyone seriously trying to make a case that Livecoding
performance isn't art though I'd like to see attempts at this.
We can find many examples in the history of art where groups have taken some
activity, performed it in a unusual way and claimed the result was "art",
Psychogograpy comes to mind where "walking through Paris is a random way"
was deemed art. I feel that most of those groups have a much harder time
defending their position than we have; has anyone actually attempted to
challenge our stance?
>
>
> The second thing I was trying to do was highlight a difference between
> novels and computer programs. A novel is a description that can be
> interpreted in a number of ways. A computer program is a script
> expressed in terms of a particular interpreter, and a running program
> is a script plus that interpreter. So a program is a particular
> simulator whereas a novel is something a step removed than that,
> because a novel reader (creatively) constructs an interpreter while
> they read the novel.
It's interesting here that the relative ambiguity of natural language is
generally deemed to add to the artistic merrit. Dickens is generally held to
have more literary value than -say- the article in UK traffic law governing
who takes precedence at as crossing. We might wonder about the artistic
value of a novel written entirely in non-ambiguous language, I'm not sure
such a thing exists; I doubt it since it seems hard enough to write a truly
non-ambiguous language specification and have a parser/compiler that
actually sticks to it; I know I have frequent disagreements on the
interpretation of the specs with the ChucK compiler/VM....
>
> Hm, I don't think concepts are natively describable in plaintext
> although perhaps other aspects of thought and reasoning can. I also
> think that where this statement is true regarding livecoding it's also
> true of non-livecoding performances. I see concepts (and meaning) as
> spatial structures in a brain, and language and music as communication
> between two brains in order to allow those spatial structures to
> become more alike.
>
I'm inclined to agree, but I do have to add that I'm not sure we could have
"concepts" *without* language either. Teaching language to bonnobo monkeys
certainly seems to add to their ability to deal with concepts. According to
some experts in evolution and cognitive science we only have the
intellectual abilities that we do thanks to the shape of our throat which
enables articulation. I'm not arguing that works like abstract paintings
don't convey concepts but I am questioning whether they would hadn't we also
developed language. There seems to be a strong link to say the least.
Admittedly text feels like a clumsy tool for conveying concepts to me,
whether writing to this list or to a compiler, but still less clumsy than
many other tools.
Perhaps somebody will reply to this debate solely using abstract images?
>
> > Perhaps Livecoding relates to
> > traditional conceptual art like improvised theatre relates to movies.
>
> A very nice analogy! I think livecoding can just be a way to
> improvise music though. I think I'd try to make more or less the same
> music with a sequencer as I would with a computer language, but would
> get there quicker with the computer language. I don't really see why
> one is more conceptual than the other, but I think I have a different
> definition of 'conceptual' in mind to you. I wonder though if sound
> is a better medium for musical concepts than code.
>
Those are hard questions. First of all I agree that Livecoding is perfectly
fine as a way to improvise music, often a very pleasant way. Maybe I'm using
a very casual definition of the word 'conceptual" but I find that Livecoding
primarily moves what is considered "playing" a single musical gesture. Let's
say I have a musical idea like "the guitar will play a melody which the
keyboard will then play as well, except in reverse". With Livecoding I can
express that idea directly, instead of inputting notes that form a example
of this idea. To me that is "more conceptual", for some ideas it's also
conveniently less laborious.
I should point out that I don't have the slightest issue with experiencing
conceptual art on the level of finding the final result "a fun room to stand
in for a while", like I might enjoy a stroll through the park purely for the
pleasure of being in that place. Concepts -to me- may simply lead to casual
enjoyment and need not lead directly to some sort of spiritual awakening.
I still think that putting it on an audience to read and understand a
> computer program being written, while trying to listen to the music it
> is generating, is expecting too much. An audience is there to be
> entertained. That said I'm all for participatory music where everyone
> takes part and there is no audience. But then everyone is probably
> writing their own code and not reading each others, unless you are
> using a powerbooks unplugged multiuser chat style coding framework.
>
Personally I suspect that the awareness that the "concepts" are there being
written on the screen leads to a sense of enjoyable anticipation about the
music. In Livecoding performance -or so I'd like to theorise- it's the
presence of concepts that can lead to a increased entertainment without them
being literally understood.
When I would walk on a stage, wheeling some object behind me that would be
covered by a sheet I think this would lead to a enjoyable sense of
anticipation in the audience, even when they are unaware of what the object
is. Friends of mine who might be in the same audience and might already know
what the object was might get a different sense of enjoyable anticipation,
the two need not conflict, I feel.
>
> Well I definitely think concepts are changed during a good
> performance, and therefore that minds are literally changed.
>
Indeed. While at first it looked to me like Livecoding was a confrontation
with the audience, perhaps a confrontation with traditional notions of what
musical performance was I'm increasingly finding that I'm actually
confronting myself most of all.
> Heh, yes this was a quickly drafted abstract but I think this is a
> difference of view.
>
> I'm not clear yet on whether CHArt actually want a full written paper
> by the way, or whether by paper they mean 'talk'.
>
How dare they be unclear about whether what is being presented is a written
text or a performance! You should demand that they be clear about this!
;-)
> That's a great idea, got any recordings?
>
Most concrete of my results right now might be this entry into our game of
trying to get the most music out of a single line of 80 characters or less;
//this should compile in ChucK
//do note it is quite loud as there was no space to set the volume
SubNoise s=>dac;int
n;while(++n%241+1=>s.rate){(n%83)*ms+ms=>now;5=>Std.srand;}
The sad thing about that game is that as you get better at it your entries
start looking more and more like SHA-1 hashes of entries into a obfuscated
Perl contest and any chance of conveying concepts to a casual audience
through written text is lost. Then again we all need our guilty pleasures.
I've been contemplating improvising a bit based on this idea on my radio
show tomorrow night, that would depend on what else I'll have a chance to
do.
A tweaked version was used by Les Hall on his "ChucK show" which features
music written in ChucK but no real livecoding;
http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=254507#254507 That may not
count.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Mon Jul 20 2009 - 11:15:09 BST