2009/7/19 Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com>:
> I'd like to join the chants of the less geographically fortunate in begging
> for recordings and descriptions.
We'll do our best, Evan recorded the first one but hasn't put it up yet.
> I read your summary on FaceBook and was just about to reply to that.
I told facebook about my blog and now it's republishing my blog
entries as 'notes', I didn't actively put it there.
> Hopefully responding here will lead to more debate.
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
> Maybe you should
> x-post your summary to here but I'll leave that up to you, it being your
> work.
It's all here, feel free to quote it or bits of it:
http://yaxu.org/patterns-of-movement-in-live-languages/
>> Where a written novel exists to describe human activity, written software
>> exists to simulate it. Therefore the live coder can take the role of an
>> artist, constructing simulators in order to generate patterns of movement,
>> either as music, video animation or both.
>
> I have a bit of a problem getting the use of the word "therefore" in this
> case, I don't think your conclusion is a given.
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.
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.
> To me Livecoding may have more to do with conceptual art in that
> we aim to convey concepts (or at least thought and reasoning) and attempt to
> turn their expression into performance.
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.
> 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.
> This
> may seem far-fetched but I also feel that musical genres like Baroque and
> Math-Rock have a component of conceptual art in that they are attempting to
> conevey a concept in a aesthetically pleasing way. It seems to me like we
> are using language to convey our ideas to the audience while also -in the
> same gesture- demonstrating their outcome.
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.
> This becomes a performance as we
> refine our concepts, being confronted with how our concepts may be hard to
> formally express.
Well I definitely think concepts are changed during a good
performance, and therefore that minds are literally changed.
> I find that a stronger link between livecoding and language than novels
> (being deemed art as well) are to me. We may disagree here, hopefully we can
> have a debate on this matter. I'm also not ruling out the chance that -given
> present conditions- you wrote your summary in more haste than the actual
> paper. Likely I am misunderstanding your position.
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'.
> I've been experimenting with resetting ChucK's random seed at a rapid yet
> steady pace, thus modulating all UGens that use random numbers and turing
> them into a sort of static wavetable players.
That's a great idea, got any recordings?
cheers
alex
Received on Mon Jul 20 2009 - 09:56:17 BST