>On 02/04/2008, Julian Rohrhuber
><<mailto:rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de>rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>And in addition to this, a lot of code is "closed source" in the
>sense that practically no one ever looks at it (and no one wants
>to), because it works. I'd say livecoding is about reading code just
>as much as writing it. Also FLOSS challenges closed source
>approaches by assuming that one should be able to read code just as
>one should be able to read a book.
>
>
>Yes, agreed.
>
>When talking about Open Source and graphic art we could also (to
>extend the painting analogy further) talk about how in (relatively)
>recent years oil paintings by the great masters have been X-rayed to
>(hopefully) look into the development of the piece itself and how
>livecoding forces attention towards this development instead of
>hiding it in favour of presentation of the end-result.
>
>
>
>I'm mentioning this because in oil-paintings it's now clear that the
>audience *is* interested in the process. Considerable resources are
>spend trying to determine how the great masters painted and what
>paint they used. Indeed, one wouldn't ask Picasso how much his brush
>cost but evidently people are very interested in what paint Van Gogh
>used and how he got it.
Heiko Neumeister has done some such work:
eg.
http://home.claranet.de/locomotion/klee.html (Paul Klee remakes)
>I'm starting to think there's so much to say about FLOSS and
>livecoding in relation to other forms of art that instead of
>suggesting bits in addition to this article there's space for a few
>more articles!
>
>
>Yours,
>Kas.
--
.
Received on Thu Apr 03 2008 - 11:36:24 BST