Hi Alex
Very informative article with some very good points. I do have some
observations however.
you write:
"No wonder then that we hear anecdotes of audience members feeling
alienated by laptop
performances where screens are hidden. They could close their eyes,
but couldn’t they then have
stayed at home, listening to a recording?"
how is this different from going to an orchestra performance? I could
also close my eyes and pretend I'm listening to a cd. The difference
has nothing to do with the laptop, but everything to do with
authenticity. Today, one goes to a live performance more for the
event than for the music. Kim Cascone has some interesting things to
say in that respect (see "Laptop Music – counterfeiting aura in the
age of infinite reproduction", or "Grain, Sequence, System: Three
Levels of Reception in the Performance of Laptop Music"). An
orchestra performance is authentic because it is impossible that it's
not. That cannot be said of a laptop performance.
you write:
"The practice of programming is informed by the corporate world of
business software, with its talk
of formal design, unit testing and ISO quality assurance. This all
attempts to drive the creativity
out of programming so that software may be as predictable as possible."
I find this to be an unnecessarily pessimistic statement. Only a tiny
fraction of my students go on to write commercial software. The vast
majority write software to build musical instruments, create artistic
installations, perform live electronic music, work with theater
performers, dancers, musicians, etc. etc. The 'corporate world' might
inform computer science faculties of some universities, but in art
institutions where the craft of writing software is taught as a means
of creative expression I personally don't see any significant
influence. Furthermore I think it would be difficult to prove that
the 'corporate world' is attempting to "drive the creativity out of
programming". From what I know about Google I might infer that the
opposite happens.
In general, your article touches on a theme which is very important
to me - the use of technology as a means for personal,
individualistic expression. However any technology which has
developed beyond the limits of what is immediately understandable to
an individual brings with it problems of what can be considered
individualistic expression. To use the Picasso analogy: I could watch
him smear paint across a canvas and immediately afterwards run out to
the forest, find a branch, pluck some hair off the back of a squirrel
to make a brush, and perhaps use my own blood to make a painting. Not
so when seeing a live coder: I would be dependent upon the
generations of designers which put their intellects to the task of
developing a machine which I might never in my lifetime fully
understand. Because after all, living coding is ultimately the
control of a machine which is the product of another human's
creativity. I don't say this as a criticism of technology-driven art,
but as an observation, and I am constantly asking myself how I should
feel about its implications. As you quote Cage saying: "We’re getting
music made by man himself: not just one man." What then can I create
which I can truly call my own?
Thanks for sharing your article.
Marcel
On 1 Apr 2008, at 11:35 AM, alex wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> If anyone has time to read this article and send me feedback of all
> kinds, I'd really appreciated it:
>
> http://yaxu.org/flossart.pdf
>
> Of course if any bits seem debate worthy feel free to raise them on
> the
> list...
>
> Despite the date, it's not intended as an april fool thing. It's
> for a
> book called floss+art, which is about free software and the digital
> arts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> alex
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 02 2008 - 15:35:09 BST