On 6 Mar 2008, at 12:23, alex wrote:
> Yes I agree, the syntax is there, but I'm wondering if you could
> get rid
> of it and replace it with semantic distance relationships. That is,
> instead of expressing semantics within syntax, express semantics
> within
> spatial dimensions.
This is one of the problems I see with tangible systems and the
ReacTable
is a good example. You'll have a problem if you want two objects to
do similar
things. There is not space in the environment for it!!! In the case
of ReacTable
it's a lack of physical space (there is already a big cube occupying
that space)
and in your idea of spatial semantics, it would be hard to represent
the variety
of things that you want to represent.
for example this line:
Mix.fill(200, {arg i; SinOsc.ar(200+i, pi.rand, 200.reciprocal)})
Here we got a line creating 200 oscillators with very "close"
frequencies.
How would you solve that in a spatial system if frequency was spatial?
I think this is possible for very simple things, but for complexity
you need
good syntax.
but I just dropped into this discussion, I might be misunderstanding
thor
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 13:34:25 GMT