>
> Then we have the choice: Live coding is something like a subjective
> decision to regard this action as such, or to find a more essential
> difference. One possibility is to characterize live coding by its
> distance from physical modeling, by its character of being involved
> with the formal, or axiomatic. So I think Swami Fadereu is right if
> he refers to the sundial and to interaction as an example to pose the
> same question. I agree that abstraction is an essential
> characteristic here. But of course I am curious to see other views.
I don't know how we will achieve this, but I have clarity on one point
regarding the 'semantic distance' between the code and the sounds
it is making. I would like that someone who is completely illiterate
should be able to decipher my code-actions and be able to relate
them to the sounds. So clearly, it is an issue of interfacing Perl or
whatever language, and wrapping it into a visual abstraction that is
closer to the aural tapestry one is creating IMHO.
Even a traditional instrument, like say a guitar - it's interface or map
is somewhat visible as the fretboard, though the 'playing program' is
clearly
embedded within the player's own muscle-memory. The harmonica on
the other hand is nearly invisible.
Thanks for the moniker, Julian..heh.
------- -.-
1/f ))) --.
------- ...
http://www.algomantra.com
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 11:41:39 GMT