>
> > So if I understand you right, you wonder whether I would say that we
>> could sidestep the automaton, machine, and see it only from the
>> perspective of the relation between algorithm and action. This is in
>> a way a question about the scope and media of live coding - at least
>> it implies a decision there, which could be a in favour of a very
>> wide area.
>>
>> I was asking in a slightly different direction. I notice that the
>> difference between interactive art or live electronic music and live
>> coding becomes unclear, and so does the difference between machine
>> control (steering) and programming (coding).
>
>Where does this difference become unclear? Or do you mean that we need to
>work more on defining it? I think we do, and it's something I suppose I'm
>exploring a bit.
Yes, I meant this. As soon as e.g. the modification of a simulation
of a physical mechanism becomes a possible medium of live coding,
there is simply the question where it begins to become something else
(please don't misunderstand, I don't want to say that there is no
mixture, or even continuum, it is just working toward a clear
characterization)
>I think of programming as the building of a new machine expressed within
>another. The outer machine is a set of primitive rules. This seems to be
>fairly distinct from steering to me, which implies the control of only
>one, fixed machine.
Agreed, recursivity would be a starting point for me, too. Now what
about this: Assume you have a game where your first person movements
depend on the environment, and you may change this environment with
your actions. If you interpret this situation in terms of the
environment as the machine in the machine, then you are building /
modifying a new machine by your actions. But it is a standard
situation for a game, so nothing special at all.
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.
--
.
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 11:17:49 GMT