>>
>>>no, I think this is, in a sense what is at stake here. The abacus
>>>was of great influence to the introduction of the position thinking
>>>in hindu numerals to Europe, and of course to the introduction of
>>>the zero. My question was not rhethorical, and please forgive my
>>>usage of 'they' meaning 'humans'. To rephrase my question:
>>>Literature may serve as a means to abstract from action, as to
>>>reason about action. Symbolic algebra has evolved as a system of
>>>reasoning about such reasoning, or action about action, and it has
>>>left the realm of calculation of results of this action. Would you
>>>say that live coding is about returning to the beautiful presence
>>>of calculating action and its results? For me it is about the
>>>impossibility of such a return.
>>
>>Hmm, I was hoping to avoid this conversation but now you've got my
>>mind ticking :) I'm not sure if I'm completely following you but I
>>think what you're arguing is that Livecoding is - at least in a
>>purist sense - about the direct connection between the program and
>>the task domain. That in some sense the machine becomes unnecessary
>>and the common two relationships are removed (i.e. program->machine
>>and machine->task domain are rendered unnecessary). The dominant
>>relationship therefore becomes program->task - with the implication
>>of this being that any reification must take place cerebrally.
>>
>>In a real-world sense we can think about this occurring when an
>>experienced composer/conductor/performer reads and "hears" a musical
>>score purely cerebrally. This process completely skips the
>>"machine" (i.e. the instruments and players) and moves directly from
>>the symbol system to a mental reification of the abstractions
>>defined by the score. In short, the composer becomes able to
>>fluently translate between the symbol system (the score) and the
>>task domain (the sounds of the orchestra) thereby avoiding the
>>machine (the players and instruments of the orchestra) altogether.
>>
>>Just smack me around a little if I've gone way off track :)
>>
>
>
> 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.
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.
cheers,
dave
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 09:55:00 GMT