>
>>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). I mainly ask, if we
accept that live coding implies a broad field, in what way does it
create a new situation in it? If it seems of no use to stick to the
letter (ASCII), then we may, this is my suggestion, stick to its time
structure.
But then, the time structure is essentially an involvement with the
absence of direct control, not with immediacy.
>
>But while I'm here :)
>
>>That's interesting. I agree that one can read music like this, but would we
>>call it "listening"? So the question is about your word (in
>>quotations) "hear"
>>here. These are two different ways of using the word "hear".
>
>Hearing is of course a physical phenomenon, so I'm not really trying
>to suggest that "inner hearing" is the same as "external hearing"
>but this is not to deny that it exists, that we make use of it, and,
>importantly for this conversation, that it can be pleasurable. Just
>lie back on the couch, close your eyes, and transport yourself to a
>tropical island listening to gamelan :)
>
>>I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's passage on playing mental chess and
>>mental tennis. He seems to think both are possible, but for me the former
>>makes sense and not the latter.
>
>Well, I would agree that mental tennis is not real tennis but I
>wouldn't say that it doesn't make sense. Bob sled drivers for
>example are well known for spending hours mentally visualizing their
>descents in preparation for the actual run. But I'll stop being
>contrary and say that I agree with you in principle :)
>
>>If live-coding is about the relationship between the program and the task-
>>domain, it becomes a "formal art" like Chess. The sound is a "representation"
>>of the thought, just like the chessboard and pieces are merely a tool for
>>extended cognition (external representation) and not a necessary part of
>>the game.
>>
>>As a musician are you happy with that conclusion?
>
>Nope, not happy at all. I want to hear it all with my external ears
>bleeding and my external chest thumping :)
>
>>smack smack : )
>
>And justifiably so, I promise to be quiet now :)
--
.
Received on Tue Jan 08 2008 - 23:55:00 GMT