On 10/04/2007, at 8:09 AM, dave wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 16:37 +0100, alex wrote:
>> On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 12:08 +0100, dave wrote:
>>> It seems to me, from doing performances with various things
>>> (including
>>> al-jazari) that the clearer the code (in whatever form) the
>>> better the
>>> audience reaction.
>>>
>>> Also, maybe, livecoding with a visually over complex language is
>>> not too
>>> far away from not livecoding at all - i.e. it's just hiding behind
>>> something else, and somehow saying something worse - "you're not
>>> clever
>>> enough to understand this, but I am!".
>>> I worry a bit that that is how livecoding is percieved sometimes.
>>
>> Yes agreed. As a livecoder it's difficult to win. Rather than annoy
>> non-programmers by presenting them with sourcecode that they don't
>> understand, slub has tended towards making the code deliberately
>> difficult to read - for example by projecting screens on top of one
>> another. But then the same people are probably annoyed by feeling
>> that
>> they are missing something in a different way...
>
> I think people quite simply like to see what you are doing. The
> last gig
> I did I spent the whole time looking at the projection with gamepad
> and
> my laptop shut. However overprojection is quite attractive in it's own
> way (like the big toplap jam in Aarhus, with 3 or 4 different
> mousepointers and cursors on the same screen). Maybe I'm being too
> literal, and need to keep my mind open to being more obscure...
At aa-cell gigs AS and I have found similar variation in response,
although on the whole most people like to see the code, and be able
to read it. We increasingly try to help folk to understand by using
very obvious (or leading) function and variable names which helps in
the general sense of anticipation from the audience. There are the
few who think it's just showing off... you can't please everyone.
Cheers,
Andrew B
Received on Mon Apr 09 2007 - 23:04:09 BST