>Also, these libraries of code that we build up, the starting points and
>"pre-prepared scripts." Maybe we should think of this more as long term
>memory. If so, then going through these old scripts is analogous to
>dreaming. By finding common patterns running through old scripts we can
>dream up new syntax and semantics that make the patterns more explicitly
>expressible.
yes it seems that the way how a piece of code reperesents a certain
sound is very important for what kind of intervention is possible or
thinkable. In the end this is just a very specific kind of balance
between hiding and showing. In a way each word used in a language is
a little specialty with its own history, so the idea of "opening it
all up entirely" is not really what we are after (while sometimes a
voyage into the unfolding of meaning can be quite valuable). I
suspect what limits this little language approach a little is that a
program text is kind of a public dream between people - so we need to
lern each other's little languages.
>Lastly, I'm finding this chapter really interesting, it contains a model
>of improvisation which seems readily applicable to livecoding:
> http://www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/staff/jp/improv-methods.pdf
looks interesting. I'll have a look at it.
--
.
Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 09:30:40 BST