>>Is there a problem when someone presses a small key and a huge sound
>>comes out? I hope some correlation can be seen between for example
>>frantic typing and frantic results, that would seem enough to me. But
>>really I think it's up to an audience to get what they want out of a
>>performance, they're paying for it so they should have some freedom.
>
>
>>The trouble I have with what you're saying is that it's too
>>rational. And it >is not
>>the artist's job to be rational.
>
> In my view there are a couple of assumptions here that cause the
> confusion.
>
> * the separation between stage and audience
> * the separation between artist/non-artist or consumer/producer
> * the separation between rational/irrational
> * the separation between art and science
>
> Since the 20th century (at the latest) artistic activity usually has
> been to try to work beyond these categories (and find new ones).
To just jump in here a minute - I think I'm increasingly interested in
craft - and in relation to programming I think it's much more suited
thinking about it that way. The act of making something by hand - and
presenting code as not an ethereal abstract formula, but something made by
human hands. I think Amy started me thinking like this - it exposes code
as a thoroughly human thing (and that (computer) languages are utterly
designed for humans, not computers).
I don't think it's surprising that livecoding performances are interesting
to an audience - people simply enjoy seeing things being made. And this,
bound up with the resulting music/visuals/smells is more important than
how closely it equates to a traditional music performance.
cheers,
dave
Received on Wed Jun 07 2006 - 09:12:53 BST