They introduced
> their notion of 'expanded software' which I didn't fully understand but
> involved interactively programming everything.
they didn't fully understand it either ; )
ap wanted to twist `live coding' to be `alive coding', alive in the
environment. Their world is basically a world of software art.
live coding does sound like concert realtime programming, so `interactive
programming' is a wider term. TOPLAP doesn't have to restrict itself to
concerts, though this is what I (personally) find most artistically
interesting. From a utility/prototyping perspective, interpreted
programming languages are great, but I don't feel any need to explore that
for art. It is the sheer challenge of trying to code anything interesting
whatsoever in front of an audience, those realtime constraints on thinking
that show some analogy to other forms of improvisation. But maybe that's
just me ; )
Just to be clear, Julian, we did try to mention your point of view at the
panel as well. It was a shame you couldn't make it over, but I think ap
being there gave another alternative opinion. And ap didn't mean to do any
coding in front of us on their presentation creator software- it just
didn't run when they tried it, so they had to debug. They didn't modify it
while it was working either.
ap seem like they set things up and leave them in a (non-social)
environment- ie, their desert code piece, which evolves based on
environmental sensors in California. In many ways though, social human
situations are the ultimate challenge. The livecode take allows us to leave
an active human presence somewhere amongst the code, a social agent.
Received on Tue Jun 06 2006 - 12:02:22 BST