>> There is always a level at which you cannot change the rules. The main
>> question regarding improvisation is when you can change a rule and which
>> (this is not a question of degree but of compositional structure). The
>> main point of live coding is that this happens in language (what counts
>> as language is a matter of how one is urged to think about it).
>
>nicely put
>
>> I'd say it is one way to think in public. And to change mind in public.
>
>I am reminded of the Woody Allen short story about 'intellectuals
>for hire'. Imagine a future 'blue light' district with racy 'mind
>shows' and 'neuron bars'. Mind you, I suppose that this activity
>doesn't have to be over-intellectual ... depends on language, aims
>etc
Considering way our universities are getting increasingly
commercialized ("independent") maybe this could be their future? But
thinking about it I guess one would need to start a 'mind show
movement' to raise interest for such underestimated subjects such as
the state of mind..
>>> I guess we have preset sonification consequences here as one limit.
>>> And I guess I'm most interesting in the other side of the continuum,
>>> some area of improvised mappings and changing consequences
>>
>> what do you mean? do you have an example?
>>
>
>perhaps you might live code sonifications, so there is an incoming
>data stream, perhaps the current chessboard configuration of two on
>stage performers. Now you keep modifying the mapping algorithm in
>terms of synthesis routines, parameter re-mapping, one-to-many event
>scheduling, multimodal outcomes etc
oh yes, of course, now I see what you meant. So it is connected to
what we described in our icmc paper as a method interactive
sonification. I also think this is an interesting field - Alberto and
I recently had funny experiences live coding for classical
clarinettes, and spanish guitars.
>> The code has two readers (at least).
>> One that tries to understand what is going on (usually human) and the
>> other that tries to do what is supposed to be going on (usually the
>> computation). There is a continuous degree of misunderstanding between
>> them two.
>
>(I know you know this already but I'll just state for the record)
>
>this is to anthropomorphise computers a little- the computer
>misunderstands very literally- in fact the human operator fails to
>anticipate all consequences or spot their coding errors. Perhaps
>there are three readers:
>interpreter
>coder
>audience member
>
>And the last one misunderstands most of all ; )
wait, soon we'll get shouts from the audience like "hey, you missed a
bracket up there!" or "oh, no, not a sawtooth again!"
--
.
Received on Tue Dec 27 2005 - 13:43:36 GMT