> 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
>> 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
> 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 ; )
Received on Sat Dec 17 2005 - 11:24:11 GMT