>> On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 10:27 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
>>> I think there are two points really which are both highly debatable:
>>>
>>> 1. programming makes computer artists more productive
>>> 2. free software makes programmers more productive
>>>
>>> The first one is the interesting one, and is on topic for a list about
>>> live coding :) the second one is rather boring and off topic.
>>
>> Of course as TOPLAP we'd want to add something about live programming,
>> perhaps with the word 'interactive':
>>
>> "Computer artists can produce better work, more quickly through the
>> interactive use of programming languages, particularly imperative
>> languages such as SuperCollider, ChucK, Java, BASIC, C/C++ and Perl,
>> functional languages such as lisp and scheme, and modular languages such
>> as MAX and Pure Data."
>
>I think there are two threads to this "produce better work, more quickly"
>argument too.
>
>1. An artist may find that programming an application allows them to do
>things that the existing tools do not allow.
>
>2. An artist may write an program and declare it as an artifact in it's
>own right.
>
>1 is more traditional (code as tool). A programming artist may be able to
>make things in a different way to everyone else - and therefore the work
>can be pushed further than previously availible tools made possible.
>
>2 I have a lot more trouble with (code as art) even though I've had a go
>at writing some. I have always found it hard to accept as it stands, and
>the arguments either way all seem a little contrived.
>
>One of the things I really like about livecoding toplap style is that it
>effectively sidesteps this troublesome question completely, as the writing
>of the code is the performance, the code is sort of an intrument, the
>manipulation of it is the artform, rather than the "code as itself".
>
>Seems to fit a bit better to me.
>
>Another slightly unconnected thing I like to think about is that code is a
>(if not "the") raw material of the computer. Artists who pay attention to
>their raw materials are generally on to a good thing.
Not a small part of the last hundred years of arts have been about
the questioning of the idea of productivity in society as well as the
blurring between the artists' 'tools' and their 'product' (e.g. dada,
surrealism, fluxus, site specific art). I think that you are right to
emphasize that the it is better to speak of coding as art than code
as art. Speed of production might be an aesthetic element ("futurist
livecoding"?), but I think it is not correct to take over an economic
term of productivity uncritically.
Regarding your point 2, I would want to add that this is a very
problematic issue in law: Formally, a program (and the programming
language) does not have to be declared as an artifact (copyright
work), but it already is. This is important in the discussion whether
a program can be subject to a patent. I wonder under what
circumstances code is perceived as part of art, i.e. as literature.
--
.
Received on Wed Oct 12 2005 - 08:29:50 BST