On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 10:41 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > I think the problem is that we are communicating in rich, usually
> > textual languages and that richness comes with necessary overhead.
>
> programing languages != text
> but I see what you're getting at
Yep, that's why I said "usually."
> I've done pair programming at work, and it speeds up code development so
> much that you get more out than the two people working alone. maybe the
> same would be true for live coding?
The goals are a bit different but I think it should work...
> yes - more input. I'd like to livecode music where I had some form of data
> from the crowd. I think we could do a lot by using more devices like Amy's
> dance mat - it would mean we start to use more muscles and less mind.
I don't think data should come from a crowd, only individuals...
Collective decisions tend towards a lowest common denominator, a
flattening out...
> well it's the only way I can make music live - I wouldn't feel right
> mixing pre-made tracks, and I can't play an instrument to save my life :)
Same here!
> I think for me (maybe because of my background) livecoding has more in
> common with a visual art. When I'm painting, I have a similar concept in
> my head - switching between planning from a high level what's going on,
> and applying the paint, both informing each other.
Very interesting... I want to try some visual livecoding soon. I heard
from dorkbotmadrid Javier there's a .deb of fluxus around?
Cheers
alex
Received on Wed Aug 17 2005 - 10:10:19 BST