>>The thing that GP and livecoding share in opposition to the traditional
>act of
>>writing software, is that they are more concerned with the program being
>part
>>of a dynamic process. Nothing is ever finished.
>
>That is funny to see that this could also be said of the computer as being
>a fundamental part of the artifact (or a performance) as opposed to merely
>being used to create art. This is highly interesting when trying to
>establish a relationship between art and technology, is not it ?
Whould you say that this changes what is considered to be the medium
of the art?
What is left as a carrier (or, more mathematical maybe, as an
invariant)? What role would you give the computer or the algorithm
there - is ist like an externalized thinking world?
--
.
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 14:53:34 BST