On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, alex wrote:
a>
a> Although as Julian often points out, we are interested in composition
a> too. We just compose using live algorithms rather than building
a> algorithms then shocking them into life every now and then.
a>
yes, but i regard composing live as a performance, since it's important in
this case that we immediately perform what we've composed... that's what
makes it improvisatory - there's some risk, some looseness, some
fly-by-the-seat of the pants feeling to toplap's live composition
activity. a computer can take real-time input but the fact that it has to
fly by the seat of its pants and compose/play it on the spot doesn't
matter.... it's not gonna sweat it.
a> It's the difference between making a wind sculpture in the dulled
a> environment of your living room, then hanging it out in the wind to see
a> what happens, or hanging a piece of string from a tree on a windy
a> hillside and building it right there, with every compositional action in
a> immediate reaction to the real world.
a>
yes, this is the point i was trying to make... that difference doesn't
exist for the computer.
a> There doesn't have to be an audience.
a>
agreed.
a> This position seems to miss the obvious, that the programmer is human,
a> that's where the intelligence and the creativity came from. Maybe some
a> people find it difficult to accept that programmers have these
a> attributes.
a>
this was the point of my AARON story: the value of AARON is in the fact
that it paints just like its daddy. it doesn't paint like "a human" it
paints like a *specific* human: the one who programmed it. so it makes
this point exactly.... like some humans who purport to be independent
thinkers but are in fact overly-influenced by the opinions of others,
AARON may make individual decisions "independently", but it's clear where
it gets its mindset from.
Received on Thu Nov 11 2004 - 20:31:02 GMT