On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 06:21, Amy Alexander wrote:
> i think it illustrates two ways of looking at the idea of an "algorithm."
> their idea is the more traditional research-oriented idea: can an
> algorithm resemble/replace a thinking human? toplap's idea is that we're the
> humans and algorithms are something that humans "do", like making
> music or making images.
> they: algorithms =~ humans ... we: algorithms =~ musical instruments.
> and/or
> they: composition-related interest in algorithms
> we: performance-related interest in algorithms
Although as Julian often points out, we are interested in composition
too. We just compose using live algorithms rather than building
algorithms then shocking them into life every now and then.
It's the difference between making a wind sculpture in the dulled
environment of your living room, then hanging it out in the wind to see
what happens, or hanging a piece of string from a tree on a windy
hillside and building it right there, with every compositional action in
immediate reaction to the real world.
There doesn't have to be an audience.
There seems to be a lot of hot air around the generative approach to
music. A human writes some software, runs the software, the software
makes music. This triggers surprise and joy, wow, where did this music
come from? Is there somehow a human inside my computer? Has my
computer become human? What an interesting research opportunity!
This position seems to miss the obvious, that the programmer is human,
that's where the intelligence and the creativity came from. Maybe some
people find it difficult to accept that programmers have these
attributes.
alex
--
alex <alex_at_slab.org>
slab laboratories
Received on Wed Nov 10 2004 - 10:12:25 GMT