On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 16:52 +0000, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> I think part of what those guys are interested in is algorithms that
> respond to human input, which is fine in my book - as they are searching
> for better ways of controlling complex things in more gestural ways - I
> quite like that way of working. It's not strictly autonomous though.
Agreed, but that approach puts great distance between the creator of a
process and the process itself. Would it be fair to say that TOPLAP are
for the humanisation of the process?
> We shouldn't be too extremist. I use lots of different mechansims for
> live music generation, including live coding, genetic programming and
> good old slider tweaking. Is this wrong?
No I don't think so. It should be possible for TOPLAP to have an well
defined position while comfortably sharing a world with generative
artists.
What I think is a shame is that artificial intelligence and generative
autonomous art gets an awful lot of 'airplay' in the cultural and
research institutions. To me, TOPLAP's position is actually less
extreme, trying to promote the use of computers more comparable to the
use of traditional musical instruments, for making immediate, hands-on
sound.
And in fact this position allows us to be far more open to the rest of
the world than the autonomous generative art position. A generative
musician can't go down the pub and jam with another musician, but a
toplap live coding musician can, because they have the same immediate
control.
alex
--
alex <alex_at_state51.co.uk>
state51
Received on Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:59:18 GMT