>I don't see much the difference between statement 2
>and 3 when livecoding. Because the construction of the
>process is part of the process itself. To undertand
>programmer's decisions on changing the state of the
>runnig scripts(or other stuff) is important to the
>undertanding of the music generation process as a
>whole. Am I right?
I think you are right in so far as the whole process includes every
participant, including listener, programmer, the language, the
electricity, the air, the history of music, and so on.
transparency is a beautiful illusion, understanding is an artistic material.
>
>marcel
>
>
>
> --- alex <alex_at_state51.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> statement one:
>> The process should be visible or audible in such a
>> way that people
>> should be able to see/hear what the process is
>> doing.
>>
>> statement two:
>> The process should be visible or audible in such a
>> way that people
>> should be able to understand how the process was
>> made (or is being
>> made).
>>
>> statement three:
>> The process should be visible or audible in such a
>> way that people
>> should be able to understand how the process is
>> working.
>>
>> I think I most identify with statement one. As
>> programmer the code is
>> very important but for the audience what it is doing
>> (or what i'm doing
>> through it) is what they're mostly concerned with.
>>
>> Statement two means people have to read and
>> understand your code
>> manuscripts. This is what I am not sure is useful.
>>
>> Statement three is what I think we've been talking
>> about most recently -
>> animated debuggers, visualisations where sound is
>> primary, sonifications
>> where visuals are primary, etc. But underneath, I
>> think this is really
>> the same as statement one; what we're doing here is
>> just making a
>> multimedia performance.
>>
>> The aims behind both statement one and statement
>> three are to avoid
>> smoke and mirrors, and create something that allows
>> people direct access
>> to whatever you're trying to create.
>>
>> Statement two seems very different, expecting the
>> audience to be
>> interested in how you made something, not just what
>> you made.
>>
>> > but then why project screens?
>>
>> So the audience don't feel excluded, which they
>> might be if they're
>> lined up sat in chairs looking at you. They're less
>> likely to feel
>> excluded if they're dancing around on a dancefloor,
>> so it's less
>> important to project screens in that situation, in
>> my opinion.
>>
>> alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--
.
Received on Mon Nov 01 2004 - 21:03:43 GMT