On Friday, October 22, 2004, at 10:29AM, alex <alex_at_slab.org> wrote:
>Surely programs codify actions, and not intentions?
Bugs would indicate that this is the case. But extensibility in programs (OOP, templates, generics) would indicate that intentions may be abstractly expressed in code, albeit as a kind of negative space or ground.
It's an interesting question.
>If the musician wants to reveal why they made the music a certain way,
>then they can release composition notes, or give a lecture after the
>performance, or put endless explanatory notes in the code in the form of
>comments and verbose variable names. I do see great value in musicians
>talking about their music, but I don't think it is best to keep the
>explanations separate from the music itself.
One of my favourite Charles Harrison quotes is (something like): "...what I have in mind is a work that presents some aspect of its production as a bar to unreflective consumption". Work may be self-explanatory (Pollock) or self-problematising (A Portrait of Lenin In The Style Of Jackson Pollock). With code and sound there's lots of scope for both.
>> It is this lack of perceivable intent that really make most computer
>> music utterly meaningless in live performance.
>
>Where is the perceivable intent in someone playing the trumpet?
They definitely want to make a sound. ;-)
- Rob.
Received on Fri Oct 22 2004 - 10:20:11 BST