>On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:43, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>> I am very short of time and my eyes fall close every minute currently.
>> I would like to make additions, but I have no idea where this is productive.
>>
>> for me I see a slight problem in the definition of the term live
>>programming.
>> I have never thought that it is restricted to performance situations.
>> I wouldn't mind at all, as 'live coding' could be set against
>> 'interactive programming' or such terms, but as our organisation is
>> dedicated to live programming, it does matter somehow. I think the
>> performer-audience separation as something I would try to break up by
>> live programming, and not reassure it.
>
>This seems key, I think we need to make this point in the paper. Can
>you explain more? I think you mean that live programming isn't just
>what you do when you have an audience, but also making music alone.
>That the sense of engaging with live programming is the same as engaging
>with live electricity. I think this is a subtley different to the sense
>of performing live to an audience, which also applies, but you can work
>on electricity alone. Is this a distinction you would make, or do I
>misunderstand?
I would say that doing live programming alone, I am the audience and
programmer in one, which is not a trivial unity, but a quite
heterogeneous one, in which the language, my expectations, my
perceptions, errors and my poetic and/or programming style play their
own roles. The situation with one or more persons as audience, or,
not to forget, as coperformers, is an interesting extension of this
situation, but it is by no means primary. There are many specific
problems of this larger interaction, such as readablility performance
style etc. which are well worth discussing, but I would not constrain
interactive programming to this specific public situation.
For the film "Alles was wir haben" this was the situation that was
responsible for how the whole idea worked and it was what I did while
working on jitlib. I could describe the compositional work I did more
in details, but maybe this is already a general description of a type
of situation which I find very interesting in itself.
>
>How can live coding help break performer-audience separation?
In my experience it allows a very spontaneous interaction with the
music in combination with talking about the music. This means I can,
while playing, talk with others about what they hear, think, etc. or
about other topics even and as the sound keeps playing I can react to
these conversations by changing the code. Then I am not in the
situation of the one who is looked at (especially as it is not my
body movements which are so interesting, hmhm..) but the code / sound
relation is in the center of attention. Of course, one step further,
in networked live coding there is a flow of code between all
participants which can, to different degrees, interact and
contribute. Nobody knows who does what anyways.
--
.
Received on Fri May 28 2004 - 14:34:13 BST