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?
How can live coding help break performer-audience separation?
alex
Received on Fri May 28 2004 - 07:43:31 BST