Talk:ManifestoDraft: Difference between revisions

From Toplap
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 19: Line 19:
Thanks
Thanks
[[User:ArthurWilson|ArthurWilson]] ([[User talk:ArthurWilson|talk]]) 12:58, 7 September 2020 (BST)
[[User:ArthurWilson|ArthurWilson]] ([[User talk:ArthurWilson|talk]]) 12:58, 7 September 2020 (BST)
Thanks for explaining! I've always been ambivalent about this. Sharing your screen is a problem when the code itself is sometimes obscure. But on the other hand, you're also sharing the movements of your cursor, the points of decision and changing your mind. I've certainly had more objections to sharing my screen from programmers than non-programmers, who are happy to be let into someone else's world.
Furthermore, if you're not sharing your screen, is that really live coding? As a thought experiment, what if I didn't have a computer, and instead played a drum. I followed rules in my mind, and changed those rules as I went. To myself, I might think of that as live coding, to the audience I'm playing the drum. Indeed, this is exactly how I personally would approach playing the drum, and I wouldn't call it live coding.
Consider also if there was a profoundly (but not totally) deaf person in the audience, who did know a bit of code. Say you switched off the screen halfway through your performance, so they couldn't read it any more Up to that point, their hearing was augmented by the structures they were reading. In that scenario, in what sense is the code _not_ part of the "art and music"? That's like saying a guitar isn't part of music so you don't need to see it. (Ref Christopher Small on 'Musicking' for some great thinking along these lines.) Actually this isn't just a thought experiment, but a real event -- the guy in the audience was Anny, who then took up live coding and has produced and performed some really ace techno with it.
I have also performed without projecting and _really_ enjoyed it. It totally changes how I approach a performance. I wouldn't call it live coding in the same sense..
A different direction would be to really underline the importance of a) embracing error - nurturing communities where it's fine to fail and b) the unimportance of an audience reading code. I think it's nice that the code is there, but personally I almost never read it, personally, I find it distracts from listening. Algorithms may be thoughts, that might augment and guide perception, but perception will always find stuff that you won't see in the code. The whole is greater than the sum, and all that..
Sadly I don't think it's possible to avoid clickbait headlines, media outlets really want people to click. :/
[[User:Yaxu|Yaxu]] ([[User talk:Yaxu|talk]]) 16:05, 9 September 2020 (BST)

Latest revision as of 15:05, 9 September 2020

For wiki newcomers - to add to this discussion please create a free account, using the link in the top right.

To protect against spam it'll ask you a question - at the time of writing the answer is morelia. Once you're logged in, you can add a comment by clicking the 'edit' tab and adding it underneath the others below.

You can 'sign' your comment by adding four tildes like this: ~~~~ at the end of your comment.

Manifesto discussion

After discussion with Melody, I've just reverted a change. It was great to see an edit after so many years (I recently cleaned up the wiki and made it editable again..), but some key points were missing in the edit. I did appreciate the effort to clean it up, make it snappier.. I don't really agree with many points of the manifesto at this point. Maybe we need to admit this is a bit of a historical document and start again with a v2? See also:

Yaxu (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2020 (BST)

Hello, the edit was made by me in an attempt to bury the ideology that screen sharing code is a necessity for live coding. Whilst editing the manifesto was a somewhat performative act, if there is going to be a "rules of engagement" style policing of how live coding is done (which there really should not be), it should stress inclusion and encouragement rather than exclusion. The idea of introducing more pressure to a performance through the insistence of sharing code is daunting, specifically for newcomers, and also completely ridiculous. In such an experimental and upcoming scene, an artist should not be told how to perform, you should not instruct a creative performer on what is correct and incorrect to do in their performance, rather individual interpretation of the art form should be welcomed, and refusal to do so will continue to facilitate the relegation of live coding as an art form to clickbait gimmick headlines, all essentially saying "The Matrix on Ecstasy".

Delete all insistence on screen sharing, allow performers to decide what they do, let the performance be about the art and the sound, not the code. Thanks ArthurWilson (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2020 (BST)

Thanks for explaining! I've always been ambivalent about this. Sharing your screen is a problem when the code itself is sometimes obscure. But on the other hand, you're also sharing the movements of your cursor, the points of decision and changing your mind. I've certainly had more objections to sharing my screen from programmers than non-programmers, who are happy to be let into someone else's world.

Furthermore, if you're not sharing your screen, is that really live coding? As a thought experiment, what if I didn't have a computer, and instead played a drum. I followed rules in my mind, and changed those rules as I went. To myself, I might think of that as live coding, to the audience I'm playing the drum. Indeed, this is exactly how I personally would approach playing the drum, and I wouldn't call it live coding.

Consider also if there was a profoundly (but not totally) deaf person in the audience, who did know a bit of code. Say you switched off the screen halfway through your performance, so they couldn't read it any more Up to that point, their hearing was augmented by the structures they were reading. In that scenario, in what sense is the code _not_ part of the "art and music"? That's like saying a guitar isn't part of music so you don't need to see it. (Ref Christopher Small on 'Musicking' for some great thinking along these lines.) Actually this isn't just a thought experiment, but a real event -- the guy in the audience was Anny, who then took up live coding and has produced and performed some really ace techno with it.

I have also performed without projecting and _really_ enjoyed it. It totally changes how I approach a performance. I wouldn't call it live coding in the same sense..

A different direction would be to really underline the importance of a) embracing error - nurturing communities where it's fine to fail and b) the unimportance of an audience reading code. I think it's nice that the code is there, but personally I almost never read it, personally, I find it distracts from listening. Algorithms may be thoughts, that might augment and guide perception, but perception will always find stuff that you won't see in the code. The whole is greater than the sum, and all that..

Sadly I don't think it's possible to avoid clickbait headlines, media outlets really want people to click. :/ Yaxu (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2020 (BST)