There isn't any "absolute minimum" - if you don't know Seedbed, the whole point is missed. If you've experienced Seedbed, the distance between code and installation is enormous. "Seedbed" is absolute minimum:
k2% Seedbed ksh: Seedbed: not found which pretty much sums up issues of representation in a literally dumb/ founded sort of way (perhaps). - Alan, wondering how the theory of possible worlds / proper names fits in here - On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, [email protected] wrote: > At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps the problem here is that there > is no one essence of this performance, or any performance for that matter. > While you do say "a single 'essence'", and not "the", to me a major part > of the very idea of performance is to create something which is in excess > of language and representation, something which the techne of words or > photo or video don't capture, much less a few lines of code. While I think > the notion of translating a performance into code is interesting, perhaps > what this discussion precisely raises is that there are a multiplicity of > essences, dirtiness, fantasy, masturbation, soreness, mystery, discomfort, > the body, the absence of the body... Your microcodes seem to be a sort of > review or remix of another work, based on your personal interpretation. In > fact, I think that the reduction of the body to a set of files in your > home directory is in itself an abjection and a sadness, a departure from > all the rich, sensual complexity of the body and a reduction to a few > digital bytes. Perhaps the sadness of the digital is expressed very well > here. > >>> Pall Thayer wrote:I guess by "the essence" of the work, I'm >>> considering the absolute minimum that it takes to bring to mind >>> "Seedbed" when looking at the code. > > Hmm, but here is sounds like you're talking about a simlpe representation, > and I think being very reductive! Wouldn't the absolute minimum be > something like > > #!/usr/bin/perl > $p = `seedbed`; > > ? When in fact, the interesting part is to go beyond simply bringing the > performance to mind, but as the furtherfield review writes, to bring it to > life, to enact it, to redo it, to reperform it, in the form of an actual > running program? > > >>>>>>> On 2/7/2009, "Alan Sondheim" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The essence it seemed to me wasn't self-referentiality or touch >>>>>>>> (good >>>>>>>> unix >>>>>>>> command too), so much as it was about targeting the ab/use/er, as >>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> dirtiness. And code's always clean; even dirty code's clean, so >>>>>>>> there's > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One of the primary reasons that I've "redone" a number of known >>>>>>>>> pieces >>>>>>>>> by other artists in these Microcodes is more to point out the >>>>>>>>> difference between code as a medium and other media. So the point >>>>>>>>> isn't necessarily to emulate the work as closely as possible but >>>>>>>>> rather to capture a single "essence" of it in very compact code. I >>>>>>>>> think that trying to work the incline and fantasies into this >>>>>>>>> "version" of the work would result in considerably more code which >>>>>>>>> would in turn make the work overly complex. > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org | [email protected], [email protected], tel US 718-813-3285 ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
