If you find it absurd, actually there's no way to argue with that.
Ok, it's absurd. As I keep saying, it's a family of usages, everyone has
different opinions; you and I aren't going to come to an agreement, again
by a long shot! :-)
- Alan
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Pall Thayer wrote:
#!/usr/bin/perl
package absurd;
sub new {
$this = new absurd();
}
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
A lot of this makes no sense to me. It sounds like people are
taking things at face value without considering the multitude of
scenarios. Paintbrushes, staples or nails are as likely to
become significant elements of a work of art as a urinal(!),
depending on the artist's intent. Trying to comment on any of
these in a single sentence or even paragraph is absurd. As is
the attempt to analyze whether or not code is literature or not.
The fact that it's code does not make it literature. The fact
that words are contained within a book does not make it
literature. It depends on the intent. We could produce a book
that contains an alphabetical listing of all known brand names
in the world and release it under different contexts. One could
be issued as a reference manual, the other could be released as
a poem. These would be viewed very differently. Likewise, we
could take a photo of a bicycle and publish the same photo in
several different ways. One could warn of the dangers of
cycling. Another could promote the benefits of cycling. A third
could be devoted to the aesthetics of the bicycle itself.
Some code is intended to be read. And that doesn't necessarily draw
from its performance. It may be that a reading of the code provides
one message while the running of it provides another. Perhaps
experiencing both will better inform the work. I don't know. It
doesn't really matter.
My primary message is that wondering whether code is literature or not
is absurd. It may or may not be. But to attempt to present any
argument that may indicate that you feel it might not be, is absurd.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26/01/14 03:14 PM, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Rob Myers wrote:
>> Reading Mezangelle is like running code to debug it -
watching call
>> stack frames being pushed and popped and data being created
and operated
>> on. You have to keep track of nested contexts and back
references. Each
>> new word fragment or piece of punctuation can operate on and
transform
>> the previously read elements. Even when you've parsed
Mezangelle it's
>> unstable and active, whether it reduces to a singular meaning
or is more
>> ambiguous. This is different from 1337-style encoding.
>>
> True, but it's not that different from the waves that occurs
in more
> traditional poetry. You're not debugging Mezangelle and you're
not
> running it; you're interpreting it and one person's
interpretation is
> different from anothers (which is also true btw of antiorp and
poetry).
> Also you're assuming a stability in 1337 which might not be
there.
I agree that traditional poetry obviously has structure and
flow, and
can transform meaning over the course of being read with great
subtlety
or degree. I do think that the nature of the re-reading and
re-thinking
that Mezangelle requires and affords via its syntax is more
compact than
plain language poetry. And that this compactness of notation is
a
quality of some kinds of code.
Some programming languages are interpreted and it's obviously
possible
for two runs of a program to give different output. In this
sense there
are different interpretations of the same text when interpreted
by
computer, as there are when interpreted by a human being. I'm
certainly
not arguing that Mezangelle is Meme RNA, but I think these
comparisons
are useful.
I can't speak to antiorp. :-( I shall investigate, thank you.
1337 is inherently ironic but it's also very much a shared joke
and
shibboleth for cliques. It involves much play but is more
instrumental.
>> Regarding Seibel's comments on code as literature, James
makes a good
>> point about paintbrushes. We don't read shopping lists or
meeting notes
>> as literature, yet they are written. Code does not tend to be
written as
>> literature. It's possible to read code for pleasure and to
find its
>> formatting and data structures, its *form*, aesthetically
satisfying.
>> Code is mathematics, so this is similar to enjoying a
mathematical proof.
>
> Here I do disagree with you; reading-as is something that at
least I,
> and I assume many others do (just as such lists were read by
Braudel as-
> history). Example - I'm currently reading Walsh's Mercantile
Aritmetic,
> published in Newbury, Mass, in 1800 - which is just what the
title says,
> but which reads like a fantastic epic, especially the sections
dealing
> with monetary exchange (I might quote later, because the
writing is
> amazing).
Reading-as is closer to Siebel's concern. I greatly enjoy the
lists in
(for example) the Cornelius Quartet, "The Sale Of The Late
King's Goods"
or "JPod". And there may be a program listing out there waiting
to be
discovered as literature. But I'm doubtful of this for reasons
of what I
guess are "family resemblance".
We could go Situationist and simply nominate a particular
listing as a
novel, but this would I think be different from what we are
discussing here.
> I also am not sure that "Code is mathematics" just because
it's exact;
> certainly at the level of machine language, it follows strict
protocols.
"Software is math" is a core argument in the non-patentability
of software:
"When people say that software is math, they mean that in the
most
direct, literal sense." -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/08/11/software-is-just-math-rea
lly/
> Mathematical proofs and proof theory are complicated - look
atthe
> 4-color theorem - and I find code-reading very different. But
then I'm
> neither an astute mathematician or programmer.
Code can be very complex as well, I've never read the whole of
the Linux
kernel for example. I don't know the proof for the 4-colour
theorem but
I enjoy the proofs of set theory and find that mathematics, art
and code
have a shared concern with some kind of *form*, and some kind of
*aesthetic* governing it, whatever their other differences.
>> I think that a piece of software that is a) structured like
Emacs to be
>> self-editing or at least self-revealing of its code and is b)
>> constructed to use this facility essayistically or
discursively or
>> narratively is what would be required for code to be
literature. Char
>> Davies' "Osmose" is a weak example (whatever its other
strengths) of
>> this.
>>
> I really do think there's any sort of "requirement" involved,
maybe
> part-requirements like part-objects, or something along the
line of
> "tendencies"; I'm extremely dubious of requirements in
relation to art
> in general - even the idea that art/literature, etc. _should_
be
> something as opposed to something else. Aesthetics and reading
> behaviors, reception theory and the like, is far more complex
than this.
Again I don't think it's easy to go further than family
resemblance in
the ontology of art.
>> But I may be proposing a gentrification of code.art. Or
discussing the
>> equivalent of why nails and staples aren't considered more
important in
>> the social history of painting. ;-)
>
> Well they are important, and there are books that emphasize
things like
> the chemistry of paints etc. - I relate this again to Braudel
and the
> annales school of historiography.
I've just read "Color, Facture, Art And Design" (highly
recommended)
which is largely a history of grounds and pigments and how they
relate
to the social content of painting. This kind of
technical-conceptual
integration, is what I am arguing for in this discussion.
I chose staples and nails because their relative volume in the
material
and significant construction of painting supports is generally
low and
contingent. My point was that we have to consider the
possibility that
code, and I say this as someone almost ridiculously invested in
the idea
that art can be made with or of code, may not be strongly
relevant in
the critique art made with it.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
*****************************
--
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
*****************************
==
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552
music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/si.txt
==
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
