Bishop... what code are you referring to? What mathematics are you referring to? I get the feeling that you might be constructing a field of understanding that already exists in the field that your appealing to. Can you elaborate?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Bishop Zareh <[email protected]> wrote: > If the code read as well as Shakespeare then there would be no question > that it is literature; I think their question is: is it likely that > mathematics can be so eloquently conveyed as to warrant literary analysis. > > Bz > > ••• Sent Mobile ••• > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Don't get me wrong, Alan, I value your opinion and always feel that you > give very interesting input into these sorts of discussions. True, we don't > know Emily Dickinson's intent but we do know that she presented herself as > a literary figure and can assume her intent from there. Likewise, we know > what Duchamp presented himself as before the urinal and can view that work > within that context. Should we not do the same with code? If a coder has > not presented in a way that the code is worth reading, then we assume that > it's not worth reading. However, if they have... then it should be > essential reading, no? Anything else would be like a painter saying, "Look > at my use of color..." and then regarding black and white photos of his > paintings. No? > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > ***************************** > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org *****************************
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
