Are you suggesting that computer programming code will not read as well as Shakespeare?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > ***************************** > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org *****************************
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
