And, at the same time, suggesting that someone suggested that it would?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > ***************************** > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org *****************************
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
