I don't understand. What should we be looking for in Shakespear's writing?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: > > Look at Einstein's original papers on relativity for one thing. > But Shakespeare is a red herring; how many writers would bear the > comparison? > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Bishop Zareh 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 >> >> >> >> > == > 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
