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-jus
t-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
*****************************
