[NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature

Alan Sondheim sondheim at panix.com
Mon Jan 27 03:50:16 CET 2014

At least in literary theory, the intent of the author has been thrown out 
pretty much as determinative. Do you know the intent of the author behind 
an Emily Dickinson poem or a runic inscription? Intent is taken into 
account but that's not all there is by a long shot,

- Alan

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Pall Thayer 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 <rob at robmyers.org> 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
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> --
> *****************************
> 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

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list