[NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
Alan Sondheim
sondheim at panix.com
Mon Jan 27 03:51:39 CET 2014
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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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
> *****************************
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> 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