[NetBehaviour] drone music

Roger Mills roger at eartrumpet.org
Mon Jan 27 22:27:51 CET 2014


Rob, I'm not sure if this is what you mean but do you know Stockhausen's Helikopta String Quartet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykQFrL0X74

--
Roger Mills
http://www.eartrumpet.org
http://roger.netpraxis.net


“Knowledge is only rumour until it is in the muscle”

Asaro mudmen tribe, Papua New Guinea.

On 27/01/2014, at 11:00 PM, netbehaviour-request at netbehaviour.org wrote:

> Send NetBehaviour mailing list submissions to
> 	netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	netbehaviour-request at netbehaviour.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	netbehaviour-owner at netbehaviour.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NetBehaviour digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Drone Music (Rob Myers)
>   2. blogworks (Jorn Ebner)
>   3. Cinema Film Electric (Alan Sondheim)
>   4. Re: Drone Music (dave miller)
>   5. unloved (James Morris)
>   6. Re: Drone Music (dave miller)
>   7. RE;furtherfield radio interview archive (rinus van alebeek)
>   8. Fw:  Code Is Not Literature (Michael Szpakowski)
>   9. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  10. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  11. two new playdamages (curt at lab404.com)
>  12. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Rob Myers)
>  13. code as literature as idiom (Bishop Zareh)
>  14. Re: Drone Music (helen varley jamieson)
>  15. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  16. Re: code as literature as idiom (Rob Myers)
>  17. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Rob Myers)
>  18. Re: Drone Music (Rob Myers)
>  19. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  20. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  21. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  22. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  23. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  24. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Rob Myers)
>  25. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  26. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  27. the them (Heidegger) (Alan Sondheim)
>  28. Not Estimotes (Rob Myers)
>  29. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Bishop Zareh)
>  30. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  31. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  32. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  33. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  34. Rhode Island Glades (Alan Sondheim)
>  35. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Pall Thayer)
>  36. Re: Code Is Not Literature (Alan Sondheim)
>  37. Re: Not Estimotes (dave miller)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:26:07 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Drone Music
> Message-ID: <52E401BF.2010006 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> I'm looking for examples of using drones in music. UAVs, not the musical
> genre. The latter makes searching difficult... I mean stuff like this:
> 
> http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/music/uav-chopper-plays-piano/763889539001/
> 
> http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/quadrotors-perform-james-bond-theme/1483307118001/
> 
> but ideally as part of live human performance.
> 
> Does anyone have anything?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:41:17 +0100
> From: Jorn Ebner <je at jornebner.de>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] blogworks
> Message-ID: <FCD3C45D-2CE1-4A38-8F8E-DFDA08AB39FA at jornebner.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> hello list
> 
> my 'call for revolution' / 'new sisyphus' blog works are now complete.
> 
> the archives are at:
> 
> http://call-for-revolution.tumblr.com/archive
> http://new-sisyphus.tumblr.com/archive
> 
> and contain 351 one minute noise compositions and 351 corresponding  
> drawings expressing my frustrations with digital life, plus 1 title  
> drawing and composition.
> 
> thanks to all followers
> 
> Jorn
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:21:36 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Cinema Film Electric
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401260021230.6130 at panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> 
> Cinema Film Electric
> 
> http://www.alansondheim.org/cinema.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric01.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric02.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric03.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric04.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric05.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric06.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric07.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric08.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric09.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric10.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric11.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmelectric12.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/filmstar.jpg
> 
> cinema cinema compbio compbio cybinfo dd cybinfo deadtime defuge
> figure film filmvid flux footnote fopinfo fop film cemetery
> forest blood gore film film forest gore man dinner dinner sintan
> sintan sintan sintan star star star starr walk star and from of
> start, star start. clothes to wearing from from wearing. your
> favorite film star. much the same thing happens to many people
> in the making of this gaudy little film starring it girl clara
> bow! one might speak of "the motility of the fetish on unstable
> feet." one may as well. always, the sadness of the silent movie
> star, there, for u 2 c.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:45:07 +0000
> From: dave miller <dave.miller.uk at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Drone Music
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAAE50RdiKuwQdxnAopV4VfPw76F12shmOgXKQNSPBKeyH9W7WA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> there was a manchester punk band in the seventies called the drones. am
> showing my age!
> On Jan 26, 2014 1:29 PM, "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> 
>> I'm looking for examples of using drones in music. UAVs, not the musical
>> genre. The latter makes searching difficult... I mean stuff like this:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/music/uav-chopper-plays-piano/763889539001/
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/quadrotors-perform-james-bond-theme/1483307118001/
>> 
>> but ideally as part of live human performance.
>> 
>> Does anyone have anything?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> - Rob.
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140126/9a8ec6e3/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:29:44 +0000
> From: James Morris <james at jwm-art.net>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] unloved
> Message-ID: <20140126122944.3be96850 at Scrapyard.lan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 
> http://jwm-art.net/art/image/gmail_unloved_damn_right.jpg
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:23:09 +0000
> From: dave miller <dave.miller.uk at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Drone Music
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAAE50Rd3vrMWe2AcLYBOQBHWBwCXsngcNnhE31do_Oxzn5y=Qg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> http://youtu.be/x8mTNKPz6p0
> 
> http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/x8mTNKPz6p0
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2014 13:45, dave miller <dave.miller.uk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> there was a manchester punk band in the seventies called the drones. am
>> showing my age!
>> On Jan 26, 2014 1:29 PM, "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm looking for examples of using drones in music. UAVs, not the musical
>>> genre. The latter makes searching difficult... I mean stuff like this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/music/uav-chopper-plays-piano/763889539001/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/quadrotors-perform-james-bond-theme/1483307118001/
>>> 
>>> but ideally as part of live human performance.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone have anything?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> - Rob.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> 
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140126/e4e748ab/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:37:37 +0100
> From: rinus van alebeek <injapatti at gmail.com>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] RE;furtherfield radio interview archive
> Message-ID:
> 	<CADZp0JC6AM1eFi-GRZ+h9f-iqhSdarMZD3WXdmxmg25hpaoP=Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Thanks Marc,
> 
> Glad you enjoyed it.
> If future brings you time and desire to do some radio again, even on a very
> irregular basis, you can think of us.
> We use airtime, just like Resonancefm, so you could broadcast from
> everywhere.
> 
> A short introduction to Radio On, also here
> http://www.sourcefabric.org/en/community/blog/2068/Radio-On-builds-community-from-a-DIY-approach-with-Airtime.htm
> 
> Greets,
> 
> Rinus
> 
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> http://rinus.zeromoon.com
> http://staaltape.wordpress.com
> Radio On http://radio-on-berlin.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140126/c4bc46bf/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:42:23 -0800 (PST)
> From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako at yahoo.com>
> To: netbehaviour <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Fw:  Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<1390754543.27523.YahooMailNeo at web122606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
> 
> Hi 
> 
> I sent this earlier but the attachment must've got snarled up somewhere so sending it as a link ( see comment below):
> 
> http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/we_transfer_ad.jpg
> 
> cheers
> michael
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako at yahoo.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org> 
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> 
> 
> 
> I was amused to come across the attached -I guess you know an idea has arrived when commerce starts ripping it off :)
> cheers
> michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org> 
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> 
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be decoded but it comes down to context. Someone attempting to decode my perl example as code might become very confused. It doesn't serve a purpose as a computer program. If you approach perl code as always having a useful function, it's not going to push your buttons. I could even see a serious perl programmer overlooking the serious message of the text. Who knows... perhaps I really am asking someone to push me off a cliff... but that's not what the code means. It has nothing to do with pushing a person, much less pushing a person over a cliff. It's simply adding an element to an array. And then, to top it all off, the array doesn't get used. Makes no sense. Or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:38 PM, mez breeze <netwurker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> And, as a reply to Seibel's comments, do we not "decode" literature? 
>> 
>> 
>> Mezangelle certainly needs to be decoded. Sometimes I even help out with that [but only by "translating"/unpacking it into a diluted English version, like here: http://wishforyouand.me/2014/01/23/day-20/ ].
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign
>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign
>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> ***************************** 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:03:53 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401261201450.1204 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> for me it relates to IRC and warez slang, 1337, antiorp/integener/n.n.- 
> speak, a whole array of 'hackerese' languages that also need decoding, 
> that also don't run in the traditional sense (as opposed to perl poetry 
> for example) -
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Rob Myers wrote:
> 
>> On 23/01/14 06:38 PM, mez breeze wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mezangelle certainly needs to be decoded.
>> 
>> It needs to be run...
>> 
>> - Rob.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> 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
> ==
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:05:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401261204300.1204 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> 
> 
> 
> it would strengthen the fact that modern art in a sense has little 
> straight-forward use value but great value as exchange; it's a discursive 
> formation and doesn't really exist without that habitus - which is also 
> what makes it fascinating and exciting -
> 
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, James wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> And, as a reply to Seibel's comments, do we not "decode" literature? I've
>> always felt a deep divide between people who have a background in
>> programming/engineering/tech stuff who have moved into creative realms
>> ("Art") and those who have a background in the arts but have moved towards
>> programming/engineering ("tech"). It feels to me that the tech-background
>> people have a harder time seeing programming as "art". To them, the product
>> might be art, but not the process. They tend to be the ones to raise the
>> question, "is the paint brush the art?" It all depends on how you approach
>> it. The "paint brush" can, in fact, be the art.
>> 
>> I have a hard time with this paint brush bring art. I mean I could go to the
>> ?1shop and get a pack of three brushes with the bristles falling out and call
>> it art, but what would be the point? it would only strengthen the feeling
>> that modern art is pretentious b.s.. its probably difficult for anyone who
>> isn't immersed in the aartt world in some way on a daily basis. probably
>> only makes sense or has any meaning if you are, certainly meaningless to me.
>> a paint brush from the pound shop as art, that is, well I struggle with most
>> art as art actually these days.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>>      Hi Alan, I think you make an excellent point here. "Who is
>>      looking at the code and for what purposes?" The only thing that
>>      differentiates programming code from other written text is its
>>      perceived purpose and people's reasons for reading the text. If,
>>      in reading, you look for prose, you will find it. If you don't,
>>      you won't. Likewise, if you look at an image, seeking art, you
>>      will find it. If you're looking for something else, you won't
>>      find the art.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>      Well, there are a number of issues here. In the first
>>      place, they're looking at code for particular reasons, to
>>      understand it in particular ways; code as literature or as
>>      part-objects within literature (codework) is not meant to
>>      be decoded the same way. Think of counting the number of
>>      "t"s for example in a poem - that's also a way of decoding
>>      it, but is of course different than literary reading. I
>>      think there's a hermeneutics involved here, as well as the
>>      Wittgensteinian idea of "family of usages" - so who is
>>      looking at the code/codework, for what purpose, and so
>>      forth? It's problematic; since code is primarily
>>      originating with programmers, they're interested in its
>>      functionality, taking it apart, but that's not it's only
>>      function, certainly not within the aegis of literature. An
>>      interesting aside to this of course is reading a
>>      mathematical text, which I think _can_ be a work of
>>      literature fairly directly - for example Einstein's theory
>>      of relativity. One's reading speeds and slows, and the
>>      formulas require decoding as well, but of a different
>>      sort, I think; I also feel that, say, cosmological
>>      formulas are denser and more layered, more difficult to
>>      unravel perhaps, than most programming code - but I may
>>      well be mistaken here (and should take this whole sentence
>>      back!).
>> 
>>      - Alan
>> 
>>      On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, marc garrett wrote:
>> 
>>      Code Is Not Literature - or is it?
>> 
>> I was browsing Slashdot as one does and found a link to an
>> article called ?Code Is Not Literature?.
>> 
>> As I was reading this I was thinking of Mez and Alan
>> Sondheim, and thought to myself - surely, if someone turns
>> it into literature, then it is literature?
>> 
>> Anyway, have a read and see what you think?
>> 
>> "Hacker and author Peter Seibel has done a lot of work to
>> adopt one of the most widely-accepted practices toward
>> becoming a better programmer: reading high quality code.
>> He's set up code-reading groups and interviewed other
>> programmers to see what code they read. But he's come to
>> learn that the overwhelming majority of programmers don't
>> practice what they preach. Why? He says, 'We don't read
>> code, we decode it. We examine it. A piece of code is not
>> literature; it is a specimen.' He relates an anecdote from
>> Donald Knuth about figuring out a Fortran compiler, and
>> indeed, it reads more like a 'scientific investigation'
>> than the process we refer to as 'reading.' Seibel is now
>> changing his code-reading group to account for this: 'So
>> instead of trying to pick out a piece of code and reading
>> it and then discussing it like a bunch of Comp Lit. grad
>> students, I think a better model is for one of us to play
>> the role of a 19th century naturalist returning from a
>> trip to some exotic island to present to the local
>> scientific society a discussion of the crazy beetles they
>> found.'"
>> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/14/01/21/1847217/code-is-not-literatur
>> e
>> 
>> Here?s Seibel?s original text on his blog
>> http://www.gigamonkeys.com/code-reading/
>> 
>> wishing you well.
>> 
>> marc
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> 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
>> 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
> ==
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:46:38 -0500
> From: curt at lab404.com
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] two new playdamages
> Message-ID: <C842872D-1C4C-49DE-8F5C-7632DF4F1963 at lab404.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> http://playdamage.org/103.html
> {the ballad of Tulse_Luper}
> 
> vs.
> 
> http://playdamage.org/102.html
> {the ballad of Gang_Lion}
> 
> //////////////////////////////////////////////
> 
> source watercolors by peter greenaway
> source audio by superchunk
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:04:51 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <52E58683.60003 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On 26/01/14 09:03 AM, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>> 
>> for me it relates to IRC and warez slang, 1337, antiorp/integener/n.n.-
>> speak, a whole array of 'hackerese' languages that also need decoding,
>> that also don't run in the traditional sense (as opposed to perl poetry
>> for example) -
> 
> It does but I think it takes this further.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I've enjoyed reading code. The DUIM source code was beautiful. I've
> enjoyed seeing code execute. I still remember the first time I saw
> Photoshop boot. But this shows that code and software can be evaluated
> separately. I think that they should go together, like Emacs or
> LambdaMOO or the Symbolics OS.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. ;-)
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:36:33 -0600
> From: Bishop Zareh <xchicago at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Cc: Mary Patten <mpatte at saic.edu>, Felix Stalder <felix at openflows.org>
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] code as literature as idiom
> Message-ID: <83CE642D-93E9-49B7-9E57-907CFEFEEF9B at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> tldr; imagine paratrooping mimes descending.
> 
> As a Programmer and as an Artist, I can tell you that I frequently write Code as Literature, with the express intent of having it read rather than executed. At first it came from what they called "airplane code." Before airplanes were connected to the internet, especially during the era of "enterprise computing" no code could be run on an airplane because the compiler was online, on vpn even. Yet programmers with good intuition and experience could still write, even during an 8-hour flight - all sans compiler. Airplane Code was not poetry; it was not meant to be read, but when the programmer's prediction of the compiler's reaction became unclear, programmers resorted to psuedo-code buried in comments, for their eyes only but none-the-less written in a hybrid language of intention and execution - a combination of what they wanted and what they thought could work. And then the programmers starting showing these psudeo-codes to each other.
> 
> Then there comes Programming Education, where code tutorials are designed to be read by students, and the Open Source Community's tradition of having "well-commented source." Both with brilliant asides/insertions like "insert calculus here." These practices formed a toolkit for writing code as literature. GIST was designed for just this purpose. GIST uses the same principals (*sic*) as GIT, but is designed to be code that is read, rather than compiled.
> 
> I was surprised it did not come up in the initial discussion, and wanted to mention it here. 
> 
> A step from GIST to Literature is not hard to see,  especially among dilettante and savant programmers, passing messages/documents around, working without warrant or language, double especially for the ones called "artists". The realz question is why these coppers be bangin' on our Lit yo. Its gots to be about power 'cause if iran-contra was theater, then wtf. its Eitha' 'bout weapons or influence dog && my moneyz on influence.
> 
> In appreciation,
> bishopZ
> US
> 
> Ps, for the heads in the house, we seem to be a far cry from william james here; any help on bringing us back, eh?
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:33:05 +1100
> From: helen varley jamieson <helen at creative-catalyst.com>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Drone Music
> Message-ID: <52E58D21.9000207 at creative-catalyst.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> there was also a band in dunedin, nz, called the drones in the early 80s 
> ... :D
> 
> On 27/01/14 1:23 AM, dave miller wrote:
>> http://youtu.be/x8mTNKPz6p0
>> 
>> http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/x8mTNKPz6p0
>> 
>> 
>> On 26 January 2014 13:45, dave miller <dave.miller.uk at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:dave.miller.uk at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    there was a manchester punk band in the seventies called the
>>    drones. am showing my age!
>> 
>>    On Jan 26, 2014 1:29 PM, "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org
>>    <mailto:rob at robmyers.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>        I'm looking for examples of using drones in music. UAVs, not
>>        the musical
>>        genre. The latter makes searching difficult... I mean stuff
>>        like this:
>> 
>>        http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/music/uav-chopper-plays-piano/763889539001/
>> 
>>        http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/quadrotors-perform-james-bond-theme/1483307118001/
>> 
>>        but ideally as part of live human performance.
>> 
>>        Does anyone have anything?
>> 
>>        Thanks.
>> 
>>        - Rob.
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        NetBehaviour mailing list
>>        NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>        <mailto:NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
>>        http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> 
> -- 
> helen varley jamieson
> helen at creative-catalyst.com <mailto:helen at creative-catalyst.com>
> http://www.creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.wehaveasituation.net
> http://www.upstage.org.nz
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/4a10ad10/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 15
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:14:37 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401261804570.6017 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Rob Myers wrote:
> 
>> On 26/01/14 09:03 AM, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>>> 
>>> for me it relates to IRC and warez slang, 1337, antiorp/integener/n.n.-
>>> speak, a whole array of 'hackerese' languages that also need decoding,
>>> that also don't run in the traditional sense (as opposed to perl poetry
>>> for example) -
>> 
>> It does but I think it takes this further.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> I've enjoyed reading code. The DUIM source code was beautiful. I've
>> enjoyed seeing code execute. I still remember the first time I saw
>> Photoshop boot. But this shows that code and software can be evaluated
>> separately. I think that they should go together, like Emacs or
>> LambdaMOO or the Symbolics OS.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> - Alan
> 
>> 
>> - Rob.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> 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
> ==
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 16
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:23:52 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] code as literature as idiom
> Message-ID: <52E5A718.2040406 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On 26/01/14 01:36 PM, Bishop Zareh wrote:
>> 
>> As a Programmer and as an Artist, I can tell you that I frequently
>> write Code as Literature, with the express intent of having it read
>> rather than executed. At first it came from what they called "airplane
> code." Before airplanes were connected to the internet, especially
> during the era of "enterprise computing" no code could be run on an
> airplane because the compiler was online, on vpn even. Yet programmers
> with good intuition and experience could still write, even during an
> 8-hour flight - all sans compiler. Airplane Code was not poetry; it was
> not meant to be read, but when the programmer's prediction of the
> compiler's reaction became unclear, programmers resorted to psuedo-code
> buried in comments, for their eyes only but none-the-less written in a
> hybrid language of intention and execution - a combination of what they
> wanted and what they thought could work. And then the programmers
> starting showing these psudeo-codes to each other.
> 
> Laptops with batteries that will last for most of a domestic flight have
> been commonly available since the 90s and compilers for Java or COBOL
> would run on them. If you wanted longer usage times, more batteries were
> available.
> 
> Compilers at low levels of optimization are pretty deterministic.
> 
> If we're talking about mainframe programming or integrating with
> server-side frameworks without decent mocks then that's what
> documentation is for.
> 
> And if we're talking about pre-laptop AFK coding with pen and paper it's
> easy enough to write code in full that way. Psuedocode in that context
> would be more about DRY or documentation access than compiler issues.
> 
> Programmers do write pseudocode to communicate, and may be forced to by
> management, but this has a history that is independent from the category
> or era(s) of enterprise computing.
> 
> "A hybrid language of intention and execution" is code, not psuedocode.
> Code has to be run. Without running there is no execution and, with
> apologies to Lua and HyperTalk, by definition pseudocode does not run.
> 
> This is the core problem of code poetry and code as literature. Software
> is written firstly for human beings to read, but formatting literature
> as code doesn't make it code and variable names tend not to be
> semantically significant to runtimes. There needs to be something
> meaningful in the code's execution in a literary way and this needs to
> relate to its syntax.
> 
>> Then there comes Programming Education, where code tutorials are
> designed to be read by students, and the Open Source Community's
> tradition of having "well-commented source." Both with brilliant
> asides/insertions like "insert calculus here." These practices formed a
> toolkit for writing code as literature.
> 
> How?
> 
>> GIST was designed for just this
> purpose. GIST uses the same principals (*sic*) as GIT, but is designed
> to be code that is read, rather than compiled.
> 
> A Gist is a Git repository. Like Github's main use of Git it's an
> enclosure and a Facebookization, in this case of the pastebin market.
> pastebin.com for example dates back to 2002 and was not dedicated to code.
> 
> Code sharing communities date back to the dawn of computing and their
> suppression by enclosure, by "Intellectual Property" law, is what gave
> rise to Free Software in the first place.
> 
> Sharing non-executable code is weaker than sharing executable code.
> Complaints about incomplete and non-running code provided in questions
> on StackOverflow are about community and value.
> 
>> I was surprised it did not come up in the initial discussion, and
> wanted to mention it here.
>> 
>> A step from GIST to Literature is not hard to see, especially among
> dilettante and savant programmers, passing messages/documents around,
> working without warrant or language, double especially for the ones
> 
> If code as literature is simply "code with funny variable names that
> probably doesn't run" then that is disappointing. If it's "code as the
> shared communication of a community" then this long predates GitHub's
> enclosure. But that doesn't explain how it's literature.
> 
> If we take a more abstract view of literature as a written means of
> promulgating worldviews and values and of building community and of
> resolving contradictions in ideology then code can be that. But
> literature is not unique in its capacity for that, and it's not clear
> why we should call code that performs these functions literature rather
> than law (cf. Lessig) or religion (cf. Jobs).
> 
>> called "artists". The realz question is why these coppers be bangin' on
> our Lit yo. Its gots to be about power 'cause if iran-contra was
> theater, then wtf. its Eitha' 'bout weapons or influence dog && my
> moneyz on influence.
> 
> It's a matter of ego.
> 
> Hackers are often ignorant of the problem domain of literature and
> litterateurs are often ignorant of the problem domain of hacking. It's
> easy to make code that looks superficially like literature or literature
> that looks superficially like code and to seek their perceived higher
> status in a particular social domain. What's much harder is to find a
> synthesis of the affordances and demands of the two that actually does
> useful work in either problem domain.
> 
> There's More Than One Way To Do It, and people do do it, but it's not
> easy, and it's certainly not a product of corporate enclosure of time or
> community.
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 17
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:05:31 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <52E5B0DB.8090807 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> 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-really/
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 18
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:06:27 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Drone Music
> Message-ID: <52E5B113.7080301 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On 26/01/14 05:45 AM, dave miller wrote:
>> there was a manchester punk band in the seventies called the drones.
> 
> On 26/01/14 02:33 PM, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>> there was also a band in dunedin, nz, called the drones in the early 80s
> 
> These would be very different names now. :-)
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 19
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:05:44 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401262045540.5077 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Rob Myers wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> depends on the poet - Donne is fairly compact, as is Dickinson, while 
> Whitman may not be. for that matter, at least for me Lacan and Derrida are 
> compact, Schoepenaur is not, the math I'm currently reading is highly 
> compact, etc. etc. somewhere information theory/entropy comes into play 
> here.
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> agreed -
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
> Not that different; again I think it's an issue of "families of usages" 
> re: Wittgenstein, reception theory, and so forth. For a while, Ukiyo-e was 
> used as wrapping paper in Japan; manuscripts are found in the spines of 
> 19th-century and earlier books. Audiences - for Mez, my work, leet, Joyce, 
> etc. etc. are complex and variable; Pound needs decoding (deliberately 
> so), as does Chaucer (vagaries of changing language). Skaldic kennings are 
> perhaps the densest linguistic form, and so forth.
> 
>>> 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-really/
>> 
>> 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 thinking there are numerous aesthetics re: proof theory, nothing unified 
> there, especially since the digital computer and crowd-sourcine have been 
> brought (literally) into the equation/s. Things like surreal numbers and 
> infinitesimals I'd think would cloud any ideality at least, in more 
> fundamental ways than Brouwer's intuitionism (which seemed sloppy to me).
> 
> I'll check the Forbes reference, thanks -
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
> Again, it depends on audience; the integration may or may not be 
> necessary; certainly, for example, among Chinese classical painters, there 
> were wide variations in their and others' writings in relation to the work 
> - there's no one way at all.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Again it depends on audience; when I was writing early on about codework 
> and even now, it seemed natural that code was a medium just as for example 
> re: Venet, the classical mathematical/scientific lecture could be a medium 
> or with Cadere, the staff could be a medium. I'm more interested in the 
> openness of these approach, perhaps the aha! or wow! factor, or the now 
> old idea of making the familiar strange, or re-making, than I am in 
> definitions from within fields; if a programmer feels that 
> code/programming is never art, "unless," or "with the requirements that" 
> etc. - that's fine with me; it doesn't affect my practice, nor does my 
> practice affect her or him. Fwiw, my own codework (a term I coined fwiw) 
> uses code I either wrote myself, or in collaboration with others, or given 
> to me on request; I find great beauty in the last (which connects to 
> Chinese aesthetics even technically) that's little different than I found 
> in other media. I remember Bob Bieliecki (who early on designed for Laurie 
> Anderson) talking about the excitement felt using assembly language in 
> trying to find the shortest expression for factorials. I imagine there's 
> some of the same feelings among hackers - just the beauty of the exploit, 
> or performative language, producing something miraculous, which we now 
> take for granted - for example
> 
> k1% date
> Sun Jan 26 21:04:19 EST 2014
> 
> - look at that! Just typing "date" connects us to the universe in a way 
> absolutely inconceivable before digital media and code came along. (I know 
> the roots are far messier than this; this is just my own sense of wonder.)
> 
> - Alan
> 
>> 
>> - Rob.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> 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
> ==
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 20
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:11:53 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h8cv0uPJo3pSbmMCDZFr93Sn=jvdK6R_HSTAvwLEJMB-Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 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-really/
>> 
>>> 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
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140126/4ffa2f87/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 21
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:45:06 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h9ra66+vkg6L65_3s42_P+PrGwekjA4RBQiey+tUVyTJg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> #!/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-really/
>>> 
>>>> 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
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140126/67d58c47/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 22
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:50:16 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401262149170.538 at panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> ==
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 23
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:51:39 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401262150280.538 at panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> 
> 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
> ==
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 24
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:55:53 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <52E5CAB9.40800 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On 26/01/14 06:11 PM, 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(!),
> 
> My hedges!!1 ;-)
> 
>> depending on the artist's intent.
> 
> You'll need to talk to Alan about that...
> 
>> Trying to comment on any of these in a single sentence or even
>> paragraph is absurd.
> 
> I've mentioned a couple of ways and examples that I believe code can be
> (a medium for) literature, and literature or at least poetry can be (a
> medium for) code, during this thread.
> 
> On 26/01/14 06:45 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>> package absurd;
>> sub new {
>>    $this = new absurd();
>> }
> 
> Or we could declare absurd as a procedure that checks that the square
> root of its argument can't be simplified, then declare $this to be 2.
> 
> :-)
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 25
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:07:04 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h8ED9zajjfiEmjH-OdksN9E37DfZqLti2aUJAtWuAK0AA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 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 <sondheim at panix.com> 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 <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
>> ==
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140126/4a066143/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 26
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:19:54 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401262216520.20957 at panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> 
> even here, think of 'bad code' that produces glitches - then the code is, 
> at least for some folks, morphed into something else that has a different 
> sort of value...
> 
> I don't think, having read E.D. for a long time, that I can understand her 
> intent in most of the work; it's that elusiveness among other things that 
> is astonishing. You can't paraphrase her work - and there's a book out, a 
> satire of sorts, that attempts to do just that, and the results are funny 
> and ridiculous precisely because of that -
> 
> - Alan
> 
> 
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Pall Thayer 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 <sondheim at panix.com> 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
>>            <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
>> ==
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> ==
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 27
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:29:00 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] the them (Heidegger)
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401262228430.9114 at panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> 
> the them
> 
> http://www.alansondheim.org/them.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/they.jpg
> 
> of rumors, parasites, the they/say
> 
> they told me about some places, the they saying, anyone saying
> these people are always these people or the they or the thing
> thethe they sy s y saidaid aid to to to comcom come he h e hereere ere -
> thethe they sy s y saidaid aid thethe they'ry'r y're be b e be me m e
> 
> last of the them disappears
> she she so so sorry split stuff take tear the them there thing things this
> 
> abstraction, the them "she soundly...her first structure quasi-logical
> 
> the them disk query shame pillar
> 
> sun jan 26 22:06:20 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:20 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:21 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:21 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:21 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:22 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:22 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:23 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:23 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:23 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:24 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:24 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:25 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:25 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:25 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:26 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:26 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:27 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:27 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:27 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:28 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:28 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:29 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:29 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:29 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:30 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:30 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:30 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:31 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:31 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:32 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:32 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:32 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:33 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:33 est 2014
> sun jan 26 22:06:34 est 2014
> 
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> the them disk query shame pillar
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 28
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:30:50 -0800
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Not Estimotes
> Message-ID: <52E5EF0A.20302 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Estimotes are Bluetooth 4 beacons.
> 
> They're not the only Bluetooth 4 beacons but they're the most hyped. You
> can identify beacons by ID and tell if they're present and how far away
> they are when they're in range.
> 
> Here's how to replace them with something more Free and Open, or how to
> exploit them:
> 
> http://makezine.com/2014/01/03/reverse-engineering-the-estimote/
> 
> There's SDKs for iOS and Android, System libraries for iOS and Free
> Software libraries for Android.
> 
> I think this could be used for all sorts of room-or-building-level
> locative art...
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 29
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:30:35 -0600
> From: Bishop Zareh <xchicago at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <81C0E525-4474-434B-80F6-B004C760DBC4 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1251"
> 
> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <sondheim at panix.com> 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 <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
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> *****************************
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist
>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>> *****************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/b8a024f3/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 30
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:02:22 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h9f47G9dDzh8X2M3sEMyu2pRY=vd4WHU7q+QEyC0jc59g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> 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 <xchicago at gmail.com> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <sondheim at panix.com> 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 <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
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *****************************
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist
>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>> *****************************
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/f6a25337/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 31
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:04:00 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h_qC40A=ahZJMwYbK44rmGARMZHkdp19L6qO+G8HOjhvA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <xchicago at gmail.com> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <sondheim at panix.com>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 <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
>>>> ==
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *****************************
>>> Pall Thayer
>>> artist
>>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>>> *****************************
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/93194ac2/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 32
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:10:40 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401270209520.22667 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> 
> 
> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <sondheim at panix.com>
>> 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
>>            <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
>> ==
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *****************************
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist
>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>> *****************************
>> 
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      NetBehaviour mailing list
>>      NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>      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
> ==
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 33
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:06:59 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h_S58Vcd43su5aXG=7AshRhYPw7SFHN92SZwnusHVZ5nw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> And, at the same time, suggesting that someone suggested that it would?
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <xchicago at gmail.com> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <sondheim at panix.com>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 <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
>>>>> ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> *****************************
>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>> artist
>>>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>>>> *****************************
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> *****************************
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/87af70cb/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 34
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:15:13 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Rhode Island Glades
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401270215040.29421 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> 
> 
> Rhode Island Glades
> 
> near Bristol
> interesting parastic plants, vines, other
> 
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades01.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades02.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades03.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades04.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades05.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades06.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades07.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades08.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades09.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades10.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades11.jpg
> http://www.alansondheim.org/glades12.jpg
> 
> in the springtime, animal stirring, dark forebears
> now a deepening slumber, i sink into the shards of ice
> and the rest is remnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 35
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:29:41 -0500
> From: Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACEE-h-c=MnwNu995jOucv=xxgxTwBD5ErN2qEehLuX2rbRTRw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 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 <sondheim at panix.com> 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 <pallthay at gmail.com> 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 <sondheim at panix.com>
>>> 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
>>>            <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
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *****************************
>>> Pall Thayer
>>> artist
>>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>>> *****************************
>>> 
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>      NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>      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
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *****************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/ead851ee/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 36
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:42:34 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature
> Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1401270240550.25109 at panix3.panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> 
> Is this to me? I have no idea; this is Bishop's comparison. If he means 
> elegance or eloquence or classicism, which is what I assume he means, then 
> Einstein fits the bill. I don't particularly like Shakespeare myself.
> 
> - Alan
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Pall Thayer wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> <sondheim at panix.com> 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
>> <pallthay at gmail.com> 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
>> <sondheim at panix.com>
>> 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
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? <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-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
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? 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
>> ==
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *****************************
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist
>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>> *****************************
>> 
>> ? ? ? _______________________________________________
>> ? ? ? NetBehaviour mailing list
>> ? ? ? NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> ? ? ?
>> 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
>> 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
> ==
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 37
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:42:01 +0000
> From: dave miller <dave.miller.uk at gmail.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Not Estimotes
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAAE50Rc1U_h-HBQhM=GSShjOmV_ef6dNzwuxO=Nis9FzrDVuWg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> thanks Rob - this could be useful for me.
> Will look into this
> dave
> 
> 
> On 27 January 2014 05:30, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> 
>> Estimotes are Bluetooth 4 beacons.
>> 
>> They're not the only Bluetooth 4 beacons but they're the most hyped. You
>> can identify beacons by ID and tell if they're present and how far away
>> they are when they're in range.
>> 
>> Here's how to replace them with something more Free and Open, or how to
>> exploit them:
>> 
>> http://makezine.com/2014/01/03/reverse-engineering-the-estimote/
>> 
>> There's SDKs for iOS and Android, System libraries for iOS and Free
>> Software libraries for Android.
>> 
>> I think this could be used for all sorts of room-or-building-level
>> locative art...
>> 
>> - Rob.
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140127/b7195050/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> End of NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 1899, Issue 1
> *********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140128/4195b0ce/attachment.html>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list