First of all, I found some interpretations of Live Coding interesting. “Live Coding is shaped by different genealogies of ideas and practices, both philosophical and technological”, so one needs to have a very deep understanding of liveness. At the same time, the article mentions that liveness refers both to nonhuman “machine liveness”, which I think is one reason why people need to have a deep understanding of liveness, since they need to have a deep understanding of “nonhuman”.

Secondly, the author states that Live Coding is not about writing code in advance. However, at the current level, it is almost impossible to be completely on the spot. I remember during the first group performance, our group had a lot of coding came up on the stage. That was a big challenge for me. In performing, like the article mentions, you can’t just focus on one note, instead, you have to generate from a higher-order process. In the groups, I learned a lot that Bato would write notes very casually, followed by more at random. What surprised me was that just by putting them together, even without much manipulation, they could sound great. So I don’t think the statement in the article that “technique doesn’t matter” fits that much for Live Coding with music. I learned Live Coding because I saw a lot of Live Coding performances in New York, and both the art form and the logic behind it appealed to me. I was attracted to the art and, to be honest, the limitations and technology, but was very much drawn to the art form of Live Coding. I’m what the article refers to as “composed improvisation or improvisation with a composed structure.” Live Coding’s liveness is what sets it apart from other forms of code, and it’s what’s most attractive. The liveness of Live Coding is what sets it apart from other forms of code, and what makes it most attractive.