The underlining of the various intersectionalities that live coding exists between, by performance scholars Matthew Reason and Anja Mølle Lindelof, helped me internalize the multiplicities inherent in this medium we have been practicing. Reason and Lindelof bring up live coding’s position between music studies and media studies, and extend this into the various definitions of the word “live” in this field. They note how music studies views liveness in terms of recording while media studies views it with a focus on transmission. Hence, the exploration of “liveness” that we have been doing over this semester is a nascent concept, with spontaneity, improvisation and performance elements borrowed from multiple disciplines.

The paper later on highlights the somatic and corporeal nature of live coding as well. Viewing our performances from a kinaesthetic lens, the author highlights our physical interaction with the machine:  “a sensorimotor movement vocabulary of micro adjustments, changes, and shifts performed in the frantic keystrokes, in the shuttling of the cursor around the screen, in the flash points of activation and execution”. This brought me back to our discussions regarding adding a performance element to our final showcase. While certain traditional instruments, like a piano or violin, lend a formality to music performances akin to an orchestra, live coding can be seen in the same paradigm as DJing perhaps. Many DJs construct a performance element around otherwise kinesthetically simple action,  like pushing faders and turning knobs, successfully transforming what would be a mundane performance into stadium-selling events.