Author: Eadin Wang

“[I]nformation theory is a mathematical theory of how to optimize a signal for communication in a noisy channel and of how communication degrades in such a medium.” Okay, math is not my cake, but the application of mathematical theory in composing seems interesting and promising. My profession with music was mainly gained from traditional instrument practice (flute). It was by playing in the school’s orchestra team that I learned more theories (in English), but I’m still quite limited in music accomplishment and composing. In the meantime, I do know that music and composing have been involving more and more math and programming as new media emerge. It is again, in fact, stimulating our thoughts on computational creativity. 

Laurie Spiegel thinks that random noise can be meaningful signals in other contexts. That makes sense considering the noise of repairing roads. However, I’m not sure how to position the purely numerical randomness in digital music. For d1 $ sound “hh*8” # gain (range 0.8 1.5 rand), what is the context that makes more sense and what is not? Furthermore, Spiegel claims that at the essence of auditory imagination is just re-generation/transformation of previous materials in humans’ perceptual and cognitive systems. In that case, computational creativity might not be about creating something completely new, but new “permutation and combination” that can trigger emotional reactions in certain environments. 

What I didn’t see discussed is the subjectivity about creation (composing). Yes, noise works. Entropy variable works. The outcome does affect audiences’ emotions, but what about the composer? Creating compositional models should definitely be different from traditional composing regarding subjective experience and reward. Making an analogy with “art” versus “design”, this process seems more like design: it’s using principles to create things for people. 

Written in 1997, the article already looks quite advanced for me. I wonder what has changed, and what new theories or models have appeared from that time till now.

If you ask me to define computational creativity, I can only offer general description like “creative behavior or production done by/with the computer,” because it’s just so broad. Therefore, live coding towards computational creativity seemed a bit intangible for me initially. Yet, this article revealed some patterns on my canvas that I can grab for this branch of knowledge, by discussing “whether human live coders can be replaced by software creative agents” (1).

Analogy of generative art comes abruptly for me, but I see it as to help clarify what the problem is regarding authorship and creativity. Whether coded behind or coded live, there are people doing creative work iterations. It is time-based and thoughts-based. 

What I found fascinating about live coding is that the behavior of “coding” and the code are integrated in the art and performance as a whole. As a result, programming was put on the stage for being thought on and even appreciated. Yet, the code itself is not a production. In the article, this sentence set me into some philosophical thinking: “Their code is not their work, but a high level description of how to make their work” (2). If “how to make their work” can show one’s style, is it somehow also a type of work? In addition, I still kept thinking: in a hyper-digital world, should the programs and principles that lie behind also have equal value with the work they execute? 

My biggest takeaway is about live coding’s novelty in production. Somehow, all the quotes indicate keywords like improvisation, abstraction, and spontaneity. The immediacy of coding results highlights spontaneous thoughts, which is different from software development experiences that are slow and arduous. It accepts imperfection and highlights time/present. It is by this that live coding shows value in art and creativity. However, these words sound like alarm bells for me. I’m a person who is used to preparing in advance. I experience work such as Arduino and 3D modeling as “slow and arduous”. Sometimes I also seek perfection and over-think… However, I don’t see them as discouragement for me in live coding. They are just different ways of doing things, and I want to try new things. At least, as one quote says, the “skills and confidence acquired” would last. I really expect to see how my view on imperfection and improvisation would change after this class.