Category: Spring 24

The given reading looks into how the ‘live’ part of live coding is defined and executed. It was particularly interesting to see such spectrum of liveliness as it was something we also talked about in class.

I remember in class we talked about how much of the code should be prepared or not, in order to balance making sure that the audience is constaly entertained and that not too much of the performance is preplanned. The reading mentions both styles of live coding, implying it depends on the style and the performer and the performance, and what definition of liveliness they wish to hold.

For such decision, I think it’s important to remember that “within live coding, the performer consciously adopts a medial position, actively maintaining the conditions that will keep the action dynamic.”

This chapter explores the idea of “liveliness” in live coding from a methodological perspective and how we should “live” code. I think the balance between having a pre-written code and starting from an absolute zero is a practical question that has also risen throughout our live coding practices in class. It was interesting to think about liveliness not only in terms of human performers but for computers since, as the writing suggests, its immediacy is closely related to the nature of liveliness in live coding. How the author highlights the timely nature of liveliness gives me the impression that it is also similar to mixing, or DJing, different music. The author states that “principles of knowing how and knowing when are as privileged as knowing what” in live coding performances. In DJing, the human operator also typically has the pre-organized set and timestamps in mind, though they can be improvised depending on the audience and atmosphere during the performance. I think there is a challenging yet interesting balance in live performances where you want to say what you want to say but also want to communicate and vibe with your audience.

‘Live’ to me has always been associated with news and TV, because two of my cousins are reporters and I’ve spent a lot of time with them – going to their sets quite a lot as well. And the way I understood being ‘live’ then was being confident about what you’re doing in front of a camera and following what the script says perfectly, by adding a little bit of your own personality and flavor. This understanding has evolved a lot after that. I’ve learnt about rehearsed performances and spontaneous happenings. However, I feel like the core ideas of ‘liveness’ and going live in front of an audience have remained constant – performing your craft the best you can for the intended viewers. I find it fascinating how the insights offered in the except about Live Coding challenge and expand on these beliefs about live performance, whether rigorously rehearsed or spontaneously improvised. The concept of “liveness” in Live Coding seems to add a whole new layer to the dichotomy of rehearsed perfection and improvised happenings.

On the one hand, the section emphasizes Live Coding’s improvisatory nature, in which performers think and act in real time, always adjusting and responding to the evolving code. This reflects the unpredictability and spontaneity of an event, in which every moment becomes part of the performance, formed by circumstances that could not have been predicted beforehand. The idea that Live Coding performances might incorporate this level of spontaneity and dynamic interaction with technology calls into question my previous perception of live performance as either rigorously prepared or utterly improvised.

Moreover, the interdisciplinary nature of Live Coding, intersecting with fields like performance studies and choreography, expands the conceptual ground of liveness beyond traditional definitions. It redefines liveness as a dynamic and evolving concept shaped by processes of experiencing, making, and audiencing, challenging the notion that live performance must fit into predefined categories of rehearsed perfection or spontaneous improvisation.

So, I feel like the definition of being live itself is evolving as these newer forms of art and media are coming along. The multifaceted nature of liveness in Live Coding has opened up new possibilities for creative expression, human-machine collaboration, and interdisciplinary exploration, inviting me to embrace the dynamic and fluid nature of live performance in all its complexities. However, as many complexities and definitions ‘liveness’ may go on to possess, I still believe that the core idea behind it will be the same that I’ve understood – performing your craft the best you can for the intended viewers.

I am quite interested in the way in which the author of this chapter breaks down the different types of liveness of Live Coding. For instance, (a) the liveness of machines and technology to provide real time feedback to the performer’s  input or (b)  the liveness of the performer as they engage with the code and produce new iterations of pregrammed ideas. This chapter, and lessons from this course, have corrected a misconception I had about live coding in the beginning. I believed live coding was only the moments where code was produced completely from scratch. In particular, this reading explains pregramming and juxtaposes it to the existing algorithms within the software that we use to perform. Beyond the performer building functions, there are already algorithms in place to run Tidal Cycles and Hydra, and I imagine, algorithms in place to be able to read these algorithms. Perhaps this is more visible for Mercury, the live coding software I researched for my first project. This coding space was constructed in Max, making the different levels of notation and liveness within them easier to grasp for me.  Then, even if Live Coding looks like calling functions or do blocks, it is still very much Live Coding. What interests me here is how this element of liveness is also a creative decision. That is to say, as live coders, we do not only write music and visuals, we decide how our piece and performance will engage with liveness. Perhaps the liveness lies in Nick’s Rap performance, or in Jun’s incredibly fast typing… at the end of the day, it is also in the hands of the artist. Furthermore, the author brings up horizons of these liveneses. Predictive coding or composed improvisation amongst the used terms. I look forward to seeing the future of creative coding! Especially now that we are (undoubtedly) part of this amazing community <3

Something I’ve noted between this reading and the past few readings on the ‘liveness’ of live coding is that many of us does not really have a choice in how we approach our performances yet. The ideal ‘live’ coding as presented by the author is a spectrum of options — those that create everything from scratch in their performances, those that ‘pre-gram’ some parts of the performance and those that simply reorganize functions.

I think that even in our drum circle sessions, it is clear that it is difficult to start from scratch/ only pre-gram some parts, and most of us have thus far preferred to pre-gram and rehearse the performance. It is thus more of a ‘coding performance’ than a ‘live coding performance’. I am not saying this is a bad thing — as the differences are indistinguishable for the untrained eye ( probably only the professor could tell if someone was done ad-hoc or if it was pre-planned simply by looking at it ), but simply a reflection of the experience we have with the live coding environments thus far. It might be possible for us as students to approach the ‘from scratch’ end of the live coding spectrum in the future, but for now, it is something that I can only look at and think about. It’s akin to the journey of a person learning the piano — they would learn how to read and play sheet music first before learning to write their own.

The text explores different approaches to live coding, with some individuals relying on pre-written code, while others start from scratch with no preparation. It notes that the emphasis on “liveness” in live coding is not meant to undervalue or underestimate the programming and practice that occur behind the scenes or before a live coding performance. Instead, the goal is to draw attention to the unique dynamics that arise during real-time live coding.

In my experience, the main factor that prevents me from adding new layers live is the unpredictability of the notes I might enter. For example, what if the notes I play clash with the current sound? What if they’re in different keys, creating harsh dissonance? I think these concerns stem from my past reliance on traditional digital audio workstations (DAWs), where I would improvise on a MIDI keyboard to determine which notes to use. Even when I prepare for a live coding performance, I often rely on this method to generate new ideas for my code. Besides this, I try to experiment more with adding effects and functions to my existing code during live demonstrations.

The text also notes that “live coding involves a sense of embodied awareness, where knowing how and when are just as important as knowing what. Unlike some forms of computer-generated performance, live coding demands heightened levels of dexterity, focus, cognitive agility, and tactical intelligence.” This resonates with me because I tend to trigger new lines of code only at the end of a cycle or a four-beat loop, which helps smooth transitions.

I also want to point out that the “liveness” in coding is not just about the interaction between the performer and the computer, but also about the interaction between the performer and the audience. This made me wonder how that human-to-human interaction could manifest in live coding performances.

The exploration of “liveness” in live coding provokes a reconsideration of how we define and interact with both technology and performance. The distinction between live coding and generative processes in audiovisual performances, where the latter is pre-coded and the former improvisational, raises questions about authenticity and originality in digital art forms. The text’s analysis of how live coding practices serve as a model of liveness — integrating human-machine interactions into a hybrid and complex system — challenges our traditional views on performance and audience engagement.

By reframing liveness not as a mere authentic experience but as a dynamic and interactive one, the text invites us to think about the implications of these live coding practices. For instance, how do these practices alter our understanding of control and creativity in performance arts? The idea of “machine liveness” — where technology responds instantly and semantically to the coder’s inputs — raises intriguing questions too: How does this immediacy transform the creative process? What does this seamless integration of action and response reveal about our potential to harmonize with increasingly intelligent systems? By emphasizing the continuous and collaborative nature of live coding, where technology is not merely a tool but a partner, the text invites us to reconsider our roles as creators and interactors within the digital landscape. This perspective not only challenges our traditional notions of artistic and technological domains but also suggests a future where the boundaries between creator, creation, and audience are fluid and dynamic.