“Live coding has a reputation for being cerebral and over technical, but in reality, at least when compared to other software based approaches, the immediacy of results fosters spontaneous thought”

This particular quote from the reading stood out to me. I believe that the art of live coding lies in its unpredictable and dynamic nature. The performer writes a line of code which produces a result, and builds upon this result to produce sounds and visuals that are constantly changing. The performer can go into the live coding performance with a goal in mind, but there is no guaranteeing that everything will go perfectly as planned. This is a huge contrast to other forms of coding where the most important part is the final result, as opposed to live coding, where the process is just as important.

“There is no such confusion with live coding, there is a human clearly visible, making all the creative decisions and using source code as an artistic medium”

The author also touches on the idea of human live coders being replaced by software creative agents. I believe the most important part of live coding is the human aspect – the possibility of making mistakes, dynamic thought, personalised workspaces and so on all contribute to the artistic nature of live coding. Without the human, live coding ceases being creative. The process no longer matters and only the end result is judged.

“Live coding is a way of improvising music or video animation through live edits of source code, using dynamic language interpreters.”

Is this a universal definition of live coding? Is it a new discipline at all? I found this cool website that talks about the history of live coding and performance.

One resonating idea throughout the reading — to what extent a human is a real artist in computational creativity? What would happen if an A.I. algorithm were to replicate a human in a live coding performance? Has this been done before?

What in my opinion live coding embraces greatly is the affordability of mistakes. It is the spontaneity that is born with experimentation on the spot and embracing imperfection that gives a unique spike to each performance.

There is no such confusion with live coding, there is a human clearly visible, making all the creative decisions and using source code as an artistic medium.

A programmer making generative art goes through creative iterations to, only after each edit they have to restart the process before reflecting on the result. This stuttering of the creative process alone is not enough to alter authorship status.

What live coders themselves have to say about their art is what’s the most interesting in the reading. One can infer a great deal about their bold character and adventurous work style has given many rounds of iterations, experimentations, and failing that they have to go through before giving THE performance.

What has been said about personal style and the design process of their own language reminds me of what Richard Hamming says about style in his “Learning to Learn” lecture:

“There is no one style which is successful. Painters paint many different styles. You have to find a style that fits you. Which means you have to take what fragments you can from other people, use them and adapt them and become yours.”

What I am taking away from this paper: Live coding means that there is beauty in imperfection that is born on stage during the performance. Live coding music ⇒ music that “could be understood in a novel way”. This is not electronic music, neither it is music created by an algorithm; it is a collaboration of human, chance, and code.

Yej

A computer agent will be developed that produces a live coding performance indistinguishable from that of a human live coder

This idea made me further question – how should a creative software agent look like in the context of live coding? Considering the physical nature of conventional live coding performances, where you see a person in front of their computer tapping onto their keyboards, does the computer agent need to embody a human form? Not only software-wise, but also that of hardware? Is it only under this condition that they are truly indistinguishable from a human coder? Or does the physical component not matter as much?

The spontaneity, which is an integral part of what makes live coding interesting, is also up to question. Can a machine truly be spontaneous and improvise if they are not yet susceptible to biological conditions and emotions – two major sources of human spontaneity? What other inner impulses could non-feeling computer agents use to show spontaneous behaviors similar those of humans?

“Live coding has far less perfection and the product is more immediate. It allows for improvisation and spontaneity and discourages over-thinking”.

How does a machine discourage itself from over-thinking? Perhaps, they can systematically control, or simply dial down, the amount of “thoughts” they have? Does such simplification of the process threaten the quality or even the validity of spontaneity expressed by the agent?

I was very surprised by the reading’s claim that every live coder has a personal style that they develop through their performances. I remember in class Professor Aaron mentioned that we are basically learning to express ourselves in a different language (algorithms). I found this to be something very interesting and the reading highlighted the ways live coders were developing the programming languages they used for their performances in order to redefine the ways they express their art.

When I was reading that, a comment said by my Data Structures and Algorithms professor came to mind. She said that we all have our own styles of coding and that shows through our way of writing logic in our projects. Of course, she was saying this mainly to get us worried about plagiarism. But, it made me think of the group projects that I’ve worked on and how we all had different ways of doing things that showed through the code (how we made functions, how we commented and even how we declared variables). A lot of it has to do with personal preference and with finding techniques that work for us.

At the same time, I was also thinking about how we personalize our code editors to create a work environment that gives us the best results. For instance, I have a very particular theme in VS Code and a very particular way of organizing my windows in Unity. It made me reflect on we “decorate” these online workspaces (similar to decorating a studio or office) so that it aids in our creative process.

What I am trying to say is that the paper made me think about how we all have our own styles of writing code in general and how that can show through very distinctly when we decide to do creative and live coding.

Click the Log In button (normally found over to the right).

 

Click New >> Post up at the top:

 

 

To insert code into a post click this button:

 

 

To embed video, please upload to Vimeo or Youtube and then paste the URL into your post. It should automatically upload. Please DO NOT upload documentation videos directly to WordPress.

 

 

euclid

 

Login and Add New Media to load videos and zipped files of code. Uploaded files can be found as follows: https://blog.livecoding.nyuadim.com/wp-content/uploads/YOURFILENAME

Name the files something unique so others don’t overwrite them.

 

Click Media and then Add New:

 

After uploading, copy the File URL, this is what you will use to load your file/video in flok:

 

WordPress won’t allow you to upload code files, so compress them into a zip first and then upload the zip. I will unzip them for you on the server.