On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Catherine Daly <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> there is so much more and various out there than that, seeing this in
> 2010 on a listserv no less, seems like we're confining our dreamy and
> struggling and creative to cubes even more than in the "go go" 80s
>
>
> I have seen and written poems in comments (very common)
>
> in variables or object names (lots of flex, and can be apropos to function)
>
> I can go on to the ways -- each computer lang differs and so does each
> prog approach and ... oh,
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 17:14 +1100, Chris Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I could perhaps say the same of the "free open source" web-site designs
>>> I have been looking at. While I do learn something of xhtml usage, the
>>> visual designs are basically ...
>>
>> The other thing I should add, is that computer programming is a
>> transitive production process. This says that computer programming
>> cannot be art, itself, and can never be art. It is mechanism, of the
>> most boring sort. (Not even Kant would accept this as art.)
>>
>> In computer code, one would not find poetry or art. Sure, I could write
>> a few hundred lines of C as an interactive data base... but what of
>> it... nothing but a boring, dreary repetition, in the sense of either,
>> or, (K) choices excluding the excluded middle. Which is to say the
>> exclusion of poetry and art. (How I data base my library based on a
>> program written in C is not a part of art production, of course.)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All best,
> Catherine Daly
> [log in to unmask]
>
--
All best,
Catherine Daly
[log in to unmask]
|