I like where you're going w/this Xtine --- its always been interesting to
me that artists get to make decisions about what value systems they want
to engage with when they work with code - because of the interdisciplinary
nature of practice in this arena, artists working with code have (perhaps
too many!) choices in this regard. One territory to navigate are models
for reception such as "viewer", "audience", "reader", "listener",
"participant", "user", etc. --- some of these are more or less familiar
within the context of the performing arts, cinema, literature, visual art,
media/electronic arts, design, etc. However, I point them out because
these models/terms are useful boundary objects.
When Kate talks about syntax errors being generously / gracefully parsed
by the dancers, there is embodiment of the strict/loose interpreter - a
performed slippage between value systems - that seems like a space for an
emergent poetics of error to me.
Also, pizza sounds good.
On 3/6/14 10:00 PM, "Xtine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi all, from standing in a long line with my iPhone...
>As I've been reading the list I've been thinking about the performative
>role that the system (browser, for instance or whatever plays out the
>code) occupies and then the interpretive role that the viewer/user
>embodies. In Kate's contribution below, humans are both the "system" and
>viewer/audience. It seems so much "smarter" than a machine/human
>Hmm. Don't know where I was going with this, but somehow I wanted to
>segue into a poetics of error--a potential for poetic moments that are
>similar to the utterance.
>Now...it's my turn to order pizza (dinner!).
>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Kate Sicchio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I wanted to pick up on Victoria's question around bodies and
>>performativity as well as comment on something Rachel mentioned. I
>>actually don't think the body is always the one giving the code life per
>>se (although in my Hacking Choreography example it is) but the human
>>element is what is interesting to me.
>> Rachel said
>> ' In the handmade we see slippages all the time, arguable one of the
>>defining characteristics of something that is handmade and not machine
>> In the performance in January I made a typo, and spelt 'quality' as
>>'quailty'. The audience commented on this moment the most. And all but
>>one really enjoyed this moment. Some thought it was intentional (it was
>>not). Even though I had made this syntax error, the dancers did not
>>stop. They understood the command and had no problem reading and
>>executing the command. This simple moment really demonstrated the
>>difference between coding people and coding machines.
>> The next version of my pseudo-code is going to be real code - machine
>>readable. This means I can explore this difference more between what the
>>machine will read and execute and what the human will. But I am also
>>unsure if I actually want to make dances with the machine readable
>>version. I think I will miss the slippage. I think this also relates to
>>GH's 'huamnizing' of the data space.
>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 20:35, gh hovagimyan wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Sarah Thompson wrote:
>>>> My question is do we need a framing structure for psychological
>>>> So that we know what is and isn't us, what is symbolic and what is
>>>> because if we suffer momentarily from Virilio's picnolepsy then it
>>>> be disturbing mentally?
>>> Interesting reference. I had to look it up. It seems that Virilio
>>>thinks we blank out and don't see/feel/hear/sense
>>> what we are looking at. I kinda liken this to a monkey reaching for
>>>the photo of a banana rather than the real fruit.
>>>> What does it mean 'to humanize the data space'? Do you mean to make
>>>> symbolic code fool us into losing our sense of self-space etc? Or to
>>>> what the symbolic data space is really made of
>>> By Humanize I mean that we control the how and why and method to
>>>access the data.