Hi Roger & the List,
There is always human agency in any of these arguments.
Of course you could have a world without humans but we are talking about coding that is about performance, especially art performance.
All of the systems we have been discussing take a viewer to recognize the system. Itís a simple law of quantum physics. The viewer changes or isolates or recognizes or solidifies or manifests what they are observing.
Furthermore, code is always written with an end result in mind. Even a random system where you canít predict a result has the anticipation of a random result. Indeed, There are infinite variations on randomness in the universe.
They only become interesting when we observe them.
The observer is the audience for the result.
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:11 PM, roger malina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> hi GH
> a few days back you made a statement
> "There is always an author for the code"
> Which I dont think is true and maybe introduces
> other issues on performativity
> one reference of course is dawkins blind
> watchmaker argument- and is particularly relevant
> to the work of algoricists such as john latham
> where the code is self generating and the artist intervenes
> in selection rather than design
> and with much large code-there are innumerable authors
> not an author
> and then you go on:
> there is a result from running the code.
> but like recessive genes, some code may only perform
> when there is a confluence of factors that enable its
> Hi list,
> I think you need to look at the whole coding process. There is
> always an author for the code and there is a result from running the
> gh hovagimyan <[log in to unmask]>