I'd offer my rather rudimentary offering, the cybernetics of performance in new media art, but my contention is that performance really depends on the "conversation", or real time feedback between performer and audience (in whatever configuration ) Can non humans perform? Sure. But I think that recrsiviry draws lines between performance and performativity...

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 22, 2014, at 7:00 PM, NEW-MEDIA-CURATING automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> There are 13 messages totaling 933 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
>  1. on interpreters and compilers (4)
>  2. Can non-human entities perform? (4)
>  3. off-topic: trying to remember a sandy installation...
>  4. is there always an author for code (2)
>  5. March Discussion Begins: The Performativity of Code (2)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:04:23 -0700
> From:    Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: on interpreters and compilers
> 
>> On 21/03/14 02:03 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>> 
>> Something that stuck with me in the dialogue so far which seems
> important (and I don't recall who introduced it), is the idea of a
> compiler or an interpreter that simply refuses to compile syntactically
> malformed code. This really foregrounds the implicit difference between
> "code" (as in computer programming languages) and "language" (as in
> "natural" human languages uttered/written in the world). Theoretically,
> programming code can have all the robust, affective wiggle room of human
> languages -- in other words, it can have the ability to be "misread."
> 
> The meaning of Perl code varies by context:
> 
> http://www.wall.org/~larry/natural.html
> 
> Multimethod dispatch algorithms deal with resolving ambiguity and intent
> (if Yaxu is reading this I'm sure he can relate this to strong static
> type hierachies in functional languages):
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_dispatch
> 
> And if anyone remembers Prolog, that resolves logical constraints and in
> the right circumstances can give (many) more than one answer to a question:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog#Execution
> 
> Nondeterministic programming languages can simulate the chance and
> effect drift functions of misreadings:
> 
> http://p-nand-q.com/programming/languages/java2k/
> 
> But these all feel like weak functional replacements for misreading.
> Which raises the question of whether misreading is necessary to get the
> effects of misreading: can rewriting or intentional ambiguity provide
> the same effects, or is there something either functionally or morally
> unique to the idea of misreading?
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:04:47 -0400
> From:    Stephanie Rothenberg <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Can non-human entities perform?
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Really interested in the relationship of social codes to performing a set
> of codes within the workplace. I keep returning to art and science projects
> that underscore this within the context of our discussions and from the
> perspective of bio ethics. Specifically my colleague Paul Vanouse and his
> work around DNA imaging and how these images can be predetermined based on
> the composition of the substrates manipulating the DNA strands. Paul also
> creates performances of live laboratory experiments demonstrating these
> concepts, an interesting "recursivity" to what we've been talking about.
> 
> From Paul's website "Latent Figure Protocol"
> http://www.paulvanouse.com/lfp.html
> A "DNA fingerprint" is often mis-understood by the lay public to be a
> single, unique human identifier.  Its complex banding patterns imagined as
> an unchanging sentence written by mother nature herself that corresponds to
> each living creature.  However, there are hundreds of different enzymes,
> primers and molecular probes that can be used to segment DNA and produce
> banding patterns.  These banding patterns that appear tell us as much about
> the enzyme/primer/probe as the subject that they appear to reproduce. (Fig.
> 4) My point is that the DNA gel image IS a cultural construct that is often
> naturalized.
> 
> Also, way back in early March someone responded to my first post with a
> link about Therbligs/labor and I can't find it within all this wonderful
> list activity!
> 
> cheers, Stephanie
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
>> Hi List,
>> 
>> 
>> Following Johannes - How similar is Hacking Choreography to Cut Piece?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hacking Choreography - The instructions mimic computer code, though they
>> are not executable on a computer (yet, though Kate has said this is her
>> next project). Dancer(s) interpret the code with their movement.  The
>> instructions change, as in live code, and there is a conversation between
>> the movement and the instructions throughout the duration of the piece.
>> The dancer is tasked with following the instructions.
>> 
>> 
>> Cut Piece - The instructions do not mimic computer code, but the piece
>> emerged at the same time that computer code was becoming more integrated
>> into society/culture.  Ono sits onstage and invites the audience to come
>> and cut her dress.  There is a feminist undertone of violence or sexual
>> violence and a question of how far are the participants willing to "go"
>> with cutting the dress.  The instructions are simple and last the duration
>> of the performance.  The audience is tasked with following the
>> instructions.  In this work, the two objects, the dress and the scissors,
>> are mediating the action of the participants (a result of the instructions)
>> and the reception of that action by the artist's body.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Similarities: Instructions dictate action.
>> 
>> I wonder if Kate has tried engaging an audience with code-based instruction
>> rather than a dancer?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am intrigued by Johannes's question: what would be syntax errors in
>> social code?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In the case of syntax errors in programming code, things might be written
>> in the wrong order, misspelled, or the punctuation is wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In social codes, you can certainly do things in the wrong order (for
>> example, using the wrong fork for the salad course or saying please instead
>> of thank-you).  Misspelling might be equal to doing things almost "right"
>> in a particular situation, but being just a bit off (for example, giving a
>> gift for an occasion, but the gift isn't appropriate - giving a baby
>> present to a newly married couple).  Punctuation could perhaps be analogous
>> to clothing or dress to suit a culture or an occasion.  Punctuating wrong
>> could mean wearing a bathing suit to a formal dinner party.
>> 
>> 
>> Also interesting to consider that a program shouldn't compile with syntax
>> errors, but sometimes it does and then the errors become apparent at
>> runtime.  Perhaps you shouldn't have gone to that dinner party in the first
>> place...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Victoria
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Kate Sicchio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Johannes and all
>>> 
>>> I think these are interesting questions around digital labor in relation
>>> to my work. I have made a series of dance scores that fall under the
>>> 'hacking choreography' project and they explore digital labor in
>> different
>>> ways. I have one score called 'Execute' which was originally a solo and
>>> last weekend was performed by the dance improv group Quick Shifts in
>>> Leicester UK. Executes starts with me reading movement instructions into
>> a
>>> microphone, followed by the word execute. However, the score for the
>>> dancers is not the instructions I am reading. The score for the dancer is
>>> to actually slowly subvert the instructions until they are not performing
>>> the 'code' at all. In the Sunday performance one dancer even threatened
>> to
>>> take the mic from me and create her own instructions. She was the best
>>> choreographic hacker I have performed with to date. I also think this
>> score
>>> links to the idea of the broader ecology mentioned before and Johannes's
>>> comment that code performance is an effect and not a cause.
>>> 
>>> As for the audience, I have found their reactions very positive. Most
>> find
>>> it humorous (I also think it's funny). The performance I linked to had
>> some
>>> syntax errors in my code. This was the most talked about aspect of the
>>> performance. Some people loved the error. Most thought it was intentional
>>> (it was not). And two members of the audience specifically told me that
>> the
>>> typo was horrific because a computer would never follow a command that
>> was
>>> misspelled...
>>> 
>>> I also really like the idea of a syntax error in movement.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> Kate
>>> 
>>>> On 19 Mar 2014, at 22:33, Johannes Birringer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> dear all
>>>> 
>>>> just went back to the first week and thought about (as Andread suggests
>>> below)
>>>> text that is "made to perform" . Code?
>>>> 
>>>> Then watched Kate Sicchio's video (of her "hacking choreography') and
>>> wondered whether others watched it
>>>> and what you thought, and how we understand thart kind of text/writing
>>> as code (instructions for movement)
>>>> and whether you see a relation between code (performed obviously as if
>>> in live coding) by Kate and what the
>>>> two dancers do/act out/mimic?
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoV01_P6PGw
>>>> [
>>>> (Paul Catense then replied he liked this a lot, and mentioned Melissa &
>>> Koosil-ja's techniques (what they call "Live Processing"?)[
>>> http://vimeo.com/27929250]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Andreas Broeckmann schreibt]
>>>>> I find treating artworks as quasi-subjects is a mystification (they
>>>>> are a medium of communication, not an expressive subject), but it's a
>>>>> very tempting one.
>>>> i share your opinion about mystification, and was more interested in
>> the
>>>> technical question whether images can be made to "perform" (as in
>>>> process) in the same way that text is made to perform (as software
>>>> code). i understand that the way in which computers process
>> information,
>>>> they are dependent on this information coming in as strings of binary
>>>> code, right? ......
>>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> words made flesh?  quailty of movement?  How different is Kate's
>>> "choreographic" work from Yoko Ono's Cut Piece mentioned earlier (by
>> Rachel
>>> Beth)?
>>>> what is syntax error in movement and could we say that? and what would
>>> be syntax errors in social code?
>>>> 
>>>> Alex suggested that "No wonder then that live coders rarely look
>> present
>>> at all in the
>>>> performances they give...."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I wondered, then, whether the conversation of a few days ago (on
>>> audience of/for code or audience for (art)performance or artwork)
>>>> can be reflected back on the earlier, stimulating proposal by Tom
>>> Schofield on March 8:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Picking up on Stephanie's point below about digital labour makes me
>>> think about code performativity from the other end. In Stephanie's
>>> examples, people are effectively performing for code. This strikes me as
>>> being the theatrical sense of performativity - trying to fit their bodies
>>> into performances that can be algorithmically recognised - one thinks of
>>> the calibration pose in early generation kinect stuff as an example.
>>>> Conversely, from the Austin/Searle -> Judith Butler , Karen Barad,
>> Nigel
>>> Thrift etymology of the term I think there are still a bunch of related
>>> facets also to do with labour but in a less direct and more distributed
>>> way. Code performs only as part of a broader ecology of systems. It needs
>>> infrastructure to do so in terms of processing power, memory, electricity
>>> but also in a broader (or maybe vaguer) sense, it needs a milieu. Code
>>> performance is an effect not a cause.......In this sense to talk about
>> the
>>> performativity of code is really to talk about the way that it does or
>>> doesn't take fit into a broader ecology. There's no performativity
>> without
>>> embeddedness in context.>
>>>> 
>>>> This I find a very important point, and the theory-inflected use of
>>> "performativity" of code probably misleads or obscures any political
>>> discussion. I'd be interested in asking Kate how her audiences
>> read/receive
>>> the dance they see? And if "performance" does not  imply that one
>> addresses
>>> the (however heightened or reduced) physical, and situational and social
>>> form of these works, then how are these (human) bodies made to fit the
>>> digital labor, how do audiences understand or want such 'hacking'?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> regards
>>>> Johannes Birringer
>>>> dap lab
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> // Victoria Bradbury
>> <PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com
>> Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org
>> New Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org> <CommComm>
>> Attaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com> // Collaborator
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stephanie Rothenberg
> Associate Professor
> Department of Visual Studies, SUNY Buffalo
> [log in to unmask]
> -----
> www.stephanierothenberg.com
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:11:36 -0400
> From:    Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: on interpreters and compilers
> 
> Thanks Rob,
> 
> Exciting (and instructive) specific examples.
> 
> And I agree with your assessment. To me also they feel like "weak functional replacements," or I might say "re-presentations" of misreading or "simulations" of misreading. The whole idea can get pretty scatalogical/sematic >> how can it be a misreading if I intentionally program its possibility? Isn't that more properly understood as an alternate reading rather than a misreading?
> 
> It returns us to jon ippolito's focus on "behavior" (rather than "process") and to turings focus on human-like behavior (rather than "human-ness"). There is a part in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations where he more or less arrives at the conclusion that behaving as if you understand and "understanding" just as soon be the same thing, because how could one person ever "objectively" assess whether another person "actually/essentially" understood, other than by assessing their resultant behavior?
> 
> Pragmatically, misreading matters not based on how "pure" or "authentic" or "human" (whatever those things are) it is. Misreading matters when it leads to something happening in the world that matters. To bring this back to  the  topic of the month -- misreading matters when its results are performed (in ways that matter). So a hermetically sealed digital compiler aleatorically interpreting intentionally vague programming code and compiling it X way one time and Y way another next time based on a system of interpretive rules (however quasi-emergent/generative) -- that's cute. But only to the degree that it begins to connect to larger contexts in the larger world does it begin to matter.
> 
> Which is one reason I enjoy making art that modulates back and forth between human bodies and 'puter systems in lived space time. The chances of misreading exponentially increase. But then I also enjoy conversations at coffee houses and bars for the same reason. The more beer, the more qualitative modulation of affective linguistic slippage, until you finally slip into ye olde (boring) binary disconnect.
> 
> Best,
> Curt
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:04 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21/03/14 02:03 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>> 
>>> Something that stuck with me in the dialogue so far which seems
>> important (and I don't recall who introduced it), is the idea of a
>> compiler or an interpreter that simply refuses to compile syntactically
>> malformed code. This really foregrounds the implicit difference between
>> "code" (as in computer programming languages) and "language" (as in
>> "natural" human languages uttered/written in the world). Theoretically,
>> programming code can have all the robust, affective wiggle room of human
>> languages -- in other words, it can have the ability to be "misread."
>> 
>> The meaning of Perl code varies by context:
>> 
>> http://www.wall.org/~larry/natural.html
>> 
>> Multimethod dispatch algorithms deal with resolving ambiguity and intent
>> (if Yaxu is reading this I'm sure he can relate this to strong static
>> type hierachies in functional languages):
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_dispatch
>> 
>> And if anyone remembers Prolog, that resolves logical constraints and in
>> the right circumstances can give (many) more than one answer to a question:
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog#Execution
>> 
>> Nondeterministic programming languages can simulate the chance and
>> effect drift functions of misreadings:
>> 
>> http://p-nand-q.com/programming/languages/java2k/
>> 
>> But these all feel like weak functional replacements for misreading.
>> Which raises the question of whether misreading is necessary to get the
>> effects of misreading: can rewriting or intentional ambiguity provide
>> the same effects, or is there something either functionally or morally
>> unique to the idea of misreading?
>> 
>> - Rob.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:21:58 -0400
> From:    Barbara Lattanzi <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: on interpreters and compilers
> 
> Rob.
> 
> The link to java2k was startling and funny.  It made me wonder if there is any use to creating a programming language made completely out of puns...for machines or dancers, and thus guaranteeing the "effects of misreading".
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:04 PM, Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21/03/14 02:03 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>> 
>>> Something that stuck with me in the dialogue so far which seems
>> important (and I don't recall who introduced it), is the idea of a
>> compiler or an interpreter that simply refuses to compile syntactically
>> malformed code. This really foregrounds the implicit difference between
>> "code" (as in computer programming languages) and "language" (as in
>> "natural" human languages uttered/written in the world). Theoretically,
>> programming code can have all the robust, affective wiggle room of human
>> languages -- in other words, it can have the ability to be "misread."
>> 
>> The meaning of Perl code varies by context:
>> 
>> http://www.wall.org/~larry/natural.html
>> 
>> Multimethod dispatch algorithms deal with resolving ambiguity and intent
>> (if Yaxu is reading this I'm sure he can relate this to strong static
>> type hierachies in functional languages):
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_dispatch
>> 
>> And if anyone remembers Prolog, that resolves logical constraints and in
>> the right circumstances can give (many) more than one answer to a question:
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog#Execution
>> 
>> Nondeterministic programming languages can simulate the chance and
>> effect drift functions of misreadings:
>> 
>> http://p-nand-q.com/programming/languages/java2k/
>> 
>> But these all feel like weak functional replacements for misreading.
>> Which raises the question of whether misreading is necessary to get the
>> effects of misreading: can rewriting or intentional ambiguity provide
>> the same effects, or is there something either functionally or morally
>> unique to the idea of misreading?
>> 
>> - Rob.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:56:07 +0000
> From:    cliona harmey <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: off-topic: trying to remember a sandy installation...
> 
> hi Andreas, I think its
> Driessens & Verstappen
> http://notnot.home.xs4all.nl/sandbox/sandbox.html
> 
> all the best Cliona
> 
> 
>> On 21 March 2014 21:54, Andreas Broeckmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> friends, i've been wrecking my brain:
>> 
>> maybe a couple of years ago i saw documentation of a non-interactive
>> installation that had a big, maybe 4x4 metre sandbox with ventilators that
>> were blowing dunes through this enclosed mini-desert. the visitors could
>> look into the box through plexi-windows on the sides.
>> 
>> does anybody know who made this, and where i can find the documentation
>> again?
>> 
>> thanks for any hints, regards,
>> -a
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cliona Harmey
> http://www.clionaharmey.info
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:42:15 -0400
> From:    "D. Neal McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Can non-human entities perform?
> 
>> Also, way back in early March someone responded to my first post with a
>> link about Therbligs/labor and I can't find it within all this wonderful
>> list activity!
>> 
>> cheers, Stephanie
> 
> That was me, incompetently managing the auto-reply. I'll resend, now that the
> dancers have been so active:
> 
> ------
> Therbligs remind me of Laban Notation. Now, there's performativity of code.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labanotation
> 
> *And* a portrait of a character to which I *aspire*. Dapper suit, mad wire
> tool/wand/scepter, portentous indication... dude's got the total package.
> 
> There are notation generator algorithms, just as there are music generation
> systems.
> 
> You know, I was expecting this to be a discussion about compilers, but this is
> better. I'm halfway through Cramer's "Words Made Flesh": thanks, list!
> ---------------
> 
> NOT to throw shade on the text analysis!
> 
> I want compilers to be more conceptual, but they always start with grammar,
> and the grammar is always so fussy, so that if there's an error, you don't get
> misinterpretation, you get technical noise about syntax processes. Computer
> languages tend to be mechanical systems optimized for size, speed, and
> simplicity.
> 
> Text is hard to deal with if you don't have a neural verbal center with 100B
> parts and 10 years of training. Concepts appear in code as the shadow of a
> shadow.
> 
> I notice the dancers are not using Labanotation for generative works-- same
> kind of thing? Laban errors just lead to spine injury? Are there notations
> whose errors would be more gentle?
> 
> 
> -- 
> D. Neal McDonald
> Assistant Professor, Animation and Interactive Media
> Department of Visual Arts
> University of Maryland, Baltimore County
> [log in to unmask]  410-455-2581
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:35:47 -0400
> From:    Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Can non-human entities perform?
> 
> neal,
> 
> spine injury choreography made me think of these wonderful alan sondheim pieces:
> http://vimeo.com/21198845
> http://vimeo.com/20716794
> 
> Also francois gamma animations
> http://francoisegamma.computersclub.org/
> 
> And artaud drawings
> http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/12/10/stop-screaming-ideas-are-the-voids-of-the-body-penetrating-connexions-self-serving-excerpts-from-stephen-barbers-the-screaming-body/
> 
> Bodies without organs can take quite a speculative beating, but there's always the (boring) binary threshhold of death looming on the horizon. It's much safer to co-wallop virtual bodies. Cf: jacolby satterwhite:
> http://youtu.be/3LgtGM1Wcss
> 
> Best,
> Curt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:42 AM, "D. Neal McDonald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I notice the dancers are not using Labanotation for generative works-- same kind of thing? Laban errors just lead to spine injury? Are there notations whose errors would be more gentle?
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:11:04 -0500
> From:    roger malina <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: is there always an author for code
> 
> 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
> performance
> 
> 
> roger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> code.
> 
> gh hovagimyan <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:02:58 -0800
> From:    Dennis Moser <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Can non-human entities perform?
> 
> The Satterwhite example immediately brought to mind another explorer in
> this realm, DC Spensley aka "DanCoyote Antonelli" and his Zero G Dancers ...
> 
> here:
> http://youtu.be/xBJPM68Sd3I
> 
> and here:
> http://www.dancoyote.com/
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dennis
> 
> ~~
> If your first move is brilliant, you're in trouble. You don't really know
> how to follow it; you're frightened of ruining it. So, to make a mess is a
> good beginning. -- Brian Eno
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> neal,
>> 
>> spine injury choreography made me think of these wonderful alan sondheim
>> pieces:
>> http://vimeo.com/21198845
>> http://vimeo.com/20716794
>> 
>> Also francois gamma animations
>> http://francoisegamma.computersclub.org/
>> 
>> And artaud drawings
>> 
>> http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/12/10/stop-screaming-ideas-are-the-voids-of-the-body-penetrating-connexions-self-serving-excerpts-from-stephen-barbers-the-screaming-body/
>> 
>> Bodies without organs can take quite a speculative beating, but there's
>> always the (boring) binary threshhold of death looming on the horizon. It's
>> much safer to co-wallop virtual bodies. Cf: jacolby satterwhite:
>> http://youtu.be/3LgtGM1Wcss
>> 
>> Best,
>> Curt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:42 AM, "D. Neal McDonald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> I notice the dancers are not using Labanotation for generative works--
>> same kind of thing? Laban errors just lead to spine injury? Are there
>> notations whose errors would be more gentle?
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:15:23 -0400
> From:    "G.H. Hovagimyan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: March Discussion Begins: The Performativity of Code
> 
> Hi Sarah & List,
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Sarah Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> because they feel safe in terms of what is me
>> and what is not me
> 
> Oh Sara you are setting me up! 
> I can also say it’s all me or it’s all you or it’s both and neither. 
> On a deeper perceptual level, I think humans have filters on all their senses. I think we evolved to survive by filtering out sensations and putting reason to what we experience. 
> Our tool making allows us to see beyond our senses. Our computers think beyond our brain and memory.  We know there is more than what we can sense.  Your idea of safety is probably tied into that notion of evolutionary survival on some level. 
> Is that enough psychology for you? ;-) This gets to the core notion of performance as being.  That’s why using computers and New Media can extend our questioning of our perceptual boundaries. 
> 
> 
> 
> G.H. Hovagimyan
> http://nujus.net/~gh
> http://nujus.net/~nublog
> http://artistsmeeting.org
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:17:10 -0400
> From:    "G.H. Hovagimyan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: is there always an author for code
> 
> 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. It’s 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 can’t 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. 
> /gh
> 
>> 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
>> performance
>> 
>> 
>> roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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
>> code.
>> 
>> gh hovagimyan <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> G.H. Hovagimyan
> http://nujus.net/~gh
> http://nujus.net/~nublog
> http://artistsmeeting.org
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:36:47 -0700
> From:    Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: on interpreters and compilers
> 
>> On 21/03/14 06:21 PM, Barbara Lattanzi wrote:
>> 
>> The link to java2k was startling and funny. It made me wonder if there is
>> any use to creating a programming language made completely out of
>> puns...for machines or dancers, and thus guaranteeing the "effects of
>> misreading".
> 
> There's a technique in programming called "type punning" that
> circumvents the rules of a given programming language in order to allow
> it to perform a task:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_punning
> 
> There's a good discussion of puns and programming languages here:
> 
> http://mndrix.blogspot.de/2012/06/puns-in-programming-language-design.html
> 
> although it moves away from natural language puns almost before it starts.
> 
> There are programs called Quines that output another program:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_%28computing%29
> 
> And there's a Quine that loops through fifty different languages to
> output the original program:
> 
> https://github.com/mame/quine-relay
> 
> I think this kind of code comes close to puns, although again it's not
> like a natural language pun.
> 
> Some programming languages or libraries do infer meaning from, for
> example, the plurality of words. ActiveRecord in Ruby knows that a Dog
> object will go in a Dogs table, for example. So a pun grammar could be
> meaningful in a programming language in the way that you suggest.
> Although I wouldn't want to program a nuclear power station using it. :-)
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:42:39 -0000
> From:    Sarah Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: March Discussion Begins: The Performativity of Code
> 
> Hi GH and list
> 
> I am not setting you up
> this is really serious issue in terms
> of how coders seem to think that we
> are all comfortable with boundaries adjusting
> and this is political on so many peoples' parts
> in terms of readjusting territories
> but it is also deeply psychological in terms
> of being able to tell the real from the symbolic
> I know you said that thing about monkeys and
> yes it's on the right track, but seriously if young
> people are self-harming and getting a thrill out of
> self-harming with others then surely the symbolic
> is failing them in some way in terms of not addressing
> their concerns in terms of 'live coding' or whatever
> Is the performatvity of code not moving both
> psychologically as well as politically to a lot
> of people's interests using psychology as a weapon
> sort of thing
> 
> X
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: G.H. Hovagimyan
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:15 PM
> To: Sarah Thompson
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] March Discussion Begins: The 
> Performativity of Code
> 
> Hi Sarah & List,
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Sarah Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> because they feel safe in terms of what is me
>> and what is not me
> 
> Oh Sara you are setting me up!
> I can also say it’s all me or it’s all you or it’s both and neither.
> On a deeper perceptual level, I think humans have filters on all their 
> senses. I think we evolved to survive by filtering out sensations and 
> putting reason to what we experience.
> Our tool making allows us to see beyond our senses. Our computers think 
> beyond our brain and memory.  We know there is more than what we can sense. 
> Your idea of safety is probably tied into that notion of evolutionary 
> survival on some level.
> Is that enough psychology for you? ;-) This gets to the core notion of 
> performance as being.  That’s why using computers and New Media can extend 
> our questioning of our perceptual boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> G.H. Hovagimyan
> http://nujus.net/~gh
> http://nujus.net/~nublog
> http://artistsmeeting.org
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 21 Mar 2014 to 22 Mar 2014 (#2014-48)
> ************************************************************************