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 experience.
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 produced. '
> 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 safety?
>>> So that we know what is and isn't us, what is symbolic and what is real
>>> because if we suffer momentarily from Virilio's picnolepsy then it might
>>> 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 reveal
>>> 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.