12 Feb
2010
12 Feb
'10
5 p.m.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:17:35PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:47 PM,
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
He's wrong if you take 'they' as meaning 'all of them',
but that was not what he intended to say. Some people
are working on this, and ISTR that you posted another
very interisting link about this some months ago.
He's right is in the sense that in many cases a random
result is accepted as satisfactory - which it can be of
course.
Another aspect is that even without fancy human interface
hardware, even driving a mouse or just typing commands in
a terminal can become something very 'physical' in the Eno
sense if you take if far enough - yet many users don't take
themselves that far. It requires *not* accepting a random
result to get there, no matter what the interface is, a
combination of mind and body.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Over lunch I mentioned to him that few users of
software
or electronic instruments have the amount of control over
their tools that he clearly has over his violins.
His reply was very short and dry: they don't take the
time to learn it.
I believe that he is wrong, and I'll just play the Eno card: "a good
instrument has qualities that the body can learn and the mind cannot"
electronic/computer/electro-acoustic/software instruments/controllers:
a total failure by this metric, except for one:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?s=intimate+control+randall+jones