---
# System prepended metadata

title: '[翻譯中]The Meaning of Live: From Art Without Audience to Programs Without Users'

---


 
# [翻譯中]The Meaning of Live: From Art Without Audience to Programs Without Users 
**原文連結** https://zenodo.org/record/7843567
**發表影片** [youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z71KQtWpMk&t=7683s)


Alex McLean
Then Try This
alex@slab.org

Julian Rohrhuber
Institut für Musik und Medien
rohrhuber@protonmail.com

Renate Wieser
rwieser@mail.uni-paderborn.de



## ABSTRACT
The concept of an ‘art without audience’ has informed live coding since its beginnings. Live Coding concentrates on collective work and questions the division between producers and consumers. This understanding of art has enabled a parallel strategy in the understanding of programming: just as an audience is not necessary for art, a user isn’t necessary for programming. In the same sense as we question the separation between developer and user, we question the juxtaposition of artist and audience. This gives us occasion to recall some aspects of live coding which we have always found central to this practice: the displacement of the relation between programmers and programs, and the emancipatory potential of public thought.

自從現場編碼[live coding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_coding)出現以來便受到「沒有觀眾的藝術」這種概念影響著。現場編碼注重彼此合作並質疑生產者與消費者之間的界線。這種對藝術的理解使得對編程的理解出現了一種並行的策略：正如觀衆對藝術來說是非必要的，使用者對於程式來說也是非必要的。就像我們質疑開發者與使用者之間的分隔一樣，我們也質疑藝術家和觀衆的並置關係。這讓我們有機會回顧現場編碼這項實踐的核心特點：程式設計師和程式之間關係的位移，以及共思(public thought)的解放潛力。


## 1 Art Without Audience
Art is assumed to happen for an audience. Despite the importance that theory often gives to the authorship and agency of the observer or listener, still, most art is produced to be consumed. However, when in 1960 Kurd Alsleben experimented with an analog computer, it struck him that a computer drawing is not a product, but something that would become part of a conversation, a mutual exchange. Alsleben, together with Antje Eske, brought the concept of conversation art to life as part of the Hamburg data art movement of the 1980s, combining the ideas of 17th and 18th century salon culture with the possibilities of hypertext and network technology (Eske and Alsleben 2003). They took conversation art to be an art without a stage. As art without audience (Kunst ohne Publikum), it didn’t need one.

藝術被認為是為觀眾而存在的。儘管理論經常強調觀賞者或聽眾的作者身份和行動能力，但大多數藝術仍然是為了被消費而生產的。然而，當1960年庫爾德-阿爾斯勒本(Kurd Alsleben)用類比計算機進行實驗時，他意識到一幅計算機繪圖不僅僅是一個產品，而是能成為對話的一部分，一種互相交流的方式。阿爾斯勒本和安特-艾斯克(Antje Eske)一起，把對話藝術的概念帶入現實。作為1980年代漢堡數據藝術運動的一部分，阿爾斯勒本將17和18世紀沙龍文化的概念與超文本和網絡技術的可能性相結合（Eske和Alsleben 2003）。他們認為對話藝術是一種無舞台的藝術。作為一種無觀眾的藝術（Kunst ohne Publikum），它不需要舞台。

Art without audience takes place in a semi-official space (“offiziöser Raum”) between the personal and public sphere. As Eske and Alsleben pointed out at the 10th Chaos Computer Congress, this space “[…] is the place that makes exchange possible. Data art, Net art is art without audience. There is nothing to be offered: no sender addresses a receiver. Rather what matters is forms/conventions, working out a common code.” ¹ Just removing the spectator may seem to produce nothing but a lonely misunderstood genius. This practice, however, aims for something altogether different: for a participatory community whose members are on equal footing.

沒有觀眾的藝術發生在個人和公共領域之間的一個半官方空間（"offiziöser Raum"）。Eske和Alsleben在第十屆混沌計算機大會上指出，這個空間「[...]是使交流出現的地方。數據藝術、網絡藝術是沒有觀眾的藝術。沒有什麽可提供的：沒有發送者指向接收者。相反，重要的是形式/公約，制定一個共有的準則"」[^1]。僅僅去除了觀眾，似乎除了孤獨被誤解的天才以外空無一物。然而，這種實踐旨在追求完全不同的目標：建立一個參與性的社區，其成員處於相同地位。

Eske and Alsleben were based at the Hamburg art academy, where ten years later, the changing grammars symposium
took place. This symposium brought together live coding practitioners and collectives for the first time. From today’s perspective, it is difficult to imagine the speculative nature of live coding at that time, which from the outside could be seen as impractical and very much against the dominant interests of seamless, gestural interfaces and software engineering workflows. This was the first meeting where we revealed to each other that live coding was feasible as an alternative practice, and shared perspectives on why it was interesting to pursue. The symposium moved programming from being a production of a program, to programming as an integral part of the program - and part of a public thinking process(Blackwell et al. 2014, 17). Against the background of conversation art, we perceived changing programs at runtime as a conversational experience, which naturally fell into place with a displacement of the programming practice into participatory public spaces. Where art is a communal praxis, there is not much need for a third party that consumes it. 

Eske和Alsleben當時隸屬於漢堡藝術學院，十年後，在那里舉行了changing grammars研討會。這個研討會第一次將live coding的實踐者和團體聚集在一起。從今天的角度來看，我們很難想象當時現場編碼實用度不高的理論性質，這在外界可能被視為不切實際，完全違反了無縫設計、手勢界面和軟體工程工作流程之中的主流。我們首次相互透露現場編碼作為某種可行的替代實踐的想法，並分享對於追求這種實踐的觀點。這次研討會將程式撰寫這個行為從單純的製作程式軟體，轉變為程式撰寫即是軟體本身--以及共思過程的一部分(Blackwell et al. 2014, 17)。在對話藝術的背景下，我們將運行時更改程序視為一種對話體驗，這自然而然地將編程實踐轉移到了參與性的公共空間中。在藝術是一種共同實踐的情況下，並不需要一個消費它的第三方。


In retrospect, it is obvious that the possibilities of an art without audience has been an important ingredient in live coding from the very  beginning. From the perspective of a practice that doesn’t require artworks to be received by an audience, programming need not be directed at a finished program applied by users.

回顧起來，從一開始就可以明顯看出，無觀眾藝術的可能性一直是現場編碼中的重要元素。從不需要藝術品被觀眾接收的實踐角度來看，程式撰寫也不需以完成一個用戶可用的程式做為目標。

![](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/HkPTIgCS2.png)
Figure 1: The so called “DreiDrei-Schema” (1992) lays out three forms of communicative polarity in the art. In the right image, the performers’ (Darsteller) communication is witnessed by the audience (Publikum). In the middle, the programmer (Programmierer) controls the users’ communication (User). The leftmost is the schema of art without audience, or art as interchange: the artist is like the other, and the audience becomes a mere coincidental witness (Zeuge). Image by Kurd Alsleben (Alsleben and Lehnhardt 1994)

圖1：所謂的「DreiDrei-Schema」（1992年）概述了藝術中三種交流的極性。在右側的圖像中，表演者（Darsteller）的交流被觀眾（Publikum）所見證。在中間，程序員（Programmierer）控制著使用者（User）的交流。最左側是無觀眾的藝術或藝術作為交流的模式：藝術家像其他人一樣，觀眾成為偶然的見證者（Zeuge）。圖片由Kurd Alsleben提供（Alsleben和Lehnhardt，1994年）。

### 1.1 Collective Exploration

To resolve the division of the spectator is not a single act but a never ending learning process, and various attempts have been made by different live coding groups. PowerBooks_UnPlugged, for example, was a live coding network band formed around 2007 which played its last concert in 2011. Two of the present authors (Wieser and Rohrhuber) were part of it. We played concerts only using laptop speakers and used the supercollider-based Republic system, so we could iterate sound through each others’ machines. It was a displacement of agency: what everybody could hear on one of the laptops was not necessarily what the person behind it was playing, and the code that person would run would be spread out to different laptops through the space (Rohrhuber et al. 2007). Not only was the sound distributed but also the code, one could catch, rearrange and reuse it as it passed around the wireless network. 

淡化觀眾與表演者的界線不是偶然的嘗試，而是一個永無止境的學習過程，不同的現場編碼團體已經做過各種嘗試。例如，PowerBooks_UnPlugged，是一個成立於2007年並在2011年舉行最後一場音樂會的現場編碼網路樂隊。此文中的兩位作者（Wieser和Rohrhuber）是其中的一員。我們只使用筆記型電腦的內建揚聲器在音樂會中演出，並使用基於[Supercollider](https://supercollider.github.io/)的[Republic](https://github.com/supercollider-quarks/Republic)系統，藉此我們可以借用彼此的電腦發出聲音。這是一種施為的轉移：每個人在筆記型電腦上聽到的聲音不一定是背後的人正在演奏的，而且那個人運行的程式碼會傳播到空間中不同的筆記型電腦上（Rohrhuber等人，2007）。不僅聲音是分佈的，還有代碼，當它在無線網絡上傳遞時，人們可以擷取、重新排列和重覆使用它。

The group would sit distributed within the audience space, and if there was one, the stage remained empty. With this setup, the concerts were relatively quiet but spatialised and the people around could look over the shoulders of the performers. We remember sitting there at one occasion, getting ready, while listening to people around us. They were wondering and mocking the concept, because they didn’t understand that we weren’t checking emails, but as the sounds started to fill the space, they realised that they were closer to the performance than expected. In general, this slightly awkward exposure was met with friendly irritation. It has something to do with the performance of distributed authorship, which is the basis of programming in any case (one always continues the work of others). Sitting within the audience was just a little shift of the rules of the game. It didn’t abolish the notion of a third party, but rendered the division of roles porous.

演出時團員會散坐在觀眾席內，如果有舞台，則保持空台的狀態。在這種設定下，表演相對安靜，但聲音空間感很強，周圍的人可以貼身在演出者附近觀看。記得有一次，大家坐定準備好演出，一邊聽著周圍的人閒聊。他們對這個概念感到疑惑並且揶揄，因為他們不明白我們不是在螢幕後查看電子郵件，但當聲音漸漸填滿整個空間時，觀眾便意識到自己比預期的融入表演。一般來說，這種略顯尷尬的暴露會招來友善的激勵。這和演出時分散的作者身份有關，而這本質上是編程的基礎（人們總是延續著前人的工作）。坐在觀眾席中只是遊戲規則的一點改變。它並沒有廢除觀-演的關係，但使角色劃分變得蓬松有彈性。

This theme of a deconstruction of the conventional performer-audience relationship continued to be challenged through the development of live coding culture. While the concept of the ‘laptop orchestra’ (or LorK) translated traditional Western musical hierarchies from instrumental to laptop performance, live coding has instead generally explored more participatory ‘laptop ensembles’ such as PowerBooks_UnPlugged and BiLE. Even where the word ‘orchestra’ appears in the name, such as with the Cybernetic Orchestra, a wholly participatory and communal approach to music making has been taken (Ogborn 2014). 

現場編碼文化的發展，使得這一消解傳統表演者與觀眾關係的主題續面向新的挑戰。雖然 「筆記型電腦樂團」(laptop orchestra或簡稱LorK）的概念將西方傳統音樂從樂器演奏轉為筆記型電腦演奏，但現場編碼通常探索更具參與性的「筆記型電腦共演」(laptop ensembles)，例如PowerBooks_UnPlugged和BiLE。即便「樂團」這個詞出現在名稱中，如[Cybernetic Orchestra](https://nil.mcmaster.ca/cybOrch.html)，也采取了完全參與和共同創作音樂的方法（Ogborn 2014）。

Famously, this participatory and communal spirit is also found in the Mexican live coding scene. After its founding through events at Taller de Audio del Centro Multimedia CENART from 2010 onwards, it quickly became the most active geographically-centred live coding community of its time. The scene developed special practices: live coding ‘from scratch’ for exactly 9 minutes, people played in audio/visual pairs in short performances, which ended in applause by the others (Villaseñor-Ramírez and Paz 2020). 


另一個著名的例子，在墨西哥的live coding圈子中同樣可以看到這種參與性質和社群精神。2010年起，該社群在Centro Multimedia CENART的Taller de Audio（音頻工作坊）舉辦的活動後建立起來，它迅速成為當時最活躍的地區性現場編碼社群。這個場景發展出一些特殊的實踐方式：人們會進行長度9分鐘「從頭開始」的即興編碼，將聲音和視覺配對進行短暫的演出，並在參加者的掌聲中結束（Villaseñor-Ramírez and Paz 2020）[^2]。


These early live coding initiatives replace the focus on the audience with a focus on collective exploration, often referred to as public thought. This shift explains why also the programming activity had to be completely included within the program runtime: there is no user who would be waiting for the programmer to finish programming and ship the software.

這些早期的現場編碼活動將焦點從觀眾轉移到共同的探索上，通常被稱為共思。這種角色的轉移解釋了為什麼必須在程序運行時進行編程：沒有使用者在等待程序員完成程式並發布軟件。

## 2 Disappearance of Programming

The end of computer programming has been prophesied throughout its short history. Most recently it is seen as an activity that can be turbo-charged with a large language model (LLM) ‘co-pilot’ that can write chunks of code for the programmer, or even one that could be replaced entirely with a neuralink device, where thoughts can be directly beamed into the computer. Whether this is or is not possible or imminent is not necessarily interesting for live coders, who will want to involve themselves in music and other artworks, whether or not automated processes are able to mimic them. However, there is an interesting assumption at play here - that the purpose of programming is to optimise the transmission of thought into the computer. Clearly, live coding is a counterexample which undermines this assumption.

在計算機編程的短暫歷史中，人們一直在預言它的終結。最近，它被認為能透過大型語言模型（LLM）"[co-pilot](https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/GitHub_Copilot)"來大幅加速，該模型能為程式設計師撰寫大量的代碼，甚至完全用神經鏈接設備取代，即所思所想可以直接被傳送到計算機。無論是否可能或著即將到來，對現場編碼的實踐者來說都不一定有意義，因為他們會想要自己參與到音樂和藝術作品之中，無論自動化過程是否能模仿他們。然而，這裡存在一個有趣的假設-編程的目的是為了良善思緒在計算機中的傳輸過程。顯然現場編碼是一個反例，破壞了這個假設。

The optimisation of the one-way transmission of thought into applications can be seen as a motivation in the development of live debuggers. On the surface, debugging appears to share common aims with live coding, but there are hidden but profound philosophical differences between them. Live debugging aims to make programming efficient, so that it almost disappears in the fluid transmission of a designed idea from the programmer to a working application. Live coding on the other hand aims to share and distribute the dynamics of the thought process, with all of its uncertainty, anticipation, experimentation and surprise, and where the experience of coding happens in parallel with music, dance, moving image, or discovery and insight.

將想法過渡到應用程式的單向傳輸最佳化過程可以被看作是開發實時偵錯器(live debuggers)的動機。從表面上看，實時偵錯器似乎與實時編碼有著共同的目標，但它們之間存在著隱密而深刻的哲學差異。實時偵錯的目的是使編程有效率，因此，它幾乎消失在設計理念流暢的傳輸過程中，即從程序員到可運作程式的過程。另一方面，現場編碼則是以分享和傳播動態的思緒過程為目的，包括任何的不確定性、預期、實驗和驚喜，編碼時的感受與音樂、舞蹈、動態圖像、探索與洞察同時發生。

In a live debugging environment, the program is placed on a workbench and operated on while it ‘lives’, until it is deemed ready to be distributed to end-users. Conversely, in a live coding environment, the programming doesn’t operate on the program, rather the programming is part of the program. This stands for very different motivations for dynamism. For many ‘future of coding’ and ‘programming language experience design’ researchers, ‘dynamic media’ is a meta-medium encompassing all others, where ‘computational thinking’ melts into the direct transmission of thought into material. However, art forms such as sound or dance are not absorbed into code as an all-encompassing meta-medium, rather live code, as meta-material, allows a fresh yet respectful approach to these established practices.

在實時偵錯環境中，程式被放置在一個工作台(workbench)上，在其「存活」的時候進行操作，直到被認定準備就緒從而分發給終端用戶。相反，在現場編碼環境中，編程並不在程式上操作，相反，編程本身即是程式的一部分。這對於動態性有著非常不同的動機。對於許多「程式的未來」和「程式語言體驗設計」的研究者來說，「動態媒體」是一個包含所有其他媒體的元媒體，在那里「計算思維」化為將思緒直接傳遞於物質。然而，藝術形式如聲音或舞蹈並沒有被吸收到代碼中作為一個全包的元媒體，相反，現場代碼作為元材料，創新且尊重地運用這些已有的藝術形式。

By engaging with material via code, we are able to combine and transform structural elements with outcomes that would be well beyond our imaginations, if those outcomes weren’t immediately presented to our senses, continually interlacing abstraction with perception. Each speculative edit made by a live coder asks the question ‘what if?’, each question informed by what went before, and each answer informing what edit comes next. By comparison, the idea of beaming digital artefacts from our imaginations into the outside world, fully formed, seems beside the point.

透過代碼與材料互動，我們能夠組合和轉變結構化的素材獲得超出想像的結果，如果這些結果沒有立即呈現到我們的感官，也將不斷的把抽象與感知交織在一起。現場編碼者每一次編輯都會著墨「如果這樣會怎樣?」，每一個題問都被過去所影響，而每一個返回的解答都為接下來的編輯提供訊息。相比之下，將我們想像中的數位工藝品製作出來帶到外部世界的想法似乎不重要了。

>digital artefacts ?
>[「artifact」是什么意思？在不同的情景下一般有哪些译法？ - 知乎](https://www.zhihu.com/question/20123266 "「artifact」是什么意思？在不同的情景下一般有哪些译法？ - 知乎")

So while ‘liveness’ has become an increasingly cherished topic in the software engineering community, this is generally only seen as a means for increase in programming efficiency, to the point that the thinking process of programming becomes obsolete. Because public thought, mostly realised in free exploration in small groups, doesn’t scale well, the point of live coding has mostly been lost in the mainstream notion of such ‘liveness’. However for us, the ‘meaning of live’ stands not for this disappearance of thought in the presence of a seamless tool, but quite the opposite – for a whole thinking practice.

因此，雖然「即時性」（liveness）在軟體工程社群已經成為一個越來越受重視的話題，但通常只是被視為提高編程效率的手段，以至於編程的思考過程不這麼被重視。由於共思通常是在小型團體中的自由探索實現的，並不易擴展，因而主流觀念中現場編碼的「即時性」意義大多被淡化了。然而對我們來說，「即時的意義」並不代表思考過程在無縫流暢的工具面前消失，而是恰恰相反--代表整個思考實踐。


> liveness? 
> seamless tool
![](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/rk3Hg5_O2.png)
>現場性：媒介文化中的表演|台灣數位藝術
https://www.digiarts.org.tw/DigiArts/DataBasePage/5_88465471642360/Chi
靈光，不靈光：數位媒介複製時代中的戲劇表演——論「現場性」及「靈光」的消逝與轉化 — 國立臺灣師範大學
https://scholar.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/zh/publications/%E9%9D%88%E5%85%89%E4%B8%8D%E9%9D%88%E5%85%89%E6%95%B8%E4%BD%8D%E5%AA%92%E4%BB%8B%E8%A4%87%E8%A3%BD%E6%99%82%E4%BB%A3%E4%B8%AD%E7%9A%84%E6%88%B2%E5%8A%87%E8%A1%A8%E6%BC%94%E8%AB%96%E7%8F%BE%E5%A0%B4%E6%80%A7%E5%8F%8A%E9%9D%88%E5%85%89%E7%9A%84%E6%B6%88%E9%80%9D%E8%88%87%E8%BD%89%E5%8C%96
周慧玲 數位媒介的表演藝術：論述與操作 – NTU劇場國際學術研討會
https://ntutheater2016cht.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/%E5%91%A8%E6%85%A7%E7%8E%B2-%E6%95%B8%E4%BD%8D%E5%AA%92%E4%BB%8B%E7%9A%84%E8%A1%A8%E6%BC%94%E8%97%9D%E8%A1%93%EF%BC%9A%E8%AB%96%E8%BF%B0%E8%88%87%E6%93%8D%E4%BD%9C/


## 3 Public Thought

Live coding challenges dominant modes both in music and software engineering culture. Through mass media headlines, live coding has either been contrasted from or associated with DJ culture. Headlines such as “DJs of the Future Don’t Spin Records—They Write Code” (Wired Magazine, 2019) suggest that DJs will either be replaced by coders, or have to learn to code themselves – supposedly because typing code is a superior way to selecting and mixing music to using turntables or DJ controllers. These attention-grabbing headlines have bemused live coders, who do not wish to replace DJs, and in any case are not live coding ‘in the future’ but now already, as part of a decades-old practice.

現場編碼挑戰了音樂和軟件工程文化中的主流模式。通過大眾媒體的標題，現場編碼要麽與DJ文化形成對比，要麽與DJ文化相關聯。諸如 「未來的DJ不打碟，而是寫代碼」（《連線》雜誌，2019年）這樣的標題表明，DJ要麽被編碼員取代，要麽必須自己學習編碼-據說是因為輸入代碼比使用唱盤或DJ控制器更適合選歌和現場混音。這些吸引眼球的標題讓現場編碼者感到困惑，他們並沒有意願取代DJ，並且無論如何都不是「未來」的現場編碼，而是現在就已經在進行了，作為已有十多年歷史的實踐的一部分。

However on a different level, the comparison of live coding to DJ culture is interesting to pursue. At a point where the different geographical and cultural strands of DJing are now better known and historicised, the parallels with the different ways that live coding is practiced and understood are coming into view. One parallel is the notion of control: is a DJ seeking to control the experience and behaviour of a crowd? Early DJ Jimmy Saville, who (falsely) claimed to be the first to DJ with twin turntables and microphone in the early 40s, is perhaps the most extreme case of a DJ who explicitly sought to control crowds, a desire which extended to profound, abusive control of the vulnerable people around him. However academics, DJs and party organisers Jeremy Gilbert and Tim Lawrence contrast this notion of the controlling DJ with the work of figures such as David Mancuso, whose legendary ‘Loft’ house parties created a radical Black and Queer-led space for counterculture, away from heavily regulated commercial venues, looking to build a cultural revolution one lounge at a time². Although we would not claim that live coding is comparable as a countercultural force, from our perspective, we can draw some comparisons to the alternative and partly semiofficial venues in which live coding practice developed, such as London’s Foundry pub, Public Life bar, and Open Lab events, Mexico City’s Centro Multimedia, the Access Space media lab, the and the ‘Le Placard’ headphone festival which also emerged from events in apartments in Paris and Tokyo. What these venues and events have in common is an explicit openness, that created space for live coders to find each other and develop a collective community of practice.

然而，在另一個層面上，將現場編碼與DJ文化進行比較是很有趣的。在不同地區的DJ文化和分支已廣為人知和劃入歷史的現在，現場編碼不同實踐和理解方式的相似之處正在出現。其一是關於控制的概念：一個DJ是否在尋求掌控舞客的體驗和行為？早期的DJ吉米-薩維爾（錯誤地）聲稱自己是40年代初第一個使用雙唱盤和麥克風的DJ，他也許是一個明確尋求操控人群的DJ的最極端案例，這種欲望延伸到對他周圍的弱勢人群強烈且濫用的控制。然而，學者、DJ和派對組織者傑里米-吉爾伯特（Jeremy Gilbert）和蒂姆-勞倫斯（Tim Lawrence）將這種控制型DJ的概念與大衛-曼庫索（David Mancuso）等人的工作進行了對比，他的傳奇性「Loft」家庭派對為反主流文化創造了一個激進的黑人和同性戀者主導的空間，遠離嚴格管制的商業場所，希望一次一個地打造一場文化革命，從酒吧(lounge)開始²。雖然我們不會聲稱現場編碼可以與反文化力量相提並論，但從我們的角度來看，我們可以與現場編碼實踐發展的另類和部分半官方場所進行比較，比如倫敦的[Foundry酒吧、Public Life酒吧](https://slab.org/2016/09/01/icfdbtt/)和[Open Lab](https://monoskop.org/OpenLab)活動，墨西哥城的[Centro Multimedia](http://cmm.cenart.gob.mx/)、Access Space媒體實驗室和「Le Placard」耳機慶典，它們也是從巴黎和東京的公寓活動中產生的。這些場所和活動的共同點是明確的開放性，為現場編碼者創造了空間，使他們能夠找到彼此並發展成一個集體的實踐社群。


²For the Love Is The Message podcast, see https://www.loveisthemessagepod.co.uk/, with David Mancuso a recurring reference throughout the first series.

²"愛是信息 "播客，參見https://www.loveisthemessagepod.co.uk/
大衛-曼庫索（David Mancuso）於系列一中反覆提到。

Drawing on these cultural reference points brings attention to live coding’s capacity for rethinking rules and conditions, and sharing the collective wealth that commercial software works so hard against, despite all of its talk of industry and innovation. Whether a live coder brings carefully prepared code to work with, or works from scratch, unless they confront the capacity for change are they really live coding? More than ever, we need to create spaces and practices with a sense that alternatives are possible, in order to imagine a different future. Rejecting commercial licenses, and instead sharing code in free communities away from the extractive economy, feels like a pre-requisite for this (although of course, not enough).

對這些文化參考點的借鑒，使人們注意到現場編碼對規則和條件的重新思考，以及分享共有價值的能力，盡管商業軟件一直在談論工業和創新，但它又總是反其道而行。無論現場編碼者是帶著精心準備的代碼前來，還是從頭開始撰寫，除非他們直面改變，否則他們真的是在現場編碼嗎？我們比以往任何時候都更需要創造空間和實踐，讓人們感覺到替代方案是有可能的，以便想象一個不同的未來。拒絕商用授權，轉而在遠離榨取型經濟的自由社區中分享代碼，似乎是實現這一目標的先決條件（當然還不夠）。



In rejecting a certain kind of virtuosity then, we reject the idea of channeling the virtues of genius for an audience. In the staging of the DJ, this might be expressed by notorious ‘christ’ poses and awkward mixing console gestures. Following Ursula Franklin (1999)‘s characterisations in her lectures ’The Real World of Technology’, technologies of control can be abandoned in favour of technologies of craftwork: a live coder may follow code into unexpected places, writing code to create space for an audience to explore together, rather than to control them.

在拒絕某種精湛技巧時，我們也排斥為觀眾傳播天才的觀念。例如在DJ舞台上，惡名遠播的「基督」姿勢和詭異的混音台手部動作。根據烏蘇拉·弗蘭克林（Ursula Franklin）在她的演講《科技的真實世界》中的描述（1999年），我們應當放棄控制的技術(technologies of control)，轉而採用工藝的技術(technologies of craftwork)：即時編碼者可能會跟隨代碼前往不曾到達的地方，編寫代碼來為觀眾創造共同探索的空間，而不是控制他們。


Lendl Barcelos’ project CUE opens up the experience of DJing in installation form, where visitors are able to hear in one room the headphone mix of a DJ cueing and mixing two records and the main mix in a second room, so the ‘seams of the seemingly seamless become audible’, against the background of what seems to be without gap. This offering of the private world of craft and reasoning reminds us what is offered in a live coding performance, where despite some experiments (e.g. Kirkbride 2020), cueing code on headphones has not developed as a practice. The searching for and preparing of material is shared as part of the end result, with little possibility for inauthenticity and every possibility for surprise, whether through errors, or emergence of form.


Lendl Barcelos的作品《CUE》將DJ表演時的經驗透過裝置形式呈現，參觀者在一個房間裡聽到DJ混音時耳機裡的聲音，並在另一個房間聽見混音後的音樂，因此「看似無縫的縫隙變得清晰可聞」，而另一邊背景聽起來似乎是沒有間隙的。這種私人世界的工藝和原理展示，讓我們聯想到現場編碼表演中提供的內容，盡管有一些實驗性的嘗試（例如Kirkbride 2020）在耳機上監聽代碼，但還沒有發展成為完整的實踐。搜尋和準備材料的過程也作為結果的一部分被分享，偽造的情形幾乎不可能出現，反之是所有可能的驚喜，無論是通過錯誤還是形式而出現。



## 4 Programs Without Users

Just like the idea of an audience is oriented towards the existence of the artist, the idea of a user of a program is centred on that of a developer. Programming work is hidden in order to isolate the situations of use from the situations of development. Thus, software becomes a commodity. Furthermore, while programs can be given away for free, this does not give access to any decisions that were made through them.

就像觀眾是以藝術家的存在為中心一樣，對於程式的使用者也是以開發者為中心的。程式撰寫的工作被隱藏起來，以便將使用與開發的情境隔離開來。也因此，軟體成為一種商品。另外，即便程序可以免費取得，並不意味著能夠干涉程式所做出的任何決定。

It has always been a challenge for those who do free and open source software to give access to the programming activity itself. One can say when everybody is computer literate, the user disappears. Live coding performs this ideal, first of all in making programming a participative and public affair. There is another aspect, however, which is harder to make sense of, especially for those who have learned to be a professional software engineer. So, even though interactive and live programming techniques are increasingly integrated into the tool bench of professional programming, they still only serve the purpose of more efficiently finishing the development and reaching the program as a final product.

對於那些做自由軟體和開放源碼軟體的人來說，如何讓人們親手下去編程向來都是一個挑戰。可以說，當每個人都精通計算機的時候，用戶就消失了。現場編碼完成了這一理想，首先是使編程成為一種參與性和公共事務。然而，還有一個方面是比較難理解的，特別是那些已經學會做專業軟件的工程師來說。即使互動和即時編程技術逐漸被整合到專業編程的工作環境中，它們仍然只是為了更有效地完成開發並以達到最終產品為目的。

This second aspect is that in live coding, the very idea of a program has changed. A program is not programmed to be used later, but is used by programming it. This is why it makes sense to say that, just like an artwork without audience, it is a program without user. And indeed, the notion of the user as opposed to the developer is misleading insofar as it implies a merely passive receiver, a consumer. By contrast, using, rather than being used, is an active participation; and in this sense, just as when we are involved in a conversation with the computer, we are all audience, when programming is the user interface, we are all users. ³

第二個方面，在現場編碼中程序的概念已經改變。一個程序不是為了以後使用而編程的，而是在編程中使用。這就是為什麽說，如同沒有觀眾的藝術一樣，它是一個沒有用戶的程序。事實上，相對於開發者的用戶概念是具有誤導性的，因為它意味著用戶是一個被動的接受者，即消費者。相比之下，使用，而不是被使用，是一種積極的參與；在這個意義上，就像我們參與到與計算機的對話中時，我們都是觀眾，當編程是用戶界面時，我們都是用戶。³

In such art
there is no artist author 
there is no artwork 
there is no distribution 
there is no public
在這樣的藝術中
沒有藝術家身分
沒有藝術作品 
沒有分配 
沒有觀眾
(Kurd Alsleben, „Urheben“, in: Kongressband, 1. Kieler Netztage ’93,Verlag Claus Schönleber, Kiel,1993, p. 197–198, our translation.)

³“When it comes to computing (not least), the term user seems at first to be rather limited and functionary, even when describing well-meaning notions such as user-centered or user-friendly, which are both part of a more general shift toward seemingly inclusive and participatory forms. However, as much as it is clear that the user is open to subtle forms of exploitation, we argue that the user might also be a force for reinvention.”

³「(特別是)當涉及到計算時，用戶這個詞似乎預設是相當有限與功能限定(執行特定功能或操作，缺乏廣泛的參與和影響)，即使是在描述諸如以用戶為中心或用戶友好等良好意圖的概念，這些概念都是更普遍的轉變的一部分，旨在實現看似包容和參與的形式。然而，正如我們清楚地知道，用戶顯然容易受到微妙的剝削，我們認為用戶也可能是一種重塑的力量。」

## References

[^1]:Alsleben, Kurd, and Antje Eske. n.d. “Urheben, Vortragsgespräch auf dem 10. Chaos Computer Congress in Hamburg am 29.12.1993.” In.

Alsleben, Kurd, and Matthias Lehnhardt. 1994. Gesänge über dem Lerchenfeld: Beiträge zur Datenkunst ; Propemptikon & Apopemptikon. 2. Aufl. Material. Hamburg: Material Verl. der Hochsch. für Bildende Künste Hamburg.

Blackwell, Alan, Alex McLean, James Noble, and Julian Rohrhuber. 2014. “Collaboration and Learning Through Live Coding (Dagstuhl Seminar 13382).” Edited by Alan Blackwell, Alex McLean, James Noble, and Julian Rohrhuber. Dagstuhl Reports 3 (9): 130–68. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.3.9.130.

Eske, Antje, and Kurd Alsleben, eds. 2003. NetzKunstWörterBuch. Norderstedt: Books On Demand.

———. 2010. “Hypertext. Kunst Ohne Publikum.” http://konversationskunst.org/index.php/texte/18-eske-a-alsleben- hypertext-kunst-ohne-publikum.

Franklin, Ursula. 1999. The Real World of Technology. 2nd edition. House of Anansi Press.

Kirkbride, Ryan Philip. 2020. “Collaborative Interfaces for Ensemble Live Coding Performance.” PhD thesis, University of Leeds. https://doi.org/ch6_1a-Rehearsal-26_04_17.mpg.

Ogborn, David. 2014. “Live Coding in a Scalable, Participatory Laptop Orchestra.” Computer Music Journal 38 (1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/comj_a_00217.

Rohrhuber, Julian, Alberto de Campo, Renate Wieser, Jan-Kees van Kampen, Echo Ho, and Hannes Hölzl. 2007. “Pur- loined Letters and Distributed Persons.” In Music in the Global Village Conference. Budapest.

[^2]:Villaseñor-Ramírez, Hernani, and Iván Paz. 2020. “Live Coding From Scratch:The Cases of Practice in Mexico City and Barcelona.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Live Coding, 59–68. Limerick, Ireland: University of Limerick. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3939206.