Thursday, February 14, 2008

Cramer and Gabriel's short piece draws much-needed attention to coders as artists worthy of compensation for literally building the tools that other artist/coders depend on to make their own work. The implications of this attention reminded me of the implications of the Hollywood writers' strike (R.I.P.). Now that the writers of movies like 300 will be compensated for residuals and post-release sales, will we hear pleas from the team behind Maya and other 3D imaging/animation software for their cut, too? If digital media is used more and more for commercial purposes, what rights do programmers have to compensation for the work they do to make the creation of such media possible?

On the subject of "reading (into)" code, as Steve mentioned, I found the CODeDOC installation fascinating. Examining the styles of coding and commenting, it's easy to see the complexities of the grammar and syntax of the languages each artist used for his or her piece. One of my favorite parts was reading the comments on each piece written by all the other artists, especially when they took it upon themselves to respond via code and reworking the original pieces. In a way, Martin and Brad chose to "read into" others' code by writing into it.

No comments: