Counteracting alienation with technological arts and crafts

The alienating effects of modern technology have been discussed a lot during the past few centuries. Prominent thinkers such as Marx and Heidegger have pointed out how people get reduced into one-dimensional resources or pieces of machinery. Later on, grasping the real world has become increasingly difficult due to the ever-complexifying network of interface layers. I touched this topic a little bit in an earlier text of mine.

How to solve the problem? Discussion tends to bipolarize into quarrels between techno-utopians ("technological progress will automatically solve all the problems") and neo-luddites ("the problems are inherent in technology so we should avoid it altogether"). I looked for a more constructive view and found it in Albert Borgmann.

According to Borgmann, the problem is not in technology or consumption per se, but in the fact that we have given them the primary importance in our lives. To solve the problem, Borgmann proposes that we give the importance to something more worthwhile instead – something he calls "focal things and practices". His examples include music, gardening, running, and the culture of the table. Technological society would be there to protect these focalities instead of trying to make them obsolete.

In general, focal things and practices are something that are somehow able to reflect the whole human existence. Something where self-expression, excellence and deep meanings can be cultivated. Traditional arts and crafts often seem to fulfill the requirements, but Borgmann becomes skeptical whenever high technology gets involved. Computers or modern cars easily alienate the hands-on craftsperson with their blackboxed microelectronics.

Perhaps the most annoying part in Eric S. Raymond's "How To Become A Hacker" is the one titled "Points For Style". Raymond states there that an aspiring hacker should adopt certain non-computer activites such as language play, sci-fi fandom, martial arts and musical practice. This sounds to me like an enforcement of a rather narrow subcultural stereotype, but reading Borgmann made me realize an important point there: computer activities alone aren't enough even for computer hackers – they need to be complemented by something more focal.

Worlds drifting apart

So far so good: we should maintain a world of focal things supported by a world of high-tech things. The former is quite earthly, so everything that involves computing and such belongs to the latter. But what if these two worlds drift too far apart?

Borgmann believes that focal things can clarify technology. The contrast between focal and technological helps people put high-tech in proper roles and demand more tangibility from it. If the technology is material enough, its material aspects can be deepened by the materiality of the focal things. When dealing with information technology, however, Borgmann's idea starts losing relevance. Virtual worlds no longer speak a material language, so focal traditions no longer help grasp their black boxes. Technology becomes a detached, incomprehensible bubble of its own – a kind of "necessary evil" for those who put the focal world first.

In order to keep the two worlds anchored together, I suppose we need to build some islands between them. We need things and practices that are tangible and human enough to be earthed by "real" focal practices, but high-tech enough to speak the high-tech language.

Hacker culture provides one possible key. The principles of playful exploration and technological self-expression can be expanded to many other technologies besides computing. Even if "true focality" can't be reached, the hacker attitude at least counteracts passive alienation. Art and craft building on the assumed essence of a technology can be powerful in revealing the human-approachable dimensions of that technology.

How many hackers do we need?

I don't think it is necessary for every user of a complex technology to actively anchor it to reality. However, I do think everyone's social circle should include people who do. Assuming a a minimal Dunbar's number of 100, we can deduce that at least one percent of users of any given technology in any social group should be part of a "hacker culture" that anchors it.

Anchoring a technology requires a relationship deeper than what mere rational expertise provides. I would suggest that at least 10% of the users of a technology (preferrably a majority, however) should have a solid rational understanding of it, and at least 10% of these should be "hackers". A buffer of "casual experts" between superficial and deep users would also have some sociodynamical importance.

We also need to anchor those technologies that we don't use directly but which are used for producing the goods we consume. Since everyone eats food and wears clothes, every social circle needs to have some "gardening hackers" and "textile hackers" or something with a similar anchoring capacity. In a scenario where agriculture and textile industry are highly automated, some "automation hackers" may be needed as well.

Computing needs to be anchored from two sides – physical and logical. The physical aspect could be well supported by basic electronics craft or something like ham radio, while the logical side could be nurtured by programming-centered arts, maybe even by recreational mathematics.

The big picture

Sophisticated automation leaves people with increasing amounts of free time. Meanwhile, knowledge and control over technology are held by ever fewer. It is therefore quite reasonable to use the extra free time for activities that help keep technology in people's hands. A network of technological crafters may also provide alternative infrastructure that decreases dependence on the dominant machinery.

In an ideal world, people would be constantly aware of the skills and interests present in their various social circles. They would be ready to adopt new interests depending on which technologies need stronger anchoring. The society in general would support the growth and diversification of those groups that are too small or demographically too uniform.

At their best, technological arts would have a profound positive effect on how the majority experiences technology – even when practiced by only a few. They would inspire awe, appreciation and fascination in the masses but at the same time invite them to try to understand the technology.

This was my humble suggestion on a possible way how to counteract technological alienation. I hope I managed to be inspiring.

How I view our species and our world

My recent blog post "The resource leak bug of our civilization" has gathered some interest recently, especially after getting noticed by Ran Prieur in his blog. I therefore decided to translate another essay to give it a wider context. Titled "A few words about humans and the world", it is intended to be a kind of wholesome summary of my worldview, and it is especially intended for people who have had difficulties in understanding the basis of some of my opinions.

---

This writeup is supposed to be concise rather than convincing. It therefore skips a lot of argumentation, linking and breakdowns that might be considered necessary by some. I'll get back to them in more specific texts.

1. Constructions

Humans are builders. We build not only houses, devices and production machinery, but also cultures, conceptual systems and worldviews. Various constructions can be useful as tools, however we also have an unfortunate tendency to chain ourselves to them.

Right now, humankind has chained itself to the worship of abundance: it is imperative to produce and consume more and more of everything. Quantitative growth is imagined to be the same thing as progress. Especially during the last hundred years, the theology of abundance has invaded so deep and profound levels, that most people don't even realize its effect. It's not just about consumerism on a superficial level, but about the whole economic system and worldview.

Extreme examples of growth ideology can be easily found in the digital world, where it manifests as a raised-to-the-power-two version. What happens if worshippers of abundance get their hands on a virtual world where the amount of available resources increases exponentially? Right, they will start bloating up the use of resources, sometimes even for its own sake. It is not at all uncommon to require a thousand times more memory and computational power than necessary for a given task. Mindless complexity and purposeless activities are equated with technological advancement. The tools and methods the virtual world is being built with have been designed from the point of view of idealized expansion, so it is difficult to even imagine alternatives.

I have some background in a branch of hacker culture, demoscene, where the highest ideal is to use minimal resources in an optimal way. The nature of the most valued progress there is condensing rather than expanding: doing new things under ever stricter limitations. This has helped me perceive the distortions of the digital world and their counterparts in the material world.

In everyday life, the worship of growth shows up, above all, as complexification of everything. It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand various socio-economic networks or even the functionality of ordinary technological devices. This alienates people from the basics of their lives. Many try to fight this alienation by creating pockets of understandability. Escapism, conservatism and extremism rise. On the other hand, there is also an increase in do-it-yourself culture and longing to a more self-sufficient way of life. People should be encouraged into these latter-mentioned, positive means to counter alienation instead of channels that increase conflicts.

An ever greater portion of techno-economical structures consists of useless clutter, so-called economic tumors. They form when various decision-makers attempt to keep their acquired cake-pieces as big as possible. Unnecessary complexity slows down and unilateralizes progress instead of being a requirement for it. Expansion needs to be balanced with contraction -- you can't breath in without breating out.

The current phase of expansion is finally about to end, since the fossil fuels that made it possible are getting rarer, and we still don't know about an equally powerful replacement. As the phase took so long, the transition into contraction will be difficult to many. An increasingly bigger portion of economy will escape into the digital world, where it is possible to maintain the unrealistic swelling longer than in the material world.

Dependencies of production can be depicted as a pyramid where the things on the higher levels are built from the things below. In today's world, people always try to build on the top, so the result looks more like a shaky tower than a pyramid. Most new things could be easily built at lower levels. The lowest levels of the pyramid could also be strengthened by giving more room for various self-sufficient communities, local production and low-tech inventions. Technological and cultural evolution is not a one-dimensional road where "forward" and "backward" are the only alternatives. Rather, it is a network of possibilities burgeoning towards every direction, and even its strange side-loops are worth knowing.

2. Diversity

It is often assumed that growth would increase the amount of available options. In principle, this is true -- there are more and more different products on store shelves -- but their differences are more and more superficial. The same is true with ways of life: it is increasingly difficult to choose a way of life that wouldn't be attached to the same chains of production or models of thinking as every other way of life. The alternatives boil down into the same basic consumer-whoredom.

Proprietors overstandardize the world with their choices, but this probably isn't very conscious activity. When there are enough decision-makers who play the same game with the same rules, the world will eventually shape around these rules (including all the ingrained bugs and glitches). Conspiracy theories or evil-incarnates are therefore not required to explain what's going on.

The human-built machinery is getting increasingly more complex, so it is also increasingly more difficult to talk about it in concrete terms. Many therefore seek help from conceptual tools such as economic theories, legal terminology or ideologies, and subsequently forget that they are just tools. Nowadays, money- and production-centered ways of conceptualizing the world have become so dominant that people often don't realize that there are other alternatives.

Diversity helps nature adapt to changes and recover from disasters. For the same reason, human culture should be as diverse as possible especially now that the future is very uncertain and we have already started to crash into the wall. It is necessary to make it considerably less difficult to choose radically different ways of life. Much more room should be given to experimental societies. Small and unique languages and cultures should be treasured.

There's no one-size-fits-all model that would be best for everyone. However, I believe that most people would be happiest in a society that actively maintains human rights and makes certain that no one is left behind. Dictatorship of majority, however, is not that crucial feature of a political system in a world where everyone can freely choose a suitable system. Regardless, dissidents should be given enough room in every society: everyone doesn't necessarily have the chance to choose a society, and excessive unanimosity tends to be quite harmful anyway.

3. Consciousness

Thousands of years ago, the passion for construction became so overwhelming that the quest for mental refinement didn't keep with the pace. I regard this as the main reason why human beings are so prone to become slaves of their constructs. Rational analysis is the only mental skill that has been nurtured somewhat sufficiently, and even rational analysis often becomes just a tool for various emotional outbursts and desires. Even very intelligent people may be completely lost with their emotions and motivations, making them inclined to adopt ridiculously one-dimensional thought constructs.

Putting one's own herd before anyone else is an example of attitude that may work among small hunter-gatherer groups, but which should have no more place in the modern civilization. A population that has the intellectual facilities to build global networks of cause and effect should also have the ability to make decisions on the corresponding level of understanding instead of being driven by pre-intellectual instincts.

Assuming that humankind still wants to maintain complex societal and technological structures, it should fill its consciousness gap. Any school system should teach the understanding and control of one's own mind at least as seriously as reading and writing. New practical mental methods, suitable for an ever greater variety of people, should be developed at least as passionately as new material technology.

For many people, worldview is still primarily a way of expressing one's herd instincts. They argue and even fight about whose worldview is superior. It is hopeful that future will bring a more individual attitude towards them: there is no single "truth" but different ways for conceptualizing the reality. A way that is suitable for one mind may be even destructive to another mind. Science produces facts and theories that can be used as building blocks for different worldviews, but it is not possible to put these worldviews into an objective order of preference.

4. Life

The purposes of life for individual human beings stem from their individual worldviews, so it is futile to suggest rules-of-thumb that suit all of them. It is much easier to talk about the purpose of biological life, however.

The basic nature of life, based on how life is generally defined, is active self-preservation: life continuously maintains its form, spreads and adapts into different circumstances. The biological role of a living being is therefore to be part of an ecosystem, strengthening the ecosystem's potential for continued existence.

The longer there is life on Earth, the more likely it is to expand into outer space at some point of time. This expansion may already take place during the human era, but I don't think we should specifically strive for it before we have learned how to behave non-destructively. However, I'm all for the production of raw material and energy in space, if it helps us abstain from raping our home planet.

At their best, intelligent lifeforms could function as some sort of gardeners. Gardeners that strengthen and protect the life in their respective homeworlds and help spread it to other spheres. However, I don't dare to suggest that the current human species have the prequisites for this kind of role. At this moment, we are so lost that we couldn't become even a galactic plague.

Some people regard the human species as a mistake of evolution and want us to abandon everything that differentiates us from other animals. I see no problem per se in the natural behavior of homo sapiens, however: there's just an unfortunate misbalance of traits. We shouldn't therefore abandon reason, abstractions or constructivity but rebalance them with more conscious self-improvement and mental refinement.

5. The end of the world

It is not possible to save the world, if it means saving the current societies and consumer-centric lifestyles. At most, we can soften the crash a little bit. It is therefore more relevant to concentrate on activities that make the postapocalyptic world more life-friendly.

As there is still an increasing amount of communications technology and automation in the world, and the privileged even have increasingly more free time, these facilities should be used right now for sowing the seeds for a better world. If we start building alternative constructs only when the circumstances force us to, the transition will be extremely painful.

People increasingly dwell in easiness bubbles facilitated by technology. It is therefore a good idea to bring suitable signals and facilities into these bubbles. Video game technology, for example, can be used to help reclaim one's mind, life and material environment. Entertainment in general can be used to increase the interest in such a reclaim.

Many people imagine progress as a kind of unidirectional growth curve and therefore regard the postapocalyptic era as a "return to the past". However, the future world is more likely to become radically different from any previous historical era -- regardless of some possible "old-fashioned" aspects. It may therefore more relevant to use fantasy rather than history to envision the future.

The relationship between "New Aesthetic" and Computationally Minimal Art

A couple of weeks ago, something called "New Aesthetic" was brought to my attention. It is difficult to find any sort of coherent definition for the idea, but it seems like an umbrella label for a wide variety of visual things that somehow look computational, often in not-so-computational contexts. The main spreader of the meme is apparently a Tumblr blog that collects pictures of things such as pixellated glitches in textiles, real-life voxel sculptures, mugs decorated with website graphics, digitally glitched photographs, satellite images as well as all kinds of other things that evocate suitably futuristic associations.



Despite the profound vagueness of the umbrella term, it is not difficult to notice the general trend it refers to. Just a decade ago, a computationally inspired real-life object would have been a unique novelty item, but nowadays there are such things all around us. I mentioned an aspect of this trend back in 2010 in my article on Computationally Minimal Art, where I noticed that "retrocomputing esthetics" is not just thriving in its respective subcultures (such as demoscene or chip music scene) but popping up every now and then in mainstream contexts as well -- often completely without the historical or nostalgic vibe usually associated with retrocomputing.

As the concept of "New Aesthetic" overlaps a lot of my ponderings, I now feel like building some semantics in order to relate the ideas to one another:

"New Aesthetics", as I see it, is a rather vague umbrella term that contains a wide variety of things but has a major subset that could be called "Computationally Inspired".

"Computationally Inspired" is anything that brings the concepts and building blocks of the "digital world" into non-native contexts. T-shirts, mugs and other real-life objects decorated with big-pixel art or website imagery are obvious examples. In a wide sense, even anything that makes the basic digital building blocks more visible within a digital context might be "Computationally Inspired" as well: big-pixel low-fi computer graphics on a new high-end computer, for example.

"Computationally Minimal" is anything that uses a very low amount of computational resources, often making the digital building blocks such as pixels very discernible. Two years ago, I defined "Computationally Minimal Art" as follows: "[A] form of discrete art governed by a low computational complexity in the domains of time, description length and temporary storage. The most essential features of Computationally Minimal Art are those that persist the longest when the various levels of complexity approach zero."

We can see that Computationally Inspired and Computationally Minimal have a lot of overlap but neither is a subset of another. Cross-stitch patterns are CM almost by definition as they have a limited number of discrete "pixels" with a limited number of different colors, but they are not CI unless they depict something that comes from the "computer world", such as video game characters. On the other hand, a sculpture based on a large amount of digitally corrupted data is definitely CI but falls out of the definition of CM due to the size of the source data.

What CM and CI and especially their intersection have in common, however, is the tendency of showing off discrete digital data and/or computational processes, which gives them a lot of esthetic similarity. In CI, this is usually a goal in itself, while in CM, it is most often a side-effect of the related goal of low computational complexity. In either case, however, the visual result often looks like big-pixel graphics. This has caused confusion among many New Aesthetic bloggers who use adjectives such as "retro", "8-bit" or "nostalgic" when referring to this phenomenon, when what they are witnessing is just a way how the essence of digital technology tends to manifest visually.

There has been a lot of on-line discussion revolving New Aesthetic during the past month, and a lot of it seems like pseudo-intellectual, reality-detached mumbo-jumbo to me. In order to gain some insight and substance, I would like to recommend all the bloggers to take serious a look into the demoscene and other established forms of computer-centric expression. You may also find out that a lot of this stuff is actually not that new to begin with, it has just been gaining a lot of new momentum recently.

"Fabric theory": talking about cultural and computational diversity with the same words

In recent months, I have been pondering a lot about certain similarities between human languages, cultures, programming languages and computing platforms: they are all abstract constructs capable of giving a unique form or flavor to anything that is made with them or stems from them. Different human languages encourage different types of ideas, ways of expression, metaphors and poetry while discouraging others. Different programming languages encourage different programming paradigms, design philosophies and algorithms while discouraging others. The different characteristics of different computing platforms, musical instruments, human cultures, ideologies, religions or subcultural groups all similarly lead to specific "built-in" preferences in expression.

I'm sure this sounds quite meta, vague or superficial when explained this way, but I'm convinced that the similarities are far more profound than most people assume. In order to bring these concepts together, I've chosen to use the English word "fabric" to refer to the set of form-giving characteristics of languages, computers or just about anything. I've picked this word partly because of its dual meaning, i.e. you can consider a fabric a separate, underlying, form-giving framework just as well as an actual material from which the different artifacts are made. You may suggest a better word if you find one.

Fabrics

The fabric of a human language stems (primarily) from its grammar and vocabulary. The principle of lingustic relativity, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language defines a lot about how our ways of thinking end up being like, and there is even a bunch of experimental support for this idea. The stronger, classical version of the hypothesis, stating that languages build hard barriers that actually restrict what kind of ideas are possible, is very probably false, however. I believe that all human languages are "human-complete", i.e. they are all able to express the same complete range of human thoughts, although the expression may become very cumbersome in some cases. In most Indo-European languages, for example, it is very difficult to talk about people without mentioning their real or assumed genders all the time, and it may be very challenging to communicate mathematical ideas in an Aboriginal language that has a very rudimentary number system.

Many programmers seem to believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis also works with programming languages. Edsger Dijkstra, for example, was definitely quite Whorfian when stating that teaching BASIC programming to students made them "mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration". The fabric of a programming language stems from its abstract structure, not much unlike those of natural languages, although a major difference is that the fabrics of programming languages tend to be much "purer" and more clear-cut, as they are typically geared towards specific application areas, computation paradigms and software development philosophies.

Beyond programming languages there are computer platforms. In the context of audiovisual computer art, the fabric of a hardware platform stems both from its "general-purpose" computational capabilities and the characteristics of its special-purpose circuitry, especially the video and sound hardware. The effects of the fabric tend to be the clearest in the most restricted platforms, such as 8-bit home computers and video game consoles. The different fabrics ("limitations") of different platforms are something that demoscene artists have traditionally been concerned about. Nowadays, there is even an academic discipline with an expanding series of books, "Platform Studies", that asks how video games and other forms of computer art have been shaped by the fabrics of the platforms they've been made for.

The fabric of a human culture stems from a wide memetic mess including things like taboos, traditions, codes of conduct, and, of course, language. In modern societies, a lot stems from bureaucratic, economic and regulatory mechanisms. Behavior-shaping mechanisms are also very prominent in things like video games, user interfaces and interactive websites, where they form a major part of the fabric. The fabric of a musical instrument stems partly from its user interface and partly from its different acoustic ranges and other "limitations". It is indeed possible to extend the "fabric theory" to quite a wide variety of concepts, even though it may get a little bit far-fetched at times.

Noticing one's own box

In many cases, a fabric can become transparent or even invisible. Those who only speak one language can find it difficult to think beyond its fabric. Likewise, those who only know about one culture, one worldview, one programming language, one technique for a specific task or one just-about-anything need some considerable effort to even notice the fabric, let alone expand their horizons beyond it. History shows that this kind of mental poverty leads even some very capable minds into quite disastrous thoughts, ranging from general narrow-mindedness and false sense of objectivity to straightforward religious dogmatism and racism.

In the world of computing, difficult-to-notice fabrics come out as standards, de-facto standards and "best practices". Jaron Lanier warns about "lock-ins", restrictive standards that are difficult to outthink. MIDI, for example, enforces a specific, finite formalization of musical notes, effectively narrowing the expressive range of a lot of music. A major concern risen by "You are not a gadget" is that technological lock-ins of on-line communication (e.g. those prominent in Facebook) may end up trivializing humanity in a way similar to how MIDI trivializes music.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with standards per se. Standards, also including constructs such as lingua francas and social norms, can be very helpful or even vital to humanity. However, when a standard becomes an unquestionable dogma, there's a good chance for something evil to happen. In order to avoid this, we always need individuals who challenge and deconstruct the standards, keeping people aware of the alternatives. Before we can think outside the box, we must first realize that we are in a box in the first place.

Constraints

In order to make a fabric more visible and tangible, it is often useful to introduce artificial constraints to "tighten it up". In a human language, for example, one can adopt a form of constrained writing, such as a type of poetry, to bring up some otherwise-invisible aspects of the linguistic fabric. In normal, everyday prose, words are little more than arbitrary sequences of symbols, but when working under tight constraints, their elementary structures and mutual relationships become important. This is very similar to what happens when programming in a constrained environment: previously irrelevant aspects, such as machine code instruction lengths, suddenly become relevant.

Constrained programming has long traditions in a multitude of hacker subcultures, including the demoscene, where it has obtained a very prominent role. Perhaps the most popular type of constraint in all hacker subcultures in general is the program length constraint, which sets an upper limit to the size of either the source code or the executable. It seems to be a general rule that working with ever smaller program sizes brings the programmer ever closer to the underlying fabric: in larger programs, it is possible to abstract away a lot of it, but under tight constraints, the programmer-artist must learn to avoid abstraction and embrace the fabric the way it is. In the smallest size classes, even such details as the ordering of sound and video registers in the I/O space become form-giving, as seen in the sub-32-byte C-64 demos by 4mat of Ate Bit, for example.

Mind-benders

Sometimes a language or a platform feels tight enough even without any additional constraints. A lot of this feeling is subjective, caused by the inability to express oneself in the previously learned way. When learning a new human language that is completely different to one's mother tongue, one may feel restricted when there's no counterpart for a specific word or grammatical cosntruct. When encountering such a "boundary", the learner needs to rethink the idea in a way that goes around it. This often requires some mind-bending. The same phenomenon can be encountered when learning different programming languages, e.g. learning a declarative language after only knowing imperative ones.

Among both human and programming languages, there are experimental languages that have been deliberately constructed as "mind-benders", having the kind of features and limitations that force the user to rethink a lot of things when trying to express an idea. Among constructed human languages, a good example is Sonja Elen Kisa's minimalistic "Toki Pona" that builds everything from just over 120 basic words. Among programming languages, the mind-bending experiments are called "esoteric programming languages", with the likes of Brainfuck and Befunge often mentioned as examples.

In computer platforms, there's also a lot of variance in "objective tightness". Large amounts of general-purpose computing resources make it possible to accurately emulate smaller computers; that is, a looser fabric may sometimes completely engulf a tighter one. Because of this, the experience of learning a "bigger" platform after a "smaller" one is not usually very mind-bending compared to the opposite direction.

Nothing is neutral

Now, would it be possible to create a language or a computer that would be totally neutral, objective and universal? I don't think so. Trying to create something that lacks fabric is like trying to sculpt thin air, and fabrics are always built from arbitrarities. Whenever something feels neutral, the feeling is usually deceptive.

Popular fabrics are often perceived as neutral, although they are just as arbitrary and biased as the other ones. A tribe that doesn't have very much contact with other tribes typically regards its own language and culture as "the right one" and everyone else as strange and deviant. When several tribes come together, they may choose one language as their supposedly neutral lingua franca, and a sufficiently advanced group of tribes may even construct a simplified, bland mix-up of all of its member languages, an "Esperanto". But even in this case, the language is by no means universal; the fabric that is common between the source languages is still very much present. Even if the language is based on logical principles, i.e. a "Lojban", the chosen set of principles is arbitrary, not to mention all the choices made when implementing those principles.

Powerful computers can usually emulate many less powerful ones, but this does not make them any less arbitrary. On the contrary, modern IBM PC compatibles are full of arbitrary desgin choices stacked on one another, forming a complex spaghetti of historical trials and errors that would make no sense at all if designed from scratch. The modern IBM PC platform therefore has a very prominent fabric, and the main reason why it feels so neutral is its popularity. Another reason is that the other platforms have many a lot of the same design choices, making today's computer platforms much less diverse than what they were a couple of decades ago. For example, how many modern platforms can you name that use something other than RGB as their primary colorspace, or something other than a power of two as their word length?

Diversity is diminishing in many other areas as well. In countries with an astounding diversity, like Papua-New-Guinea, many groups are abandoning their unique native languages and cultures in favor of bigger and more prestigious ones. I see some of that even in my own country, where many young and intelligent people take pride in "thinking in English", erroreusnly assuming that second-language English would be somehow more expressive for them than their mother tongue. In a dystopian vision, the diversity of millennia-old languages and cultures is getting replaced by a global English-language monoculture where all the diversity is subcultural at best.

Conclusion

It indeed seems to be possible to talk about human languages, cultures, programming languages, computing platforms and many other things with similar concepts. These concepts also seem so useful at times that I'm probably going to use them in subsequent articles as well. I also hope that this article, despite its length, gives some food for thought to someone.

Now, go to the world and embrace the mind-bending diversity!

Materiality and the demoscene: when does a platform feel real?

I've just finished reading Daniel Botz's 428-page PhD dissertation "Kunst, Code und Maschine: Die Ästhetik der Computer-Demoszene".

The book is easily the best literary coverage of the demoscene I've seen so far. It is basically a history of demos as an artform with a particular emphasis on the esthetical aspects of demos, going very deeply into different styles and techniques and their development, often in relation to the features of the three "main" demoscene platforms (C-64, Amiga and PC).

What impressed me the most in the book and gave me most food for thought, however, was the theoretical insight. Botz uses late Friedrich Kittler's conception of media materiality as a theoretical device to explain how the demoscene relates to the hardware platforms it uses, often contrasting the relationship to that of the mainstream media art. In short: the demoscene cares about the materiality of the platforms, while the mainstream art world ignores it.

To elaborate: mainstream computer artists regard computers as tools, universal "anything machines" that can translate pure, immaterial, technology-independent ideas into something that can be seen, heard or otherwise experienced. Thus, ideas come before technology. Demosceners, however, have an opposite point of view; for them, technology comes before ideas. A computer platform is seen as a material that can be brought into different states, in a way comparable to how a sculptor brings blocks of stone into different forms. The possibilities of a material can be explored with direct, uncompromising interaction such as low-level programming. The platform is not neutral, its characteristics are essential to what demos written for it end up being like. While a piece of traditional computer art can often be safely removed from its specific technological context, a demo is no longer a demo if the platform is neglected.

The focus on materiality also results in a somewhat unusual relationship with technology. For most people, computer platforms are just evolutionary stages on a timeline of innovation and obsolescence. A device serves for a couple of years before getting abandoned in favor of a new model that is essentially the same with higher specs. The characteristics of a digital device boil down to numerical statistics in the spirit of "bigger is better". The demoscene, however, sees its platforms as something more multi-faceted. An old computer or gaming console may be interesting as an artistic material just because of its unique combination of features and limitations. It is fine to have historical, personal or even political reasons for choosing a specific platform, but they're not necessary; the features of the system alone are enough to grow someone's creative enthusiasm. As so many people misunderstand the relationship between demoscene and old hardware as a form of "retrocomputing", it is very delightful to see such an accurate insight to it.

But is it really that simple?

I'm not entirely familiar with the semantic extent of "materiality" in media studies, but it is apparent that it primarily refers to physicality and concreteness. In many occasions, Botz contrasts materiality against virtuality, which, I think, is an idea that stems from Gilles Deleuze. This dichotomy is simple and appealing, but I disagree with Botz in how central it is to what the demoscene is doing. After all, there are, for example, quite many 8-bit-oriented demoscene artists who totally approve virtualization. Artists who don't care whether their works are shown with emulators or real hardware at parties, as long as the logical functionality is correct. Some even produce art for the C-64 without having ever owned a material C-64. Therefore, virtualization is definitely not something that is universally frowned upon on the demoscene. It is apparently also possible to develop a low-level, concrete material relationship with an emulated machine, a kind of "material" that is totally virtual to begin with!

Computer programming is always somewhat virtual, even in its most down-to-the-metal incarnations. Bits aren't physical objects; concentrations of electrons only get the role of bits from how they interact with the transistors that form the logical circuits. A low-level programmer who strives for a total, optimal control of a processor doesn't need to be familiar with these material interactions; just knowing the virtual level of bits, registers, opcodes and pipelines is enough. The number of abstraction layers between the actual bit-twiddling and the layer visible to the programmer doesn't change how programming a processor feels like. A software emulator or an FPGA reimplementation of the C-64 can deliver the same "material feeling" to the programmer as the original, NMOS-based C-64. Also, if the virtualization is perfect enough to model the visible and audible artifacts that stem from the non-binary aspects of the original microchips, even a highly experienced enthusiast can be fooled.

I therefore think it is more appropriate to consider the "feel of materiality" that demosceners experience to stem from the abstract characteristics of the platform than its physicality. Programming an Atari VCS emulator running in an X86 PC on top of an operating system may very well feel more concrete than programming the same PC directly with the X86 assembly language. When working with a VCS, even a virtualized one, a programmer needs to be aware of the bit-level machine state at all times. There's no display memory in the VCS; the only way to draw something on the screen is by telling the processor to put specific values in specific video chip registers at specific clock cycles. The PC, however, does have a display memory that holds the pixel values of the on-screen picture, as well as a video chip that automatically refreshes its contents to the screen. A PC programmer can therefore use very generic algorithms to render graphics in the display memory without caring about the underlying hardware, while on the VCS everything needs to be thought out from the specific point of view of the video chip and the CPU.

It seems that the "feel of materiality" has particularly much to do with complexity -- of both the platform and the manipulated data. A high-resolution picture, taking up megabytes of display memory, looks nearly identical on a computer screen regardless of whether it is internally represented in RGB or YUV colorspace. However, when we get a pixel artist to create versions of the same picture for various formats that use less than ten kilobytes of display memory, such as PC textmode or C-64 multicolor, the specific features and constraints of each format shine out very clearly. High levels of complexity allow for generic, platform-independent and general-purpose techniques whereas low levels of complexity require the artist to form a "material relationship" with the format.

Low complexity and the "feel of materiality" are also closely related to the "feel of total control" which I regard as an important state that demosceners tend to reach for. The lower the complexity of a platform, the easier it is to reach a total understanding of its functionality. Quite often, coders working on complex platforms choose to deliberately lower the perceived complexity by concentrating on a reduced, "essential" subset of the programming interface and ignoring the rest. Someone who codes for a modern PC, for example, may want to ignore the polygonal framework of the 3D API altogether and exclusively concentrate on shader code. Those who write softsynths, even for tiny size classes, tend to ignore high-level synthesis frameworks that may be available on the OS and just use a low-level PCM-soundbuffer API. Subsets that provide nice collections of powerful "Lego blocks" are the way to go. Even though bloated system libraries may very well contain useful routines that can be discovered and abused in things like 4-kilobyte demos, most democoders frown upon this idea and may even consider it cheating.

Emulators, virtual platforms and reduced programming interfaces are ways of creating pockets of lowered complexity within highly complex systems -- pockets that feel very "material" and controllable for a crafty programmer. Even virtual platforms that are highly abstract, idealistic and mathematical may feel "material". The "oneliner music platform", merely defined as C-like expression syntax that calculates PCM sample values, is a recent example of this. All of its elements are defined on a relatively high level, no specification of any kind of low-level machine, virtual or otherwise. Nevertheless, a kind of "material characteristic" or "immanent esthetics" still emerges from this "platform", both in how the sort formulas tend to sound like and what kind of hacks and optimizations are better than others.

The "oneliner music platform" is perhaps an extreme example, but in general, purely virtual platforms have been there for a while already. Things like Java demos, as well as multi-platform portable demos, have been around since the late 1990s, although they've usually remained quite marginal. For some reason, however, Botz seems to ignore this aspect of the demoscene nearly completely, merely stating that multi-platform demos have started to appear "in recent years" and that the phenomenon may grow bigger in the future. Perhaps this is a deliberate bias chosen to avoid topics that don't fit well within Botz's framework. Or maybe it's just an accident. I don't know.

Conclusion

To summarize: when Botz talks about the materiality of demoscene platforms, he often refers to phenomena that, in my opinion, could be more fruitfully analyzed with different conceptual devices, especially complexity. Wherever the dichotomy of materiality and immateriality comes up, I see at least three separate conceptual dimensions working under the hood:

1. Art vs craft (or "idea-first" vs "material-first"). This is the area where Botz's theory works very well: demoscene is, indeed, more crafty or "material-first" than most other communities of computer art. However, the material (i.e. the demo platform) doesn't need to be material (i.e. physical); the crafty approach works equally well with emulated and purely virtual platforms. The "artsy" approach, leading to conceptual and "avant-garde" demos, has gradually become more and more accepted, however there's still a lot of crafty attitude in "art demos" as well. I consider chip musicians, circuit-benders and homebrew 8-bit developers about as crafty on average as demosceners, by the way.

2. Physicality vs virtuality. There's a strong presence of classic hardware enthusiasm on the demoscene as well as people who build their own hardware, and they definitely are in the right place. However, I don't think the physical hardware aspect is as important in the demoscene as, for example in the chip music, retrogaming and circuit-bending communities. On the demoscene, it is more important to demonstrate the ability to do impressive things in limited environments than to be an owner of specific physical gear or to know how to solder. A C-64 demo can be good even if it is produced with an emulator and a cross-compiler. Also, as demo platforms can be very abstract and purely virtual as well and still be appealing to the subculture, I don't think there's any profound dogma that would drive demosceners towards physicality.

3. Complexity. The possibility of forming a "material relationship" with an emulated platform shows that the perception of "materiality", "physicality" and "controllability" is more related to the characteristics of the logical platform than to how many abstraction layers there are under the implementation. A low computational complexity, either in the form of platform complexity or program size, seems to correlate with a "feeling of concreteness" as well as the prominence of "emergent platform-specific esthetics". What I see as the core methodology of the demoscene seems to work better at low than high levels of complexity and this is why "pockets of lowered complexity" are often preferred by sceners.

Don't take me wrong: despite all the disagreements and my somewhat Platonist attitude to abstract ideas in general, I still think virtuality and immateriality have been getting too much emphasis in today's world and we need some kind of a countercultural force that defends the material. Botz also covers possible countercultural aspects of the demoscene, deriving them from the older hacker culture, and I found all of them very relevant. My basic disagreement comes from the fact that Botz's theory doesn't entirely match with how I perceive the demoscene to operate, and the subculture as a whole cannot therefore be put under a generalizing label such as "defenders and lovers of the materiality of the computer".

Anyway, I really enjoyed reading Botz's book and especially appreciated the theoretical insight. I recommend the book to everyone who is interested in the demoscene, its history and esthetic variety, AND who reads German well. I studied the language for about five years at school but I still found the text quite difficult to decipher at places. I therefore sincerely hope that my problems with the language haven't led me to any critical misunderstandings.

Some deep analysis of one-line music programs.

It is now a month since I posted the YouTube video "Experimental music from very short C programs" and three weeks since I blogged about it. Now that the initial craze seems to be over, it's a good time to look back what has been done and consider what could be done in the future.

The developments since my last post can be summarized by my third video. It still represents the current state of the art quite well and includes a good variety of different types of formulas.

The videos only show off a portion of all the formulas that could be included. To compensate, I've created a text file where I've collected all the "worthy" formulas I've encountered so far. Most of them can be tested in the on-line JavaScript and ActionScript test tools. Some of them don't even work directly in C code, as they depend on JS/AS-specific features.

As I'm sure that many people still find these formulas rather magical and mysterious, I've decided to give you a detailed technical analysis and explanation on the essential techniques. As I'm completely self-educated in music theory, please pardon my notation and terminology that may be unorthodox at times. You should also have a grasp of C-like expression syntax and binary arithmetic to understand most of the things I'm going to talk about.

I've sorted my formula collection by length. By comparing the shortest and longest formulas, it is apparent that the longest formulas show a much more constructivist approach, including musical data stored in constants as well as entire piece-by-piece-constructed softsynths. The shortest formulas, on the other hand, are very often discovered via non-deterministic testing, from educated guesses to pure trial-and-error. One of my aims with this essay is to bring some understanding and determinism to the short side as well.

Pitches and scales

A class of formulas that is quite prominent among the shortest ones is what I call the 't* class'. The formulas of this type multiply the time counter t with some expression, resulting in a sawtooth wave that changes its pitch according to that expression.

A simple example of a t*-class formula would be t*(t>>10) which outputs a rising and falling sound (accompanied by some aliasing artifacts that create their own sounds). Now, if we introduce an AND operator to this formula, we can restrict the set of pitches and thus create melodies. An example that has been individually discovered by several people, is the so-called "Forty-Two Melody": t*(42&t>>10) or t*2*(21&t>>11).

The numbers that indicate pitches are not semitones or anything like that, but multiplies of a base frequency (sampling rate divided by 256, i.e. 31.25 Hz at the default 8 kHz rate). Here is a table that maps the integer pitches 1..31 to cents and Western note names. The pitches on a gray background don't have good counterparts in the traditional Western system, so I've used quarter-tone flat and sharp symbols to give them approximate names.

By using this table, we can decode the Forty-Two Melody into a human-readable form. The melody is 32 steps long and consists of eight unique pitch multipliers (including zero which gives out silence).

The "Forty-Two Melody" contains some intervals that make it sound a little bit silly, detuned or "Arabic" to Western ears. If we want to avoid this effect, we need to design our formulas so that they only yield pitches that are at familiar intervals from one another. A simple solution is to include a modulo operator to wrap larger numbers to the range where simple integer ratios are more probable. Modifying the Forty-Two Melody into t*((42&t>>10)%14), for example, completely transforms the latter half of the melody into something that sounds a little bit nicer to Western ears. Bitwise AND is also useful for limiting the pitch set to a specific scale; for example t*(5+((t>>11)&5)) produces pitch multipliers of 4, 5, 8 and 9, which correspond to E3, G3, C4 and D4.

Ryg's 44.1 kHz formula presented in the third video contains two different melody generators:

((t*("36364689"[t>>13&7]&15))/12&128)

+(((((t>>12)^(t>>12)-2)%11*t)/4|t>>13)&127)

The first generator, in the first half of the formula, is based on a string constant that contains a straight-forward list of pitches. This list is used for the bass pattern. The other generator, whose core is the subexpression ((t>>12)^(t>>12)-2)%11, is more interesting, as it generates a rather deep self-similar melody structure with just three operators (subtraction, exclusive or, modulo). Rather impressive despite its profound repetitiveness. Here's an analysis of the series it generates:

It is often a good idea to post-process the waveform output of a plain t* formula. The sawtooth wave tends to produce a lot of aliasing artifacts, particularly at low sampling rates. Attaching a '&128' or '&64' in the end of a t* formula switches the output to square wave which usually sounds a little bit cleaner. An example of this would be Niklas Roy's t*(t>>9|t>>13)&16 which sounds a lot noisier without the AND (although most of the noise in this case comes from the unbounded multiplication arithmetic, not from aliasing).

Bitwise waveforms and harmonies

Another class of formulas that is very prominent among the short ones is the bitwise formula. At its purest, such a formula only uses bitwise operations (shifts, negation, AND, OR, XOR) combined with constants and t. A simple example is t&t>>8 -- the "Sierpinski Harmony". Sierpinski triangles appear very often in plotted visualizations of bitwise waveforms, and t&t>>8 represents the simplest type of formula that renders into a nice Sierpinski triangle.

Bitwise formulas often sound surprisingly multitonal for their length. This is based on the fact that an 8-bit sawtooth wave can be thought of consisting of eight square waves, each an octave apart from its neighbor. Usually, these components fuse together in the human brain, forming the harmonics of a single timbre, but if we turn them on and off a couple of times per second or slower, the brain might perceive them as separate tones. For example, t&48 sounds quite monotonal, but in t&48&t>>8, the exactly same waveform sounds bitonal because it abruptly extends the harmonic content of the previous waveform.

The loudest of the eight square-wave components of an 8-bit wave is, naturally, the one represented by the most significant bit (&128). In the sawtooth wave, it is also the longest in wavelength. The second highest bit (&64) represents a square wave that has half the wavelength and amplitude, the third highest halves the parameters once more, and so on. By using this principle, we can analyze the musical structure of the Sierpinski Harmony:

The introduction of ever lower square-wave components can be easily heard. One can also hear quite well that every newly introduced component is considerably lower in pitch than the previous one. However, if we include a prime multiplier in the Sierpinski Harmony, we will encounter an anomaly. In (t*3)&t>>8, the loudest tone actually goes higher at a specific point (and the interval isn't an octave either).

This phenomenon can be explained with aliasing artifacts and how they are processed by the brain. The main wavelength in t*3 is not constant but alternates between two values, 42 and 43, averaging to 42.67 (256/3). The human mind interprets this kind of sound as a waveform of the average length (42.67 samples) accompanied by an extra sound that represents the "error" (or the difference from the ideal wave). In the t*3 example, this extra sound has a period of 256 samples and sounds like a buzzer when listened separately.

The smaller the wavelengths we are dealing with are, the more prominent these aliasing artifacts become, eventually dominating over their parent waveforms. By listening to (t*3)&128, (t*3)&64 and (t*3)&32, we notice an interval of an octave between them. However, when we step over from (t*3)&32 to (t*3)&16, the interval is definitely not an octave. This is the threshold where the artifact wave becomes dominant. This is why t&t>>8, (t*3)&t>>8 and (t*5)&t>>8 sound so different. It is also the reason why high-pitched melodies may sound very detuned.

Variants of the Sierpinski harmony can be combined to produce melodies. Examples of this approach include:

t*5&(t>>7)|t*3&(t*4>>10) (from miiro)

(t*5&t>>7)|(t*3&t>>10) (from viznut)

t*9&t>>4|t*5&t>>7|t*3&t/1024 (from stephth)

Different counters are the driving force of bitwise formulas. At their simplest, counters are just bitshifted versions of the main counter (t). These are implicitly synchronized with each other and work on different temporal levels of the musical piece. However, it has also been fruitful to experiment with counters that don't have a simple common denominator, and even with ones whose speeds are nearly identical. For example, t&t%255 brings a 256-cycle counter and a 255-cycle counter together with an AND operation, resulting in an ambient drone sound that sounds like something achievable with pulse-width modulation. This approach seems to be more useful for loosely structured soundscapes than clear-cut rhythms or melodies.

Some oneliner songs attach a bitwise operation to a melody generator for transposing the output by whole octaves. A simple example is Rrrola's t*(0xCA98>>(t>>9&14)&15)|t>>8 which would just loop a simple series of notes without the trailing '|t>>8'. This part gradually fixes the upper bits of the output to 1s, effectively raising the pitch of the melody and fading its volume out. Also the formulas from Ryg and Kb in my third video use this technique. The most advanced use of it I've seen so far, however, is in Mu6k's song (the last one in the 3rd video) which synthesizes its lead melody (along with some accompanying beeps) by taking the bassline and selectively turning its bits on and off. This takes place within the subexpression (t>>8^t>>10|t>>14|x)&63 where the waveform of the bass is input as x.

Modular wrap-arounds and other synthesis techniques

All the examples presented so far only use counters and bitwise operations to synthesize the actual waveforms. It's therefore necessary to talk a little bit about other operations and their potential as well.

By accompanying a bitwise formula with a simple addition or substraction, it is possible to create modular wrap-around artifacts that produce totally different sounds. Tiny, nearly inaudible sounds may become very dominant. Harmonious sounds often become noisy and percussive. By extending the short Sierpinski harmony t&t>>4 into (t&t>>4)-5, something that sounds like an "8-bit" drum appears on top of it. The same principle can also be applied to more complex Sierpinski harmony derivatives as well as other bitwise formulas:

(t*9&t>>4|t*5&t>>7|t*3&t/1024)-1

I'm not going into a deep analysis of how modular wrap-arounds affect the harmonic structure of a sound, as I guess someone has already done the math before. However, modular addition can be used for something that sounds like oscillator hard-sync in analog synthesizers, although its technical basis is different.

Perhaps the most obvious use for summing in a softsynth, however, is the one where modular wrap-around is not very useful: mixing of several sound sources together. A straight-forward recipe for this is (A&127)+(B&127), which may be a little long-winded when aiming at minimalism. Often, just a simple XOR operation is enough to replace it, although it usually produces artifacts that may sound good or bad depending on the case. XOR can also be used for effects that sound like hard-sync.

Of course, modular wrap-around effects are also achievable with multiplication and division, and on the other hand, even without addition or subtraction. I'll illustrate this with just a couple of interesting-sounding examples:

t>>4|t&((t>>5)/(t>>7-(t>>15)&-t>>7-(t>>15))) (from droid, js/as only)

(int)(t/1e7*t*t+t)%127|t>>4|t>>5|t%127+(t>>16)|t (from bst)

t>>6&1?t>>5:-t>>4 (from droid)

There's a lot in these and other synthesis algorithms that could be discussed, but as they already belong to a zone where traditional sound synthesis lore applies, I choose to go on.

Deterministic composition

When looking at the longest formulas in the collection, it is apparent that there's a lot of intelligent design behind most of them. Long constants and tables, sometimes several of them, containing scales, melodies, basslines and drum patterns. The longest formula in the collection is "Long Line Theory", a cover of the soundtrack of the 64K demo "Chaos Theory" by Conspiracy. The original version by mu6k was over 600 characters long, from which the people on Pouet.net optimized it down to 300 characters, with some arguable quality tradeoffs.

It is, of course, possible to synthesize just about anything with a formula, especially if there's no upper limit for the length. Synthesis and sequencing logic can be built section by section, using rather generic algorithms and proven engineering techniques. There's no magic in it. But on the other hand, there's no magic in pure non-determinism either: it is very difficult to find anything outstanding with totally random experimentation after the initial discovery phase is over.

Many of the more sophisticated formulas seem to have a good balance between random experimentation and deterministic composition. It is often apparent in their structure that some elements are results of random discoveries while others have been built with an engineer's mindset. Let's look at Mu6k's song (presented in the end of the 3rd video, 32 kHz):

(((int)(3e3/(y=t&16383))&1)*35) +

(x=t*("6689"[t>>16&3]&15)/24&127)*y/4e4 +

((t>>8^t>>10|t>>14|x)&63)

I've split the formula on three lines according to the three instruments therein: drum, bass and lead.

My assumption is that the song has been built around the lead formula that was discovered first, probably in the form of t>>6^t>>8|t>>12|t&63 or something (the original version of this formula ran at 8 kHz). As usual with pure bitwise formulas, all the intervals are octaves, but in this case, the musical structure is very nice.

As it is possible to transpose a bit-masking melody simply by transposing the carrier wave, it's a good idea to generate a bassline and reuse it as the carrier. Unlike the lead generator, the bassline generator is very straight-forward in appearance, consisting of four pitch values stored in a string constant. A sawtooth wave is generated, stored to a variable (so that it can be reused by the lead melody generator) and amplitude-modulated.

Finally, there's a simple drum beat that is generated by a combination of division and bit extraction. The extracted bit is scaled to the amplitude of 35. Simple drums are often synthesized by using fast downward pitch-slides and the division approach does this very well.

In the case of Ryg's formula I discussed some sections earlier, I might also guess that the melody generator, the most chaotic element of the system, was the central piece which was later coupled with a bassline generator whose pitches were deliberately chosen to harmonize with the generated melody.

The future

I have been contacted by quite many people who have brought up different ideas of future development. We should, for example, have a social website where anyone could enter new formulas, listen to the in a playlist-like manner and rate them. Another branch of ideas is about the production of new rateable formulas by random generation or by breeding old ones together with genetic algorithms.

All of these ideas are definitely interesting, but I don't think the time is yet right for them. I have been developing my audiovisual virtual machine, which is the main reason why I did these experiments in the first place. I regard the current concept of "oneliner music" as a mere placeholder for the system that is yet to be released. There are too many problems with the C-like infix syntax and other aspects of the concept, so I think it's wiser to first develop a better toy and then think about a community mechanism. However, these are just my own priorities. If someone feels like building the kind of on-line community I described, I'll support the idea.

I've mentioned this toy before. It was previously called EDAM, but now I've chosen to name it IBNIZ (Ideally Bare Numeric Impression giZmo). One of the I letters could also stand for "immediate" or "interactive", as I'm going to emphasize an immediate, hands-on modifiability of the code. IBNIZ will hopefully be relevant as a demoscene platform for extreme size classes, as a test bed for esoteric algorithmic trickery, as an appealing introduction to hard-core minimalist programming, and also as a fun toy to just jam around with. Here's a little screenshot of the current state:

In my previous post, I mentioned the possibility of opening a door for 256-byte demos that are interesting both graphically and musically. The oneliner music project and IBNIZ will provide valuable research for the high-level, algorithmic aspects of this project, but I've also made some

hands-on tests on the platform-level feasability of the idea. It is now apparent that a stand-alone MS-DOS program that generates PCM sound and synchronized real-time graphics can easily fit in less then 96 bytes, so there's a lot of room left for both music and graphics in the 256-byte size

class. I'll probably release a 128- or 256-byte demo as a proof-of-concept, utilizing something derived from a nice oneliner music formula as the soundtrack.

I would like to thank everyone who has been interested in the oneliner music project, as all the hype made me very determined to continue my quests for unleashing the potential of the bit and the byte. My next post regarding this quest will probably appear once there's a version of IBNIZ worth releasing to the public.