Tim: If Coding Systems would be a research project, what would be the question that we are trying to answer?

Martin: The obvious question is how flexible visual system (fvs) design translates into code, but as fvs proposes not just a definition of an identity system but as well an approach to design one, fvs in the context of creative coding should also ask the question how do we think, create and finally relate through the computer. Big questions, I know, but critical ones, as digital devices have been made indisposable.

Let me try to formulate theses for the three big questions, which can lead to other research questions:

CS Thinking: Systemic thinking through coding, lives in the limitations of digital devices and artificial languages. While the processing speed exceeds the processing speed of living systems, the “processed” is far simpler than the “processed” of living systems. It is important to be aware of the differences between living systems and artificial systems to understand what to expect of them. We can’t expect solutions of artificial systems, but we can expect them to be a mirror of our understanding. Can CS be a model for the symbiotic thought processes of humans and machines?

CS Creating: Being aware of the difference between living and artificial systems leads to the question of how we interact with the machine. Which parts can be left to the machine and which parts should be done by the human. The usual response is that the computer is the solution for all the work that is hard and takes time. Take AI illustration as an example. Becoming a great illustrator is extremely hard work. It requires daily practice for a very long time. AI imitating existing illustration makes us skip the learning process and come up pretty quickly with maybe boring, but good looking illustrations. We are saving a lot of time (and money). We seem to ignore that learning a craft is not just technical learning, but in living systems interwoven with other thought processes. It is embodied learning at its purest form. Can CS reintegrate what makes the human creative process unique?

CS Relating: No tool is values neutral. Often tools that had positive intentions when invented, end up being used in a way that they have negative consequences for others. A hammer is a helpful tool, but it can be used to murder someone. Social media brings together people, but also makes them addicted, depressed and commit suicide. AI is a black box that can help us to find new medicine, but also make it pretty easy for laymen to make biological weapons. Can CS be more aware of 2nd and 3rd order effects of its tools? What kind of relationships with living and nonliving beings does CS create?

I just named a few questions here. Lots of smaller questions need to be formulated along the process.