firstly, it has to be realised that while WP itself is an application coded in PHP, it also a collection of PHP code that can be altered to fir my application. This is the true spirit of personal computing, that I can, if desired, modify the system to suit the purposes I present to it rather than have it present me with possibilities for which I must find purpose.
the tasks hierarchy is an interesting method of organising labour. it has its problems though, in that it makes it difficult for different outcomes to share the same tasks as a constituent task. so, duplication is necessary to maintain integrity of the task tree. it does give the project a certain timeliness, or linearity of work-flow which results in a sense of chronology, due to the fact that it is possible to read the hierarchy from left to right starting from the biggest production unit down to the micro level. and there is the rub; as a database, a tasks hierarchy can display all the tasks necessary for moving from the macro to the micro organisation of product development - whether that product be an experiential event such as the production of knowledge, or a commodifiable or reproducible artifact. if the text based PhD can be considered an achievement in semantic and material organsiation along the micro to macro organsiation continuum, can this micro-organisation be applied to any productive enterprise, and documented with a steadfastness and consistency, such that one might call the results "research"?
even without the hierarchy, if one uses a circular mode of organisation such that tasks on the micro scale are re-used across multiple larger assemblies
rather, the hierarchy is a push method of organisation - it organises labout from the top, starting from the stated desire, and linking through the hierarchical steps needed to be taken to divide desire into subsequent actions themselves divisible and so on. This is the development towards a specified product. To my mind, their need be another database of organised resources that can be used and reused to fit the tasks, such that research of techniques constitutes an end in itself. That is,, finding out what one can do, what is known about a topic etc, and collating this information in a resource. then when a task arises that requires a specific technique, the resource already may have something in reserve. additionally though, this allows for more exploitative type research - for example 'what happens when I do this?' with this type of queries.
a tasks hierarchy is a theoretical chain of labour, increasingly granulated as you proceed from the macro organisational to the microorganisational scale of production. that is, you have a theory of how to achieve X (the macro) by doing Y, Z, W and Q. to achieve Y one theorises the existence of A, B and C, and to do A, one maintains the theoretical unit of achievement labeled O. O is tending to the microorganisational scale of production. in this way, one can theorise practice whilst doing practice. (what kind of theory?) it is a hypothetical organisation of labour to achieve goal oriented ends. by constantly renewing this hypothesis however, one retains the flexibility required of creative chaos.
yet why bother going to all this effort. the purpose of knowledge design is to design knowledge. how does one achieve knowledge? by knowing. how does one know? by verification through application of hypotheses. by making practical hypotheses and testing these hypotheses through application, one can then feed the results of this application back into the hypotheses in order to produce a better hypothesis or a hypotheses more application to the situation it is intended produce.
how does one apply the fruits of creative hypotheses (inspiration?) - how are the arts as a process applied? what is the hypotheses in question?
let us say one is trying to achieve beauty. one could posit a limitless number of possible hypothetical tasks trees from the macro to micro organisation scale of production, and search fro the hypotheses most conducive to producing beauty. one would need to define beauty in this sense as this definition could then be applied as the achievement X. it is the context of that achievement X which would then help specify the limited set of actions Y, Z, W and Q. For example, a beautiful painting as considered from a minimalist perspective.
yet not all tasks are theoretical, as some are merely things that need to be Deon in order to link to further granulated set of procedures. at the micro scale we find a set of oft repeated yet simple tasks (routines, habits). at the macro scale lies the not only the product or goal of all labour, but the concept or idea of that goal. it is this concept that gets repeated mentally as the purpose of and in life, through and for which we act.
lets move to sound, where at the macroorganisational end we have the soundscape, the harmony of the spheres, then moving to the microorganisational end we have granular synthesis, acousmatic objects...
in asking the question can computers be programmed to produce art, we should also ask, can humans be programmed to produce it. is there a formula?
