among other fishy tangents, Jim Andrews raises an interesting question (as always) before heading out in his own direction in which I will never follow

he's writing a book called 'a philosophy of computer art'.
now, that's interesting to me. how would i write such a thing myself?

well, i'm not sure, but what i want to say in this e to you, mike, is that i
would regard it as important in such a book to involve the theory of
computation in some ways. could we say that the big picture of the theory of
computation is about what can be done with/by computers and what can't?

it is not important to develop a theory of computer this or that --because they are made as applications of theory -- theory is after them

but then theory is after art -- or should be --