Historical seen :1987 the synthesizer could be built, but at that time, nobody accepted the tone of electronic sound; the sound of music was not yet developed. Now we have in pd a tool, but maybe art is not ready for it, i.e. is not yet established in our society. The vital point using pd is the living coding. In contrary: with the piano you have to press the keys in order to make art, at a computer, synthesizer you can feel like a commander to the technical stuff, with pd: you just generate...The line might go from controller- commander- to somebody like "god" (without being blasmephic)

Let us differenciate between before pd and after...the distinction reveals to be difficult. Taken for grant pd might be synonomous with open source. The thesis of Marc Ries (and also from Schmidt) is, that in our epoque consumarismn had come to an end: everybody produces daily life choices (if you to use windows or linux...)Everybody is producer. But the medal has two sides : to make the use of pd easier, ok, but to make it more popular?? Pd is not really a brandnew way of doing arts. Much things which are made with pd could be made also with e.g. macromedia.--the vital point is still the character of its openess. We shouldn´t overburden pd, to come up with pd as a remedy for all society. Pd brought a development, where people became producer, but concerning the genderdiscussions, not enough women are using it. Everybody as an artist in the sense of Beuys, could have been realized with pd...

There are many layers involved :1) the abstract = pd, 2)the special products for artists or the developers themselves 3) recipients. The community should think about the middle -layer :here would be the location, where new art could happen. (not only in the specialists circles)