Jennifer Steinkamp's Daisy Chain TwistReadings:
- Agnus Leech's "Bleeding the Mirror: Notes On the Many Transformations of David Rokeby's Very Nervous System" (to see Rokeby perform the piece, click here: Very Nervous System)
- Holly Willis, "A Conversation with Jennifer Steinkamp"
- Bennett and Beith, “Alternate Universe”
"Because the computer is purely logical, the language of interaction should strive to be intuitive. Because the computer removes you from your body, the body should be strongly engaged. Because the computer's activity takes place in the tiny playing fields of integrated circuits, the encounter with the computer should take place in a human scaled physical space."
After considering this quote and reading the three articles, what is your take on his perspective of the oppositions posed by computers and the realm of the physical? Do you think that an art work and on-line games have the potential to synthesize the physical space of the body and computer technology or do these attempts at creating an interactive/virtual reality merely call more attention to the limitations of our bodies? Please make sure to incorporate discussions of all three articles into your answer.
72 comments:
Well, first I have to say I agree with Angus Leech's quote; I think what he said is extremely insightful. He's basically saying that in order to make a computer seem realistic, you have to engage with it physically somehow. That's really the only way to get a virtual world to work. This is probably why I'm not sure I like the idea of Second Life. Even though it is interesting, and it does have advantages in business and human connections, it impersonalizes life. Why live life through a computer? Why not just live the life you have? I don't think a virtual world contained only to a computer screen is much of a virtual world at all; it's more like a glorified game. Or in a sense, just another way to ignore real life and hide behind a screen. It's an escape from life, not a way to enhance it. As Jennifer Steinkamp's work suggests, interaction with virtuality is what makes art real. I liked how her newer works used sensors to change the images in her art. This way, your physical motion helps form the piece. If Second Life really wants to engage people, and really wants to advance its world, it should incorporate Rokeby and Jennifer's works into its design. Imagine a Second Life outside the computer. Imagine a world with virtual projections everywhere you walked. You'd see things that weren't truly there but that you could still interact with. You could talk instead of type, and your own movement could trigger the scenery to change to another country if you so desired. Then again, if we had a Second Life like this, we'd not be able to have our own worlds, because too many people would want to change the projections at the same spots at the same time. We'd all be living in helmets, and I doubt anyone finds that appealing. Though you never know. Maybe we'll advance to Matrix stage, and just put on a helmet and sit in a chair and live out our virtual world using just our brains. Anything is possible, really. Heck, in a virtual world like that, a human can do things he'd never be able to without the aid of the computer. It could be pretty nice actually, if you can get past the whole living in a chair aspect. I'd rather just live my life as it is, thanks.
Ack and I'm Jackie Bentley, Group 3. (above)
Lydell Peterson
Group 1 (Emir)
I believe that VNS as well as Second Life have the potential to synthesize the physical space of the body. However, I believe it only accomplishes that feat in certain conditions. I think that VNS does accomplish this when it is used in a rehabilitation scenario. For people that have disabilities using VNS helps them express their feelings and thoughts that would otherwise be limited by their bodies due to the disabilities. For the average man without disabilities I think this is merely a tool of expression though. Their bodies are not limiting their sensory expressions therefore it is simply a different way for them to use expression. In other words, it is an alternative route. I think that Second Life has sort of the same idea. For most people it is simply an alternate life where they can express themselves any way they want, but for people with disabilities it’s a way to fulfill mentally experiences that they cannot do physically. I think it is also a great way for people to socialize in a non-physical judgmental way. Usually when people first meet people they judge them on appearance. Meeting people via Second Life forces the person to judge more based on personality than appearance since most personas are in flamboyant or highly stylized avatars. I think forcing a person to judge this way helps escape the limitations of the body. Jackie’s blog brings up a good point when it refers to “The Matrix.” If we continue to develop these online computer persona habits eventually we’ll be able to put a tube in our neck/head and enter in an entirely virtual world. In there is a definite connection between physical space and virtual space, but like Jackie stated in the end it is a fantasy and isn’t real. There is no alternative to living in your real world. You can pretend to escape it by entering a virtual world, but you are still in reality just sitting at a desk staring at a computer screen. As for art… I think that using a virtual connection can help influence/create art. Steinkemp’s work with light is a good example of how computers can be used to influence and create this “in-between” space type of art. The VNS also accomplishes this but I think that even in the end there is still a human (therefore physical) process to all of it. I mean someone had to build and program the computer, didn’t they?
Michael Schafer - Group 3
I believe we should use the computer or some form of technology as a tool for transcendence into the infinite. Use it as a way to bring us beyond our physical boundaries and be part of space and time as one. It is time we have created a tool necessary for transcendence. VNS has almost reached that capability, but still much more is needed.
The Second Life stuff scares me though. It seems that we'll all live in this dream world and not in reality. We will become more and more isolated as human beings. Physical interaction will be down played and we won't be able to communicate physically. We'll lose all social skills. Second Life seems like a sad excuse for giving up on yourself. Don't live your life with regrets, get out there and be what you want to be, do what you want to do. Don't live in a fake Vacade. Be yourself.
I would have to agree with what jackie has said...computers have a way of creating good interaction but it lacks the physcial qualities that are useful in creating relationships. Whether those relationships be friendships or aquaintances, or love interests...interaction through the internet just isn't the same. Sure you can feel as though you are receiving some of the same interaction as if you were talking to someone in person, but you don't get the same things such as mannerisms, eye contact, etc. I feel as though Second Life is just another advancement in the video game world. It's just another form of escapism. It's a way for people to see the world through their own eyes. I was an avid video gamer when I was younger, but as time wore on, I've played less and less. Or I should emphasize that I don't get caught up in a lot of games lately, I still play an occasional game or two online but nothing that makes me get incredibly deep into the game itself. (those games were mario and Legend of Zelda, and more recently Shadow of the Colossus) I just don't see the virtual world becoming our world...as much as people would love for that to be, I just truly believe that eventually it would get old, and people would want to go back to interacting with people in the flesh. Just my outtake though, who knows what the future may have in store for us...
Nacia Schreiner - Group 01
Angus Leech quotes Rokeby who refers to the relationship between human and computer “as
A tight feedback loop [both] are not only perceiving but also responding to the other in a constant state of rhythmic readjustment.” In other words, human and computer are one with each other, responding back and forth as two like beings. I, like other critiques are concerned of human body becoming obsolete in the interactions of the world. Even the far off fear of computers taking over the ancient art of acting is unnerving. But Rokeby lightens the fear by saying, “I don't want to throw the body out. I'd rather adjust the environment: make the environment more appropriate to the body, instead of vice versa." And to this extend (as the quote says above) I now see how the computer is but an extension of being; going the distances we cannot quite reach in our mere mortality. In fact, Holly Willis describes Jennifer Steinkamp’s art as embodying just that: she uses computer imagery to “explore the nature of human sensory experience”. Not, on the contrary, to take over it.
As for second life, creepy but inevitable. I’m sure the first internet goers would be freaked out at the thought of Facebook which goes to show the need for human (or pseudo-human) interaction. Though possibly a detriment to those who go literally broke from buying clothes for their avatar, using Second Life as a teaching tool or simulated economic scenarios can actually enhance the real world of which we physically inhabit. Anything is possible but it all stems from the human imagination first.
Nate Meads, Group 2
At first read, I didn't really like the article, but as I was reading it a second time, mroe things made sense. In the end, I agreed with Angus Leech that in order to make not jsut computers, but any kind of technology seem realistic, you have to engage in it physically. Take the computer I'm typing on right now. I'm not just typing, I'm listening to music. Taht's engaging physically. Not to mention that the act of typing makes us engage physically. I think that, yes, we should engage our technology physically because that will help us advance farther. Take video games! Everyone engages physically. Like Xbox Live. People can talk to other people from different countries while playing the EXACT same game.
BUT, while it holds true for a lot of people, I ithink the second life bit is very dangerous. Living life through a video game or a computer can be disasterous. The people living those lives, even though it could be helping them financially or business wise, it will always hurt them personally. Soon, that second life becomes their primary life. Sitting in front of a T.V or a computer screen their whole life. I thought that Jennifer Steinkamp made a valid point the interaction with virtual reality is what makes it real. Who wants that?? I think its because people are partly scared to get out into the real world and really live. I agree with Michael Schafer. Get out into the world and live. Fall in love, get your heart broken. Yes, it's scary, but that's life. Life is scary. BUT, everything in life that's worth having doesn't come easy.
I find a stark contrast in the usage of the body in the three environments presented here. Second Life seems to be just a computer game that has been taken over and is now being used for corporate product testing, despite how they hype it, it is just as escapist a world as the World of Warcraft. Jennifer Steinkamp's art works are stunningly beautiful, however not fully interactive. Projected "installation" projects, are all technically interactive because it is possible to play with the light being thrown against the wall, but her works are not the same as what David Rokeby is trying to say here.
What his quote really reminds me of, is what Nintendo has done with their new video game system, The Wii. In Wii games, the user is brought into the game play by moving their bodies (or at least the controller, but what fun is that?) to interact with what is happening on screen. Rokeby suggests that that because the computer (or in this case, the game system) is engaging you mentally, the interaction should be just as engaging. By just pressing buttons on a keyboard or a control pad, you are not nearly as engaged as you are when you are swinging that controller around like a bat to hit the game's baseball out of the park, or swinging it like a sword to slay the dragon at the end of the castle.
Online environments like Second Life or World of Warcraft seem to draw away from this idea of interactivity. However, what they lack in physical interactivity they make up for in an engaging virtual world. These worlds are totally immersive in a way, the Second Life article is a perfect example, people can make money, buy cars and homes, date and even have sex, all inside a pretend environment! I suppose that the next step would be fully realize the subtle ideas presented by Nintendo and the engaging online world of Second Life to create exactly what Rokeby is talking about, a fully realized immersive world.
Hayley Schneider - Group 1
I must start off by saying that these three articles were extremely interesting. I loved how Holly Willis could so easily explain how she creates her work. She makes it sound so interesting that I just want to do more research on her. I also find it entertaining that now architects are contacting her for her ideas.
Onto the question: When I read this article the first thing that came to mind were those dancing games that you see at arcades. The ones that you have to follow the game to play. I think that there are so many games out there now that make you have to actual move some body part to play the game. The guitar game is another one. I think that this is a way that designers have been able to make games seem so much more real to the player. To prove how popular these trends are becoming is the statistics for Second Life, "..launced in 2001, but got off to a slow start, reaching only 1.5 million registered users in 2006. In the past year, membership has soared to more than 8 million users -"(Newsweek, July 30, 2007)
These numbers are a great way to see how many people are participating and joining in on contacting the virtual world with the physical world. Games, internet, and virtual reality are becoming more popular with fans because they have become so physical while creating a new world for people.
I believe Leech is on to something when he states the interaction with the computer must take place in the physical realm. If everything the human is doing is being translated by the computer automatically, the user should remain focused on themself. If even random interactions can stimulate the computer to make something that seems to look or sound "good", then clearly their focus should be on their own actions. In the case of the video of Rokeby performing with the VNS, The user could almost pretend that the element of the computer ceases to exist leaving only the interaction of the human and the music(where the art lies). I believe the same goes for jennifer steincamp's projections into other spaces. If you can step into a plain physical space and have it transformed before you, the possibilities are endless. You could potentially create a larger space inside of a smaller space and if this could be incoporated with Rokeby's VNS, then you could have spaces that changed with human interaction. It could possibly be the next form of cinema rather than only interacting in our minds, we could now physically interact with the space. This possibility could be used in Rosedale's "Second Life". Of course there is still the absence of touch taste and smell, it's hard to argue that these senses would be far off in this simulated world. Depending on the way virtual communities are used, they could be looked at as ways to escape the limitations of certain people; however they are proving to be great tools for economy, education, and therapy as Bennet and Beith mention.
-Eddie Roberts, Group 2
As much as I feel computers and their technologies are used to simulate realty and bond both the physical and mental stimulation, they still are merely simulations. Since we can program computers to do what we want, there’s a sense of personalization that goes along with simulations. I believe that it is easy to be engulfed by technologies as such; an example that comes to mind is playing video games with my little cousins. As we played Mario Kart, they would lean around the corners as if they were the drivers they were simulating; in the words of Bleeding of Mirrors, it is “intoxicating and addictive.”
In the newsweek article it states that people can be “themselves” online, an attribute that perhaps can be difficult in real-world scenarios. If people find it easier on-line and enjoy it, then I feel no reason why it shouldn’t be done. People read books to lose themselves in a new world; I think this is the 21st century rendition of that very idea.
Computers and virtual reality can be a good thing and open up a whole new world to many people. They, however, pose many limitations because your body isn't being used. He would rather create an environment that the body can interact with instead of just the mind. He says, "To go into virtual reality is not as interesting to me as to project VR into real space. I prefer the argumentation of normal space to the construction of alternative space." As far as interactive artwork goes, I think it has the potential to synthesize the physical space of the body. In the interview with Jennifer Steinkamp is talks about her work and how projections make it so you are placed within the artwork and can interact in that space. This is using the body and not limiting the viewer to only using their mind to interact. Computer technology, such as Second Life, might also be able to do this, but I am not sure yet if they will achieve the same effect.
Lauren Zirbes, group 2
First things first. Yes a computer reacts through circuits. But a humans "circuits" are blood, and nerves. Until a computer can create,react, human intuitive feelings to a point where there is simultaneous anachronistic composition, than there is no comparison here.
This is all very physiological to me. I think it's a very fine art to create these virtual worlds. And I can even marvel at the many hands that go into creating these artificial landscapes. But for me it shouldn't be anything more than escapism. People have their different passions, and it is a matter of personal opinion whether spending your free time online in a virtual world. Also I think it opens up the possibilities such as the one with the paralyzed woman who lives her second life, virtually when she can not physically. But the grand scheme of things seems to be that a second life can supplement what an everyday life can be and more. This presents many dangers. With many people "playing god" by simply typing html codes, you create an uncertain atmosphere, that can be destroyed with one foul swoop. There is no organic material involved, to ground the world in some sort of sanity. And that seems to be my crux, is that even mundane activities of buying clothes on an online store, for an online avatar is a bit insane, considering your are not organically related to the material, again it becomes a physiological issue for me.
The idea of virtual reality i think is a good use for computers for reacing with the body. our world is mainly computers and is only relieing more and more on them. i believe it can limt our bodies but yet give our bodies less restraints. it limit us because its not true reality. we can't do everything we could do if we were manually doing it. our world is becoming so dependent on technlogy doing everything for us, that our society has begun to change towards it ad it shows. but it can give us fewer restraints because the thing that is taking over were can us with our bodies t create more. we are moving with the technology. if we can us virtual reality physically to create something on the computer it does the opposite of limiting us it helps us expand our selves, but a computer has limits on what we can do on it. until a computer is completetly limitless we will be limited.
One thing that I got out of Angus Leech’s essay was if you want to bring reality to computer you must engage with it in some physical way. I do see eye to eye with the theory that physical interaction with a computer does bring much more reality to the world that you are put into with a computer. Yet I don’t know if I agree with the idea of Second life. Yes the idea of second life could help a lot of people by making them feel better about themselves. Their appearance could be totally changed to what they want and you could do anything. But I don’t agree with having a life inside a life. I believe that life is a gift and if you aren’t lazy who can do something with your life. Instead of feel sorry for your first life and seek a new one which really isn’t real. Yes art-work and online definitely have the potential to synthesize the physical space of the body but first we must explore the limitations of the body in all different ways. If we did end up living our lives like “The Matrix” we would have to know all of its dangers before actually using it. We shouldn’t try to live like the Matrix, we should just live the lives that were given to us. This idea of Second life will only bring problems to our future.
Colin Sytsma 115 Group 3
This goes along with the discussion of virtual reality, I think we are becoming a virtual world, where everything is digital. Film, sound, effects, even class assignments! It makes us lazier since we can always go back and edit and change things. There is almost not sense of finality. This program is titled, Second Life, but it becomes their true lives. They live to sit on the internet. It is depressing and scary in a way, that these individuals have considerably less contact with the outside world! It does, however, shrink the world, allowing one to freely contact someone of a different continent in their computer chairs. What did these people do before there were computers? Play Atari all day and pretend their were pac-man?
~Kurt Sensenbrenner
group 3
My take on his perspective is that in order for the computer to seem realistic we must interact with it physically in some way. Angus Leech discusses David Rokeby’s Very Nervous System “…represent a two-way “transforming mirror”: they are prisms which filter and distort not only the computer user’s view of reality, but the user’s reflected “self-image” as well.” The computer removes a meaning of self and creates a new view of your self-image one that does not exist in the real world but you like to have in the computer world. The computer and human respond to one another in a state of readjustment, so that instead of working against technology we work with it to better function. How can you count virtual life as being even close to real? I do not like the idea of Second Life, which Jessica Bennett and Malcolm Beith discuss in their article. Why try to live a second life when your real life is hard enough? It's just an excuse to escape from the realism of the life you already have. But some people take it real serious and see it as no game but a serious tool and I find it ridiculous. It’s always better to be able to press the undo button in a game, while in real life that which has been done cannot be undone. I do not think that these kinds of games can potentially synthesize the physical space of the body and computer technology. I believe it calls more attention to the limitations of our bodies. Even though we might feel as if we are one with the character in the virtual game, we physically are not part of the game. We can control the character but we cannot feel the way we would if we were physically in the game. Also Jennifer Steinkamp's work shows that interaction with virtuality is what makes art real. Her newer works used sensors to change the images in her art. By doing this you have to interact with her art to alter it. Just like in Second Life you have to interact with the computer to create the life you want. It does not incorporate the real of the physical it is only virtual for now but could in future years become something more.
-Judith Marker-
Group 1
Leech said "the computer's activity takes place in the tiny playing fields of integrated circuits", which is true. Up until the creation of these massive online networks, there has always been this undeniable separation between machines and their users. There has always been a frame that we must act through in order to interact with them. There was distance.
Now, it seems that we have switched places in some cases. MMO Games such as Second Life have taken our likeness and put them INSIDE the machine, so we are no longer acting through the frame to interact with the machine, but we are interacting on its level. There's a certain feeling that I always associate this with - on one hand, there is still that separation there always has been. There is a boundary between your physical being, the computer's physical being, your mind, and its logic. But, when engrossed in these activities, interacting with it becomes so seemingly intuitive that its interacting straight through its frame and through its boundaries.
I do not believe that these do not have (in the near future, at least) the ability or potential to synthesize OUR spaces. But the illusion of their potential is very real.
~~Eric Fritz, Group 3
What I found interesting about all of these artists, is how they are simultaneously working against technology and implementing in their work. It seems that all of these artists are reacting to the way in which technology has effected contemporary culture. There is this notion that the downfall of technology is that it absolves the need for human to human contact and interaction. All of these artists are addressing this issue by showing how technology and physical human interaction can work together. In David Rokeby's VNS software, he has created a space in which the viewer can physically interact with technology using their whole body, not just a mouse and a keyboard. Jennifer Steinkamp, on the other hand, is creating spaces where the technology inspires a physical reaction in the viewer. The most interesting, and less obvious approach, comes in the form of Second Life, where the user does not interact with their physical body, but creates a new, virtual physical body which can interact in a virtual space. All of the works seem to play on the human fear that technology is corrupting culture by disconnecting its user. While most artists addressing this issue in their work tend to shun technology, this group is using technology to show how it can grow and accommodate human culture.
Kristen Gibb Group 3
Using technological advances as extensions of our bodies is a great idea. To make a computer a part of us is what inventions have been doing for years. Inventions such as cell phones enable voices to travel distances, people in the past had just called that telekinesis. To use a computer to help in the assistance of living is completely plausible. Our limitations of our bodies are making adaption through technology. Who knows how far this idea could go? It might not stop until we have made our own bodies into totally advanced tech machines which is not a bad idea. However, the idea of completely living through a computer is a terrible idea. the results could be horrifying. You won't accomplish as much living through a computer than living with computers. The idea of second life sort of strikes me as pathetic. It could entertain me for a total of a couple of minutes until i found there to be no action in the game. People have to think about the advantages of technology not the abuse. Online game forums such as second life are a complete waste of time. To advance forward with this technological advance we must educate ourselves on how to properly use it.
Peter Holzinger
Group 1
I think that Rokeby's perspective is leading him to take a step in the direction that computer technology is heading. As he states in the quote, he is interested in bridging the gap between how a computer functions and how a person's mind/body functions. Technology is constantly being reformatted to make it easier to use. Whether it is through programs that are more intuitive to the average user or advances in controls such as touch screens, technology evolves to become more efficient, since that is what technology is all about anyways. Advances in technology and the extent to which we understand the workings of our own bodies could certainly lead to a narrowing of the physical-technological gap. It may even completely transcend it. After reading the three articles this concept does not seem at all out of the question. Rokeby has achieved a technology that a user can experience an interactive, circular relationship with. The user does something, the technology responds, the user does something else in response to what the technology does, and so on. In the second article, the author describes feelings of complete immersion when observing Steinkamp's artwork. Second Life has created a digital world in which almost every aspect of real life is replicated and available for molding as the user sees fit. Even more striking than this fantasy world is the fact that it is spilling over into our real world via the avenue most indicative of concrete reality that we know: money! If one takes in these three cases simultaneously, it doesn't take a wild imagination to imagine the possibility of a Matrix-like world in which the walls between the physical and digital are completely broken down and we, to an undetermined extent, live in the synthesized product.
I think that certain technologies are great for helping the disabled become more interactive with the world. Rokeby's VNS as well as Second Life could be very helpful to people who have limited physical and social abilities. In the case the young paralyzed women who could not speak or write, the VNS has already had a positive impact. Second Life is also doing good for the disabled by allowing them to interact in a way they usually can't. For example, an autistic patient uses Second Life to interact with people in a way that would be impossible in the real world. Also, Second Life creates empathy for those with mental illness. The colors and images produced to create the feeling of schizophrenia puts the viewers in the shoes of a group of people completely misunderstood (like my great aunt who suffers from the disease). On top of this, new technologies allow those who cannot create images physically to create art through computers. This allows them to express what they could have otherwise never been able to.
On the other hand, I feel like technology often hinders the able bodied. Although I think artists like Steinkamp are interesting (Stanley Donwood also comes to mind), I much more appreciate earlier forms of art. I guess you can call me a "purist", but I think physically creating paintings and drawings adds an authenticity to art that shows what it is really all about. However, I don't object to computerized art entirely as much as I do to computerized interaction. I think Second Life calls attention to the limitations of our bodies and our mind. It makes a person realize he or she is not fit socially or physically. This may seem good, but what good is sitting in front of a computer instead of doing something about these limitations? Generally, I'm annoyed at technology's way of dehumanizing us. Instead of saying hello to someone, we have to text it. Instead of conversing with someone face to face, we look at a website to find out about them (e.g. MySpace and Facebook). I think technology can often limit our bodies because when we use it, we are lost in the "virtual" instead of the "reality."
~Dane Baumgartner (Group 1)
I find this whole Second Life idea to be a little creepy. Why would we need to live our lives in another world? It isn’t real. It will make people isolated and be more introverted. People won’t know how to communicate with other people face-to-face. I think the majority of people that would enjoy the Second Life would be people who are too shy in the first place to communicate with people in real life. I agree, however, that it may be beneficial only to people with disabilities. These people may be able to react in ways that wouldn’t otherwise be possible for them in the real world. Virtual reality is alright if it is only used for entertainment purposes, but I would’ve said the same thing about internet and computers, until people became obsessed and they spend hours upon hours on the computer. It isn’t right to live life through a computer.
-Sarah Myszewski Group 3
I find Rickby's statement regarding VNS genius. Not only is the program an awesome invention, but I really admire the reasoning behind his work. I feel like he is forcing the computer to acknowledge human behavior. It's almost like he's rebelling against the limitations of computers by making VNS. When I watched the clip on YouTube, I realized how VNS pushes us to explore our own physical space in a way we never would have on our own. I think his invention is great, especially because it can have a hugely positive impact on disabled people. It's an excellent example of how useful technology can be for us.
Although, Steinkamp's work doesn't reach out to the disabled in the way VNS does,I find her work brilliant. I definitely think it makes our brains acknowledge the ability the art has to synthesize the physical space of the body. I'm sure if I went to one of her exhibits, I wouldn't think of her work as highlighting the limitations of my body, I would be too busy enjoying the spectacle around me!
In contrast, I think Second Life definitely calls attention to the limitations of our bodies. Although it is helpful for company meetings, etc., I question whether it is healthy for people who are using it to escape from their disabilities or uneventful lives. The reasoning for this concern is very obvious: it isn't REAL. What would happen to all those people if Second Life was abruptly shut down? Any addiction is unhealthy, even if it's making you money. I admire the brains that went into the program, but it raises concerns for me regarding people who may be using to escape from the real world.
Devin Smith, Group 1
Jon Phillips
Group 3
Angus Leech certainly has a point when he says that computers should employ some physical interaction, otherwise it becomes a very, very dull place, one with a very steep curve to get accustomed to and very difficult to do anything interesting. Simply sitting still and moving things about with one's mind would lose it's novelty quickly. This is one of the reasons the Nintendo Wii game system has become so popular; because of the motion based controller, people interact with their whole bodies, rather than just their wrists and hands. However, there are limitations to this, as with any new technology one has to learn a specific set of things one can or cannot do with it physically. Text editing, while made much easier for the disabled described in the article, is much simpler to do with the WASD keyboard than with eye blinks or waving our arms about.
About all this scaremongering about Second Life: having played it a bit back in the day, I can tell you from firsthand experience it is not the harbinger of death and social alienation. It's a quirky little time waster, one that I personally dislike because of the prevalence of ignorant/pompous/ignorant and pompous people who frequent the various servers, but one which I respect the idea for. We all need to escape at points, why not escape to a completely different, living, breathing world than a predefined linear one set up by books or television? If anything, I think this place needs more virtual worlds to skip out into. Certainly, some people will get sucked in and have it take over their lives. But people also get sucked in by cat-decorated saucers, and spend their whole lives looking for that Acme Siamese/Tabby China Set from 1949, so I wouldn't get too worried that all of civilization will come a'crumblin down around us because there's an online video game where people wear cat suits and have sex with each other.
I believe Angus Leech is 100% right. He is saying that because we use computers to "take us away" from our bodies, we should use our bodies to interact with them. This would change the computer from being a machine to being like an extension of our body. I think once again virtual reality is another one of life's double edged swords. For disabled and handicapped people, things like VNS can truly change their lives. People who can barely move their bodies are able to talk, and do other remarkable things like that. People who are stuck at home and incapacitated can experience the world (albeit virtual) through Second Life. However, people who can function just fine, people who can go out and experience the world, why would they spend their time in a virtual world? They are lucky in that they are able to experience these things. In this way I view virtual reality and computers as a crutch. If you can walk fine, why would you use a crutch? In the same light, if you can experience the world as it is, why live in a virtual one?
Joe Simanis (Group 2)
I think that David Rokeby makes a good point. Computer technology is slowly becoming more and more interactive, so we need to keep in mind what is going on in reality whenever we suspend our disbelief in this new technology. As technology becomes more an extension of our body, we should remember that these machines are in fact machines, and not body parts. I think someday, new visual technology will be able to virtually replace us and give us full simulations of virtual world that is so realistic; we may not be able to differentiate from the real world. (This sounds like The Matrix.) However, for right now, I think that available technology still keeps attention to our own bodies. As engrossed as we may be in a computer screen, there is still a chance that something will distract us and bring us back to the land of the living. We are still in tune with our real bodies, but in time, technology may allow us to overcome that.
I would agree with Rokeby in saying that our interface with technology and computers is a very 2D experience. There is always an object in front of us and we are required to operate arbitrary and nonhuman controls in order to do anything. The technology we are interacting with seems disconnected and not intuitive to the functions our own body. Because it can be controlled in so many humanly intuitive ways, it is so easy and natural for anyone to use it.
In the instance of these online communities, the technology doesn't necessarily make us more aware of our limitations, but it allows us to virtually, and almost unconsciously, overcome them. Fulfilling desires is a big part of it. For the online communities, it allows us to interact with many different people physically distant and inaccessible. And for the VNS system and Steinkamp's art, the desire is in the active creation/manipulation of a visual or sonic environment, not to mention all the physical disability uses of Rokeby's VNS. So in a supplemental fashion to real life, these technologies allow us to experience things in ways that are physically impossible but become alive through technology.
Toby Staffanson
Group 4
Jacob Feiring. Group 2, section 802
I agree with Leech’s essay that “Because the computer’s activity takes place in the tiny playing fields of integrated circuits, the encounter with the computer should take place in a human scaled physical space.” In order to feel a connection to the machine the human is using, the human must have some physical engagement with the system. Frankly, I don’t think it is fully possible for an art work and on-line games to synthesize the physical space of the body. I do, however, feel that work by Holly Willis comes the closest. As the human walks though the instillations and physically plays with them, like a child playing with a jungle gym, barriers between technology and the human are broken. The interactive process creates a link between the human and the machine.
Clearly, however, humans can’t fully integrate into the world of computers. In Jessica Bennett’s and Malcolm Beit’s article, the question of reality comes in to play.
"The one thing that really amazes me about Second Life is the way it empowers people," says John Lester, the former Harvard Medical School researcher who set up the group (and now works for Linden Lab). "It frees them from the role of the biological device."
This statement makes me nervous. It’s clearly impossible for a human to physically live in the Second Life world. They need to eat, sleep and make money to even play this game. I feel that once someone gets sucked into this fantasy world it is hard to face reality. Second Life doesn’t accomplish what Leech feels is vital, because the human isn’t actually in the physical space of the Second Life world. They are merely spectators watching a dummy on a screen. If humans rely on a virtual world for connection, love and happiness, what happens when the computer crashes?
The idea of computers being used as a totally immersed, virtual reality art form is an idea that excites me. To think, one's own deepest desires and wants could be attained through the medium of virtual reality. Through the programs such as VNS and Second Life, the entire meaning of what art is could be changed indefinitely. One may argue that due to the "non-reality" of the virtual reality, it stands to be a thing of dreams and can never truly replace the life that can be lived in the here and now. True, I wouldn't want the entire world filled with "non-reality." After a long time of experiencing "non-reality", I myself may begin to feel unreal. But solely as an art form or as a form of mass communication like in Second Life, virtual reality is an excellent concept that, if put to good use, could create unforgettable effects on the world around us. For one, I would bet psychedelic drug use would decrease significantly. Alas, virtual reality is but a pipe dream. One day perhaps, but until that day comes, we as a people have to but dream.
Chris Ouchie
Group 3
I agree with the quote by Angus Leech, I have ofter thought about how interactive software will implement itself in other forms of entertainment and other aspects of our everyday life. As far as artworks and on-line games go, I believe that they have not yet reached their pinnacle, and even now they immerse us and our lives. The potential for this is limitless and it is hard to predict where it will take us even in the next 20 years.
Right now there are certain on-line and console games that already incorporate the limitations of our body, and not only do they allow us to be someone we are not, and create a character that we want to use with extreme physical and magic powers, but some of them also allow us to choose the path that we want to take and what actions we want to perform. They allow us to choose between doing good and doing bad, creating and destroying.
As far as the article "The Second Life" goes, we already know how far virtual reality can go as far as being part of our lives. I would go as far as to say that it gives people a second chance in life, the person has a chance to create himself/herself the way he or she wants to be, look, and behave. It also enables us to communicate with people miles away almost like we are right there.
So yes, I do think that virtual reality calls attention to the limitations of our bodies, but not only that, it also enables us to do things that otherwise we would never be able to do and have a life that we otherwise would be unable to live.
Gleb Sergeyev
Group 1
Upon reading the articles, I am fascinated by the use of computer software and our physical human bodies. In Angus Leech’s article he talks about the VNS software and says, “Individuals who cannot hold a paintbrush or play a guitar use their bodies to become these instruments instead.” To me this program really lets one express themself with the human body in ways that were originally thought impossible. My favorite example from this article is Rokeby recalling a conversation with Douglas Cooper saying, “I once demonstrated the work to a 5-year-old blind child. Amazing. The edges of the active area were like physical walls for him. He literally bounced off them the first time he ran into them. Walking into the space through silence and then hitting the edge where he was visible to the camera: suddenly he was making noise. It was quite startling.” I think this shows that rather than putting physical limitations on our bodies, it shows us all the ways in which we can manipulate our bodies. As far as Steinkamp goes, her work really redefines modern art as we know it. The use of multiple projectors is a great idea in my mind because even though someone/something may be blocking one projector and casting a shadow, light can still hit the spot where the shadow is cast. Finally, in relation to Second Life, as of right now I don’t feel the need to live a virtual life. I find it a good resource for those who cannot interact in real life as easily as others such as the case of the couple who has been dating for two years. I found this quote interesting saying, “By 2011, four of every five people who use the Internet will actively participate in Second Life or some similar medium, according to Gartner Research, which recently did a study looking at the investment potential of virtual worlds.” If this is true then I assume I will be doing it then too, because it will just become the normal thing to do. In conclusion, I do think that art work and video games have the potential to expand into the physical realm, while also offering people a virtual way to explore things, that in the real life, they were incapable of doing.
Max Larsen
Group 3
Emily Sherman Group 4
After reading the article by Angus Leech, I would have to say that I fully agree with him in that in order to bring out the realistic qualities of a computer you have to physically engage with it. However, I disagree with his notion computers are able to accurately emulate human relations. With creations such as Second Life, the whole basis of calling it a virtual world is to physically and mentally connect to it; otherwise it would be rather senseless. Personally, I don’t understand why someone would want to live his or her life behind the computer screen with out personal human interaction. By immersing yourself in the virtual realm it is just another way to escape reality and disregard your authentic life. Through all the advancements in technology it’s evident that we are attempting to connect our bodies to the machine. But even with such innovations I don’t think there is anyway a computer could compare to a living body. The unique qualities of human emotions and interactions could never be accurately portrayed through a computer screen.
I find technology to be greatly misused in the current period. There would be no quarrel about the introduction of a physical world within computers and communications if the advancements in technology were taken with more cautiousness and concern. Bennett and Beith even state that "face-to-face interaction [are] on the decline in offices," but that is only the tip of the problem. Human interactions, face-to-face, are declining not just in the office, but elsewhere in society and day-to-day life. The physical world introduced into technology is sacrificing the REAL physical world, driving countless persons heaped over a computer screen. Lots of potential evolutions in technology are mentioned, but rarely are they dissected and revealed to the world, naked and displaying pros AS WELL as cons. VNS seems to already be a substitute for the human body, disabled or not. I find this system to be a distracting addition to society with little purpose other than another basic addiction to technology. Second Life does this as well. It diverts all the attention from the real world to a place where life, death, and the future are of no relevance. In my eyes, it is all one big video game, only more deceptive and with more consequences if misunderstood. Overall, I think that humanity's head-first dive into technology and its limitless possibilities (such as adapting the our physical lives into another world) is like a car driving down an endless road. You won't be looking at the problems out the window, you won't be slowing or stopping, you'll just gaze ahead with a blissful smile and keep on going. Yes, some technologies are useful, but to twist ourselves up in wires and illusions that steal us away from the real world, real problems, and real solutions is not currently the answer. For now, the body is just the body, and no line of cables or computer chips can prove otherwise.
-Matthew Evan Balz
Group 3
Other than VNS discussed in Leech's article, being used to help those with disabilities I don't think it is possible to say that computers and technology have the ability to synthesize the physical. As for the VNS being used to help a person who is disabled, the technology is directly affecting the ability of someone to interact with the world in the same way that able bodied people do without assistance. Compare this then to the idea of "Second Life." Here is a program or I guess it could be called a game where normal, everyday people go and do things that they could theoretically be doing in real life. No matter how real the virtual world is, or how meaningful the interactions may be its all still a lie. That's not to say that it doesn't have the ability to entertain, but it should be seen as entertainment and not an actual place where one should spend most of his/her time. If your unhappy with yourself, do something about, don't just remain discontent and hide behind the computer. Unlike the VNS, virtual worlds like this only remove people from reality, and it seems silly because after awhile and as technology increases these virtual worlds will carbon copies of the actual world, and what's the point?
David Lewandowski 115 Group#2
I do agree with Angus Leech’s perspective of the oppositions. From personal experience, I’m usually unable to connect with something unless I’m physically touching the object or trying it out. As for interactive/ virtual reality, I’m stuck between two places.
On one hand, both articles, “Short Form: The Rearranged World of Jennifer Steinkamp” and “Bending the Mirror: Notes On The Many Transformations of David Rokeby's Very Nervous System”, show the positive sides of having people being able to interact with their art works. David Rokeby’s VNS actually made it easier for a woman to communicate, even though she could only mover her eyelids. Jennifer Steinkamp has started to make her work more interactive to get the patrons to try the artwork out and see things. In these two works, people are able to use the pieces even with their own body limitations.
My only concern comes from the last article, “Alternate Universe”, by Jessica Bennett and Malcolm Beith. What I gathered from the article was that people were using the virtual reality program “Second Live” as if it were really life. People were dating each other online, even though they had never met. Others were changing themselves to have a different identity. It seemed as if people were, are staying online for the virtual reality instead of living. With this article, I found myself realizing that people are calling more attention to the limitations of all our bodies. As humans we need to be able to socialize with people in and outside of the computer and if we depend on the computer for companionship or etc, then we ran the risk of us becoming like Jackie said; The Matrix.
Veronica Mosley Group 04
Kyle Smith
Group 2 - Emir
These three articles pose interesting questions about the creation of a fully immersible and interactive world. If one could create a life or interact with other people inside a world dictated by computers, than pretty much anything is possible. Since the limitations on visual creation within a computer are becoming less and less, if there is a way to fully immerse yourself in a world controlled by computers, then we can essential put ourselves in situations impossible in the "real" world. "Alternative Universe" shows how there is an entire synthetic economy within the world of Second Life. “So far this year, [users of Second Life] converted $37 million, much of it earned in virtual-world transactions.” We think of money as a pretty tangible and real thing. But within Second Life people are making money on things that only exist with their virtual world. Leech’s article focused on the Very Nervous System Project. This project is completely interactive because the stimuli produced by the computer is in response to actions performed by the person. But if the person performing the actions is responding to the stimuli, then it is a cyclical progression, and truly full immersion within a created world. This opens up all kinds of new possibilities. We usually think of computers as being straightforward and only able to give output in a way that is non-responsive to visual stimuli. What VNS has done is it has given computers eyes. The ability to interpret visual stimuli is something very human and it is extremely amazing to me that this software exists. Jennifer Steinkamp does similar “immersion” work. Again it’s all about the idea of the interaction with the computer. I feel like the idea of artist immersion in a computer controlled yet responsive environment is very interesting and foreword-thinking, and one day I believe computers, as well as humans may get to the point where we interact on a mutual level and create an immersible world that is almost indistinguishable from reality.
Film 115 section 4
Personally considering computer programs like "Second Life" are becoming too popular. We are only given one life to live. Playing GAMES like the sims and second life, yes I said games, only give us the illusion of and alternative reality. Programs like this remind me of the Matrix movies. I like the point that those movies make. We need to start living in the REAL world not the artifical.
Staying at home staring at a computer screen also contributes to the health problems that we as Americans face. Sure you might portray your self as a thin person, but that is not really you. If you want to be that way you have to work for it. Moving your finger on a laptop trackpad will not do that for you.
Leech, like myself thinks that, although necessary, the computer should be made to be as human as possible as to not make us all into machines. We can't get away from the fact that computers are a necessity in our lives right now, but to forget how to interact with people and base everything we do off of computers is crazy. The Second Life application helps maintain this human like way of interacting, but I still think it is going too far. Eventually the second life is going to become your first life and your first life will be entirely based off of computers.
All of the fallacies that internet based games and software like Second Life represent are just drawing out the ideas that we know we can't accomplish with our bodies. Bennett and Beith used a few examples of disabled persons who were able to use second life to fulfill their dreams. Unfortunately, at the end of the day they are still disabled and relying on a computer to take that away from them is no way to live.
Steinkamp is the only person out of these three articles that may be on to something. Not in the way that her light based illusions could be turned into a computer game, but on the fact that they can be used to represent very slight alterations to the real world, or the real world itself. However, it isn't something to get as caught up in. You see these illusions before you interact with them, unlike Second life, where you create the illusions. Not only that, but to interact with people they actually have to be there, which is the best way to keep your first life and incorporate a little second life.
Derrick Markowski - Group 3
Ryan Laing
Group 2
An example of how computers are merging into ‘real physical life’ while continuing to retain the criticism of being introverted and withdrawn from reality is when I go to class each week and see a bunch of kids sitting around with their laptops open, browsing the facebook. They are in a social environment, still talking to the friends sitting next to them, but mindlessly clicking away at random people's pages, seemingly, (to me) more for the sake of simply having some subconscious need to be online. Its strange. That being said, I think a lot of people who claim the internet is hurting people social skills are not taking into consideration how monumental the internet has been to actually allow people to speak their mind more freely then in real life, which is arguably more ‘real’. In that aspect, when computers are used for social interaction that is physically not possible in real life, similar to what Leech was getting at, it acts as an extension of our body; people forget that they are sitting on a machine looking into a screen and literally feel like they are interacting with the world. Like everything in this class, the argument can easily go both ways as to what is acceptable. While debating issues like this can be interesting, generally both aspects have obvious benefits and drawbacks that society balances to find an unavoidable middle ground.
My first reaction upon reading these three articles, was that technology has perhaps gone too far. Mostly because of the Newsweek article, I found it ridiculous that people would spend money on a computer generated version of themself, when these things are not even real. But there is a line that must be drawn, as reading Leech's interpretation of Rokeby it seems that virtual reality does a great deal of good for those people who aren't able to communicate traditionally. I suppose I'm somewhat indifferent to Jennifer Steinkamp's artistic projects that use 'virtual reality', (though they didn't seem highly technological, I don't know how old the article is), you can choose to ignore it if you want to. But really on the point of drawing the line, it's very understandable that some people would consider this a blessing if they are constrained by their own bodies, but is it really helping, when at the end of the day it's not real? I know that I'm relatively pessimistic about the stretches of technology, but I usually end up caving- after all, I did end up creating a MySpace page- but for more than half of the people who participated in Second Life spent 18+ hours a week on it? Call me crazy, but that's ridiculous. It's like a voluntary version of The Matrix- and people pay for it!
With respect to the article, though, I do agree that for the credible users of the system, it's crucial to have your physical self in direct reaction to your imagined self, or you probably would lose your sense of your body as it really exists.
AshLeigh Brown Group 2
The human body is limited by the laws of physical space, these artistic and recreational innovations by Rokeby, Steinkamp, and Rosedale extend the spaces in which the human body can operate and append the laws to which we must normally abide. This synthesis of the physical space inhabited by the human body with the development of new or altered space within the digital realm opens new possibilities and limitations of the human body.
The VNS allows users to interact with their world in a new way: those limited by physical and mental disabilities are offered communicative and artistic abilities beyond the containers their were given at birth.
Steinkamp's art displays, like the interactive VNS, alter the existing space of physicality with images and sounds existent only to the mind. This creation of a perceivable space beyond the tangible gives patrons a new interaction both with art as a living medium but also a new perspective to physical space her or she inhabits.
Second Life extends the reach of the human body by creating a world that exists in a central location , equally accessible to anyone with a terminal and ISP. This also serves as an extension of and, in some cases, a contradiction to the physical as users are no longer bound to the cards that life dealt them. In this case, it seems the only possible limitation is the sense of commerce driving Second Life too far back into the realm of the physical. The presence of multi-national corporations and the development of physical commodities could result in a reversion to the rules we are bound to. Conversely Rokeby and Steinkamp focus on not creating new rules but changing our perceptions of those that exist.
Timothy Sienko, Group 4
I believe that the ideas behind virtual reality are those striving for a purpose. but what is that purpose? to simulate real life? real life is all around us. people need to stop virtually living and go out and experience life first hand. Computers are starting to suck people too far in, obtaining mos6t of their time infront of a screen.
though, there are some cool newer programs out there now, that ultimately make some things easier. Like the program Skype for instance. I recently learned about this program and was immediately thrilled, yet taken back by it. its almost as if you are having a face to face conversation with the other person. the little camera at the top of my screen lets the other person see and hear me, while i can do both to them. i have a friend that takes her laptop to coffee shops and goes on dates with her boyfriend, who is nearly 300 miles away. This is greatly convenient
for those and other similar situations. But still the computer and virtual reality itself should not begin to take presenence over real life. why try to simulate something that is already there for the taking.
-tyler hudson
emir group 1
The Very Nervous System will get annoying after a while. If every movement triggers a change or a scenic reaction, it will be cool for about ten minutes. I can only be interested in an art piece for so long before I'd like to see something else. Yes the real world hurts and isn't what we want. But when the unexpected happens, it is either very enjoyable or changes our perspective. The world shapes who we are, not the other way around. I think what Steinkamp is doing (essentially projecting art) is innovative and interesting, but luckily her art won't close our eyes to the real world. Her art can be compared to Leech's quote in that our physical interaction with the "projection" brings us closer to the computer without us delving inside it. There is nothing wrong with Second Life, of which there are many versions. If people want to chat online with a fake image of themselves seen by others, fine; people have been doing it since the Internet went public. People who sit in front of that computer forever will not have a real social life, but we can't judge. We don't know what any one person has been through up to that point. Some are lazy bums. But others are socially scared and insecure to the point of self-embarrassment. I say let Second Life grow wildly. Anyone who has to pay rent and work for a living will not be on it all day. Our lives will not become the Matrix through Second Life, though it may happen one day: does anyone get the Matrix? We could be in it right now and not even realize. In the Matrix, we still have to work and interact like we do now. Only if you are disconnected can you do all that cool Neo-stuff. Otherwise we're just the same lame computer nerds who still have to feel the pain of getting up in the morning.
-Julianne Arnstein G4
I don't think that the computer is an immersive environment, at all, nor is technology. Angus Leech talks about physically engaging with technology to immerse yourself in it. I think you can immerse yourself into technology and computers, but you are distancing yourself from reality, which is really taking you away from any real immersion. I don't see how this immersion into technology calls on the limitations of our bodies. Sure, we can't fly to the moon, and with technology we can, but it's nice to dream from time to time, but technology is becoming too much of a reality to people. In the third article, it talked about Second Life. I think it's sick that that one lady was able to sell "virtual land" and make money from it. It's taking the reality out of life, the hardships, the things that make us feel like we're really living, and replacing it with perfection, or something we cannot have. It takes away from our real ability to live as we are. My room mate plays World of Warcraft daily and (sorry to those who play) i find it to be rediculous how into it he gets and how mad he becomes when things don't go right. It's not real! The reality of the matter is that him charging his laptop for the 6 hours he plays the game raises our electricity bill tremendously and then I have to split the bill with him and i end up paying a lot more for electricity each month! All for a game that has no real substance and doesn't do anything for you. That second life game is even worse, because it's not even fantasy, something that can't happen, it's reality played out online! gives a new meaning to get a life.
noah therrien
Group 4
My prespective on computers in the realm of the physical is that at this time of computers we can immerse ourselves into a screen of images in which we can interact with the shown environment in some way which is been developed more than ever. Its just a question of when has this gone too far. When will we be immersed too much into a virtual environment that it becomes reality? What if we wind up into a real life Matrix? Video games can make us believe that we can be someone we always wanted to be. Whether its a futuristic solider or a member of a rock band, video games allow us into these enviornments for pleasure. In Bennett and Beith's article, they describe how Second Life does the same thing on a social level.
In Holly Willis's article/interview, she asks Steinkamp about mapping out 3D evironment. 3D enviornments are what we know the world by so in order to increase the deception of being in a virtual reality we need to be in an environment that we are familiar with in some way.
When In the actual physical need is present in computers we need sensors much like those in Leech's article. David Rokeby used a series of sensors and programming to detect and use human motion as a controller. This gives us three concept when put together will truly immurse us in a virtual environment.
Jake Thorn - Group 4
e
I would like to start off by saying that I agree with what Rokeby is saying about the interaction between the digital and the physical. In order for virtual reality and digitized spaces to work we need to have a certain connection to the computer in a physical sense. I think VNS is an amazing tool, yet I don't think it can fully create a connection between a person and the computer. VNS seems like it works well to help people with disabilities. It is crazy that a paralyzed woman had the ability to communicate with VNS when she wasn't able to speak or write. Yet, this doesn't give her the sense of actually vocalizing or using her own hands to write. One flaw I see with the Very Nervous System is that the computer reacts to our movements, but we in return cannot feel what the computer is doing.
Jennifer Steinkamp's work is very intriguing and provoking. However, it fails in creating digital scenery in physical space because there is no tactile sense of the new scenery created. She may be able to project a garden, but you cannot walk through it and feel the plants. I believe that Steinkamps media is great art and innovative, but it still does not achieve to make an interactive reality.
The creation of Second Life is also very close to creating a virtual reality, however it doesn't actually convince users that what they are viewing is a reality. I think it is sweet that people use avatars to create subsocieties in a virtual world. Yet, this is nowhere close to creating a virtual REALITY. In order for virtuality to work I believe that the computer should react to all of our senses and the reactions we make.
Jon Hillbo - Group 1
With computer processing power rocketing upwards, games like second life, and the art technology listed in the first two articles, are only going to get more powerful.
It is interesting to see different people's reactions to this... some embrace it, but others caution us to stay in our "real" bodies. It brings up interesting points as to what really is reality, one could look at our current bodies as just the current medium for our consciousness, and advanced computers could easily replace that, using something akin to the matrix or even beyond. Second life only seems limiting due to technological limitations, and these will dissapear over time.
The interactive art made by Steinkamp isn't that from games you can find on the internet, its just that you use a wider range of movements to interact with it, and with game systems such as the Wii, even that isn't so unique anymore.
Leech's article brings up good points about the relationship between man and machine. "Both are not only perceiving but also responding to the other in a constant state of rhythmic readjustment." Again, the computers are just another medium for our consciousness, just as our "real" bodies currently are. It will be interesting to see what life is like even just 20-30 years from now.
I must agree with jackie bentley and that i see the oppositions posed by computers in relation to the physical world as a good thing. People should live their lives in reality and not be concerned with how to make it more artifical. Now when Leech talks about the paralyzed woman using VNS to communicate, this is a logical and benefical step forward. I also think that art work and online gaming have the potential to synthesize body and technology. Just look at Steinkamp's work and you can see the beauty of erasing the boundary between viewer and object.
Forgot my group again. (Group 1)
Though computers may be unfeeling, computers themselves represent an intangible space, where better can we represent our emotions? One can facilitate a computer to generate art, or even simulate themselves in this space. This in itself is very complex, pulling the human aspect out of ourselves and putting it into a machine. To an extent it can even be dangerous to immerse ourselves to deeply in an environment that can't relate to our bodies on a physical level. It is unfullfilling and can even make us socially inept in the physical world. However the physical interaction between the human and manchine in order to stimulate the mind seems much more practical, especially in the case of the hearind impaired and the blind. As for art, I believe the computer gives the artist the ability to fully render whatever they concieve. The potential may seem limitless. The ability to create whatever can be concieved, however it, in a sense takes away the physical aspect of art, which I believe is the human aspect of art. The communication between the hand and the canvas.
-Brian Shea 4
Upon reading this article, I found that the oppositions posed by computers and the realm of the physical seemed to be deteriorating. If we look at modern technological advancements in video games, we see that we can now talk to our friends and foes via a highspeed connection. There are consoles and video games that utilize kinesthetics as a means of playing them. The Nintendo Wii is probably the most popular one out there. In the old days, these things were rarer and more general, save perhaps Duck Hunt. However, I do believe that gamers will never be able to physically create this world, however mentally it will become entirely possible. If we were to project our own concept of our digital selves into a computer module or video game and we utilized the framing reality of that particular module or game, we can find that our 'human' limits are gone. I also believe that this effect will take a slight toll on the human body. If someone plays a game where they were running a lot, they might find their legs sore the next day in reality even though they appeared to be sitting in a chair with their eyes closed.
Ah...
I'm Troy Key
Group 1
Emir
Film 115
Sam Slater
Group 2
For me, the constant talk of technological progression that is capable of producing a fully immersive virtual world is just a basket full of empty promises. Nothing short of The Matrix will ever be able accurately mimic the physical world. Sure Rokeby’s invention is undeniably creative and quite advanced, but at its root it is nothing more than a toy. Music can not be virtually invented. The passion and connection to a higher level can only be obtained by the physical strumming, banging, blowing, or singing. The beauty of music comes from the physical connection between the individual and the instrument. Artificial chords and tones can amuse and confuse the brain for short periods of time, but will never successfully create the ecstatic euphoria created by organic rhythm.
As for the concept of Second Life, I cannot express how much I pity those who spend their hours in this virtual realm. Heroin addicts could look down upon these poor souls who cannot bear the weight of reality. I could spend my entire day watching a monkey masturbate and I would still be more productive then the top online salesmen of Second Life. These people are spending real time, real money, and losing real dignity in attempts to better their online avatars, mere shadows of existence that people invest their real emotion into. Second Life will never stand as a life because the interaction cannot produce the amplitude of emotion that real-physical connections. Your avatar can have sex with hundreds of beautiful women but you are still the same lonely bastard you were before. The beauty of actual existence comes from the risks and struggles we encounter and the sufferings and bliss that they produce.
Andrew Huggins
Group One
I believe Rokeby's quote is dead-on. it goes without saying that one is almost always engaged physically in any form of technology nowadays. In a sense, I think virtual reality is the next step in video gaming, social networking, and even in cinema. The idea of Second Life, however, does not appeal to me. Just the title evokes feelings of disgust. Life... over the computer? I would have to say that, yes, it can prove beneficial for handicapped and in many other situations, however, life itself cannot be mimicked. Google, I agree, has made any search elementary. MySpace, Facebook and instant messaging has revolutionized communication. Second Life, however, will NOT be the next way of living. It really seems like a giant oxymoron to me. Second Life... over a computer. An impressive tool, yes. In fact, I believe it could birth endless possibilities that we cannot even fathom right now. However, a seperate style of life... no. In fact, it could undoubtedly become an unhealthy obsession to some. There are already some out there that do practically live hovering over their optical mouse at their computers and I find that so sad! (No offense to any Warcraft fans out there!) There was life before the computer... believe it or not, there is life outside of your swivel chair. But hey, to end this on a good note, to each his own. Whichever way you can find your own cerebral escape, go for it.
That article about Second Life disturbed me a little bit. Why people feel that they can be themselves through a game and not in real life? I'm not sure, but I think it's scary. Could online relationships possibly take over real life relationships? I think it sounds a bit extreme, but I think it IS possible. It makes me wonder how the world became virtual so fast! I think that an interactive reality does call more attention to our physical limitations, why else would someone want to meet and date online rather than in person? Online they can be the outgoing and socially confident person that they want to be, when maybe in reality they are shy and drawn back.
-Amanda Laning, group 1
After reading these articles, the first reaction that comes to mind is that technology may be getting out of control. So many people live “through their computer” whether it be by playing second life or by creating a profile on a dating service or chat website and then living online through this most likely false profile. I can understand why some people would want to do this, most often because they are not completely satisfied with their own lives, and by signing online as their “ideal” self, they are then able to “live” their fantasy ideal life. It seems there are all these new ways to live and experience life without humans having to actually “live” it. It is scary to think that we really have no idea how far this is going to go before it gets like the movie “The Matrix”. There are many examples of people becoming too addicted to technology and ruining their marriage or losing their job. There is also an addictive side to this kind of technology that is potentially a dangerous side. In order for this to safely continue, there needs to be some sort of guidelines or limit set as to how far this can continue.
sorry amanda zimmerman, Group 1
Leech wants us to understand that when we are involved in a virtual reality game or program we leave our bodies while playing it. We see things as if we are that character, but we don’t act the way we often would. Like in the virtual computer game the Sims we can start a new life with an individual where you control your entire environment. But in virtual reality sites like Second Life and IMVU you can put yourself in the computer and use commands to tell your character what to do and how to converse with others. So its like you are chatting with others online while having a physical connection. I really didn’t understand the whole Very Nervous System; it was just a man dancing along to the music. I guess I saw how the man connected psychically with music but I didn’t see how it did with a computer. Although you are playing the game there is still a sense that it’s just a game and would never happen in reality. That’s why it’s entertaining because you are in control of everything that you do.
Aja Gray
Group 4
Physical interaction with the world enhances the experience. Physical interaction adds greatly too even the most mental activities. For example, the Nintendo Wii has become tremendously popular because of the physical interaction. I believe that computers will become more physically interactive, until the technology arrives to completely eliminate the need for physical interaction. I believe that one day we will have the technology to completely immerse ourselves in to the digital world. If you are familiar with the matrix you may understand what I mean. As an example of what I mean, let’s take the game Second Life, right now it is an on-line interactive game. You are physically immersed on the lowest of levels, the act of visual stimuli and the physical act of keyboard manipulation. However in the future, perhaps we may be able to enter a dream like state of consciousness where we are still kept within the structure of the game but have complete physical freedom and control. Take Simon Stevens, the paraplegic who uses Second Life as social interaction tool, imagine if he could completely free himself of his ineffectual body and enter a state where he would have a perfectly functioning body. I feel that until technology reaches this point, these attempts at creating an interactive reality merely call more attention to the limitations of our bodies. However, when we are able to reach this point we will have found the ultimate medium of expression.
ABOVE
Matt Smaglik, group 1
The idea of a virtual world is starting to envoke more emotiona nd personal feelings as it seems to be coming closer. It is important to examine what can be gained from this and what can be losted from this. In a sense stuck in a virtual world or this idea of Second Life is interesting granted it has many potentials that may be harder to obtain then it could be in the future.
The fear is that it will take us over replace the outside world and cacoon us in our own world. Is this a fear or is this the anxiety of a possible fear? How does one live life. Some would say that us film syudents dont live life to the fullest already that we are stuck on our computers editing our movies and not embrasing what true life is. Others would say this about hard-core gamers, or others that are experiance a new window or plain to experiance life.
When it comes down to it isn't up to the user how much is enough, keeping reality and virtuality in check, maintaning the balance.
But is it really so bad to let people live who they ideally would want to be. Granted life could become a giant online game, however the pyhsical world we live requires us to interact on a physical level, this anxiety of our live's being controled bye a virtual reality seems unlikly to me. I'm not syaing it couldn't be come a big part of it but i dont think it could control us. Every one it is important to remeber, "YOUR FOCUS DETERMINES YOUR REALITY!"
Matt Gonia Group 1
The idea of a fully interactive and created environment is one that sci-fi writers have been engaging with for decades. The idea of a false world where true physical interactions are replaced by their digital counterparts is an intriguing one, albeit one that is also a bit frightening. Relating back to earlier topics, this would be an extreme extension of our bodies! Using this idea as a form of art is an interesting reinterpreting. There has been interactive art done many times before, but the possibilities opening up to artists such as Steinkamp are vast. The general idea of virtual worlds is rapidly gaining acceptance among the wider public as well, with environments such as Second Life having such impact on our economy. If people are already comfortable opening offices in a virtual world, the possibilities seem endless.
forgot...
A. Robertson
Section 4
F 115
Our world has become so technologically advanced, so intelligent, so resourceful; and yet so depressing. I will not applaud the people who are so smart that they can create technology to communicate for them, and technology that creates a new world- that’s what drugs are for! People are so scared of confrontation that they choose to go the “matrix route.” It's an escape from life, not a way to enhance it. Living life through a video game or a computer can be disastrous. I believe Second Life is simply an advancement in the video game world, and that computers have a way of creating good interaction but they lack the physical qualities that are useful in creating relationships. People should want to go back; people need to go back to interacting with people in the flesh. Or else…
Post a Comment