I've tried to resist but could not....
I had always thought VR was about creating an illusion of reality, fooling
our perceptions via stereo perspective, navigation and other tricks such as
haptics, 3D sound, interaction etc.
For me the real issue is what is it that we are simulating - it is not
reality, but a perceptual illusion.
Hence we might argue about teh form and content of alternative realities -
storytelling, trance dancing, film, television, dreams etc.
Given that reality is an illusion anyway, VR is even more of an illusion,
and for me simply simulating that which we perceive is not of artistic
interest, anymore than photorealism in painting. The art lies in a sideways
view, revealing the hidden, beyond representation.
VR as a medium does have potential for conveying much more than where we
are now, for like painting before abstraction, VR appears stuck in a
perspective, cartesian, representational paradigm. Insight into our
internal modes of representation, understanding and consciousness are
equally as important as analysing the external medium of VR (plus the
cybernetic dialogue between the two).
The VR debate must surely take into account the application of VR
(content), no-one these days asks what is film? what is television? Maybe
why is Eastenders better than Coronation Street, or is there a postmodern
contextualisation of Vanity Fair (joke).
Content over delivery system? Styles, methods, linearity, narrative,
editing, point of view, alternative unrealities? Perhaps we need a language
for debating content (and cognition) rather than medium.
R.D.Brown
Research Fellow,
Computer Related Design,
Royal College of Art,
Kensington Gore,
London SW7 2EU.
Tel: 0171 590 4549
Fax: 0171 590 4575
http://www.crd.rca.ac.uk/~richardb
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|