Just some quick thoughts-
Firstly I hate the term VR-I prefer virtual environments, the term VR
sets up an oppostional propostion that has generated much over-hyped hot
air...


>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.

this was the original (and naive) motivation for VR research-a
simulation of reality that would blur the difference between synthetic
and real,

>For me the real issue is what is it that we are simulating - it is not
>reality, but a perceptual illusion.

I perceptual illusionism has been the bread and butter of cultural
practice since (arguably) cave painting-in these terms VR technologies
offer what simon penny calls 'an extended form of pictorial
representation' albeit with the added novelty of kinaesthetic input-all
VR creations are essentially 'fictions' in this sense they are no
different from other media that seek to interperate the complexity of
existance (film, painting, literature etc..)
as you have suggested we really shouldn't be wasting time over
definitions (of VR) but concerntrating on designing constructing
compelling fictive experiences using the available tools

>Given that reality is an illusion anyway,
Sorry-reality is not an illusion... we
(as individuals) construct it in different ways-surely what you
mean by this, is that a singular 'top down' version of reality that 
seeks to exclude the alternative view of the 'other' (in the post
modernist sense) is untenable.
>
>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. 


If you can remove the cartesian part from the above
I agree, however people seem confused by Descartes-yes he is the
philospher that propagated some quite untenable theory regarding the
mind body split, should a criticism of this be extended to cover VR
though? Cartesian geometry as a theory can be seen as seperate from his
theories of the mind and consciousness- furthermore cartesian geometry
is fundamental-absloutely intrinsic to construction of form in VR-you
cant have a VR environment that is non-cartesian-this does not mean that
you buy into Descartes mind/body spit shenanigins.

I agree that much VR is overly reliant on representational paradigms
derived from rennaisance perspective, architecture etc... however using
cartesian geometry does not preclude construction of abstract form-look
at Osmose for example..


>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.

This I agree with-our task as practitoners is to contribute our unique
insights (grounded in real hands on experience) to an evolving language
for debating the above.
>
>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
>
>

-- 
[log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%