[-empyre-] Re: space and representation
At 12:01 PM +1100 12/3/02, Jun-Ann Lam wrote:
I think this comment of yours definitive of online/computer screen
experience. Trying to grapple with its limits is most frustrating and still
I am not any closer to resolution. IS this then something we have to
accept...that online experience is not spatial, it does not physically
some suggestive asides in there that have triggered some ideas of my own...
though as others have pointed out this doesn't have to be the case
(books). but scale is a major issue. it's the difference between
watching a movie in the local cineplex on the big screen with the
full sound effects and watchign the same thing on dvd at home, or on
vhs. on the domestic telly. but we do, and can.
and i guess we'd also need to tease out whether envelopment in space
= immersion in the diegetic world. books suggest not. tv suggests
not. i suspect this is much more about the user than the medium of
presentation. and that might become a problem of having a language to
engage audiences in the sense of knowing what they're engaging with.
(people see first movie of train, and flee, well probably didn't, but
audiences need to learn a medium and a medium needs to learn itself.)
and things like 3d have a double bind here. those that write in the
medium know how to read it, even if they think the narrative or the
world sucks they can read the work behind the work (literally and
figuratively) and so that nifty bit of code and what it achieves is
'immserive' for such people. while joe public just sees a semi
transparent blob that seems to keep following them...
It brings me to something that the tdfsb is trying to do...create a 3d
experience of the inside of a computer. Interesting idea. But wouldn't it
have so much more impact if it were actually projected in a room as a 3d
space which the user walks into? There is also much to be said for SCALE.
and in electronic environments there is much to be said for
variability of scale. :-) i think one of the biggest things that work
online needs to deal with (and learn to treat as a positive
constraint) is that variability is a given. even if he world ran on
21 inch monitors you'd still have things like the gamma problem
across platforms (for instance), variable band width. it's the
decision of whether you regard your work as networked or not. if the
former then this is the natural ecology of your work.
Isn't 3D far more engaging if experienced in an actual 3D space? To
represent it in a 2D format flattens that third Dimension? If so, why would
an artist even bother to put in on a computer screen?
Many works simply do not lend themselves to the online medium. If I can't
see your piece in the flesh, I will never experience it as it was meant to
be experienced. I am a have not.
nah :-) this is the condition of most art anyway so i reckon we
should just get over it. shakespeare, we don't expeience that as it
was intended, the mona lisa, same gig, sistine chapel? most films
(tv, poor projection, variability between prints), music (anything
recorded?). books are perhaps the safest bet here because their
medium of transmission (print on paper) is usually treated as
secondary by the artist. (not may authors can argue typography with
their book designers.)
+ lecturer in new media and cinema studies
+ interactive desktop video developer [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/]
+ media studies. rmit [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au]
+ InterMedia:UiB. university of bergen [http://www.intermedia.uib.no]
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and