[-empyre-] immersion [was Re: intro from tamiko thiel]
Hi Tamiko, everyone,
I should repeat that the full Beyond Manzanar piece is shown as a room
installation, not as a web3D piece, partially because I really want the
"immersive" effect that comes from having a life-sized image on a large
screen (see image at http://mission.base.com/manzanar/description.html.)
While the physical "immersion" is less that in a CAVE or HMD, I find the
psychological/perceptual immersion that this format produces to be
substantial, as the kinesthetic sense of the body reacts to the life-scale
image in a way that it doesn't to an image on a desk monitor.
Sure, I enjoy the physical aspects of, say, sitting in a cinema with a huge
screen (although, I swear if I see one more 'bullet time' kung fu sequence
or hear one more 'overwhelming' dolby-digital explosion, I'm gonna hurl !!).
And I think you're right that the body reacts to it, but I still feel that
it is the content (can we please reappropriate that word back from
marketing? :-) of the artwork itself that defines whether the *experience*
itself is an immersive one, a lasting one, a memory which transcends the
physical situation of the beholding.
I believe the type of immersion of attention that you speak about when
reading a book comes only from compelling subject matter and/or
presentation, and is independent of the medium itself.
Do you mean to suggest, then, that a piece that lacks compelling subject
matter will become compelling when presented in a physically immersive
environment? Less confrontationally, would the Face To Face piece be as
'immersive' as Beyond Manzanar if it were projected in the same way?
So perhaps we can talk about:
- full physical/perceptual immersion, where you can't see anything else,
- perceptual/kinesthetic engagement, where you can see the rest of the
environment but the virtual image still affects your kinesthetic senses,
- and a compelling artwork that holds your attention,
as being 3 different meanings that people use for the word "immersion."
Well, I don't know - I mean, certainly these distinctions are true when
used to describe a physical situation, but I don't think that 'immersion'
is achieved through any other means than the compelling artwork itself.
I've had truly moving, memorable experiences (and yes, I'd call it
immersive) looking at a 160x120 QuickTime window on my computer monitor,
and have also been completely bored in an iMax theatre. When I think back
on a novel I have read, I don't think of the physical situation I was in
whilst reading (aside: reading is interesting because the beholding of a
novel often takes place over temporally and spatially disparate
situations), I enter the world in which the novel takes place. That, to me,
is true immersion. Equally, when I remember the web excerpt of Beyond
Manzanar, I am completely immersed within the environment of the prison
camp itself - my computer monitor on my desk in my studio simply is not
part of the memory.
I do specifically use the word "experiential" for the sort of interactive,
navigable 3D VR that Beyond Manzanar is, and think that "experiential
virtual environments" is a good term to distinguish these non-competitive
works from games such as Myst and its follow-ons,
Yes, that could be an appropriate term, and whilst I am wary of the word
'virtual' because it does imply a copy of reality, it is hard to think of
another way to describe, say, Melinda's Empyrean for example. But is it too
grand a term? Will 'interactive 3D' suffice? Perhaps that removes an
unreasonable expectation that the term 'virtual' sets up. I like the
interactivity, or navigability, of Web3D, but have little or no interest in
using it to represent physical reality (if Simon and John can work out what
that actually is ;-) so it would be good to have a way of describing it
that distinguishes it from true Virtual Reality endeavours.
There are two major negatives for me with the term Virtual Reality.
One, until 'The Other 3 Senses' are virtualised, it needs to be called
'Virtual 2/5ths of Reality' (I haven't forgotten about the other senses,
but I think art by its very nature accommodates various of them).
Two, the sheer amount of physical and financial hassle required to mount
physically immersive environments. This is not to say that I have anything
against such environments (I love them, and try to expreience them whenever
I can, which is not very often down here in the colonies :-), just that
they don't appeal to my work method, which, being a performer and musician,
is much more akin to using Web3D as if it were music, ie, conceive of it,
write it, perform it, keep it in the repertoire, move on to the next one. I
like the idea of it being non-site specific and able to be beheld in a
variety of situations, be it in someone's home, projected in a gallery, or
at a live gig a la live music - which is something I'll be doing a lot more
of now that I've built up a big enough repertoire of pieces to make up a
good length 'set'.
whose main point is the solving of a puzzle even though the process of
solving the puzzle requires you to go use an experiential technique. I
talk more about the development of experiential dramatic structure for
Beyond Manzanar in the online paper:
This defines a crucial difference in approach - you have the much more
difficult and concrete task of representing a dramatic structure and a
physical structure, so I may be forcing you into a dialogue that you really
needn't engage in. I am interested to hear your opinions, though, as well
as those of others on the list.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and