Re: [-empyre-] PATINAGE and TURNBABY by Babel

around the 7/3/05 Edward Swick mentioned about Re: [-empyre-] PATINAGE and TURNBABY by Babel that:
> I questioned whether there is a viable thing called
 the "virtual" in the
 sense that the notion of the "virtual" belongs to
 that set of ideas
 associated with "realism" in representation (eg:
 virtual reality).

To keep it simple one might consider virtual to mean that a person gets enough information from the virtual object to be able to experience as real. That is It can be felt as real- seen as real and perhaps heard as real at the same time. Jargon can confuse reason so it is best to keep it simple, which may or may not be what artists do. I prefer simplifying not complicating. Said with no intent to insult or harm. Ed

coming very late to conversation.

I'd suggest this is problematic, and these days ideas of the 'virtual' as equivalent in some way with 'real' has been very heavily critiqued. (Sorry if this is not what you mean.)

I'd suggest the Deleuzean inspired work that proposes a much stronger distinction between the virtual and the actual has established a more robust and pragmatically useful approach. The virtual (in a crude nutshell) are that set of possibilities available, the actual are those possibilties actualised. eg right now in the next few minutes I might go to bed, keep writing, go to the toilet, attend to my kids in their sleep, put the dog out, change tv channels, etc. This is the virtual. The actual is what is actualised. both, however, are real.
Adrian Miles

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.