[-empyre-] open imaging

B. Bogart ben at ekran.org
Wed Sep 17 03:19:16 EST 2008


I just wanted to touch on two points here.

First I wanted to highlight the interesting twist in question:

> I'd like to know more how as artists you get inspired more or less by certain
> forms of imaging. How it informs you creativity in details.
(Sorry I could not find the original context)

With all this peering into the mind/brain/body (MBB) in order to find
meaning (inspiration) is somehow cyclical.

MBB image -> inspiration -> MBB reaction

Almost as if the image is inspiring as its a kind of representation of
inspiration (at least stimulation).

Have anyhow tried to create a feedback loop so that the subject observes
the very image of their MBB responding to that very image? Obviously
there would be delay involved, but I find the idea very conceptually
interesting. Watching your brain watch your brain...

The second point is in response to Alan's comments below, in regards to
perception and fidelity:

Alan Dunning wrote:

> I was interested in the post about long term immersion. Over the years
> we have made several works using HMDs and, in development, I have had to
> wear them for uncomfortably long periods of time. I noticed very
> distinct effects. I had all the usual effects, although the worst was
> probably the sickness from serious tracker lag (thank goodness for fast
> machines). The lasting impact was not really physical, but rather
> psychological. The world looked different. Less random, more structured.
> Artificial even. Fractally generated clouds and landscape. Strangely it
> was if the inventory of the natural world had been somehow reduced to
> the limited inventory of the virtual world. Some kind of filter at work.
> The virtual had come fully into the material world - echoes of our
> appreciation of the natural world as driven by invention in painting.
> Same it ever was.
> 
> Alan

I was watching a short film festival that mixed both computer animation
and live-action. After watching a particularly realistic (but also
obviously computer generated) piece I had the distinct impression I was
watching an animation of a child running through the grass. The motion
seemed contrived and awkward. The grass seemed simplistic. It was only
after a few seconds (and a closeup shot of the child) that I realized
that this was not at all an animation but a live-action video. Somehow
my MBB interpreted the reality as a virtuality.

I also recall watching Jurassic park and being completed convinced by
the effects, the lighting appeared to match and I was not aware this
animal was computer generated. Years later I saw the movie again and
found the opposite effect, the lighting did not match the effects
changed from being totally transparent to being disappointingly opaque.

We tend to think of computer graphics and stepping closer and closer to
reality. If our perceptions of reality can change, and what was once
considered close to reality becomes far from reality, what is it really
that computer graphics are moving toward? Is reality reached for each
generation of effects, and gets replaced with some new perception of
what should stand for reality in the next generation?

In my reading of Liane Gabora's ideas of creativity and memory I'm left
with an interpretation that our memory is constructed of components that
are being constantly replaced. Just like the cells in our bodies due and
are shed, yet the totality remains, the components of memories are
forgotten, and replaced with more recent components. The totality of
memory remains, but perhaps the micro-features are constantly changing.

Perhaps I watch Jurassic Park now, having replaced the components of the
original stimulus with more recent components. Of course we see the past
through the lens of the present, but perhaps the present changes our
very memory of the past.

This seams reasonable since much of what we see with our eyes/MBB is
remembered and constructed.

.b.


More information about the empyre mailing list