mark.r.hancock at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 20:16:53 EST 2012
It's interesting that the discussion has moved around and we've tried to understand exactly what we mean by 'screens' and indeed, cinema. Simon's summarising of the point about passive screens and pervasive screens seems interesting, because it makes me think about the performative nature of our interaction with the 'new screens' and conversely, the ways the screens are now interacting with environments almost without us. I like this shift from passive to engaged. I'm not sure what this might mean for narrative and story telling, just yet, but I'd be interested to see if this comes out in the discussion at all.
That you point towards Gulf War 1 (a phrase I've not heard used before, but I like it!) does somehow seem really key. I've been trying to unpack this a bit of late, in thinking about our expectations of (reality) TV and the shift in what we expect of the screen/TV (I'm aware that I'm talking about broadcasting mediums here). Was this perhaps the first time that many people outside of the experimental film/art world, began to really understand the different places that the screen/lens could exist?
Does this tie in to your point, Simon, about ontologies?
On 7 Jul 2012, at 10:50, Simon Biggs wrote:
> I know Flash isn't needed. I use Java and Processing and they support vector graphics, with or without HTML5. The reason Flash is becoming unsustainable is lack of support for its engine on mobile media. I've heard that Adobe are considering adding an export function that will allow files to run with HTML5, platform blind, so it might not die anyway.
> However, this has nothing to do with screens.
> I think the current debate, about types of screens, is off piste from the original theme, which was to do with agency. Yes, different types of screens will have different affects and effects. But the key point was that we have moved from the more or less passive screen (whether a blank surface and projector assembly or an all in one CRT, plasma or LCD panel) to active and pervasive screens. Screens that we interact with, that form our environment, that control other devices - screens that actively mediate agency and can, in some cases, act upon things without human involvement. This takes consideration of the screen into frameworks concernin
> ontology, rather than aesthetics. Cronenberg fantasised about this in relation to video and TV but the technologies we have now aren't fantasy and are very different to what now seem quaint pieces of kit. Perhaps Gulf War 1, with laser guided bomb POV video on our nightly news, was when the change began, where the screen assembly became both targeting and recording mechanism, just as in Vietnam the portapak transformed the moving image camera. We have come a way since then. But let's try to avoid Virilio...
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 18:18, Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 07/06/2012 02:16 PM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>> With the death of Flash it's not just the vector based screen on its way
>>> out (that's been on the way out ever since Evans and Sutherland invented
>>> the framestore at the start of the 1970's) but also vector based
>>> graphics (or at least one commercial application).
>> - Rob.
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Simon Biggs
> simon at littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
> s.biggs at ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre