Re: [-empyre-] Digi dos

["Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>]

> it's me or it may be that the ultimate experience, still, needs a
> performer, and that, if this is the case, the narrative can only be
> linear.

hey thanx for that feedback cristiano,
..would an electronic directive agent (as damien suggests) or merely a voice
over narration with a precoded animation give the same emotional effect? is
it different when you are immerresed as an avatar in the space, or as a
single user with an outside perspective? was the pluggin different making
the experience different: -) ?
is it because the space is so open that its not clear what to do in it and
its nice to sit back and be given some direction..?
what makes the diffrence between a fully emotional and immersive experience
and the looking at an animation which goes back to what tamiko and joseph
were saying really early on in this discussion about limiting the users
range of navigation and the scale and the filling of the visual field with
the image ...does size matter? maybe it does need to be big, enveloping and
lush to be a  emotionaly rewarding experience for some people..
but ive had emails from people whove only ever seen the same work online who
get totally immersed as well.. and i know people moved to tears (like ive
been as well ) by non 3d net.art pieces.. so that doesnt seem to explain
it..

but perhpas the combination of flesh and 3space makes immersion a really
comfortable transhuman experience, where you get the sense of  personal
immediacy and theatricality melded with the intimacy of the machine
environment..
and you dont even have to be an active agent in the immersion.. as a a
parallel with aurieas dissapointing experience in ephemere, and being
distracted by the lo- res after experiencing a high res smoothly rendered
environment from the video documentation as better. maybe its like the
difference between film and the book..one or the other is useally
disapointing to most people.

so we cant talk about an artwork divorced from its delivery medium and
context.
i guess this is why tracy ermins old knickers are "art" in a gallery and
"laundry" at home
m




----- Original Message -----
From: "Cristiano Bianchi" <cristianobianchi@yahoo.com>
To: <empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: [-empyre-] Digi dos


> ----Angela Main
> > For me the interesting thing is the engagement of the viewer
> > or participant, whether that is done with a simple image or
> > a VR helmet with all the bells and whistles. the most evolutionary
> > thing about the possibilities of 3 D and VR are the interactivity
> > opportunities - the shift for an audience or viewer to a different
> > level of engagement, away from a less passive, culturally
> > mediated view. This can serve to integrate an internal `personal'
> > experience with an external view and that to my mind is where the jump
> is.
>
> I agree to the theoretical principal. But this, in my opinion, falls
> short in reality. The first time I saw Empyrean was in Glasgow (UK),
> where Melinda presented it before an astonished audience, which, until
> then, had heard papers about Java Beans in retrieving improbable data.
> It was one of the best artistical and emotional experiences I remember
> in my life. Melinda went through her piece, bit by bit, illustrating
> (not "explaining", thank you Melinda for that!) a bit of their context
> and background. Simply beautyful.
>
> But when I later went to see it online, despite trying and being in the
> right mood, I couldn't replicate the experience. They were the same
> objects and animation, but the artistic expression was gone. After
> joining this list I tried again, but that feeling stays. I'm not sure if
> it's me or it may be that the ultimate experience, still, needs a
> performer, and that, if this is the case, the narrative can only be
> linear.
>
>
>
> ----Angela Main
> > One of the most pleasurable things about digi work is
> > that it evolves - it follows organic principles.
>
> I really don't get this. How do you mean it evolves? As far as I know,
> it can only evolve id the "artist" (or coder) changes or adds code.
> Unless you talk about genetically generated shapes. But I'm rather
> skeptical about their artistic value. And even in this case, they only
> evolve as a projection of a will from their creator/coder. With the
> difference that it takes much more expertiuse in coding to generate
> shapes dynamically.
>
> Cristiano Bianchi
> keepthinking
> www.keepthinking.it
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyrean/empyre
>
>