Re: [-empyre-] multi-perspectival / cultural hegemony of space

[John Klima <klima@echonyc.com>]

Simon Biggs wrote:

"One of my primary concerns in making Babel was to escape the cultural
hegemony of Western notions of space and how this echoes and sustains
our paradigms of self relative to collective. In computer graphics it is
hard to think of a way of creating spatially and temporally dynamic data
without using a system based on either Cartesian or Polar coordinate
systems, where the primacy of the individual visual point of view is
constant. In Babel everybody's point of view is given equal weight in
the visualisation of its data-space in an attempt to move away from the
Western dualism that conventional 3D visualisation systems are founded
on. In Babel the visual field, as an instance of time/space, is created
through the interaction of multiple viewers."

 
Adam Nash wrote:

"Many artists are thinking about this at this juncture in history. I
think the point that Simon was trying to make (and correct me if i'm
wrong), is that ultimately even the so-called 3D space that is the
subject of this month's discussion is the product of the last few
hundred years of single-point perspective (a feedback loop with arrogant
expansionary European culture and worldview) and therefore the rendering
device (including the screen and the vrml, or whatever,
browser/rendering mechanism and indeed even the idea of computer
graphics) is trapped within a cartesian space view."

and i reply (lets try to control our tempers) - 

it is not "hard to think of a way of creating spatially and temporally
dynamic data without using a system based on either cartesian or polar
coordinate systems." it is IMPOSSIBLE. 

regardless of whether a mathematical model represents a manifestation of
cutural hegemony, the existing model is the only way a synthetic
representation of space could ever hope to exist in the first place. how
else do you propose to usefully describe the distance between two
points?  it is simply not very relevent to discuss the limitations of
our society, or our species, through a "criticism" of the cartesian
coordinate system. and personally, i find it kind of "dodgey" (a
wonderful brit expression).

that aside, no matter how many singular points of view are rendered
simultaneously, no matter how one may attempt to confound the space
through whatever means, when the thing is finally blit'ed to the screen,
it is through a cartesian or polar coordinate system that it is allowed
to exist at all. 

now here's where it gets interesting: if the algorithmic supposition of
the system employed is such that the rendered space represents "the
real," regardless of the number of conceptual viewpoints combined to
form the final image, to the individual viewer viewing it (and certainly
to the domain knowledge the rendering system represents), one actually
sees only a properly formed three dimensional space, and any effect
otherwise is an optical illusion. the world is all that is the case.

in a practical sense, the only way to question the rendering system we
are all employing, is to find and exploit the bugs in the system. to
show through the system's limitations, where it falls down, where it
fails. divide by zero.

best,
j







> -----
> That was more or less my point, although I was seeking to address the
> underlying dynamics of the situation rather than the resulting phenomena.
> 
> > Simon has evidently researched alternative world view mechanisms: "the
> > cultural hegemony of Western notions of space and how this echoes and
> > sustains our paradigms of self relative to collective", I would be very
> > keen to hear more about what you have found and your thinking on this
> > subject, Simon...
> -----
> Not sure whether one can talk of "research" in the formal sense here.
> Perhaps experience is a better term.
> 
> I am of course aware of non-Western world models and anything that is
> different to what we are familiar with is always interesting, if only to
> remind us of the contingency and relative nature of our beliefs.
> 
> The thinking behind the piece of mine that is in Web3D goes back quite a few
> years - perhaps over a decade or more - and has many threads which converged
> with that particular piece...and that only in respect of one of the
> thematics of Babel concerning spatial paradigms and visualisation.
> 
> The underlying issue for me is that of ontology, how we feel and believe
> ourselves to be. Here is an essay I wrote recently which might suggest where
> I am coming from...
> 
> 
> Multiple Perspectives / Multiple Readings
> Originally written for the User_Mode symposium, Tate Modern, London, 2003
> by Simon Biggs, 2003
> 
> ABSTRACT:
> 
> People experience things from their own physical point of view. What they
> see is usually a function of where they are and what physical attitude they
> adopt relative to the subject. With augmented vision (periscopes, mirrors,
> remote cameras, etc) we are able to see things from places where we are not
> present. With time-shifting technologies, such as the video recorder, we can
> also see things from the past; a time and a place we may never have visited.
> 
> In recent artistic work I have been exploring the implications of digital
> technology, interactivity and internet connectivity that allow people to not
> so much space/time-shift their visual experience of things but rather see
> what happens when everybody is simultaneously able to see what everybody
> else can see. This is extrapolated through the remote networking of sites
> that are actual installation spaces; where the physical movements of viewers
> in the space generate multiple perspectives, linked to other similar sites
> at remote locations or to other viewers entering the shared data-space
> through a web based version of the work.
> 
> This presentation explores the processes involved in such a practice and
> reflects on related questions regarding the non-singularity of being and the
> sense of self as linked to time and place.
> 
> INTRODUCTION:
> 
> We regard the self as singular. We imagine the collective other as composed
> of multiple singular selves. Each "self" is seen as occupying a single
> moment in time and a single point in space. The notion of the instance of
> self is inextricably bound up with this idea of a singular locus in
> time/space. It is perhaps this, in correlation with memory, that we
> conveniently refer to as consciousness [1].
> 
> The geometry of vision we accept as conventional is the inverted triangle,
> with the "eye" at the apex of the triangle and the ocular field composed of
> that lying within the boundary of this triangle [2]. Such representations of
> the visual field typically manifest as single graphical forms with a single
> apex, related to the single, even if abstracted, "eye". Such a
> representation functions to reinforce our accepted belief that the self is
> singular and can only occupy one point in space at any one time. This
> paradigm is also evident in the structure of mechanised visualisation and
> image recording systems we have developed (camera's, 3D imaging systems,
> etc). This dominant mode of "vision" and, by implication, notion of self is
> also evident in how we visually represent things, the example of Cartesian
> space and its unique vanishing point functioning as a corelate, although
> inverse, triangle relative to the geometry of vision outlined above. Thus we
> can see how our artifacts, in their very structures, map onto our models of
> the human and thus reflect our sense of who we believe ourselves to be.
> 
> BACKGROUND:
> 
> Over the past two decades my artistic practice has been focused on questions
> around identity explored through the use of interactive spaces where the act
> of interaction itself functions to foreground issues concerned with being.
> The intention of this work has always been artistic. That is, there is no
> pretence in any of these projects to a position on psychology or the less
> rigid domain of philosophy concerned with ontology. As an artist I have
> often been inspired by well thought out and argued theoretical positions but
> I have never felt any compulsion to make work with the necessary rigour and
> internal coherence that such academic practice demands. Art is not a means
> to make an argument nor is it a device to illustrate theoretical concerns.
> Rather, art is that human activity which can confound the basic sense we
> make of things, such that we are then able to see things in a manner we
> might otherwise never have considered. It is in the creation of dis-juncture
> between the thing and its representation that we come to see the thing and
> its relation to other things, particularly ourselves, anew.
> 
> My intent, when creating works of art that function to disturb the manner by
> which we physically see things and thus disturb our accepted notion of self
> as evidenced through how we "know" ourselves through our sense of seeing, is
> not to author a new theoretical position, nor to reflect an accepted one,
> but to destabilise our sense of self as a subjective experience in the hope
> of giving cause to doubt, at the subjective and experiential level, this
> basic belief in self.
> 
> A primary point of differentiation we subjectively employ to maintain our
> sense of internal unity and uniqueness is that between the self and the
> other [4]. Although it is well established, and numerous arguments have been
> made regarding the objective cultural, sociological and psychological
> factors involved, the focus of my practice has been in engendering a
> subjective "failure" to differentiate, resulting in a process of
> de-differentiation of self and thus a re-positing of self as non-singular,
> de-centred and distributed.
> 
> The intention here is not scientific, nor even theoretical in the
> conventional sense of the social sciences, but rather artistic. It is the
> contention here that by seeking to justify such practice only on artistic
> terms the aims and objectives of the work in establishing dis-juncture and
> de-differentiation, will be sustained.
> 
> DEVELOPMENT:
> 
> Technology has functioned, for as long as people have developed and applied
> it, to extend human ability. One human capability which has been subject to
> numerous technological enhancements is vision. Generally these enhancements
> have been concerned with either allowing us to see things that we cannot see
> due to spatial limitations (they are too far away, too small or obscured by
> some other element) or temporal restrictions (things that have happened at
> another time). Technologies such as the telescope, microscope and periscope
> have been developed to deal with the limitations of space. The camera
> fulfils the same role relative to time [5].
> 
> However, as we all know from basic physics, time and space are not separate
> things but are the dialectical aspects forming the fundamental medium of
> being [6]. This has been accepted as conventional scientific knowledge for
> most of the Twentieth Century and as an idea has inspired numerous artists,
> perhaps most famously Picasso and Braque with the initial development of
> what is now known as Analytical Cubism. Modern physics, as best exemplified
> by Einstein's theories, has, along with contemporary psychology, been
> amongst the most influential of knowledge systems upon Modern artistic
> practice.
> 
> Nevertheless, it would be an error to seek an interpretation of Picasso
> within the paradigms of physics for, as already suggested above, it is
> unlikely that Picasso's intent would have been in any respect scientific.
> More likely, he managed to find something in contemporary scientific theory
> that allowed him to further his objective of destabilising the way things
> seem to be. His interest was in how we feel, or know, ourselves to be
> relative to the subject or other.
> 
> Analytical Cubism is typified by its representation of the subject as a
> highly fragmented, often incomplete, object within a similarly treated
> context. A primary device in achieving this fragmentation is the use of
> multiple points of view in establishing the format, angle and placement of
> the subject. In such work the multiple points of view are clearly those that
> were available to the artist (either in reality or in their imagination) and
> although they may become numerous their number is finite.
> 
> My own work has taken, to a degree, ideas as represented in work such as
> Picasso's as an initial point of departure. I must admit though that
> although I am an admirer of his work, and particularly of that period known
> as Analytical Cubism, the connections between my own recent practice and
> Picasso's work only dawned on me retrospectively (although this does not
> mean that his work did not influence mine...just that if it did so it was
> not conscious).
> 
> APPLICATION:
> 
> When developing the multiple viewpoint model employed in my recent practice,
> initially in a work entitled Babel [7], my primary interest had been in ways
> by which I could solve the problem of shared three dimensional perception in
> shared interactive and immersive three dimensional spaces (what are
> typically referred to as responsive environments or virtual reality,
> although I find neither of these names satisfactory). That is, I was
> concerned with the viewers' viewpoint, not the artist's. It is a fundamental
> problem in such work how to represent the "point of view". When there is
> only a single inter-actor (as in conventional head-up Virtual Reality
> systems) this is not a problem. The system is able to calculate the ocular
> origin of the viewer and calculate a three dimensional view around them that
> satisfies the requirements for a coherent, convincing and conventional three
> dimensional scene.
> 
> However, as soon as more than one inter-actor is involved in such a system a
> problem emerges as the technology is required to still construct a coherent
> three dimensional view determined by the point of view of the participants.
> Two typical solutions to the problem are usually employed. Firstly, to
> assign one the inter-actors a lead role (this might be dynamically assigned
> and reassignable) in the definition of the point of view and therefore the
> construction of the ocular field. This role is usually assigned to the
> inter-actor who is also in control of the interactive "levers" of the work
> [8], although in some works the roles are kept separate such that a
> communications dynamic is formed between the "one that can see" and the "one
> that can act" [9]. A second approach to the problem is to calculate a
> generic view, usually through some sort of median sampling of inter-actor
> positional data and activity. By this latter method a single point of view
> is calculated that is in some manner the mean average generated by the total
> number of view points and their relative positional data. This results in a
> generic view that relates equally to all the views but does not necessarily
> map onto any single one. In this solution any attempt at a sensuous
> representation of three dimensional space built around the subjective eye of
> the viewer is abandoned [10].
> 
> Neither of these approaches have ever seemed satisfactory to me and thus
> have functioned to deter me from employing three dimensional visualisation
> techniques in my practice. My primary interest in all my work is the
> interaction of people with other people (not people with machines) and how
> through the manifestation of this interaction new experiences can be
> generated that allow us to further reflect on what it is to be "us". Due to
> this all my interactive artworks have been, by necessity, multi-user. Thus
> it was clear I would always have concerns with three dimensional
> visualisation as the problem of the point of view would always be there to
> confound and compromise the (inter-personal) intent of the work.
> 
> The commissioning brief to design and build Babel was clear; that the work
> had to be concerned with libraries, that it must exist on the internet and
> that it must in some fashion involve the notion of navigation. My immediate
> response to this was to imagine a navigable virtual space that people could
> explore where the contents of a library could be navigated in some manner.
> The idea evolved to the point that it was clear that this space should be
> multi-user and that the various "users" would be explicitly aware of one
> another. It was a small step from there to decide that the visualisation of
> all this should be such that the navigational system and the data to be
> navigated should be the same thing. Then the problem emerged. How would the
> issue of "point of view" be addressed? After looking at the alternative
> solutions to the problem, as outlined above, I decided to use neither of
> them and to use instead the usual convention of each viewer having their own
> point of view, but to simply have them all visualised simultaneously,
> rendering them in real-time into a single multi-layered representation of
> space. This allowed people to be immediately aware of other participants, to
> render the entire scene as a product of this multiple view point ocular
> space and to fold the various components of data, interface, user modelling
> (user presence) and visualisation into a single graphical model. It also
> satisfied my poetic need to create a work that in some fashion caused a
> dis-juncture between each of these components.
> 
> Since the completion of Babel I have continued to develop some of the
> emergent key themes of the work through pieces such as Precession of the
> Equinoxes [11], Parallax [12] and Tristero [13]. [14] The works Precession
> of the Equinoxes and Tristero exist as primarily online works. Parallax
> exists as primarily an installation but with an online component.
> 
> When Babel was first produced the intention was that it would be an online
> project however, as work progressed, it became clear there was a compelling
> case that it could also become an architectural scale site specific
> installation. Thus it came to be that when the work went live on the
> internet this was complemented by three installation versions of the work at
> the three main libraries comprising the commissioning agent (Essex
> Libraries, UK). This involved large scale interactive projections of the
> work onto the three buildings, each in a different town, either inside or
> outside, of Babel, with all of these projections linked to the internet such
> that inter-actors, whether at one of the three locations or at any location
> on the net, would be able to participate in the collective process of
> visualisation that the work is primarily composed from.
> 
> Parallax sustains this approach, although the work has been designed from
> conception to employ and exploit this device, whereas with Babel this arose
> through an evolutionary iterative artistic process and was not the initial
> intention. In Babel the content was concerned with the taxonomies of
> knowledge that determine how we create our libraries and how to navigate
> this ever burgeoning data-space (with implicit reference to the now
> potentially uncatalogueable scale of the internet through the re-mapping of
> Dewey Decimal numbering onto URL's of similar taxonomical value). By
> contrast Parallax is a determinedly formalist work where the focus of the
> piece is on the process of visualisation itself. That is to say, the work
> could be considered a structuralist exercise in that the choice of the
> visual elements was primarily determined by the form of the visualisation
> rather than a desire to visualise certain content.
> 
> It was clear that the work would be composed of multiple over-layed three
> dimensional views so the imagery required would have to be simple, without
> backgrounds or multiple related components, to avoid confusion and aid
> perception of the implied and critically important multiple view points.
> Secondly, unlike Babel which was a primarily online work requiring low-band
> solutions (e.g.: text instead of image) Parallax, as a primarily
> installation based work, could be high-band and thus use photographic
> quality moving imagery (as is the case with most of my installations).
> Thirdly, most of the movement in Parallax would be the result of the
> parallax effect itself caused by the multiple movements in the installation
> space of the various inter-actors. However, to aid in the formation of the
> strongest three dimensional illusion as possible it was obvious that the
> objects that would come to compose the three dimensional views would also
> have to be moving but, rather than moving through the virtual space relative
> to one another and the overall spatial envelope of the ocular field, which
> would have functioned to confuse the parallax effect that the three
> dimensional illusion relied on, they would have to move around their own
> axis', this in turn heightening the three dimensional effect as the viewers
> gain sight of all aspects of each object.
> 
> Thus, the selection of the imagery was dictated by a set of very stringent
> criteria. To satisfy the needs of the piece I had to select imagery which I
> could digitally video record in a highly controlled studio environment, with
> the usual array of systems available to me, which was singular, isolated,
> visually simple, rotating around its own axis (and thus of a vertical
> characteristic, opposed to the naturally horizontal spatial movement that is
> the parallax effect) and yet visually rich and subtle with clear three
> dimensional characteristics. The immediate solution was the human figure and
> thus it was determined that three appropriate figures that by their nature
> spin around their own axis' could (arbitrarily) be Sufi dervishes, ballet
> dancers and children's spinning toys. Any reading that might be made of
> this, and I, as well as others, have come up with many, might be rewarding
> but ultimately arbitrary. I leave it to the individuals imagination as to
> what it all might mean as this reflects again upon the inter-dynamics of the
> work as represented in its central motif, the multiple point of view.
> 
> The reasoning for the use of three screens was similarly determined by a
> simple factor; that together, and arranged as they are, they create an
> easily constructed and self-supporting structure that in its floor plan
> models the ocular field that the work is based on - the triangle.
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> 
> As first stated, the intention here has not been to justify practice through
> theory, nor to illuminate theory through practice. It has been the intention
> to employ resources available in theoretical discourse and artistic practice
> to evoke and further explore a number of artworks that concern themselves
> with the relationship between perception and the notion of self. To some
> degree the convergence of disciplines here is not only intended to see how
> they might inform one another but also search for their limits through a
> possible confounding of the intentions of this particular instance of
> convergence.
> 
> REFERENCES:
> 
> 1. The subject of Consciousness Studies is explicitly converging with the
> study of the creative arts, as exemplified by developments at the University
> of Wales, Newport and the associated CaiiA Star centre for post-graduate
> studies.
> 
> 2. Lacan, Jacques; The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-analysis ,
> London, Hogarth Press: Institute of Psycho-analysis, 1977.
> 
> 3. Huizinga, Johan; Homo Ludens, Beacon Press, July 1986.
> 
> 4. Theories concerning the definition of the self relative to the other have
> become received knowledge in contemporary culture, although there is
> actually a field of theories, many of which are exclusive of one another.
> There is no intention here to engage with any of these theories other than
> to simply identify that they are there, they are commonplace and all have
> some relevance to the subject in hand.
> 
> 5. Cubbitt, Sean; Timeshift: On Video Culture, Comedia/Routledge, London and
> New York, 1991.
> 
> 6. Russell, Bertrand; The ABC of Relativity, Routledge, ISBN:    0045210012
> 
> 7. http://www.babel.net.uk commissioned by Essex Libraries, UK 2001
> 
> 8. This is the conventional CAVE (Collaboratively Actuated Virtual
> Environment) model, as exemplified by Dan Sandin's (Illinois University,
> Chicago) permanent work at the Ars Electronica Centre, Linz, Austria.
> 
> 9. Some works of Char Davies (http://www.chardavies.com/immersence_home.htm)
> are an example here.
> 
> 10. Barron, Stephan; Day and Night, 1996 (http://stephan.barron.free.fr/).
> 
> 11. http://www.littlepig.org.uk 2001
> 
> 12. http://www.littlepig.org.uk 2002
> 
> 13. Commissioned by Film and Video Umbrella, London, 2002, found at site
> http://www.tristero.co.uk/ along with other commissions for the same
> project.
> 
> 14. A new work, Stream, that exists equally as a multi-user interactive
> immersive environment and as a multi-user web based piece, where each of
> these aspects function simultaneously and to equal effect, is in the late
> stages of development and will be premiered as an installation at the FILE
> festival in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in August 2003 and then be shown as part of
> the Poesis exhibition organised by the Litteraturwerkstatt of Berlin at the
> Kulturforum, Berlin from October, 2003.
> 
> Copyright Simon Biggs, 2003 London UK
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> Simon Biggs
> simon@littlepig.org.uk
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> 
> http://www.greatwall.org.uk/
> http://www.babel.uk.net/
> 
> Research Professor
> Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> s.biggs@shu.ac.uk
> http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre