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

[Adam Nash <adam@yamanakanash.net>]

> the "oeil complex" piece is very nice, but perhaps my intimate knowledge
> about how these things are built prevents me from suspending my
> disbelief. i see the "wires" or in this case the polygons holding the
> shape together. however i'll definitely concede that someone without my
> particular esoteric experience would indeed see something considerably
> more confounding.

Interesting reaction - I thought that the artist was not attempting to hide 
the 'wires', especially as you can see the polygons in some of the states 
that mouse-clicking produces. I found the effect to be heightened precisely 
because you CAN see the wires, yet still the effect is moving. (Just like 
when I listen to any piece of music, electronic or not, and I can 
individually discern all of the instruments and sounds being used, but it 
doesn't lessen the transformative experience of beholding the music itself).

To me, this point introduces the 'realism' argument, where the 3D graphics 
industry has become completely, and very unhealthily IMHO, obsessed with 
trying to trick the eye, which is such an old fashioned idea. At a number 
of recent demos, nVidia have been showing how 'realistically' their new 
cards can render a fairy. There are major problems for me with this. First, 
and most obviously, is the problem that fairies don't exist in the very 
reality that the card is supposedly rendering a 'realistic' version of, so 
how can it be paraded as an example of this so-called realism. Second, of 
course the fairy was white skinned, female, big gravity-defying breasts, 
and looked very submissive and altogether totally unlike any 'realistic' 
woman. So, what we're dealing with is not a 'realistic' rendering of 
reality at all, but an attempt to use the appearance of so called 
photorealism to further the hegemony of white males and the existing power 
structures. It can be seen very clearly in many games. Further, it is 
coming into play (with things like Age of Empires, etc) as a tool to 
reinforce particular readings of history, by using 'realistic' rendering as 
some kind of implied evidence.

Thirdly, I don't believe that any person's brain is ever, even for a 
nanosecond, actually believing that what they are seeing is 'reality'. The 
much vaunted 'suspension of disbelief' is a myth in my opinion: there is no 
'suspension', rather a very conscious, and quite sophisticated, dualism or 
multiplicity of perception. Because of this, I think there is a much 
greater chance of producing moving art by not worrying about whether the 
'wires' can be seen or not.

Adam


> j
>
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> > hi john,
> >
> > the space we walk around in every day is whatever it is. pretty 
> mysterious stuff. euclidean and
> > non-euclidean geometries are models of space. maps are not the 
> territory, as we know. maybe
> > there are fat creatures several light years in diameter that have 
> non-euclidean intuition. i
> > wonder if they're on any lists? because that scale of things seems to 
> be where the non-euclidean
> > turns into the quotidian. or maybe with very fast beasties that travel 
> at some significant
> > proportion of the speed of light.
> >
> > i suspect that 'seeing 4d space' is not so much a matter of actually 
> seeing it as knowing its
> > properties well enough that one can imagine how things change and look 
> from various
> > perspectives, sort of like being able to play chess without looking at 
> the board, which is of
> > course possible. 3(r)d eye stuff.
> >
> > it's true that what we're looking at at the moment is a monitor that is 
> flat and is programmed
> > with euclidean space very much in mind. but did you check out that 
> durieu piece? there's an
> > intelligable space made very imaginative via a complex mapping. Nice 
> puns in the title, too:
> > "Oeil Complex", the complex of eyes, the reference to complex analysis 
> and i.
> >
> > i think that the use to artists of non-euclidean geometries and 
> godelian philosophies and so on
> > is mainly to become a fat creature several light years in diameter but 
> to phone home frequently.
> > to not play by the book, anyway.
> >
> > Poemy poems in space:
> > http://vispo.com/writings/poems/alice.htm
> > 
> http://vispo.com/writings/SeveralNumbersThroughtheLyric/TheMeetingPlaceII.pdf
> >
> > the 'cultural hegemony' of euclidean space will probably not be 
> challenged soon by the fatties,
> > it's true. just the 'intellectual hegemony' maybe.
> >
> > ja
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre