Re: [-empyre-] space, time and narrative

[Adam Nash <adam@yamanakanash.net>]

>  We (I believe bring more modalities to
> bear on the matter, in part because of our generally
> more abstract nature

Indeed its true. The observations about the 3D space by Steve, Tamiko, 
Melinda and Grégoire have been very instructive, I'm learning a lot from 
this discussion. When I use Web3D as a performance medium (either MU-style 
where the performers are performing the space itself, or single-user 
'active' where I will play the space a la a musical instrument to an 
audience wathcing and listening to a projection, or single-user 'passive' 
where the user accesses it on the web) it has slightly different 
inflections to those already noted. It becomes probably much more analogous 
to music, because the time is quite strictly controlled by the artist. It 
is probably 'less interactive' than the modes discussed so far. Certainly 
if the audience is watching a projection of my computer screen as I play 
the piece then they have no control over any aspect of it. When logged in, 
or using it on the web, the audience for my pieces generally has more 
control over the negotiation of the space rather than the time, in other 
pieces they have explicit control over both space and time and nothing will 
happen without their input, in still other pieces they are expected just to 
watch+listen as if it were indeed a regular 'concert'.

What I love about the medium is the fact that it can accommodate all of 
these modes. I've often referred to VRML as 'the mother of all file 
formats', and I think its true that the medium of Web3D could be called 
'the mother of all media' because it is capable of an enormous range of 
usage, uses that do have precedent (painting, sculpture, games, music, 
performance, print, etc etc) and those that don't.

Thinking about this is enormously helpful for me as this is my first year 
as a 'solo' artist working only with Web3D, ie, not as an adjunct to live 
performance.


> The early Gibson Cyberspace movement failed partly
> because it didn't understand the conflict between
> spatial data (shading & perspective) & abstract
> graphical data (as seen in charts & graphs).


This is a very interesting distinction. I would be interested to hear what 
Tom Nullpointer thinks about that. Tom?


> Second the issue of time and narrative infinitely ups the
> level of complexity from merely looking good from the
> front, left or right. Combining the two is maybe not
> impossible - but hasn't been done yet.

Not sure I know precisely what you mean here, but surely this combination 
is exactly what a lot of the work of this month's guests does achieve, and 
is what makes that work interesting.

> > we make life worlds for avatars.. so we shoudld be
> >generous and inventive in our architecture as they
> >deserve to have a nice place to play ..:)

Generous and inventive - admirable aims.

adam