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

[steve guynup <exposedfield@yahoo.com>]

> is probably 'less interactive' than the modes
> discussed so far. 

True but that's not a question of vr. You could do an
open jam session. The reason why you don't is the same
as what a real world musician would say. Its really
just that people typically see the internet/technology
as empowering individuals/destroying social structures
- ie utopian stuff. Many developers forget the
creative part is very hard and technology alone
doesn't make you a genius. (see Ken Hillis on this)

Still, I think music really opens up possiblities of
collaboration (musician to musician / musician to
audenience) that have never been done before.

> control over the negotiation of the space rather
> than the time, in other 

Well, there's really no incorrect answer. But I'd like
to say the time thing again. (For my own clarity and
for your continued consideration)

Everything in a world is constructed by you. Even the
users ability to produce content (even music is up to
you. What notes can be played, What volume etc...)

So regardless of where they are in the world, they are
looking at your creation. You control this. You
control "what" they look at. They control "when" they
look at it and this builds into what "order". 
(Or when they play it, what "order" ; )

> >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.

Don't think about art here. This is a small point with
big ramifications.  For cyberspace think about "3D
Data Vis" and the notion of existing in abstract
data... ie structures on screen have some abstract
data driven value attached.

Step back...simplify (then I'll build it back up to
cyberspace)

Boil it down/start with simple "2D Data Vis" - old
fashioned charts and graphs. Take a simple bar chart,
extrude it and then place it in a 3D space. 

What value is gained by being able to spin it?
Visually the data is best comparable from the same
angle as the original extrusion. Other angles are less
helpful, And some angles, due to perspective and
shading are wrong. As least in regard to the original
chart data.

This is the least of our worries. These are only
snapshots of problems - this side or that.

If we rotate an object we create a narrative. Soooo...
How does that new rotational narrative relate to the
orginal data? Nope the new narrative of the spinning
bar chart doesn't relate to the original data
comparision.  

It gets worse. Rotating the bar chart still is a
centerpoint to try to position data around or on. Try
the typical walk through mode or fly mode. The
narrative is even more complex...

Michael Benedikt (Cyberspace First Steps) saw this and
proposed his Principles of Exculsion and Maxinium
Exclusion. Basically a less is more - sadly I see as
actually proving my point. In this case less is 2D not
3D.

The impact of spatial narrative on data interpretation
is a problem that might be overcomeable or might not.
What's not disputable that regarding the old
cyberspace claims it can't be ignored.


Peace
Steve

Sadly just been slapped with heap of work, so I
probably won't reply for a while.


--- Adam Nash <adam@yamanakanash.net> wrote:
> 
> >  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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


=====
________________________________________________

    The reality of the building does not 
    consist in the four walls and roof but
    in the space within to be lived.

    - Laotzu


      well, Laotzu said it but I did it.

    - Frank Lloyd Wright, after learning
      his philosophy behind the Unity Temple
      had been expressed 5,000 years earlier.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com