Virtual environments essay
Screens are becomingly increasingly pervasive in this modern day society; we seem to be becoming more reliant on doing things through our screens, and in front of them than we ever did before. In fact in telling you this I am communicating through a screen at this present time, in using screens we are making face to face communication defunct and replacing it with an easier wider ranging plethora of screen based devices, such as mobiles, Internet messengers, and video conferencing.
Screens in themselves present, show, exhibit, what was chosen, captured, processed, organised, structured, and then finally re-presented onto the screen. The screen, while screening is itself the centre of activity, by showing it maintains our attention, and often our physical presence as a result of being focused in a particular location.
On the other hand to fit into our modern day society there had to be an alternative almost secondary instance of screening that could incorporate itself into our mobile, multitasking society where engagement with new media is intermittent, and not sustained. This instance of screen engagement is more likely to be accompanied with some form of background activity, such as listening to the radio, or TV., while on your cell phone, or even reading a book/magazine while simultaneously plugged into and listening to music on your MP3 player.
These portable media screen engagements happen within a simultaneous system (with one instance of media becoming foreground and an other or others moving into the background and acting like a secondary activity) So portable engagements cannot be separated from the other media activities being performed at the same time. In fact, due to their mobility portable engagements they always have a competitive background environment making some forms of the portable screen more or less simultaneous with a range of activities.
To summarize the main differential between portable and fixed screening is that there is more of a conscious action/decision of engagement with a fixed screen as the ease of accessibility that a portable screen offers makes its interaction less memorable, as its instantaneous nature means we engage with it on a frequent basis. Whereas with a fixed screen when we push the ìonî button the screen we sit down, quit physically and cognitively all the other activities we were performing, and simply attend the screen, as its the location that is relevant to us at that specific time.
The subjective timeframes for performing both activities is therefore going to differ, as with a fixed screen you will be fully engaged with the device giving all your attention, whereas with the portable equivalent you are only going to partially engage only giving bursts of attention differing your timeframes experience. The sense in which you can share with other timeframes is in what is displayed on the screens, as its data that is usually generated then displayed by specific and complex criteria or alternatively human conceived regulations that are based on our understanding of meaning in the non-virtual world.
These criterion have been coded into recognisable data structures, processing rules, and screen layouts to form a background that helps govern the influx of the incoming data flow to re-present them onto the screen afterwards as the finished article itself leaving the screen viewer with his information.
Irrespective of the screen type and other factorals, their function that they perform in re-constructing material that has long since been processed far from its original raw context, re-presenting screens could be said to be hiding/concealing aspects of the original material ì To reveal implies to
conceal; they both mean to filter, that is, to screenî The logic of the screen is thus self identical in that it reveal the world in its own image- according to its own categories. (Heidegger 1962.)
A piece of work that explored the logic of mediating a series of events through the implementation of screens was made by a group called Blast theory. The piece ìDesert Rainî was meant to explore using a combination of virtual reality, installation and performance mediums the boundary between the real and the virtual. It placed its participants in a Collaborative Virtual Environment where the real non virtual world intrudes upon the virtual and vice versa. It used the real, the imaginary, the fictional and the virtual side by side and juxtaposes these elements as a means of defining them. The piece is influenced by theorist Jean Baudrillard who is famously quoted as saying in his book The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991), that the mass-media portrayal of the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf had made that event unreal, and argues that the gulf war was in fact virtual.
The sense by which Baudrillard speaks of real events as being virtual is linked to the idea that ìnon virtual events lose their identity when they attain the velocity of real time information, or to put it another way when they become increasingly encrusted with the information that represents them.î Using this logic whilst screened televisual information tries to claim that it provides viewers with immediate access to real events, what they really do is produce an informational set of events that stand in for the actual real happenings, and are meant to ìinformî public opinion which in turn affects the course of the subsequent events themselves, real and informational.
Personally I have to say that at first glance I disagreed theoretically with Baudrillards statements based on the mass media impact within the gulf war. As it seemed to be a slightly dramatic exaggeration using a well-known world event to gain notoriety, through media attention which cynically speaking would be a media ploy in itself to result in him gaining larger book sales and publicise himself globally. Though that does seem to be very dismissive, as he might truly have believed his statements in relation to the gulf war and wanted to raise awareness over the easiness of the public being manipulated by their chosen government.
This theorem by Baudrillard links into a report based on the responses of some selected Denver residents to a poll conducted by the university of Massachusetts researchers about the gulf war, it stated that there was a big role in influencing wartime opinions played by the media. (Media and values Issue #56 released1991). The research itself stated that people who watched a heavy dose of TV coverage were more likely to support the war. They were also less likely to be well informed about its causes and consequences. In other words the researchers concluded that the more TV coverage people watched, the less they actually knew.
The media coverage being of such a substandard was due in part to the governmentís use of public relation techniques to mold the public opinion. Factored in was its submission to the allure of high-end technology showing military armament displays whilst ignoring their impact on humankind. Turning its back on alternative contradictory views to the war itself fundamentally mediating a limited, unbalanced coverage of the war. However the most shocking aspect was how it proceeded to dehumanize and demonize a stereotyped version of their enemy to the audience in an effort to curb public consensus.
The use of the media in the gulf war is a prime example of the hypodermic needle media theory as this theorem suggests that the mass media has the power to influence a large group of people directly and uniformly by shooting or injecting them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response. The suggestion is that there is a direct and powerful flow of information from the sender to the receiver with similarly emotive imagery is then injected straight into the passive audience whom are immediately influenced by the message mediated. It expresses the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the audience is powerless to resist its impact.
On the other hand there is ìThe obstinate audience theoryî by Raymond.A.Bauer, which puts a different slant on the relationship between the media and audience. Like stated previously it was believed that the media was capable of controlling an audience. Bauer believes that the social model of communication was flawed in assuming a ìone-way influenceî, and that the sender influences the audience who does not give feedback. Instead Bauer is of the belief that the model of communication is in fact transactional, in that ìwhile receiving messages from the media the audience is engaging in problem solving.î Consequently the obstinate theory assumes that the audience actively selects what messages to pay attention to, and that the audience actually participates in the communication by influencing the message.
Looking back at the information previous it is hard not to deny the Hypodermic needle theory having some relevance to the medias involvement within the gulf war. The idea is still based on a strong sentiment implying the vulnerability of a viewing audience fundamentally calling them passive observers open to having ideological values input in them. Though why question the information being force fed to them? I feel in this instance itís more to do with the lack of counter ideas being presented to the masses. Although like Baudrillard stated the war was conducted as a media spectacle. Rehearsed as a simulation of war or board game, then enacted to its audience the people watching on their TV screens. This news event/simulation with its journalists and missile eye video cameras is no different to a first person shooting video game. Though the reality in this case the violence was carefully overwritten by electronic narration and simulation.
Dialogue a piece shown inside a art, film and new media gallery ìThe Cornerhouseî is intriguing with regards to this territory. Its a simulation of conversation performed by two computer screens. The piece itself is set in a reconstructed office, which is the setting for the two computer monitors communicating to each other. The conversation is a pre-recorded discussion about language itself and is synchronized back and forth between the two machines and simultaneously translated into visual imagery. The simulation is broken down into single words, and through the implementation of the internet search engine ìGoogleî a relevant visual representation is found for both, that results in them both presenting the similar images. Occasionally the dialogue veers away from the designated bringing up intriguing and strange matches.
This project I think displays Heideggers idea of a theoretical screen, as to reveal the two correlating messages on the differing screens it must conceal the process it goes through to filter through the data being transmitted to it and find the corresponding image to the data its been given via Google. Then completing the process by revealing the image according to its categories that have refined the search.
Jim Campbells work is also interesting in relation to the screen as a mediating layer one particular instance consists of a matrix of pixels made out of LEDs by the name of ìambiguous Iconsî. This project is meant to explore the ìrelationship between data and meaning through reduced or compressed levels of information.î The project starts with an image of a non virtual location then slowly multiple strangely vague figures appear onto the screen walking from one side, occasionally crossing each other to reach the opposite side. The technique that is immediately apparent as you see the work for the first time is that the image blurs whilst moving along the screen, then evens out in the middle before re-blurring at the furthest edge. Personally I thought that this was to signify the blurring between the virtual and the non-virtual whilst utilising the screen as a media vehicle to get this idea across.
This project also fits into the template of the theoretical screen, as to reveal the background it must conceal the figures wandering across the front of the background image, then to reveal the figures it just has to unblur them concealing the background. The representation of a real place and people ties up its link to Heideggers theory as its revealing the world in its own image-according to its categories and functions.
To conclude whilst the screen is the most prevalent tool in our new technological society replacing and incorporating all the written and non-virtual functions into screen based devices. In essence their equivalent, and are able to simulate their basic tasks into a virtual copy through the use of non-virtual factorals. As a result I can see the screen being an ever-present in future technological development whilst compensations and developments continue to be produced for its limitations. That said the screen itself was a necessary method of design development as it allowed interaction between mechanical objects and human beings that otherwise would have been impossible.
My point of view with regards to the beliefs of Baudrillard and Heidegger is that screens could very likely continue to be in some form for the foreseeable future. As there is going to need to be a form of screen or means of engagement designed into the mechanical object form, as a means of interaction. Though this has more to do with the current technological limitations to create a feasible alternative. As for me personally the only current conscious element of screening that we decide upon is when we select the form of information that will be mediated to us, be it the channel, website, newspaper or magazine article then we sit back and are taken on a journey of pre-defined origin.
However I believe that just like the portable was an a technological improvement on the fixed screen with its ability to be compact and carried around everywhere then accessed by the chosen engager, thus taking away the fixed screens major limitation the ability to be portable and accessed on whim. Consequently unlike Baudrillard and Heidegger I am hopeful that when the next big technological evolution/advancement comes to a point in time where a human can interact with a mechanical based device without a need for established perimeters and no limitation on the possibilities their will be no need for a screen.
Bibliography
Pamphlet Outside the box
www.jimcampbell.tv
www.danielcanogar.com
Media and values issue 56
blastheory.co.uk/bt/work_desertrain.html
thecornerhouse.co.uk
Baudrillard The gulf war did not take place
Heidegger
Screens are becomingly increasingly pervasive in this modern day society; we seem to be becoming more reliant on doing things through our screens, and in front of them than we ever did before. In fact in telling you this I am communicating through a screen at this present time, in using screens we are making face to face communication defunct and replacing it with an easier wider ranging plethora of screen based devices, such as mobiles, Internet messengers, and video conferencing.
Screens in themselves present, show, exhibit, what was chosen, captured, processed, organised, structured, and then finally re-presented onto the screen. The screen, while screening is itself the centre of activity, by showing it maintains our attention, and often our physical presence as a result of being focused in a particular location.
On the other hand to fit into our modern day society there had to be an alternative almost secondary instance of screening that could incorporate itself into our mobile, multitasking society where engagement with new media is intermittent, and not sustained. This instance of screen engagement is more likely to be accompanied with some form of background activity, such as listening to the radio, or TV., while on your cell phone, or even reading a book/magazine while simultaneously plugged into and listening to music on your MP3 player.
These portable media screen engagements happen within a simultaneous system (with one instance of media becoming foreground and an other or others moving into the background and acting like a secondary activity) So portable engagements cannot be separated from the other media activities being performed at the same time. In fact, due to their mobility portable engagements they always have a competitive background environment making some forms of the portable screen more or less simultaneous with a range of activities.
To summarize the main differential between portable and fixed screening is that there is more of a conscious action/decision of engagement with a fixed screen as the ease of accessibility that a portable screen offers makes its interaction less memorable, as its instantaneous nature means we engage with it on a frequent basis. Whereas with a fixed screen when we push the ìonî button the screen we sit down, quit physically and cognitively all the other activities we were performing, and simply attend the screen, as its the location that is relevant to us at that specific time.
The subjective timeframes for performing both activities is therefore going to differ, as with a fixed screen you will be fully engaged with the device giving all your attention, whereas with the portable equivalent you are only going to partially engage only giving bursts of attention differing your timeframes experience. The sense in which you can share with other timeframes is in what is displayed on the screens, as its data that is usually generated then displayed by specific and complex criteria or alternatively human conceived regulations that are based on our understanding of meaning in the non-virtual world.
These criterion have been coded into recognisable data structures, processing rules, and screen layouts to form a background that helps govern the influx of the incoming data flow to re-present them onto the screen afterwards as the finished article itself leaving the screen viewer with his information.
Irrespective of the screen type and other factorals, their function that they perform in re-constructing material that has long since been processed far from its original raw context, re-presenting screens could be said to be hiding/concealing aspects of the original material ì To reveal implies to
conceal; they both mean to filter, that is, to screenî The logic of the screen is thus self identical in that it reveal the world in its own image- according to its own categories. (Heidegger 1962.)
A piece of work that explored the logic of mediating a series of events through the implementation of screens was made by a group called Blast theory. The piece ìDesert Rainî was meant to explore using a combination of virtual reality, installation and performance mediums the boundary between the real and the virtual. It placed its participants in a Collaborative Virtual Environment where the real non virtual world intrudes upon the virtual and vice versa. It used the real, the imaginary, the fictional and the virtual side by side and juxtaposes these elements as a means of defining them. The piece is influenced by theorist Jean Baudrillard who is famously quoted as saying in his book The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991), that the mass-media portrayal of the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf had made that event unreal, and argues that the gulf war was in fact virtual.
The sense by which Baudrillard speaks of real events as being virtual is linked to the idea that ìnon virtual events lose their identity when they attain the velocity of real time information, or to put it another way when they become increasingly encrusted with the information that represents them.î Using this logic whilst screened televisual information tries to claim that it provides viewers with immediate access to real events, what they really do is produce an informational set of events that stand in for the actual real happenings, and are meant to ìinformî public opinion which in turn affects the course of the subsequent events themselves, real and informational.
Personally I have to say that at first glance I disagreed theoretically with Baudrillards statements based on the mass media impact within the gulf war. As it seemed to be a slightly dramatic exaggeration using a well-known world event to gain notoriety, through media attention which cynically speaking would be a media ploy in itself to result in him gaining larger book sales and publicise himself globally. Though that does seem to be very dismissive, as he might truly have believed his statements in relation to the gulf war and wanted to raise awareness over the easiness of the public being manipulated by their chosen government.
This theorem by Baudrillard links into a report based on the responses of some selected Denver residents to a poll conducted by the university of Massachusetts researchers about the gulf war, it stated that there was a big role in influencing wartime opinions played by the media. (Media and values Issue #56 released1991). The research itself stated that people who watched a heavy dose of TV coverage were more likely to support the war. They were also less likely to be well informed about its causes and consequences. In other words the researchers concluded that the more TV coverage people watched, the less they actually knew.
The media coverage being of such a substandard was due in part to the governmentís use of public relation techniques to mold the public opinion. Factored in was its submission to the allure of high-end technology showing military armament displays whilst ignoring their impact on humankind. Turning its back on alternative contradictory views to the war itself fundamentally mediating a limited, unbalanced coverage of the war. However the most shocking aspect was how it proceeded to dehumanize and demonize a stereotyped version of their enemy to the audience in an effort to curb public consensus.
The use of the media in the gulf war is a prime example of the hypodermic needle media theory as this theorem suggests that the mass media has the power to influence a large group of people directly and uniformly by shooting or injecting them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response. The suggestion is that there is a direct and powerful flow of information from the sender to the receiver with similarly emotive imagery is then injected straight into the passive audience whom are immediately influenced by the message mediated. It expresses the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the audience is powerless to resist its impact.
On the other hand there is ìThe obstinate audience theoryî by Raymond.A.Bauer, which puts a different slant on the relationship between the media and audience. Like stated previously it was believed that the media was capable of controlling an audience. Bauer believes that the social model of communication was flawed in assuming a ìone-way influenceî, and that the sender influences the audience who does not give feedback. Instead Bauer is of the belief that the model of communication is in fact transactional, in that ìwhile receiving messages from the media the audience is engaging in problem solving.î Consequently the obstinate theory assumes that the audience actively selects what messages to pay attention to, and that the audience actually participates in the communication by influencing the message.
Looking back at the information previous it is hard not to deny the Hypodermic needle theory having some relevance to the medias involvement within the gulf war. The idea is still based on a strong sentiment implying the vulnerability of a viewing audience fundamentally calling them passive observers open to having ideological values input in them. Though why question the information being force fed to them? I feel in this instance itís more to do with the lack of counter ideas being presented to the masses. Although like Baudrillard stated the war was conducted as a media spectacle. Rehearsed as a simulation of war or board game, then enacted to its audience the people watching on their TV screens. This news event/simulation with its journalists and missile eye video cameras is no different to a first person shooting video game. Though the reality in this case the violence was carefully overwritten by electronic narration and simulation.
Dialogue a piece shown inside a art, film and new media gallery ìThe Cornerhouseî is intriguing with regards to this territory. Its a simulation of conversation performed by two computer screens. The piece itself is set in a reconstructed office, which is the setting for the two computer monitors communicating to each other. The conversation is a pre-recorded discussion about language itself and is synchronized back and forth between the two machines and simultaneously translated into visual imagery. The simulation is broken down into single words, and through the implementation of the internet search engine ìGoogleî a relevant visual representation is found for both, that results in them both presenting the similar images. Occasionally the dialogue veers away from the designated bringing up intriguing and strange matches.
This project I think displays Heideggers idea of a theoretical screen, as to reveal the two correlating messages on the differing screens it must conceal the process it goes through to filter through the data being transmitted to it and find the corresponding image to the data its been given via Google. Then completing the process by revealing the image according to its categories that have refined the search.
Jim Campbells work is also interesting in relation to the screen as a mediating layer one particular instance consists of a matrix of pixels made out of LEDs by the name of ìambiguous Iconsî. This project is meant to explore the ìrelationship between data and meaning through reduced or compressed levels of information.î The project starts with an image of a non virtual location then slowly multiple strangely vague figures appear onto the screen walking from one side, occasionally crossing each other to reach the opposite side. The technique that is immediately apparent as you see the work for the first time is that the image blurs whilst moving along the screen, then evens out in the middle before re-blurring at the furthest edge. Personally I thought that this was to signify the blurring between the virtual and the non-virtual whilst utilising the screen as a media vehicle to get this idea across.
This project also fits into the template of the theoretical screen, as to reveal the background it must conceal the figures wandering across the front of the background image, then to reveal the figures it just has to unblur them concealing the background. The representation of a real place and people ties up its link to Heideggers theory as its revealing the world in its own image-according to its categories and functions.
To conclude whilst the screen is the most prevalent tool in our new technological society replacing and incorporating all the written and non-virtual functions into screen based devices. In essence their equivalent, and are able to simulate their basic tasks into a virtual copy through the use of non-virtual factorals. As a result I can see the screen being an ever-present in future technological development whilst compensations and developments continue to be produced for its limitations. That said the screen itself was a necessary method of design development as it allowed interaction between mechanical objects and human beings that otherwise would have been impossible.
My point of view with regards to the beliefs of Baudrillard and Heidegger is that screens could very likely continue to be in some form for the foreseeable future. As there is going to need to be a form of screen or means of engagement designed into the mechanical object form, as a means of interaction. Though this has more to do with the current technological limitations to create a feasible alternative. As for me personally the only current conscious element of screening that we decide upon is when we select the form of information that will be mediated to us, be it the channel, website, newspaper or magazine article then we sit back and are taken on a journey of pre-defined origin.
However I believe that just like the portable was an a technological improvement on the fixed screen with its ability to be compact and carried around everywhere then accessed by the chosen engager, thus taking away the fixed screens major limitation the ability to be portable and accessed on whim. Consequently unlike Baudrillard and Heidegger I am hopeful that when the next big technological evolution/advancement comes to a point in time where a human can interact with a mechanical based device without a need for established perimeters and no limitation on the possibilities their will be no need for a screen.
Bibliography
Pamphlet Outside the box
www.jimcampbell.tv
www.danielcanogar.com
Media and values issue 56
blastheory.co.uk/bt/work_desertrain.html
thecornerhouse.co.uk
Baudrillard The gulf war did not take place
Heidegger
Labels: 1st and 2nd year
posted by X-Wired at
4:12 AM
0 Comments
