Ok, Glen, for an example of one of the things that I am botherd by that
involves how artists talk abut their work, see Bill Seaman's text at:
http://www.cda.ucla.edu/faculty/seaman/webreadytexts/ephanyphysics.html
Here is a sample:
"An intuitive understanding of the physics of our lived environment
becomes second nature to our knowing the world. We catch a ball, spill a
drink, float in water, slip and fall down, ride a bike, bang our funny
bone, drive a car, all through a felt awareness of the dynamic
ramifications of motion. We can translate our understandings and
observations about the physicality of environments into computer-based
codes that are presented through various forms of interface, which in
turn can potentially facilitate palpable experience. Computer-mediated
environments enable such encounters through interactivity and/or
observation. As differing modes of interface become more sophisticated,
the potential is to author environments informed by abstracting different
observations related to attributes of the physical environment as well as
to generate new forms of relation to the world at large. Qualities and
attributes of physical behavior gleaned from lived experience can be
mapped onto the encoded reactive behavior of media-objects within virtual
environments. Three dimensional space, 3D objects, 3D terrains, images,
text, music and sound can all be connected with reactive and/or
interactive behavioral attributes. The relation between an actual physics
and an authored artificial physics is constructed and becomes
experiential to the participant within such environments through multiple
sensual means."
I take it Bill is saying the following: Computers can be used to give us
experiences that reflect some of the physical characteristics of our
environment or that generate new relations to our environment. This
experience can be made interactive.
Consider especially "Qualities and attributes of physical behavior
gleaned from lived experience can be mapped onto the encoded reactive
behavior of media-objects within virtual environments."
I take it this is just saying that an image can reflect characteristics
of physical behavior. This is true of old-fashioned movies, by the way.
And documentaries are "gleaned from lived experience." While the maping
from the enviornment to the film is not digital, the resulting image on
the film is none-the-less "the encoded reactive behavior of media
objects." (The phrase "vitural environments" might just as well apply to
film, but lets let the VR people keep the term.)
As to: "The relation between an actual physics and an authored artificial
physics is constructed and becomes experiential to the participant within
such environments through multiple sensual means."
I take it that this just says that the images that our computers generate
using virtual reality devices are experienced through our different
senses.
Bill continues:
"I am an artist interested in the potential of authoring media-behaviors,
virtual environmental artifacts and physical stimuli that can be
encountered through dynamic interaction with authored/responsive
computer-based environments."
That is, Bill wants to create interactive experiences using images
generated by
virtual reality devices.
Later Bill says:
"One authors the laws of how the artificial physics of the situation will
be articualted, eliciting appropriate computer-generated responses."
That is, one writes a program that determines how the VR images look and
feel.
This is followed by:
" If we take the set of attributes modeled by Sims above and abstract or
displace them, a very different kind of resulting image-space will emerge
i.e. consider the ramifications on the virtual space if the authored code
changed the gravity, altered the friction, enhanced the inertia,
accelerated the momentum, etc. Imagine if the rules of the artificial
physics were localized within the environment — in one location one
artificial physics would be in operation, after moving a different set of
artificial "laws" would be invoked [imagine the gravity on the Earth
compared to the gravity of the moon…]"
That is, imgine that we could use VR to give someone an experience like
they might have moving about on the moon or moving about in a changing
set of non-actual spatial environments.
Later, when Bill says: "The code-based originators of these differing
models usually seek to adhere to the physical laws of actual space in the
authoring of relevant code" is he saying that the computers used to
produce models of physical space are trying to keep the VR generated
experience accurate to real space? Given his use of "the code-based
originators" this is not clear. Does he mean by "the code-based
originators" computers or the people who write programs? He refers to
these "originators" as "authoring the relevant code." Thart suggest he
means people. But since the people who author the code are not themselves
code-based, mabye he is saying that a computer is authoring the code
that, when run on another computer, produces visual images that model the
physical enviorment. (Perfectly thinkable in this context.) But it does
not seem that a computer has a choice about seeking to adher to the
phisical laws or not . . .. If programed to generate images that appear
to do so the computer will, if progrmaed otherwise, not. So its sounds
like the "originator" is a person after all. So I guess "code-based
originator" is just someone who writes code.
Bill continues:
"In relation to this approach I am interested in exploring the
abstraction or poetics of the authorship of such code-based laws in the
generation of virtual space and/or media installations."
Bill wants to explore either the abstraction of the authorship of
code-based laws or Bill wants to explore the poetics of the authorship of
code based-laws.
I do not understand what Bill has in mind by "the abstraction of the
authorship of code-based laws."
"Authorship" is a term for a universal type. Bill wants to explore the
poetics of the universal sub-type denoted by the phrase "authorship of
code based-laws." If that's too Platonic, lets just say Bill wants to
explore the poetics of the function defined by the phrase "authorship of
code based-laws."
I amagine the results of what Bill describes with "The code-based
authoring of an artificial physics which is consistent within the virtual
space, yet does not adhere to the laws of actual physics, becomes a
central focus" might be really neat to experience. I will have to
experience it to find out. But why not just say, "a computer generated
image of a space that violates the laws of physical space becomes a
central focus?"
I would like to experience the results of Bill's work. But I am put off
by the way he describes what he is doing.
After reading a great deal more of his text than I reproduce here (but
stopping where I end above), I have found out only that (1) Some people
create computer generated VR images of actual space, whereas (2) Bill
wants to create interactive computer generated VR images of non-actual
spaces, and (2) that perhaps Bill wants to explore the poetics of the
function defined by the phrase "authorship of code based-laws." That I
have no idea what the later involves is probably due to my ignorance of
Bill's notion of poetics.
Again, I think it would be fun to experience computer generated VR images
of non-actual spaces. And I think they can be art. But's what with all
the rhetoric? Why not just say, "I want to generate ineractive VR images
of non-actual spaces and to explore their poetic potential?"
- George
===================================================================
WEB SITE: http://pks.bu.edu/awbim
POST MESSAGE: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'subscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to subscribe, or
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Sep 06 2008 - 04:03:09 EDT