From: brucec@phoebus.labs.tek.com (Bruce Cohen)
Subject: Re: VR (mis)-defined (was: VR defined)
Date: 5 Nov 91 00:54:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Research Lab, Tektronix Inc.


In article <1991Nov3.202841.2257@milton.u.washington.edu> strength@milton.u.
washington.edu (Julian Bleecker) writes:

> I think you'll get yourself in a lot of trouble if you propose that
> the "development of more engaging media [is] the search for ways to
> better match the material to be presented..."  It is pretty well accepted
> (I believe) that culturally and aesthetically we are beyond the stage
> of accepting image as a reflection of some basic reality (whether it
> be a physical work of art or some true educational method).  That was
> Renaissance, perspective and Descartes.  We are moving from Baudrillard's
> second to his third phase of the image:
> 
>         1) the image is the reflection of a basic reality
>         2) the image masks and perverts a basic reality
>         3) the image masks the ABSENCE of a basic reality
>         4) the image bears no relation to any reality whatever, it
>            is its own pure simulacrum
> 
> For the most part we are in the third phase - post-modernity and Dan Rather.
> I too would like to think that the search for more engaging media is a
> quest for better representation of certain material, but then I feel
> i'm being lied to by Dan Rather and accept that he is lying to me.  That
> awareness keeps my head above water.  Most people are sullenly drowning.

This may be getting beyond the scope of VR and into the realm of social
and artistic commentary, but I'll try to be brief.  I personally don't
believe that there ever has been or ever will be one single esthetic
that pertains to a whole era or all the art produced in it.  I think
that in general the view that there are such things is the creation of
art critics and historians, not artists.  The phases Baudrillard
describes are ways at looking at images all of which may be valid to
different artists and their audiences at the same time, or to the same
artist and audience at different times.  I contend that they are
artistic themes, not universal phases of society.

My concern is that there is a use for images at all levels of "reality",
and that if we insist on forcing all uses of image to be at the same
level we rob ourselves of some of those uses.  Granted that there's a
question of credibility: if I claim to be producing images which closely
reflect reality, should you believe me?  But credibility is always an
issue when getting information second-hand, and faking is always
possible.

> Ah!  You do realize that we are transitioning to Baudrillard's third 
> and it sounds like you accept that VR will put us in the third, perhaps 
> the fourth!  But you must realize that there of course will be ethical and
> moral issues, but if everything goes according to plan, there will certainly
> not be any ethical or moral questions - mostly because you don't want to
> ask for unnecessary controversy.  Shit, ask for it!

I said "unnecessary" and I meant it.  I'm not shy about controversy, but
I don't like to spend time on issues which are all or mostly smoke.
Unfortunately, using words like "truth" and "versimilitude" is very
often like waving a red flag in front of a herd of bulls: not conducive
to rational discourse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker-to-managers, aka
Bruce Cohen, Computer Research Lab        email: brucec@crl.labs.tek.com
Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc.                phone: (503)627-5241
M/S 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR  97077