From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Virtuality and the Dominant Culture: Review from AFTERIMAGE, Date: 7 Jan 92 15:34:49 Organization: University of Rochester In article <1992Jan6.183417.6838@milton.u.washington.edu> julianb@hitl. washington.EDU (julian bleecker) writes: >Some excerpts from a recently published review of Rheingold's VIRTUAL >REALITY and Benedikt's complilation, CYBERSPACE: FIRST STEPS. This >review appeared in the December 1991 issue of AFTERIMAGE, a magazine >devoted to photography, independent film, video and visual studies books. >Timothy Druckery, instructor of photo history and electronic imaging at >the School of Visual Arts in NYC wrote the review. >---------------------------------------------------------------- [ quoting Druckery ] >After a half century in which >technological development was driven by the political and military >demands of the cold war, what is now emerging is a culture driven by >image-based technologies. What Druckery seems to be missing is that culture has been driven by technology since the days of paintings on cave walls. Each new technology redefines the way in which culture is expressed and propagated -- from written language to the printing press to radio to television to computer networks to virtual reality and beyond... >Whatever absurd presumptions exempted >technology from ethical scrutiny over the last several decades are being >overshadowed by its exemption from even the most basic philosophical >scrutiny today. The assumption upon which this statement rests is completely false. Technology has been a focal point for ethical debate ever since the development of the atomic bomb. Military technology and bioengineering in particular have been the subject of extremely heated debate. Is Druckery completely unaware about the furor that led to an initial moratorium on recombinant DNA research until extensive safety guidelines could be established? Perhaps he is upset that his side hasn't won these debates, but that doesn't mean that they haven't taken place. >A new theory of >signification that can apply the critical insights of theories of >representation to the cultural experience of electronic imaging is >necessary.... Translation, please? What is a "theory of signification"? What "critical insights" have these "theories of representation" produced so far? >"The simultaneous fetishization and destabilization of visual >experience, already in crisis after decades of television, has reached a >critical point. Ultimately, technology is the core issue in the >discourse of virtual reality and cyberspace. Rather than mystification >what is called for is critique..." >Comments? I think it is certainly worthwhile to discuss the potential societal and cultural effects of technology. The problem with most "humanistic" critiques is that they seem to overreact to certain relatively innocuous aspects of technology (e.g. Druckery's incomprehensible fear of scientific visualization) while drastically underestimating the long-term effects of technology on human lives. For example: I expect that within 50 years (and I consider that a very conservative estimate), the majority of the population in this country will spend a majority of their time interfaced with virtual environments (working, playing, creating, and communicating). For most people, the form of their occupation and recreation will be defined by this technology -- and possibly their form of interpersonal relationships as well. At the same time, the creative arts -- art, music, drama, literature -- will be _redefined_ in terms of this new medium... Informed discussion and speculation -- rather than either "mystification" or "critique" -- on the nature a VR-based future culture would certainly be interesting, but I think Druckery is deluding himself if he thinks VR can be stopped. In my opinion, market-oriented technological pressures to develop VR are already far beyond the point of the no return.