From: gavand01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Virtuality and the Dominant Culture:  Review from AFTERIMAGE,
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 15:08:43 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville



In article <1992Jan8.011919.26834@milton.u.washington.edu>, 
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>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...

Elementary, my dear Yamauchi.  I seriously doubt that Druckery is so unaware of
the forward thrust spun out of human/tool interactions.  Indeed, he says as
much in the statement you comment upon.  Druckery's point, which you seem to
miss, is that the stakes are increasing exponentially.  Is it a run-away 
train?  Are we all lemmings unaware of the sea right over the invisible cliff?
Your naivete is an excellent case in point of what he is talking about.  Sorry
if I sound rude, I don't intend to insult, but Wake Up!  Do you know where your
interactions are?

>>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?

Yeah, debate by effete intellectuals!  The power is in the hands who might make
money, which drives the economy, which allows you to consume and play with your
toys.  Are you totally confident with the "extensive safety guidelines" in
recombinant DNA research, in nuclear storage and other toxic wastes, in saving
the ozone layer by banning hydrofluorocarbons, in the toxic
fertilizer/pesticide controls that give short-term boosts to agribusiness
yields, in the application of Einstein's e=mc2, in the nothing-but-benign
nature of VR?  Oh yeah, yawn.  At least that is the reaction of the large
majority of Americans today.  Again, all this is points in favor of Druckery's
argument.

>Perhaps he is upset that his side hasn't won these debates, but that
>doesn't mean that they haven't taken place.

Perhaps, you are right there.  He does seem to have the modern streak of
reacting against technology in favor of a more cultured, past form of
intelligence.

>>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?

Sorry, that subject is a big one.  Try checking out a study of the roles that
symbols play in our lives.  From the earliest part of the 20th century that has
become the major thrust in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive
science, etc.  No intellectual field has been left untouched.

>>"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.

I totally agree with you there.  That is why intellectuals are so effete. 
Technology has developed so rapidly, has altered our lives and our environments
in such a transformational, fundamental way, that our language, which evolves
quite slowly by comparison, has been outstripped.  The patterns that our
linguistic and social training have given us are irrelevant in today's
environmental patterns.  We need a whole new cognitive structure as a frame
from which we might speak.  Restated in simple terms, right now, our
educational, religious, corporate, economic, governmental, etc., institutions
are in crisis.

>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.

I agree with the above as well, but I don't think Druckery thinks VR can be
stopped.  The issue is not either/or.  Either/or is what Americans think in
terms of, but it is a low level of logic.  The Orient has had systems of logic
for thousands of years that are inclusive and go beyond that:  1) Is; 2) Is
Not; 3) Is and Is Not; 4) Neither Is nor Is Not.  There are clearly sensible
and simple examples of each category.  Can you name them?

GVDH