> Given the general obsession with simulated spaces, and the push
>towards ever more complex and faithful systems of re-presenting virtual
>environments, technological developments appear to be encouraging the
>notion (certainly within mass media & public consciousness) that eventually
>we will attain some form of "perfect simulation".
> The aesthetic and philosophical ramifications of such "invisible" speech,
>produced by a language which "hides" itself, fascinate me.
Is this 'invisible' language another way of saying non-textual language,
i.e.. not based on the way we talk. The possibilities of a 'invisible'
language are already here and active in our everyday life, our cities and
surroundings, man-made and 'natural' carry a lot of non-verbal meaning
which we nonetheless read, if not always on a conscious level. E.g. body
language, with it's subtle, yet unconscious, ways of expression is vital
for face-to-face communication (and sometimes painfully absent on the
.net). The same goes for buildings, most don't need a verbal sign to tell
you it's function and content, the facade does the job, at least on a more
general level (you can see it's a bank, but not which bank).
What fascinates me is the possibilities of inventing new and different
semiotic systems for V-Worlds, based on it's natural characteristics, like
no gravity, no (need for) fixed size, morphable form, etc. This I find
immensely fascinating, yet impossibly big. If not impossible, than at least
far ahead.
>Text, images and
>spoken words exist as poetic signifying systems,thus their meaning is not
>strictly coded or fixed, and they may allow for interpretation by the
>viewer, which is essential for anything beyond pure transmission of info,
>their physical form also alerts the viewer to the fact that a message is
>there to be read. The discussion about post boxes seems to be an attempt to
>begin developing a signifying language which the viewer can "read" in order
>to effectively navigate the space(s). I have no problem with this, it will
>probably even emerge with out our help, but will happen faster, and
>less ambiguously with it.
Yes. We need some kind of (roughly) common semiotic/signifying system to
act as a framework for poetic freedom, after all, poetry is much about
_manipulating_ it's framwork, i.e.. the more rigid framework the more clear
the deviations and manipulations are.
It's nice to see that there already is a V-World 'look' developing,
identifiable metaphors like black background, infinite grids, clear
colours, etc. Some are a result of technology, some just notions of 'what
it should look like'.
[snip]
>The point I'm trying to develope is that VR, although a signifying medium,
>is unlike conventional language , and actually writes itself as experience
>for the viewer in the same manner that phenomena in the real world write
>themselves into the subjective narratives of our lives which our brains are
>constantly synthesising. It is this sublime quality which animates VR for
>me.
Personally, I have memories of mental pictures from bookreading, scenes
from films, etc. just as vivid and 'real' as many 'real-life' experiences.
The power of our imagination is not small. Then again the whole notion of
reality is falling apart, what's real for me might not be for you, and vis
versa. All reality is virtual in that is exists, yet it doesn't, just like
Santa Clause and God.
>Anyway thats my thursday morning rave, and I look forward to some criticism
>from y"all ; see you in the soup. Martin Walch.
and this my thursday morning rave - and I really like this discussion.
-----------------------------------------
Torbjoern Caspersen casper@due.unit.no
http://www.stud.unit.no/~casper/
Student of Architecture
at the Norwegian faculty of technology, NTH, Trondheim.