>
>As is mine; we just disagree on whether VR is good for this task or
>not. :-) My point is that from a _technical_ standpoint, VR is
>inferior to 2d web pages. Access by wandering in 3d space is a lot
>slower and fidelity to actual objects is terrible. You can agree or
>disagree with me about the technical issues, that doesn't matter.
>Let's try to get away from them, as this list isn't supposed to be
>about technical limitations anyways.
Hear hear!
>Now, having primed the canvas for a discussion of the _artistic_
>solutions, would anyone care to conjecture on how to make "good"
>commercial VR art?
The only way to make good 'commercial' VR art is to drop that stupid notion
of 'commercial'. Sorry, but i just can't see how 'commercial' art today will
survive in a new medium like VR. Today's commercial art generally degrades
the audience it's directed at by advancing the lowest common denominator.
The audience likewise is captive or passive. In a medium that is interactive
(and I would argue that VR demands interactivity) who's going to participate
in a degrading advertisement? Market saturation of an image isn't going to
be possible either- with millions of people going to millions of different
places in VR or on the net how can it be done? The best commercial
advertising these days are the most memorable (i.e. how do you stick out and
repeat it ad infinitum) in VR the best 'commercial' art is going to be most
alluring or enticing and probably subtle. Also this is going to be a world
of extremely directed niche advertising- the age of the lowest common
denominator will have to fade out because it won't be possible unless we
force commercial breaks during internet sessions (any takers for that kind
of service?) Throw out all of the old concepts regarding advertising and
commercial art- it won't translate.
+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+
---------->looking towards the future
in the reflection of the past<----------
sm3_14