From: gavand01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Virtuality and the Dominant Culture:  Review from AFTERIMAGE,
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 14:27:16 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville



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.
> 
>"An inversion is occurring.  Slowly the reciprocal relationship linking
>technology and politics is eroding.  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.  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.  Indeed the sheer velocity of technological innovation
>in the past two decades has scarcely allowed for the development of a
>theoretical analysis of our relationship with technology.  Rather, the
>deluge of soft- and hardware has preempted critical consideration under
>the lingering mythology that progress will untangle its own problems in
>the utopian future it creates.

It is funny how there is ostensibly a consensus that "philosophy" is not the
appropriate approach to VR issues on this newsgroup, but it has an odd way of
creeping back.  Timothy Drucker's statements above certainly seem to apply to
participants in this newsgroup.  That is, critical consideration in the sense
that Druckery means is absent and is met by covert and overt hostility.

One case in point:  several months ago there were postings with the subject
of virtual rape and murder.  The poster (sorry can't remember who initiated
the topic) was essentially scoffed at, once almost accused of causing problems
of perception in an already hyped and "ignorant" laity.  The level of
"philosophy" that is condoned and seemingly encouraged is simply sophomoric.
                           
VR is to the mind what E=mc2 is to matter.  Given the way animals, including we
human animals, explore their environments through action without any systematic
representations or guiding sense of responsibility for those actions (trial and
error).  We witness today in the sciences many Idols of the Laboratory, and if
anyone questions them . . . .

I have no desire to lecture here.  I suspect that most readers of this
newsgroup feel that I am a dude with an attitude, but I have no axe to grind. 
I have spent many years dealing with these subject matters and am very aware of
the indifference.  I do not believe that our historial dilemma is purposeful. 
I am reminded of Bob Jacobson's posting (article 2681) where he quotes Warren
Robinett at the Banff Art Centre's "Virtual Seminar on the Bioapparatus"

           ROBINETT:  I have heard much criticism of technology and of virtual
           reality but, though I strain to understand and ask the critics for
           clarification, I am left with abstract and incomprehensible phrases
           echoing in my mind.  I am utterly unable to relate these criticisms
           to the choices I must make as I work to develop virtual reality.  If
           you want to influence what I do, you will have to offer concrete
           suggestions of what to do or what to do differently.

Robinett makes a very good point.  There is too much fuzzy minded thinking
reacting against VR.  There is all just as much fuzzy minded euphoria for it. 
A major problem, as I see it, because we live in a technological age that
inundates us with obvious success, and because serious critiques refer to
potentialities, mainstream assumptions expect communication to flow toward
clarifying in technical terms.  In other words, if you speak a technical
language, you probably assume that you are okay, and those whose language
doesn't sound technical and who cannot produce tangible results, aren't okay. 
They have to change, not you.  But look at it this way:  Aristotle was the
first "natural biologist," one of the first technical scientists.  I could 
speak with him about his biology and his physics, but could he speak to me
about our sciences today?  It would probably take considerable effort on his
part.  The moral of this story is that you have to learn to listen better,
increase your flexibility, and remember that we are all in this together.

One final note:  our term, "discussion" comes from Latin, meaning "to throw
at"; "dialogue" comes from Greek, meaning "to go through" to a meeting of
minds.  American culture has pretty much lost the art of dialogue.  The
"critical standard" is to analyze, to tear down, to discuss, throwing ideas
around.  Intellectuals don't concern themselves with dialogue any more.

And as far as VR development without systematic attempts at dialogue:  I guess
we will just wait for a virtual Enola Gay to drop the bomb on someone's mind. 
   
>[stuff deleted] 
> A new theory of
>signification that can apply the critical insights of theories of
>representation to the cultural experience of electronic imaging is
>necessary....

Amen.  And please forgive the "abstract and incomprehensible" use of the word
theory  . . . . This newsgroup has gone around on that already.  Remember,
connote in order to denote!

>[deletions] 
> Furness
>notes: "A laser microscanner will paint realities on the retina.  We
>think we can achieve a resolution of 8000 by 6000 scan lines."  There is
>nothing "virtual" about the implications of this research: a "reality"
>implanted directly into the human brain.  But Furness seems oblivious to
>the potential misuse of such a technology.  In true military fashion the
>painting of "realities" on the retina becomes simply another technical
>problem to be surmounted....

I bet that statement and the whole issue behind it doesn't get beyond the
cocktail chatter.  And I bet Enola 2's pilot will love having that technical
problem surmounted (I am not being a Luddite with that statement; I thoroughly
embrace VR development -- responsibly, but responsibility is actually too much
 to ask!

>"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..."

Timothy Druckery has a bias toward verbal representations of reality, which in
fact has become a fetishization of verbal and mathematical modes of experience
in Western history for the last 500 years.  The "visual" destabilization is
actually a verbal destabilization.  The radical discontinuities in our visual
environment (and social, historical, intellectual, etc.) are forcibly shifting
us out of cognitive patterns represented by verbal logic.  That is good, in my
estimation.  Latter 20th century adults, trained on the old, quite
inappropriate patterns by towards standards, find a great deal of discomfort. 
They will eventually die off, and today's first true computer generation of
toddlers will get along quite fine, thank you very much.  Long live MTV!

Gary Van Den Heuvel