hi,
i've just read adrian's comments on virtual reality. seemed
quite sensible to me. i'm not quite sure why it is in an
architecture discussion list; my apologies that the following
is no more relevant.
while i understand how useful computers are for visualising
information - it's what i seem to spend my life doing anyway -
their great utility is in _reducing_ the amount of information
kicking around.
well, that's fine - after all, that's what `science' is all about.
but isn't `art' a little different? you take simple components
and create something more complex. (ok - `conceptual art' takes
the easy option and leaves that to the observer's head. but one
might feel that isn't the way to go...)
it seems to me that virtual reality is going to make more
impression as a way of _creating_ art rather than _consuming_ it
- at least for the near future. somehow you have to get a
pile of information into that computer before you can produce
anything worth looking at (forgive the bias to sight). a virtual
studio would be rather nice. input as sensitive as a brush:
better than the buttons i'm prodding at here.
and why not consumption? well, how much do these things cost?
are our priorities really to give virtual reality to the top few
percent of the world's population? well, probably they are, but
even so it'll take a long time. this implies an art that can
only produced by an elite. bad news folks.
perhaps i am selling the rate of progress short.
andrew
one other thing - how much of this stuff is defence funded?
fax (0223) 337523 andrew cooke (0223) 337504/48
institute of astronomy, madingley road, cambridge, cb3 0ha, england
i think about you in as many ways as the rain comes norman maccaig
i've just read adrian's comments on virtual reality. seemed
quite sensible to me. i'm not quite sure why it is in an
architecture discussion list; my apologies that the following
is no more relevant.
while i understand how useful computers are for visualising
information - it's what i seem to spend my life doing anyway -
their great utility is in _reducing_ the amount of information
kicking around.
well, that's fine - after all, that's what `science' is all about.
but isn't `art' a little different? you take simple components
and create something more complex. (ok - `conceptual art' takes
the easy option and leaves that to the observer's head. but one
might feel that isn't the way to go...)
it seems to me that virtual reality is going to make more
impression as a way of _creating_ art rather than _consuming_ it
- at least for the near future. somehow you have to get a
pile of information into that computer before you can produce
anything worth looking at (forgive the bias to sight). a virtual
studio would be rather nice. input as sensitive as a brush:
better than the buttons i'm prodding at here.
and why not consumption? well, how much do these things cost?
are our priorities really to give virtual reality to the top few
percent of the world's population? well, probably they are, but
even so it'll take a long time. this implies an art that can
only produced by an elite. bad news folks.
perhaps i am selling the rate of progress short.
andrew
one other thing - how much of this stuff is defence funded?
fax (0223) 337523 andrew cooke (0223) 337504/48
institute of astronomy, madingley road, cambridge, cb3 0ha, england
i think about you in as many ways as the rain comes norman maccaig