Subject: GENERAL: PLACE, Creating a Visibility of
>THIS IS BEING FORWARDED TO DESIGN-L FOR DISCUSSION. Howard
>In article <2vva6j$eae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> M Carr,
>mat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> Telecom, Coca Cola, Levis, Hollywood, DisneyLand, etc. Not good
>examples yet
>> but examples of distributed monuments developing in contemporary western
>> culture. Fixed reference points by which we can measure ourselves, place
>> ourselves.
>After reading your position several times, I think I am begining to
>understand how the situation may be portrayed as you discribed. However,
>I am hesitant to agree that the capitalistic products stated above, now
>and in the near future, may be associated with the intricate processes of
>how we asertain our place, worth, status or being within our environment.
>These markers are not only volitile but also address a very limited
>spectrum of these processes. To a certain degree, these markers are also
>intentionally deceitful. I think our alliance with these refrence points
>are hollow and agnostic in nature.
>> Our perception of the human body is changing, far from the sacred
>god-given
>> object of less recent times, we have an exploitable resource, that
>forms a
>> physical interface between the act of perceiving and the perception
>itself.
>>
>> My (and others) use of conventional human centred modes of
>representation
>> in architecture is at present necessitated by the fact that the work
>still
>> represents an object intended to occupy the (perceived) real world.
>> A virtual environment does not have the same constraints.
>There can be no doubt that the perception of the human body, in general,
>is changing. I, however, do not think that our views of our bodies have
>changed that drastically over time nor have we always viewed our bodies
>as sacred god-given objects. I'm sure the egyptians did not. If you
>suscribe to J.J. Gibsions views on visual perception, one of our more
>important interfaces to our environment, the division between environment
>and virtual environment becomes moot anyway. He discribes of perception
>that is independent of tangibility. The reality of present virtual worlds
>currently probably hover at about 7000 - 10000 anti-aliased textured
>polygons per graphics pipeline at 30fps and a latency of 33ms or worse
>and rudementary haptic feedback. Even with this slight alteration,
>virtual disorientation occurs with many, as such, the attempt to
>re-regulate common environment constraints cannot be considered viable on
>all but a handful of people. I should know. I can't play pac-man to save
>my life.
>> >Although omnipresence seems to be a cool idea, I'm not sure that it is
>> >easily comprehendable. If you have tried playing more than one chess
>game
>> >simultaneously, you'll understand what I'm getting at. This is why more
>> >and more interfaces tend to emphasize intelligence augmentation rather
>> >than knowledge saturation. Most of us are only 2 1/2 D capable. We
>often
>> >need to rely on the renaissance concept of projection in order to
>> >percieve 3D. Generally speaking, any 3D modelling package, with one or
>> >two exceptions, uses a 2 1/2 D approach. Because of this, a majority of
>> >natural occurences within physical architecture cannot be duplicated in
>> >any Virtual environment. Not yet anyway. The current tele-communication
>> >methods cannot replace the societal links physical architecture
>provides
>> >for the same reason we do not consider telephones virtual reality
>> >apparutuses.
>>
>> I imagine our one track way of thinking is a learnt thing related to the
>> formation of the ego. Multiple personalities are theoretically possible.
>> Released from the monitoring of physical perception perhaps the mind
>could
>> cope with running more than one ego in the foreground. (egads
>computerspeak)
>> What is madness now, could be an asset in future.
>Multiple personalities are indeed possible but multitasking is not. At
>least, I dont think. There is a big difference.
>> The way we work at the moment is to filter out knowledge saturation.
>> Knowledge we have already determines what knowledge we will "see" in any
>> array of information made available too us. Saturation is only a
>problem when
>> you can't "see" anything (ie. you can see noise)
>The gestalt gang will not agree with your position on how we obtain
>information from our surroundings. Besides, saturation occurs when the
>information treshold is met and not after it happens.
>> The ability to duplicate physical reality depends on the hardware,
>software
>> and more importantly, the ingenuity of those who (re)create.
>We don't recreate it, we just make it visible to us.
>anthony tan
>penn state
>THIS IS BEING FORWARDED TO DESIGN-L FOR DISCUSSION. Howard
>In article <2vva6j$eae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> M Carr,
>mat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> Telecom, Coca Cola, Levis, Hollywood, DisneyLand, etc. Not good
>examples yet
>> but examples of distributed monuments developing in contemporary western
>> culture. Fixed reference points by which we can measure ourselves, place
>> ourselves.
>After reading your position several times, I think I am begining to
>understand how the situation may be portrayed as you discribed. However,
>I am hesitant to agree that the capitalistic products stated above, now
>and in the near future, may be associated with the intricate processes of
>how we asertain our place, worth, status or being within our environment.
>These markers are not only volitile but also address a very limited
>spectrum of these processes. To a certain degree, these markers are also
>intentionally deceitful. I think our alliance with these refrence points
>are hollow and agnostic in nature.
>> Our perception of the human body is changing, far from the sacred
>god-given
>> object of less recent times, we have an exploitable resource, that
>forms a
>> physical interface between the act of perceiving and the perception
>itself.
>>
>> My (and others) use of conventional human centred modes of
>representation
>> in architecture is at present necessitated by the fact that the work
>still
>> represents an object intended to occupy the (perceived) real world.
>> A virtual environment does not have the same constraints.
>There can be no doubt that the perception of the human body, in general,
>is changing. I, however, do not think that our views of our bodies have
>changed that drastically over time nor have we always viewed our bodies
>as sacred god-given objects. I'm sure the egyptians did not. If you
>suscribe to J.J. Gibsions views on visual perception, one of our more
>important interfaces to our environment, the division between environment
>and virtual environment becomes moot anyway. He discribes of perception
>that is independent of tangibility. The reality of present virtual worlds
>currently probably hover at about 7000 - 10000 anti-aliased textured
>polygons per graphics pipeline at 30fps and a latency of 33ms or worse
>and rudementary haptic feedback. Even with this slight alteration,
>virtual disorientation occurs with many, as such, the attempt to
>re-regulate common environment constraints cannot be considered viable on
>all but a handful of people. I should know. I can't play pac-man to save
>my life.
>> >Although omnipresence seems to be a cool idea, I'm not sure that it is
>> >easily comprehendable. If you have tried playing more than one chess
>game
>> >simultaneously, you'll understand what I'm getting at. This is why more
>> >and more interfaces tend to emphasize intelligence augmentation rather
>> >than knowledge saturation. Most of us are only 2 1/2 D capable. We
>often
>> >need to rely on the renaissance concept of projection in order to
>> >percieve 3D. Generally speaking, any 3D modelling package, with one or
>> >two exceptions, uses a 2 1/2 D approach. Because of this, a majority of
>> >natural occurences within physical architecture cannot be duplicated in
>> >any Virtual environment. Not yet anyway. The current tele-communication
>> >methods cannot replace the societal links physical architecture
>provides
>> >for the same reason we do not consider telephones virtual reality
>> >apparutuses.
>>
>> I imagine our one track way of thinking is a learnt thing related to the
>> formation of the ego. Multiple personalities are theoretically possible.
>> Released from the monitoring of physical perception perhaps the mind
>could
>> cope with running more than one ego in the foreground. (egads
>computerspeak)
>> What is madness now, could be an asset in future.
>Multiple personalities are indeed possible but multitasking is not. At
>least, I dont think. There is a big difference.
>> The way we work at the moment is to filter out knowledge saturation.
>> Knowledge we have already determines what knowledge we will "see" in any
>> array of information made available too us. Saturation is only a
>problem when
>> you can't "see" anything (ie. you can see noise)
>The gestalt gang will not agree with your position on how we obtain
>information from our surroundings. Besides, saturation occurs when the
>information treshold is met and not after it happens.
>> The ability to duplicate physical reality depends on the hardware,
>software
>> and more importantly, the ingenuity of those who (re)create.
>We don't recreate it, we just make it visible to us.
>anthony tan
>penn state