Myron Krueger, better known as “the father of virtual reality,” argues within his work Responsive Environments that the response is the medium. Thinking back to the beginning of man-machine interaction, the abilities of expansion were restricted, the ability of full throttle fun was restricted, and the overall concept was limited. Krueger states, “a responsive environment, is on which a computer perceives the actions of those who enter and responds intelligently through complex and auditory displays (379).” The creator, or the “artist” develops a cyber context relationship with the participant or player that builds and feeds off responses and change. Krueger mentions past projects such as GLOWFLOW, METAPLAY and PSYIC SPACE as having contributed to his ideas. For example, from GLOWFLOW he discovered that the experience could be heightened if the computer actively perceives as much as possible from the player. From METAPLAY he observed that both the viewer and the artist could respond to resulting images that in turn facilitated a unique real-time relationship between the artist and participant. PSYCHIC space implemented a musical means of expression with tones based upon the movement of their foot upon the tiles. VIDEOPLACE is the current project in progress. It is defined as “a conceptual environment with no physical existence. It unites people in separate locations in a common visual experience, allowing them to interact in unexpected ways through the video medium (384).” He argues that the video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways than reality itself. Which brings us to the idea of response is the medium. The medium must know as much as possible about what the participant is doing. The environment must be able to respond to the participants at all times. The final part of Krueger’s work argues that this idea of a responsive environment can have potentially real world application in the form of education, psychology, and therapy. He argues that in the realm of education, the responsive environment offers “a learning situation in which physical activity is encouraged. And may revolutionize what we teach as well as how we teach (388).” In terms of psychology we could use these types of environments as ways of monitoring. “Perceptions could be studied and data recorded without interfering with the interactions. And finally in the use of therapy the therapist can manipulate the subjects surrounding based on its simulation responses.
After trying to get through this idea of having a responsive environment and that being the message I find that yes, experimented virtual realities could progressively become real-life applications. Of the three areas mentioned I think the strongest would be in education. Thinking back to my learning experience versus say my mother’s, technology is much more widely accepted to where it is almost becoming expected. Now upon the arithmetic, English and basic subjects, computers and the Internet should be known and practiced skills. The idea of including a responsive environment in a learning setting could be beneficial in that it is more interactive and rather than a single head or teacher spewing facts for students to memorize, a virtual learning would allow students to be engaged physically and mentally and learn through cyber trial and error.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the virtual reality lab so I do not have an experience to include but please feel free to share yours with me or compare each others!
- Do you agree with Myron Krueger that the “response is the medium, or are you more in agreement with McLuhan that “the message is the medium”?
- Do responsive environments have a chance of real world application? If so, can you think of another manner it can be applied other than those mentioned in the reading?
- Thinking back to the virtual reality lab, what contributed or heightened your experience the most? Do you agree with this idea that “the video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways than reality itself?”
Posts
In the virtual reality lab, the fact that I knew what was going on and that my brain actually had the ability to believe that the virtual images were real was what heightened my experience the most. It also sort of scared me, to be honest! I was worried about becoming too submersed…probably because of all our simulation discussions. In response to the third question, I do believe that the video medium has the capability of becoming more appealing than reality itself. “Thus, the full power of video processing could be used to mediate the interaction and the usual laws of cause and effect replaced with alternatives composed by the artist” (NMR 385). The video medium, in this context and others, enables the users to become artists, and they can alter themselves and their environments, not bounded by usual laws in reality. People can “physically” do more in a video environment, as well as alter appearances and shapes. Kind of like what the guest speaker discussed in terms of video games, people come to view this computer form of themselves as a role, as something that they become attached to. Also comparable to Turkle’s analysis, the roles enable the player to alter previous views and reputations and provides a medium where there is no past assumptions or judgments. It isn’t surprising that this sort of interaction and abilities are desired, and therefore preferred over actual reality. In the context of VIDEOPLACE especially, where people “interact” and “communicate” within their alternate egos that they can control limitlessly, I feel that Krueger’s statement is correct.
ReplyDelete3: For me, I don't believe I could stand the virtual environment very long. After the 20 minutes, I had a strong headache forming. For me, my experience was limited because that became my focus. Also, I could not trick myself into believing the 3D objects were real--it still felt like a video game to me. I don't believe the video world will ever be as immursive as reality, but I can understand how virtual reality will allow for greater access to understanding information on a larger scale in terms of education. As we discussed in class on Thursday, many fields (esp. the medical) can benefit by reaching more students and virtually showing people internal organs that are not cost effective in the real world. But I am a strong supporter of 'real' experiences--no digital computer can reproduce human senses, unless there is direct access to the brain. Though I believe research and technology should continue in the direction it is going with the AZ-CAVE and other similar environments, we should remember how important real-world interactions are.
ReplyDelete3. The virtual reality lab was like a trip to the future for me; the technology I experienced is something I believe will be very accessible in the future. What heightened my experience the most was wearing the "active" glasses, which allowed me to move around the 3-d objects as if they were real. Although the experience was great, I know that this is just the foundation to what will be further developed and that will result in more "real" experiences in the future. I am a strong advocate for advancements like this because I see the benefits it can bring to society, such as medical benefits like Ari mentioned. However I can also see the counter argument that virtual reality will never be as immersive and it cannot reproduce all the human senses. That is why I do not agree, "the video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways than reality itself." Call me close-minded, but I just don't see how virtual reality can perfect delivering every human sense in a more "rich" way than actual human experiences.
ReplyDeleteAccording to our class discussion, I think responsive environments have a great possibility of influencing other departments and real world applications. Personally, there isn't much that can apply to my line of study. However, what interests me the most is social networking with responsive environments. I think that if that could be accomplished the world of communication would be drastically altered. Today, we use Skype. Which enables us to see the person. If communication could happen with 3D people in a 3D space (sort of like VIDEOPLACE) the marketing industry and the means of in person communication would change dramatically. Sort of in comparison with my above argument, this new medium would provide such a more rewarding physical boundary that I think a lot of people will find more interesting than reality itself.
ReplyDeleteI was frankly unimpressed at best by the virtual reality lab for several reasons, including practicality and a distinct lack of immersion. The idea of a virtual reality lab in places other than an over-funded governmental grant-based organization is impractical. The combination of four overpowered projectors and a small cluster of high-end computers is extremely costly in both purchase price and the cost of running the system (electricity, maintenance, etc.). I was also unimpressed with the presentation. One could clearly see the seems between the four screens, and I found that I had to concentrate to really see the “3D” images.
ReplyDeleteIt could be possible for computerized systems to provide an experience at least as rich as reality; however, current technology has not reached that point. It would be more difficult to argue that technology will never reach a point to that degree of immersion, seeing as there is no evidence to suggest that technology has or will hit an upper-limit in terms of its ability to reproduce reality. I would disagree that only a video media would be capable of this on a purely semantic basis; “video” is too narrow of a term to encompass the entire experience of reality. Rather, I would say that technological multi-media platforms have the potential of providing an experience at least as rich as that of reality itself.
I agree with Olivia's points regarding the impact it could have on the business world, especially in the marketing industry. Video conferencing with a 3d image that you could interact with and show various strategies to would probably help out the most. In fact, most fields would be positively affected by the advancements in this type of technology. The medical field, political landscape, and the media could be improved with a more realistic interaction between people far apart that in reality. People could argue that it just wouldn't be the same as face-to-face interaction, but it would be interesting to talk about a business venture and show products with another person that is half way across the world wouldn't it? It could eventually become “a conceptual environment with no physical existence. [That] unites people in separate locations in a common visual experience, allowing them to interact in unexpected ways through the video medium (384).”
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kyle, I am surprised with your experience because I didn't really notice the seams between the different screens. I agree that this type of virtual reality lab is impractical because of price, but I do I think that we do need to keep funding this type of technology. Also, considering how far technology has come, especially in regards to video games, computers, and the Internet, do you think this type of progress will be slowed and we will never experience the degree of immersion you mentioned? I wouldn't agree with that because I do believe this technology will further develop and a fully immersible reality could exist some day.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question about the virtual reality lab, I was so impressed with how realistic the experience of being the main controller was. I was baffled by how real and tangible the objects seemed when you were in the position of the main person. I'm surprised at what Kyle said about being unimpressed by the virtual reality lab because in my opinion it was very well put together and done in a way that the viewers were able to actively experience something out of the ordinary. I thought that this was a very useful tool in understanding the ways that virtual reality affects our ways of thinking about new media and the world around us as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the first question you asked about whether the message or the response is the medium, I believe that we can examine both as ways of looking at new media, and one is not more correct than the other. With the message being the media, McLuhan analyzes the idea of what is trying to be explained and showed to the public as the media form and not the response that is received from the people. With the response being the media, like Krueger says, the media has to react to the responses given by the audience or the consumers (388). This reaction from the users plays a huge role in developing new media as well as impacting the way that society interacts with the media. While both of the authors make valid points about whether the message or the response is the media, I seem to view the response as a more interactive way of viewing the media than as the message, however we could not have one without the other.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really fun thread to read--thanks for your interesting comments!
ReplyDelete