Krueger argues against the belief that man-machine interaction is limited to a man poking at a machine and provides evidence that supports his claim that there are ways that are more interesting for men and machines to relate. He argues that there is such a thing as responsive environments which break away from the “seated man poking at a machine with his fingers or perhaps waving a wand over a data tablet” (379). He depicts the evolution from its beginnings in 1969 to his current project, VIDEOPLACE.
He starts by describing the technology that was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. GLOWFLOW, created in 1969, was visually successful but obtained a hesitant response because the artist believed it was more important that the environment respond. METAPLAY, exhibited a year later, focused on the issues with GLOWFLOW and the interaction between the environment and the individual was emphasized. PSYCHIC SPACE was used for the musical expression as well as the interactive experience and Maze also focused on the interaction between the participant and the environment. All paved the way for the integration of humans into a responsive environment. His own project, VIDEOPLACE, is conceptual and unites people in different locations within a common visual experience.
One of Krueger’s main points is that the response is the medium. He claims that the “video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways, than reality itself” (384). He describes the importance of responsive environments and risks criticism from those who believe the response is not as important as the visual appeal. He argues that the “distinguishing aspect of medium is…the fact that it responds to the viewer in an interesting way” (385) so it must know what the participant is doing and has to be able to respond to the participant. He ends his argument by stating that the responsive environment is not limited to the arts. It can be applied in education, offering students an engaging environment where they will be more eager to learn, psychology to study human behavior, and psychotherapy because certain environments can evoke and expand behavior. His concluding statement is that the “design of such intimate technology is an aesthetic issue as much as an engineering one” (389) and we have to recognize this in order to understand what we have created.
Inquiry
After visiting the reality lab, I fully agree with Krueger’s argument. It took me a while to grasp onto the notion that the response was the medium but after reading the various applications he described I was able to understand and thus form a decision on whether or not I agreed with him. I believe fully responsive environments are the future and we are well on our way to creating such technology. The example that I could visualize the most was using it for psychotherapy. It could be used to enable people to get over their fears and it can create seemingly hostile environments without the dangers of real life. It seems that responsive environments are already making their way into people’s homes and in it probably won’t be long before every home has some sort of illustration of this.
An example of the response as the medium is the virtual reality lab. The participant controls their surroundings with the joystick that responds to movement much like the Wii remotes do. They are able to navigate around the platform and when wearing the lenses that control the movements they are able to walk into different areas of the virtual reality, such as looking through the parts of the heart and seeing the other areas. It is all about the environment responding to the movements of the individual and the individual being able to control what happens.
Do you believe that someday we will be completely dependent on responsive environments and what are the dangers if that happens?
Do you agree with Krueger that the response is the medium or do you believe that something else is the medium?
How else can virtual reality be used? Do the pros of a responsive environment outweigh the cons?
As we discussed in class yesterday, I think there are definite advantages to utilizing responsive environments to further education and to provide greater avenues for exploration and research. However, responsive environments should supplement the research that is already being done, not supplant it, for if people become entirely dependent on responsive environments as their way to interact with the world then society begins to lose its cultural and societal bonds. Virtual reality can only provide so much, and its limitations include space, and the loss of full sensory integration. In addition, society is becoming extremely dependent on forms of technology where we don't understand how it works, we just want it to work when we need it. This complete reliance is an issue when the technology breaks for we are helpless to create any solutions with the help of a technological professional. I fear that if we become completely dependent on responsive environments in the future, people will lose a connection with the outside world and perhaps live in denial of what is actually occurring in the real world versus in their virtual reality.
I agree with Alyssa. I think there are both positive and negative aspects to responsive environments. The positives, I feel, come more in the form of education and reasearch than anything else. It is possible that gaming could benefit greatly from responsive environments, but as far as benefitting society and societal knowledge, research and edcuation are obviously at the forefront. Personally, I was not as impressed as I thought I would be with this particular virtual reality lab. It is my understanding that other labs, such as the one at the University of Iowa or even the one in the Optical Sciences building at the University of Arizona, are much more fluid in their visual representations. The University of Iowa has a "cave" with 6 sides instead of four, and the Optical Sciences lab here at the U of A has rounded walls to eliminate the negative affects of corners in the imagery. I think that virtual reality has a lot of potential, though, and one day hope to be able to experience things like gaming and in depth research in this type of environment, and more specifically in an environment that responds. Krueger's particular example of police training in responsive environments is also particularly appealing to me, and I'm curious to see how many law enforcement agencies adopt virtual reality as an industry standard in the future.
I believe that responsive environments are becoming more and more prevalent throughout society. Using a virtual environment that responds is a great tool for education, but it can also be a hindrance. For example, we may use responsive environments for training in certain fields (flying a plane is one example). While it is true that the risks involved in this sort of environment are far less than the risks in the real-world scenario, it can be dangerous for an individual to become accustomed to these low-risk scenarios when they apply these skills to the real world.
With the invention of technology and reliance go hand-in-hand. Therefore, I do believe the dependence on responsive environments will be present, but because virtual reality “removes” you from the real world, I do not think its dependence will be as great as the reliance on technologies. If this were to happen though, I think that people would lose connection with social skills and proper etiquette. This would result from the lack of communication between people in the real world.
Welcome to our HNRS200 - "Thinking Critically About New Media," blog where we will analyze, explore, & illustrate how various forms of new media impact our lives and futures.
4 comments
As we discussed in class yesterday, I think there are definite advantages to utilizing responsive environments to further education and to provide greater avenues for exploration and research. However, responsive environments should supplement the research that is already being done, not supplant it, for if people become entirely dependent on responsive environments as their way to interact with the world then society begins to lose its cultural and societal bonds. Virtual reality can only provide so much, and its limitations include space, and the loss of full sensory integration. In addition, society is becoming extremely dependent on forms of technology where we don't understand how it works, we just want it to work when we need it. This complete reliance is an issue when the technology breaks for we are helpless to create any solutions with the help of a technological professional. I fear that if we become completely dependent on responsive environments in the future, people will lose a connection with the outside world and perhaps live in denial of what is actually occurring in the real world versus in their virtual reality.
I agree with Alyssa. I think there are both positive and negative aspects to responsive environments. The positives, I feel, come more in the form of education and reasearch than anything else. It is possible that gaming could benefit greatly from responsive environments, but as far as benefitting society and societal knowledge, research and edcuation are obviously at the forefront. Personally, I was not as impressed as I thought I would be with this particular virtual reality lab. It is my understanding that other labs, such as the one at the University of Iowa or even the one in the Optical Sciences building at the University of Arizona, are much more fluid in their visual representations. The University of Iowa has a "cave" with 6 sides instead of four, and the Optical Sciences lab here at the U of A has rounded walls to eliminate the negative affects of corners in the imagery. I think that virtual reality has a lot of potential, though, and one day hope to be able to experience things like gaming and in depth research in this type of environment, and more specifically in an environment that responds. Krueger's particular example of police training in responsive environments is also particularly appealing to me, and I'm curious to see how many law enforcement agencies adopt virtual reality as an industry standard in the future.
I believe that responsive environments are becoming more and more prevalent throughout society. Using a virtual environment that responds is a great tool for education, but it can also be a hindrance. For example, we may use responsive environments for training in certain fields (flying a plane is one example). While it is true that the risks involved in this sort of environment are far less than the risks in the real-world scenario, it can be dangerous for an individual to become accustomed to these low-risk scenarios when they apply these skills to the real world.
With the invention of technology and reliance go hand-in-hand. Therefore, I do believe the dependence on responsive environments will be present, but because virtual reality “removes” you from the real world, I do not think its dependence will be as great as the reliance on technologies. If this were to happen though, I think that people would lose connection with social skills and proper etiquette. This would result from the lack of communication between people in the real world.
Post a Comment