Understanding the Virtual in Reality

Where do you draw the line between reality and the virtual? Or perhaps the question is really whether or not you even can draw a line between the two any more.

On the one hand, when I think of the virtual I imagine whole other worlds. Virtual reality games like World of Warcraft and Second Life are what immediately come to mind and in these contexts, I do think there is an argument to be made for their separation or disassociation with what we might perceive as reality. In these virtual ‘worlds’, the parameters are quite easily defined between what we might consider the ‘real’ physical world and the ‘virtual’ in a traditional sense and I would argue that as a result, such media have relatively little impact on our perception of the ‘real world’.

However the notion of the virtual in media studies is hardly limited to these manifestations. If the virtual overlaps with the ‘real world’, as is the case with augmented reality media, these parameters obviously become less clear. As Chris Grayson illustrates in his Augmented Reality Overview (1), this notion of the virtual has the potential to be much more ingrained in our mediated experience of the world around us than I would have initially thought. Considering the virtual as intertwined with the physical world, as is the case in the numerous examples Grayson offers, these media can be seen to project and create meaning in the actual rather than virtual worlds. I found the iPhone app; SekaiCamera (2) fascinating, particularly in that it illustrates the potential for these augmented media to become ingrained in our daily interaction with our own physical worlds on such a basic and comprehensive level. Sure, the app is quite limited in its application at this point (the confined environment of a Japanese museum exhibit is hardly indicative of a widespread application of the technology), but there is definitely potential there - that is if such augmented reality media as the SekaiCamera where to become more widely implemented and 'air tags' where to become ubiquitous.

Chris Grayson writes that;

“When it comes to Virtual Reality, I’ve had a mantra that none of this will really take off until we’re in there versus looking at there.” (3)

And we seem to be crossing over into this realm of being ‘in there’. We are seeing the projection of the virtual into the actual reality of our lives and our worlds on an ever increasing scale; a sort of blurring of the lines between the real and the virtual, making it much more difficult to differentiate between the two. In this light it seems that the two can no longer be thought of as separate, but rather that the virtual is as much a part of our experience of what we know as reality as the physical world itself.

References:

1. Grayson, Chris (2009) ‘Augmented Reality Overview’, GigantiCo <http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html>
2. ibid 
3. ibid

Losing Control

Up until now I had always thought of memory as a largely internal process, functioning within my own mind. But the reality it seems, is that entrenched in my day to day life are technologies which can be seen to function as an extension, or what Bernard Stiegler refers to as an ‘exteriorization’ (1) of my memory.

The fact of the matter is that I am utterly reliant on everything from my diary to my mobile phone, computer and GPS. But up until now I had never given much though to the wider implications of this reliance and realizing this I am now wondering; should I be concerned by this dependence on these 'mnemotechnologies'?(2)

While I wouldn’t exactly call my self an optimist, I couldn’t help but question the bleak outlook presented in Bernard Stiegler’s Anamnesis and Hypomnesis.(3)

By exteriorizing our memories, are we sacrificing our control over knowledge?

Bernard Stiegler writes that:

“These cognitive technologies, to which we confide a greater and greater part of our memory, cause us to lose an ever-greater part of our knowledge.” (4)

But how can we lose something that we never had?

According to Stiegler;

“To lose a cell phone is to lose the trace of the telephone numbers of our correspondents and to realise that they are no longer in the psychical memory but in the apparatuss’s.” (5)

But were they ever committed to psychical memory in the first place? I think I speak for most people when I say that I use on a regular basis, only a fraction of the mass of accumulated numbers stored on my mobile phone. I can honestly say that I would recall from my own memory, perhaps a handful of phone numbers and sure, if I were to lose (or break) my phone I would also be losing pretty much all of the numbers on it. But if I had never had the phone in the first place (or any other medium by which I could externally store those numbers), would I have accumulated so many numbers in the first place. I certainly would not have personally memorized each and every number. The reality is that I would have no way of storing the accumulated knowledge of my extended contact list without such technologies by which to store them in the first place. The same can be said I think, for all technical forms of memory, not just the mobile phone. By exteriorizing our memory we are facilitating the creation of knowledge beyond our own individual capacities for recollection.

Surely the risk of losing knowledge is outweighed by the exponential ability to create and store knowledge which is facilitated by this exteriorization of memory.

References:

1. Stiegler, Bernard (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’ <http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis>
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid.

How to Define the Indefinable

What is the Relationship between Media, Social and Cultural Change?

This is the underlying question of the course, but if the last few weeks have taught me anything, it is that there is no definitive answer to that question. Nor is there a singular approach to the study of media. To be quite honest, introducing this notion of Media Ecology has only served to further complicate my understanding of media studies.

And What Exactly is Media Ecology?

Well, despite my best efforts, I can’t seem to come up with a definitive answer to this question. If anything, the more I read on the subject, the more subjective the term seems to be.

For instance, according to Lance Strate and the Media Ecology Association;

“It is the study of media environments, the idea that technology and techniques, modes of information and codes of communication play a leading role in human affairs.” (1)

While I can appreciate the simplicity of this notion of media ecologies as ‘environments’, I find this definition, and the approach as a whole, to be a distinctly one-sided perspective. The technological determinist slant is all too obvious in the Media Ecology Association’s introduction to the concept.

Neil Postman writes of how the media “force us to play, how media structure what we are seeing, why media make us feel and act as we do.” (2)

Personally, I am inclined to question the extent to which human action interacts with, influences and even shapes the ecologies of media, which is perhaps part of the reason why I am having trouble coming to terms with the readings on this concept.

Mathew Fuller on the other hand, appears to approach the field of Media Ecology with a broader notion of the term.

“The term “ecology” is used… because it is one of the most expressive language currently has to indicate the massive and dynamic interrelation of processes and objects, beings and things, patterns and matter” writes Fuller in his book Media Ecologies:  Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. (3)

It is this approach which I find myself more in agreement with. It appears, to me at least, to be less one sided than the ecologies as ‘environments’ definition above. This looser interpretation of ‘ecology’, seems to allow a wider (and I would argue, more comprehensive) scope of study to the field, but is far more complex (and less definitive) as a result.

I guess maybe that is the point; that this notion of 'ecology' despite being more complex, facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of media by broadening the scope of its study. What this idea of Media Ecology brings to the foreground for me is the complexity of the dynamics between media themselves; media, culture and society; and human experience. Media effects cannot be studied or understood as singular phenomenon. Understanding media as interconnected and interactive, constantly reconfiguring and evolving is, more than anything else, what I will be taking away from this week.

References:

1. Media Ecology Association ‘What is Media Ecology’ <http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/>
2. ibid
3. Fuller, Matthew (2005) ‘Introduction: Media Ecologies’ in Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture Cambridge, MA; MIT Press: pg. 2