This fall the Perimeter Institute hosted their Quantum to Cosmos Festival. One of their guests was Jaron Lanier, a pioneer of virtual reality. An interview with Janier and science fiction author Neal Stephenson can be found below.

PI Interview

Although I would say the interview is not particularly well organized, there are some interesting discussions going on below the surface. For example, Lanier talks about virtual reality as a medium that we will learn through, we will not be tricked by the virtual and the real but will distinguish the two through experience. He also gets at the question of whether digital technology is a humanizing tool? Arguably, digital technology may be understood as evolutionary to the thought process. He suggests that the movement of digital culture is too overwhelming to oppose and reflects on whether or not we are erasing ourselves when we gather in (communal) online worlds whereby our identities become fused or refigured.

Keep your eyes out for Lanier’s new book, “You Are Not A Gadget” being released this January.

In 2003 Wolfgang Ketterle’s lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge set the record for the coldest temperature ever recorded. Ketterle and his associates we able to create a temperature of 810 trillionths of a degree Fahrenheit above absolute zero kelvin. For those not familiar with the kelvin system, absolute zero refers to the temperature where no molecular movement takes place. For reference, zero degrees Fahrenheit occurs at about 460 kelvin and zero degree Celcius occurs at about 273 kelvin. That being said, Ketterle’s accomplishments are quite impressive. The temperatures which were created were likely the coldest in the universe (space itself is about 3K). This was achieved through the creation of a Bose-Einstein condensate – a state where individual atoms cease to act individually and act in coordination. The state is neither a solid, liquid or gas, but rather, a super awesome substance that can float through walls!

According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as we come closer to identifying a particle’s position, the less we can guess at its position. Also, the more accurately we pinpoint a particle’s speed, the less we can know about its position. As a result, if absolute zero could be achieved, we would know nothing of the particle in question’s location.
But what does this have to do with our own mortality? Well, we all know our bodies will die, but we also assume our race will live on.  Popular culture to a certain extent has examined the possibilities for human existence with the knowledge of the species imminent demise. Children of Men for example, imagines a world where people are unable to reproduce. Similarly, Waterworld depicts a world where decaying floating cities are attacked by gas-guzzling pirates who are running on empty. We can watch movies like these without our death anxiety being triggered because ultimately, we can have faith in a cure to the human condition and its various ailments. This idea is central to Transhumanism, the idea that we can work towards engineering the human body beyond the limits of our current biology.

Sci-Fi has imagined some of the possibilities of transhumanism. One incarnation is found in UW alumnus Robert J. Sawyer’s Calculating God. In this book, an extraterrestrial reports that several societies opted to remove themselves from their biology altogether and uploaded themselves into computers. While these narratives offer us avenues through which we can consider our mortality and possible ways to avoid death, they do not consult the ultimate death: the death of the universe. The Heat Death of the Universe refers to the idea that, following the first two laws of thermodynamics, the universe will spend its energy and reach a point of little or no molecular movement. In the heat death of the universe, no life is possible. While we may devise strategies to sustain our lives in the universe as we know it, we must recognize will not always be as we know it now.

This knowledge forces us to recognize two things. Firstly, our mortality is unavoidable. We can preserve our lives through advances in medicine, augment our biology, perhaps survive the death through the colonization of our solar system, perhaps even survive the death of our own star. But ultimately, the universe will die and us with it. Secondly, our death anxiety cannot be assuaged by the idea that our decedents will live on. Yet another piece of the armour of character which must be stripped to advance in the school of dread.

Ketterle’s studies of extremely low temperatures then have meta-physical value. Essentially, Ketterle can be said to be studying the afterlife, in the sense of what happens after the conditions for life are no longer present – the universe after life. Ketterle’s studies are approaching the limits of what can be known – the speed and location of our physical existence in a dead universe.

Some things to consider when creating final project videos (from the 11/12/2009 class discussion)…

SCALE The surface, location, and size of the cube are factors to consider when addressing questions of scale in your video. Consider the level of detail in the images your film will use, and whether or not these will be registered by viewers watching on a large screen from a far distance. In William Wegman’s dog vs. bottle piece, for example, it’s likely that viewers would be unable to see the detail of the dog biscuit inside of the glass bottle, which would completely change their experience of the piece. In the “Manabe” video, which displays a grid of faces undergoing an electric stimulus-to-face test, we observed that perhaps the best approach for this video on a large scale, would be to cut the grid down to fewer faces, so that the detail is retained (but without losing the aspect of the grid, which the film depends upon).

CONTEXT Consider the space surrounding the cube, as well as the structure of the cube, itself. This architectural space comprises the context in which your film will be viewed. Consider taking advantage of this space, by crafting a film to compliment or contrast this urban, architectural environment. In the example of Pipilotti Rist’s “Open my Glade”, the film was projected onto a building, while the camera, itself, moved through architectural city space. This works very well, since the context of the film interacts with where the film is being presented. In “Manabe”,  we observed that the grid pattern would work well with the space of the cube because it mimics what’s already up there.

AUDIENCE (+ CONTEXT + ETHICS) Consider the nature of your audience: passers by. Many people will look up for only a few seconds to view the film, and then continue on their way. Choose your content with this type of audience in mind, while also remembering the context in which this audience will be experiencing your work. Viewers of Rist’s “Open my Glade” reacted negatively to the video because its violence was disturbing to some viewers. We postulated that viewers of William Wegman’s dog vs. bottle piece might feel equally offended by the treatment of the animal in the video, especially considering they’d likely only observe a snippet of the piece. Think about how much you can get away with, with minimal context.

THEME The theme and content of your piece must reflect back on course readings. In Harrison Wood’s film, two men are tied together at the legs and must move in unison to avoid being hit by tennis balls fired from a machine. This film communicates the men’s sense of helplessness in the face of technology. We should take a concept like this, and make it even more specific by referring to a particular reading, concept, or word, even. We are expected, in this assignment, to embed theory much more thoughtfully and obviously into the film—to embody the theory through the video, thereby creating objects to think with.

AESTHETICS Consider factors that affect how visually appealing your piece is. For example, would the colours of the images work against the cube surface or the sky? Also keep in mind that beautiful shots aren’t everything. In “Marsh”, which explores an auditorium of some sort, and its rows of seats, the camera work is aesthetically beautiful, but the film almost comes across as a screensaver or advertisement because its shots are so clean and slow-moving. This type of aesthetic is perhaps too contemplative for a downtown context. People may not stop to watch something like this, despite how beautiful it is.

NARRATIVE vs. ABSTRACT We explored two different approaches to film, one being a narrative approach, and the other being a more abstract, iconic approach. In Wood’s tennis ball attack, the narrative pull of the video sucks people in, as they become invested in witnessing the fate of these two mean. At the same time, the film exudes a very iconic nature, which is aesthetically appealing, and imprints a memory of the film in viewers’ minds. We agreed that our films should attempt to balance an iconic nature with a sense of narrative that commands the viewer’s attention.

SOUND As we observed with most of the videos, audio can be vital to a film, but it can also be unnecessary. In the “Facebook” film we viewed, the sound was helpful, but not crucial. “Mouth to Mouth”, however, relies heavily on the sound of the man exhaling underwater, which continues after the screen goes black. This is partially true of “Manabe”, in which the whimsical technopop that accompanies the electrode signals adds a whole other dimension to this film, which might otherwise appear to be a torture scene; however, we observed that this film could probably work just as well (though, arguably, in a different way) without the sound. Because we can’t rely on sound, we must modify what we’re doing to ensure that the scene doesn’t depend on it. One suggestion for achieving this is to exaggerate gestures in the absence of sound.

PERSPECTIVE Plan your camera angle strategically. Wegman uses a tripod, rather than a handicam, which provides stability and smooth movement, but fixates the perspective in a single place, so that the camera must move up and down, back and forth, to keep up with the moving subject. This creates a very interesting approach.

LENGTH The length of your film depends on the content. A four-minute linear narrative, such as William Wegman’s dog vs. bottle story might be too long, especially for pedestrians in December. However, a four-minute abstract piece might be acceptable, if it’s a piece that contains enough variation over time to make it interesting at any point, for any duration of viewing (this can, of course, involve variations on the same object/idea). The film “Sisto”, which displays self-propelled bouncing basketballs from a static perspective in a parking lot, plays with sequence and timing in a way that makes the viewer want to keep watching to try to catch the point at which it loops or doesn’t. A longer video like this can be successful if it sucks people in by messing with their heads.

TEXT In the “Facebook” film, we observed the use of text in video. Some important things to consider when using text include scale (visible, but not overpowering) and brevity (short and to-the-point), unless  of course you have a philosophical reason for manipulating text to express a message.

OVERALL Think about what you can project onto the cube that will embody a specific idea, and that will give you enough material with which to write an essay. Your film should provide enugh content to exhibit your mastery of a particular concept. Think of yourself as a media theorist; think in terms of video, but not video art, necessarily. Get out of the mood of writing an essay and think a little more obtusely about the concept you’re examining. What would be appropriate given this rhetorical context? Explore different methods and be playful in your approach.

EXAMPLE Enframing. Take Heidegger’s idea and think visually about the concept. Viewers don’t have to know who Heidegger is, or anything about his theories. Your film will, at the very least, expose them to a new idea. Remember, your job isn’t to explain the concept, but to embody it.

BONUS QUESTION Why make a film for this project? Why not write a 20-page essay instead? What’s the value in the approach we’re taking?

We talked briefly last week about the notion of progress, particularly as it pertains to AI and technology.  I tend to become fixated on certain ideas, often (usually) at the expense of others, and this post is the consequence. Through a myriad of links I have discovered an interactive pedagogical tool that introduces and familiarizes the participant with Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the tetrad. The tetrad is eminently useful in analysing anything created by humans, particularly in assessing some of the unintended, unfortunate, and seldom discussed consequences of the artefact in question. Incidentally, this was designed right here at the University of Waterloo. So it’s got that going for it, as well. Here’s the link:

http://homepage.mac.com/andrewmcmurry/tetrad/index.htm

Let’s give it a whirl:

Artefact: Interactive Pedagogical Tool

Enhances: solitude, democratization of information, democratization of education (?), critical prowess

Reverts: isolation, over-simplification, a wide array of sedintary-lifestyle induced complications including (but not limited to) anti-social behaviour, obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, and bedsores

Retrieves: method of loci, memory devices, flashcards, the abridged novel

Obsolesces: books (?), MA in Rhetoric and Communication Design (?) (uh-oh)

I may have missed the mark on a few of these.  Anyway, the point is that progress is a complex concept. The tetrad is a great tool for delving into the connotations we apply to artefacts, and a launching pad for an analysis of “progress”  in the consumer products of our society.

The latest installment of the popular Call of Duty series goes on sale tomorrow, and it’s expected to sell millions of copies within the first week. It’s been a while since a game has received so much pre-launch hype and scrutiny, and in fact, weeks before its release date, a leaked scene of the game found its way around the internet, garnering a great deal of controversy and outrage. Modern Warfare 2 splits with traditional First Person Shooter conventions in that it allows the player to embody a terrorist intentionally killing civilians. Almost without exception, a distinguishing characteristic of the FPS genre is its use of morally safe “Others” as enemies, – Nazis, terrorists, zombies, Nazi-zombies, aliens, insects, criminals, etc.. These are easy bad guys, and so nobody gets too upset when, for instance, gamers must shoot and kill thousands of Nazis throughout the course of a game. It seems to be a much different story when the player targets “innocents,” however.

During the opening scene, the user is given the option to play as a Russian terrorist, killing swarms of civilians in a Russian airport. Although the publisher, Activision, has taken the clip down with Prince-like efficiency, I’ve had a chance to view the clip and I must admit it is a bit disturbing. The player’s character (who is infiltrating a Russian ultra-nationalist group) is armed with an automatic weapon, capable of spraying crowds of cowering air travelers with dozens of bullets a second. As with most contemporary shooters, there is lots of blood to let you know you’ve hit your mark.

Ars Technica contributor Andrew Webster comments on the significance of this:

What made this scenario so shocking was that it wasn’t a cut-scene, instead the player was actually controlling the carnage, forced to shoot civilians to proceed. You, as the player, will be given the opportunity to put noncombatants in the crosshairs and pull the trigger.

This is perhaps unique to the genre. As gamers, we aren’t used to playing as the bad guys. Why have an opening scene like this? Why give a simulated, terrorist-centric massacre scene at all? Well, luckily for us Activision has given a few interviews about the scene, and released the following statement:

The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them. Players have the option of skipping over the scene…

And with another statement to game zine Kotaku, Activision defends the decision to include the scene, saying it is “designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism.” This significant because we have a presumably independent, major game developer telling us they are intentionally attempting to convey a political message – I say “political” because as the cliché goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s the prototypical rhetorical battle royale, with invaluable “hero” or “villain” connotations as the grand prize.

In the Ars Technica article quoted above, Webster interviews a Marine, Timothy Bertram, who has served overseas, and whose son recently finished two combat tours in Iraq. I think this is a fascinating perspective, and I think a wide scale survey of military personnel into the genre at large would be fruitful. But I digress. Bertram explains his position in the following excerpt:

“In the real world is this [terrorists killing civilians] far fetched?” he explained, “No, not at all.” “The question is,” he continued, “just because that is the way it is, do we need that in a video game? I don’t think so. In my opinion it dumbs down the absolute horror and viciousness of these tactics, and glorifies the acts. I personally have played some of GTA [Grand Theft Auto], but abandoned it after continually being forced to shoot police officers.”

This reaction is interesting but not surprising, especially in light of TMT – one of the reasons we like playing video games, I think, is because in them we escape the restriction and mundanity of everyday life, and often embody (or are immersed in) the role of hero, saving “our” good from “their” evil. They affirm worldviews which depict us as the inherent good guy. Moreover, the digital worlds mimic traditional immortality myths found in most major religions – once you die, there’s a waiting period of some sort (load screen), and then you are reborn once again (“load checkpoint”). Not only are we are playing out our cultural hero systems, so to speak, but these systems are depicted to us in an immortal world, so that the particular hero system conveyed is metonymically linked with rebirth, unendingness, the ability to try again. Thus, the hero system is doubly appealing, once for the symbolic immortality of living up to its mandates (self-esteem), and again for its association with the eternal.

Here, however, the player is an American killing innocent Russians (they still wouldn’t set the scene at LaGuardia, for instance); we’re usually conditioned to think that the good guys only kill those who deserve it, except for regrettable incidents of “collateral damage,” and so the player is placed into an unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable situation, acting in contradiction to culturally prescribed definitions of good and bad, innocent and guilty. In Beckerian terms, this Modern Warfare 2 scene may be uncomfortable to play because it means the player must act outside of the hero system, even though Activision’s press releases make it clear they are actually attempting to reinforce such systems. It will be interesting to see how it is received once its released en masse. Odds are most people won’t care, and it will simply be a new direction for the medium.

Another thing I should note, is that although this scene is controversial, Activision has hedged its bets a bit – this scene is “optional,” meaning the player does not have to play as a terrorist but can skip the scene. We don’t get this option any time else, when we’re not killing innocents, so it’s telling I think.

In an interview shortly before his death, Ernest Becker talks about WWII as “the last heroic war,” and lamenting the situation in Vietnam, notes that Americans are “in sore need of heroes.” Perhaps this is why there are so many WWII themed shooters, and so few Vietnam, or WWI themed shooters – the clear distinction of good and bad simply aren’t as pervasive in the cultural understanding of these conflicts. WWI was senseless and brutal, and largely based on now outdated notions of honor and injury; Vietnam of course is the first truly ambivalent war for the Americans, and divided the country significantly. Hitler, or the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks, on the other hand, are clearly responsible for murdering innocents and noncombatants, and so make for better enemies. Or this could be due to other factors, or may just be coincidence; we don’t have enough evidence to say yet.

I’ll be playing Modern Warfare 2 when I get the chance, (purely for research purposes of course), and I’m sure there’s much more to the game than this one scene. However, I think this is still a significant moment for the genre, and medium as a whole. It’s hard to say if other games will follow suit. I think eventually, like film and television before it, the video game will evolve to the point where their characters and stories are consistently multi-dimensional; on the other hand, maybe their simplistic representations and divisions are what make them so fun to play in the first place.