In class we were discussing in partners our project title and how it portrays our context/issue/site and spatial design agenda.
My documentation was to date:
CONTEXT / ISSUE / SITE
Living in a bio-virtual world is a question that we are being faced with daily with our constant interaction with virtual spaces such as smart phones, computers and virtual media. This virtual space has been questioned, for its impact on decreasing face-to-face social interaction. The bio-virtual era is the time period that we currently existing in where we rely equally on technology that technology relies on humans. For example, if I want to know something I might often looked to people via technology to find answers. This space however is integral to the way that we work. Useful? Yes. But what social impact is it having on our intimate, emotionally involved relationships with other humans? We previously have learned from face-to-face interactions and passing on information from one human to another. How are our pedagodies being formulated around technology other than our previous ways of learning? Here lies the dichotomy of physical space and virtual space. Can human emotions be presented and reflected through pixels and virtual data? This I have found is reliant on embodiment and how we create phycological links to cognitive functions such as familiarity, fear, and socially conditioned performances in these spaces.
SPATIAL DESIGN ADGENDA
My spatial agenda is to try and evoke social normative interactions in virtual spaces. I have looked at embodiment and what is integral embodiment in space. This I have found to be represented by the 5 senses; taste, sight, smell, touch and hearing. I have been able to successfully represent sight and hearing in the use and example of immersive journalism. Through this technique I have questioned what emotional response I can grasp with these two senses. I have found so far that through sight, it is important to have agency over the virtual avatar that the mind inhabits. I have tried to use controllers of the VR VIVE and imagery of virtual hands and animation to enhance the imbodiment of virtual space. I have found so far that although it creates a further immersion in the space, the spaces so I have been able to create so far have been not advanced enough to make the space feel realistic. I have however through the use of 360 photography been able to present a realistic space where you can learn and engage with the content being provided in a realistic way. The most importance instances of emotional response to this space have been the use of virtual eye contact and spatiotemporal factors such as lighting and architecture.
When addressing my project title, it was clear that "PERSONIFY - giving digital data human quality" was not explanatory enough to instantly project the agenda of my work. I am mostly interested in rewording my subtitle to reflect how virtual spaces can evok e socially conditioned reactions.
I firstly spoke to Georgia which was interesting because her project about the urban sentient related a lot to the discussion in my work where technologyy has human qualities and the relationship that humans have with these technology. Her work however is a spatial design propersition where people become more aware of the social reliance we have on technology and the respect we must start paying to this friend of ours.
Secondly I talked to Jei who's project is about the Minimalist aesthetic and how it gives value to human consumption and how we interpret our belongings and/or how we use spatial interventions to help us give less focus to consumption and need for commodities. Jei thought that my project was quite futuristic and he explained that he saw a relationship to Skype and real time virtual communication in my project. I found this interesting and it sparked a conversation around what a virtual reality Skype would look like. Because at the moment to view virtual content you must wear a headset that allows this, it might be limiting to the parts of virtual communication queues that spark emotional response eg. eye contact. However it would be interesting to have a person engage with a space which is aimed by another in real time. This idea of 'real time' embodiment in another space is not something that I have explored yet.
Thirdly I spoke to Hennessey who interpreted my title by the living organism of a pixel, she discussed with me the pixel to particle relationship and questioned how this could be represented physically. We discussed making the cube of a pixel human sized and tangible to engage with. How then might a pixel mimic a spatial temporal feeling. If I am discussing the limitation of human-to-human communication in virtual spaces then it seems relevant to explore the actual physical matter that you are actually engaging with in these virtual spaces - PIXELS.
Comments