Will any of these experiments in #storytelling become the dominant forms of tomorrow? Or are they merely timely novelties whose relevance is tied up with the technologies that enable them?
Natalie and I had a great conversation about creating narratives using existing interfaces of devices and taking advantage of the limitations of these technologies to create interactive stories. This reminded me of a short film “Noah” that premiered at TIFF last year. While it is not interactive, it is set exclusively within the protagonist’s view of his OS. Take a look:
2. That Cloud Game: Dreaming (and Doing) Innovative Game Design
Tracy Fullerton, Jenova Chen, Kellee Santiago, Erik Nelson, Vincent Diamante, Aaron MeyersUniversity of Southern California, School of Cinema-Television, Interactive Media DivisionGlenn Song, John DeWeeseElectronic Arts
read more about the project here:
Gaston Bachelard, Poetics of Space
When the David Cronenberg exhibit was presented at the TIFF Bell Lightbox, there was a secondary exhibit taking place upstairs. This exhibit, known as Body Mind Change, was an attempt at creating an alternate reality wherein individuals can take part in an experiment in making their lives better through the installment of a pod (essentially a real world “adaptation” of eXistenZ). The exhibit was predictably cheesy, if only due to the overacting that took place at the exhibit. However, the process of “creating” your pod, which took place online away from human hands, followed a more Cronenbergian process, through a mixture of subconscious humanity and machine-like processing. Realizing that the human touch took away from the experience, which would require a two-sided artifice to take place between me and another individual, who would probably feel quite silly themselves, I decided to have my pod mailed to me. It arrived recently. It is a cheap piece of plastic, which arrived in a biohazard bag, but it still retains some interest through its usage of a specialized hashtag, #podlovesme. Rather than having to engage in a shared psychosis with another individual, risking a folie a deux of sorts, each individual can, in a seemingly tongue-in-cheek sort of way, use the advantages of a machine to feed into the psychosis of others in a variety of elaborate ways, whether through very minor tweets about how much pod has improved one’s life (with a tee-hee of sorts) to doctored images of “implanted” pods to perhaps make other viewers wonder if their questions of authenticity are misplaced. As many have learned in the age of the internet, and some here have learned it quite recently, machines can make people believe some quite unlikely things.
Like Shahbaz, I can’t help thinking about They Live whenever I read about Google Glass. Steve Mann furthers this point with his idea that clerks and functionaries have the ability to be free but often pretend to be enslaved by their malevolent overlords (a.k.a. managers.) “Questioning and deconstructing the rules becomes a new art form.” And Mann uses his version of Glass, the same way Rowdy Rodey Piper used his glasses to see through these artificial rules and get to the deeper meaning. Unfortunately, Mann comes across as more of a paranoid weirdo than a John Carpenter anti-hero. He is so caught up with the damage unwearable surveillance technology does to our psyche, ignoring the much greater threat posed by all portable and particularly wearable technology. This article (http://www.technologyreview.com/review/524576/glass-darkly/?utm_campaign=socialsync&utm_medium=social-post&utm_source=twitter) really illuminated some of these points for me (ie: face recognition software, driving with Glass, the general uneasiness created by Glass in a social situation ) and although I’m sure these problems will resolve themselves over time, I wonder how quickly this tech trend will catch on in its early stages. My only real question is relating to the Follow Me series, where a man captures an image of his girlfriend in front of multiple landmarks using Glass. His girlfriend’s face is never shown. With glass, are we going to want to record other people wearing their glass? Will it be like asking people to put away their phones while you’re taking a picture? Or is that an infringement of your rights like Mann would argue, equivalent to asking someone to take off their seeing glasses when you consider how Glass could be helping someone with colourblindness, or another visual disease, see the world in an more standardized way? Will their effect wear off as more and more people get Glass, or will it create interesting new art/design projects featuring a collection of Glass wearers?
Finally, this Toronto gallery project in AR seems interesting: http://infinitynow.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/creative-augmented-reality-digital-art-from-napoleon-brousseau-toronto/
This doc describes the AR game Ghost Hunter
If this dosent upload contact me at email@example.com and I will email it to you. John
Hi everyone. I’ve been thinking about your work and projects and thoughts for this week we’d explore some quick, suggestive pieces by two leading and local contemporary thinkers about AR hardware (google glass etc.), the power of making, and bringing the magic of making and cinema into mobile Ar works. Don’t worry – they aren’t arduous – pieces to think alongside:
Steve Mann EXISTEMOLOGY (EXISTENTIAL EPISTEMOLOGY):
FROM DIY MAKER CULTURE TO BIY (BE-IT-YOURSELF) AND LBB
Helen Papagiannis, “Google Glass & Augmented Reality Eyewear: “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” Defining a New Era in Visual Culture”
Helen Papagiannis Georges Melies’s Fantastical Legacy in Augmented Reality
And check out:
Manuals for Aurasma- hope they uploaded
D”Fusion Studio for AR (must register to unlock)
AR plugin to Wordpress
David has managed to access a computer that will run the Klein – so we’ll take a look at that tomorrow as well. Thanks, David!