After having read through the existing posts I find it interesting, and somewhat shocking, that such a large differentiation is made between new and older technology within the construct of Virtual Reality (VR). Can VR truly be separated from films, telephones and other ‘older’ technologies?
Most, if not all of the blogs, state that the so called ‘older’ technologies limits the participant in some way or another, whether it is sensory or interactively. Films limit the participant to being a passive viewer; the telephone limits submergence, the written letter to some extent manipulation and involvement. These ‘older’ technologies’ limitations serve to constantly remind the participant of their ‘real’ environment. My question is this: How is this limitation in anyway different to that of the inappropriately labelled “Real” VR devices?
Virtual Reality, according to McKenzie (1994:85) “… is constructed”. If this is the case then the constructed reality is more convincing or more ‘real’ than actual reality because it is a simulation of a known environment. An example of this is the interactive environments of computer (or any other play station) games such as “Gears of War”. I say this because the participant is intensely involved within the game play. They are immersed in the interactive environment. In combination with this ‘surreal’ reality, the use of consoles, full-body suites and data gloves serve as a constant reminder that one is ‘not’ participating in reality but rather in an artificial space. Just as with films, one is acutely aware of the ‘falsity’ of the environment.
I have now made a comparison between “Real” VR and “Superficial” VR. Does anyone see the difference? If so I continue my argument: Limitation. The success, if you will, of VR has a lot to do with the limitation of interaction between the human and the computer. VR claims to create a deeper disconnectedness because of its ‘forceful’ removal of the participant from the real. However game play, HMD (head-mounted display) and other Virtual devices has the same limitation as television and telephones, if but only presented a little different. Within games one is limited to certain actions, within Virtual Worlds to certain environments, etc. I place emphasis on this because of the implication of it. Virtual Reality is never fully possible, as Zeltzer comments in Heim (1993:1). One’s senses can never be isolated by technological devices. There is always a ‘back-of-the-head’ reminder of where you are and where you are not.
I know that the question asked was what I think distinguishes VR as a revolutionary and different technology. In all honesty I do not see it as any more revolutionary than being able to call my sister in England. Every kind of technological device or advancement creates its own unique Virtual Reality. Although Michael Heim (1998:4) states: "VR is not a state of consciousness... VR is an emerging field of applied science", it is still clear, as noted in the Three I’s, VR is dependent on the human (or other) participant’s mental ability to transcend one reality to another. Heim (1993:1) speaks of VR becoming an art form but at the same time emphasises that it is technology first then an experience. Does this not contradict?
The reason that the umbrella of VR cannot be limited in our day and age is because of Heim’s own contradicting statements. VR is already engraved within our reality, distinction is limited: it is an art form! It engulfs all, for this is what makes Virtual Reality revolutionary regardless of whether it is old or new technology. And I do not believe that opening this broader spectrum of VR covering all artificial, removes the force of the phrase. Meaning everything, does not mean that it means nothing it only serves as a challenge and opens the wonders (the art then) of Virtual Reality.
