.
--- On Sat, 30/4/11, John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu
wrote:
From: John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] real vs. unreal
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Date: Saturday, 30 April, 2011, 3:07
So trenchant and tragicomic an observation is worth setting out on its
own as a 'best of -empyre-' comment ( or am i hallucinating again).. .
Thanks, Pawel.
On Apr 30, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Pawel Oczkowski wrote:
Anyway, what makes me feel that things might go wrong faster than
anybody could
.
--- On Sat, 30/4/11, John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu
wrote:
From: John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] real vs. unreal
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Date: Saturday, 30 April, 2011, 3:07
Start with Heidegger and then Latour. They establish a useful ontology that
allows for non-human and inanimate agency that probably accommodates the new
definition you seek.
Best
Simon
On 30/04/2011 04:07, John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu
wrote:
From: Will Pappenheimer
Hi Tamiko and Alan,
thanks for your critical comments. I understand better now the problems
that lie within what I suggested.
Tamiko's Easterly inspired example of the crucifix, that is first real
and then not so real, points out the inherent contradictions of my approach.
On the other hand,
.
--- On Sat, 30/4/11, John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu wrote:
From: John Craig Freeman john_craig_free...@emerson.edu
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] real vs. unreal
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Date: Saturday
Tamiko,
http://mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/newtown-creek.html is this a
project of 2011 (happening now?)
how did it work for people... I mean, what were the dynamics of
reception and use -- a story about this would be very interesting
You write, : Newtown Creek is a massively
..on Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:46:15AM +0200, Tamiko Thiel wrote:
Is a painting real but a projection not real? Isn't visual phenomena
real - and therefore any AR object also real? Are perhaps these not the
correct terms to be using when talking about AR and VR, even though both
terms use
Hi All,
the conversation with the last 2 posts has become interesting and although i
dont
have the time to create a physical presence at the moment, i thought this
conversation
between alfredo jaar and simon critchley which takes on a removal of veils,
would suit
these publications. Mute
It's worth weighing in here with the reminder that AR is basically a display
technology that got named 'augmented reality' probably just to distinguish
itself from 'virtual reality' that was itself arbitrarily (and somewhat
arrogantly) coined by Jaron Lanier (I think?), perhaps to allude to
On 4/28/11 11:03 PM, Will Pappenheimer wrote:
My approach- added to Tamiko's, would be 2 fold:
Generally- since reality is pretty hard to define in the first place, and
always subject to our tampering with it, arguments separating it out or
contrasting it to something else are going to
From: Will Pappenheimer will...@gmail.com
I think we are in need of a new definition of existence, one that includes
the digital or networked object.
Call it a consensual, collective hallucination.
John Craig Freeman
Associate Professor of New Media
Emerson College
Department of Visual
From: Mathias Fuchs mathias.fu...@creativegames.org.uk
I would suggest to call something an augmentation of reality only
if it is a consciously introduced element of our environment that
we believe to be unreal.
Hi Mathias!
Nice to hear from you :-) A few questions for you:
What then are
13 matches
Mail list logo
