I have been hearing so much about making things and taking full advantage of the technology that is out there, but what about the content? I know I keep harping on this subject, but it is definitely a concern. When I sit in class and listen to peoples' needs to create, I always wonder what they are talking about. Are they talking about how they can use the newest cell phone to invent a game or are they thinking about inventing a game that can be applied to the cell phone. I guess this is a kind of chicken and egg statement, but it seems that people feel the need to constrain their ideas based on the technology that exists. I have to admit that I am in this category as well, and I think it is mainly due to the fact that sometimes I do not know how the technology works and how feasible it would be to modify. Should we constrain our ideas to the technology that currently exists, or should we try and think out of the box? I opt for the later.
So I had quite the immersive, new media weekend. I finally got over to the Getty to see Bill Viola's "Passions" and went and saw Ghosts of the Abyss (James Cameron's 3-D movie about the Titanic). One was moving and engaging while the other was kind of moving me to the bathroom (those 3D goggles really do a number on your perspective and your stomach).
While they were both immersive and based on digital technology, I feel that Bill Viola's exhibit actually used those to the full extent. I was blown away when I walked through the exhibit. I never thought a museum exhibit could be so immersive and engaging. It never occurred to me that an LCD can make watching something so beautiful. It was as if I was looking into a window, that the people and the hands were so close I could touch them. While I have had access to using and watching things on LCDs, this was different.
I guess this relates to my last entry based on content. The exhibit would have been very different and probably not as enjoyable if it had not been for the content. I feel the content was enhanced by the medium in which is was shown, but the content was what was moving. I stood in front of several of the LCDs waiting for something or someone to walk out. I could not believe what I was seeing was only a flat screen. The sharpness and vividness made it seem hyperreal, like nothing I had ever seen before. I know this is focusing on the technological aspects of the exhibit, but I must say, they helped a lot. I feel that the content would have been just as moving and effective if it had been projected onto a screen or a television set, but the LCDs just made it unexplainable.
The two pieces that I was moved by the most were Catherine's Room and the framed hands. While watching Catherine's room, I felt as if I could walk right into the room. It was beautifully shot, very engaging and perfect. The piece with the framed hands really drew me in because it was so real. The hands were doing things that we all do. It did not matter that I never saw a face because I knew the actor through their hands.
The piece that was most immersive was the one in which you are surrounded by 5 or 6 very large screens, the room is very dark and you hear ambient sound similar to being underwater. When standing among the screens I felt as if I was in the space that Janet Murray describes as complete immersion, "...the physical experience of being submerged in water...." I know my description is pretty true to the above statement, but that is how I felt.
Another very cool thing about the exhibit was watching how others reacted to it. In several instances, I could not even see the exhibits due to all of the captivated people. It was as if they were frozen in time. They were completely enchanted by what they saw on the screen. It was really nice to see that kind of reaction to a piece of art. The total experience was engaging, moving and beautiful.
Now on to the Titanic. It was a very cool movie in regard to the content, but the means in which it was shown was very unnecessary. It would have been just as enjoyable if it were a normal IMAX movie. In this case, I feel that the technology was wasted. It did not really need to be shown in 3D. There were a few instances in which you jumped because something "jumps" out at you, but the only other reason it was used was to show an overlay of five mini-screens. While it was nice to see all of the footage from all of the different cameras, it was very distracting. My eyes kept jumping from camera to camera and I ended up missing quite a bit. The robots that were invented to film inside the ship were very cool and it was fascinating to see how they worked. There was also a bit of drama, but I won't spoil it for anyone. It was very cool to see parts of the Titanic that have not been seen since it sank, but again it did not need to be projected in 3D.