bravo on ur attempt 2 wi[l]dly spin the concept of the “virtual” 2ward a mainstream/as-yet-exposed-2-the-wonders-of-networked>digital>lectronic-environs audience.

i’m interested in ur decision to frame this manifesto in terms of the “virtual<>real” [cf ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuality_Continuum]. 4 research/theory that’s been exposing>exploring similar territory since 2008, try trawling thru the archives of the _Augmentology 1[L]0[L]1_ project [ ]http://augmentology.com] which is a “..working manual discussing the formation and evolution of synthetic environments”. A quick sample includes:
Reality Mixing + the Geospecificity Complex
Social Tesseracting_: Part 2

enjoy,
@netwurker
[aka mez breeze]

Hi Mez! While your project is nuanced and interesting, our manifesto is an attempt to dispense with the reality/virtuality dichotomy altogether. What is called “virtual” is a part of reality, there is no difference. To draw a distinction along lines of corporeality or materiality renders such ancient practices as music and storytelling “virtual”, meaning we have always had “virtuality” and therefore it has always been part of reality. The “Virtuality Continuum” is really a meaningless vestige of naive 90s cyberpunk fantasy, and its questionable whether it ever had any use at all. Similarly, the notion of “mixed reality” is misleading at best - all dealings with any kind of non-materiality (ideas, digital computers, images etc etc) are always already “mixed reality”. In particular it is simply not possible to interact with a computer without engaging in this purported “mixed reality”; mouse, keyboard, printer are all devices that conform to this spurious notion of “mixed reality” and they have always been a part of digital computing. A calculator could be classed as “mixed reality” - a physical hardware device for manipulating a virtual system called mathematics. Doing maths in your head could be called “mixed reality” because you’re using your hardware (call it ‘wetware’ if you want to get really 90s) to manipulate a virtual world. Reading a book - mixed reality. Listening to music. Watching a movie. Viewing a painting. Etc etc. What we’re interested in doing with this manifesto is drawing attention to this spurious dichotomy because it is used as an unreflexive device with which to refuse ‘virtual art’ entry in to the ‘real’ world of contemporary art. It is a similar problem as the one facing the contemporary music industry, who attempt to deny the ‘reality’ of digital music to disguise corporate economic hegemonic protectionism and laziness. More importantly, we are trying to draw attention to the fact that there is an entire generation (or more) of people producing and consuming ‘virtual art’ independently of ‘contemporary art’, and this is contemporary art’s great loss. Similarly, there exists a generation of virtual artists who do not wish to claim the term ‘artist’ because they are ignored and ostracised by the contemporary art world.
Cheers,
Adam

hiya adam,

thanks 4 ur quick reply. I have a few points of mine in return [it’s a ping-pong kinda thang, huh?;)]

[u wrote] >>While your project is nuanced and interesting, our manifesto is an attempt to dispense with the reality/virtuality dichotomy altogether. What is called “virtual” is a part of reality, there is no difference.<<

in agreement with u here, adam. however, from my neck of the woods [+ i’m txting on behalf of Augmentology.com as the Executive Editor there] i c the issues regarding the distinctions of “the real” and “the virtual” as being slightly more shade-worthy than u suggest here….in terms of how many [mainstreamers] perceive both terms, many simply don’t have the contextual tools 2 b able 2 jigsaw together the fact that synthetic [or virtual, in ur terms] environments r just as valid/actual/substantial as a states painted with a phenomenological brush [ie “real life”]. 1 of the aims of the augmentology project is 2 introduce concepts 2 those entities as yet unfamiliar with the idea that synthetic/virtual existence is simply a gradient of what is termed “reality” rather than simply blot out the/this fact. i [+ by extension the augmentology project] r all about education + questioning concepts surrounding the virtual, not closing down dialogue through absolutist statements.

[u wrote]>>To draw a distinction along lines of corporeality or materiality renders such ancient practices as music and storytelling “virtual”, meaning we have always had “virtuality” and therefore it has always been part of reality. The “Virtuality Continuum” is really a meaningless vestige of naive 90s cyberpunk fantasy, and its questionable whether it ever had any use at all.<<

…whereas i view the continuum as being exceedingly helpful in assisting 2 contextualise difficult conceptual/contemporary elements that many everyday ppl r encountering in a contemporary context [think: the growing field of AR or even the minutiae of social_networking/mobile device interactions?]. i do acknowledge the drawbacks of using the _virtuality continuum_ as is, which is y i attempt 2 continually refine/explore/explode it [extract from an augmentology entry, april 2008]:
“The afk concept demonstrates the murkiness of establishing reality gradations when considering synthetic environments. Paul Milgram suggested the Reality-Virtuality Continuum as a type of linear reality scale where at one end lies Geophysical Reality [“The Real Environment”] and the opposite end houses the Virtual. In-between lies an area defined as Mixed Reality: a mixture of augmented virtuality and the corporeal.
This Reality-Virtuality Continuum as such offers a vectored compartmentalisation of reality within scientific confines. An elastic, contemporized version of this Continuum might read:
[Geophysical]<—-—[Cartesian]–-—–[Mixed]–-—–>[Synthetic]
…with each mode spawning distinct “swarmic variables” or “notional massing”. Conditional examples of such masses/variables are:
[Synthetic] = Avatar Fluctuations / Non-Player Character Annexing / Auxiliary Proprieception / Networked Socialisation

[Mixed] = Layered Attention / Identity Extensions / Augmented States of Consciousness / Multiple Theories-of-Mind[s]
[Cartesian] = Euclidian / Non-Euclidian / Human Area Networks / Dimensional Consciousness
[Geophysical] = Primary Consciousness / Ego-Mediation / Geospecificity / Geolocation
These masses could parallel volume [in the audio sense] in terms of measurement and production of reality clusters that map and mix composite modes simultaneously. For instance, the phenomena of Geocaching or mobile gaming such as _Parallel Kingdom_ which: “brings new meaning to Role Playing Games by using GPS to place the virtual world on top of the real world“.”
http://arsvirtuafoundation.org/research/2008/04/25/reality-mixing-the-geospecificity-complex/

[u wrote] >> What we’re interested in doing with this manifesto is drawing attention to this spurious dichotomy because it is used as an unreflexive device with which to refuse ‘virtual art’ entry in to the ‘real’ world of contemporary art.<<

I find this intriguing 4rm multiple viewpoints….

1)  i c the idea of defining creative practitioners, especially virtual art creators as “artists” as not comprehensive enough in light of the complexity of these issues. just as u c the idea of a virtual-reality continuum as irrelevant, i c the stratification of synthetic[virtual]creative output in2 labels defined as “art” as curious. in terms of expression/creation, art [as a defined by capitalistic/commodified sense] is moving back in2 the recesses of objectified, institutionally-defined process[es]. in terms of conceptualising a more adequate framework in which to parse contemporary expression, i’d suggest u look at my idea of _Social Tesseracting_: http://arsvirtuafoundation.org/research/2009/06/01/_social-tesseracting_-part-2/
2)  i had this exact thought when looking at the submission for your ACVA Lab Workshops held in feb 2010. i was disappointed 2 find that virtual/remote participation wasn’t allowed: that the attendant[s] had 2 participate geophysically [ie 2 apply, u had 2 b prepared 2 attend the workshops in “real life” + that exclusive virtual participation wasn’t permitted]? I’m interested 2 c y u did this given ur statement above?

warmth,
@netwurker
/mez breeze

Hi Mez, as always these are excellent points that you make, and I’ll try to respond as best I can, but apologies if I miss, or misunderstand, some:

“1 of the aims of the augmentology project is 2 introduce concepts 2 those entities as yet unfamiliar with the idea that synthetic/virtual existence is simply a gradient of what is termed “reality” rather than simply blot out the/this fact.”

I totally think it is important and admirable to attempt the kind of education/acculturation that you outline. Badiou talks about “openings” and “points” in relation to the traces of an event (and we explicitly reference this in the manifesto), where “openings” are attempts to define openings or pathways into the new via precedents or framings from the old, and “points” are practices are those which specifically deal only with the “new” without reference to any past precedents. It appears I am more of a “points” person than an “openings” person In other words, even though I understand and believe in the importance of “openings” in practice I tend more towards “points”, anyway when related to virtual art. So, perhaps your idea of ‘gradations’ of reality is useful in this. Still I wonder though, since I hold that it is already part of reality, like everything else, then doesn’t everything else have to be placed on a gradient scale as well - people, stars, galaxies, atoms, books, telephone conversations. This becomes simply a mapping exercise, which is not necessarily of much interest.

“i view the continuum as being exceedingly helpful in assisting 2 contextualise difficult conceptual/contemporary elements that many everyday ppl r encountering in a contemporary context”

Are ppl confused about this? I haven’t done, or seen, any ethnographic research into ppl’s confusion levels re the virtu/reality continuum, but from what I see in ppl’s behaviour I’m not convinced that ppl are having trouble integrating these concepts into their life. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of people seem to actively doing so. Small sectors, with perhaps vested interest in maintaining a false membrane between virtual networks and the “real” world, maybe do, but what leads you to say that everyday ppl are having difficulty with this?

Got to cook dinner now, so will check out your Social Tesseracting, and will respond a little later to your thoughts on art, and your interesting questions regarding physical presence at ACVA Lab. Thanks so much for engaging with this Mez.

Adam