Future Cinema

More Questions From”Augmented Human,” for Consideration

1. Papagiannis says that we are in the second phase of AR, what she calls “entryway” (the first being “overlay”). What do you think the third wave will be? Can we even predict it?

2. Papagiannis says AR will help us connect more directly to our real experience and senses. At the same time, she believes that the medium has the potential to create impossible realities (i.e. ghost stories). Is there a conflict between these two conceptualizations of AR, or are they compatible?

3. Papagiannis describes a number of technologies that can create AR avatars of people that can live forever. Would you want yourself preserved in an AR avatar? How would this change the way we view death, and the ways in which we grieve?

4. AR, Papagiannis says, is “rooted” in cinema. What other forms of media does AR draw from?

comments

hi everyone – apologies, but comments are not loading properly … even though I’ve approved them. Probably safest to post comments as separate messages until I figure it out (sorry).

Questions From”Augmented Human,” for Consideration

Not entirely certain if this is the place to post these, or if it is too late to do so. I figured I would like to share what I was most deeply concerned with from the text in preparation for today’s class.

1. In Augmented Human, Papagiannis discusses how the use of UltraHaptics can stimulate the hand to develop emotions? Trying to have a postitive focus on this, how could this technology be used to benefit humankind?
2. How is ARs use of sensors and monitors similar to that of mechanical support systems, such as ABS and anti-crash braking in cars? Do potential similarities suggest that we are becoming increasingly machine like?
3. A fair portion of Papagiannis’ examples and case studies cite the importance of immersion in terms of their emerging technology. Why does immersion remain such a selling point in terms of AR, VR, and future cinema technologies?
4. AR as described in the initial conceptual chapters by Papagiannis seems to be most focused with regulating human flaws and conditions. At what point does constant sensorial regulation cease to be helpful and instead supersedes human responsibility?
5. Robert Azuma is quoted as saying, “not all stoires have to be written by professional storytellers aimed at a mass market audience,” in relation to ARs potential. To what extent is AR and similarly VR better suited to being an art project over a mass commercial medium? To what extent is it better suited to being a commercial medium?
6. Suppose you are a High School teacher of a subject of your choosing. How do you think AR would alter the way you teach? Would AR in an educational context be better suited to STEM subject, or humanities?

Tags: AR, Augmented Human, future cinema 2018

Skawennati and Jason Edward Lewis Talk – Lia and Aaron

Hi everyone! Here is the brief show and tell Lia and I did last class on Skawennati and Jason Edward Lewis: http://www.yorku.ca/caitlin/futurecinemas/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FC-show-and-Tell-pdf-Skawennati-and-JEL.pdf

This website still looks weird, even as I sign into the backend, so please forgive any janky parts of this post!

Caitlin’s edit: try this –
http://www.yorku.ca/caitlin/futurecinemas/resources/SkawennatiandJEL.pdf

Came Back Haunted

A theory-fiction about augmented reality gone rogue… (more…)

AR- new access points to not-so-new stories?

“…with AR we will need to shift from a dependence on the technology alone to wow audiences, and toward cultivating captivating experiences and stories to evoke wonderment. This is a critical time to be exploring the capacity for storytelling in AR, as Grau writes, before the jeopardy of any staleness arises.”

I see that what AR claims as “new ways of telling stories” are, in most cases,”wow” ways to access stories that are actually not so new when technology itself is the objective. Objects or spaces, which are supposed to be just sitting quietly in front of you, react and throw stories at you from the air. I wonder if the fundamental of what story is can be affected or challenged by AR.

On “haunted” and “weird” media…

From Excommunication: Three Inquiries in Media and Mediation (2013) by Alexander R. Galloway, Eugene Thacker, and McKenzie Wark…

Whereas haunted media expressed the mediation of the supernatural in positive terms, with weird media mediation only indicates a gulf or abyss between two ontological orders. Sometimes the supernatural is present but not apparent (e.g., an invisible creature that never- theless exists within our same reality, but outside the visible spectrum). At other times the supernatural is apparent but not present (e.g., unnamable entities from other dimensions). (133)

To summarize: media are “haunted” when they affirmatively mediate between two different ontological orders, and by trans- forming the object into a divine object (the artifact or the por- tal). By contrast, media are “weird” when they negatively medi- ate between two ontological orders, whereby the object recedes into a thing. (133-134)

question

Helen Papagiannis talks about machine learning and the future of AR operating without the user having to tell it to. As this “always on, always working” technology becomes more ubiquitous, I’m curious if there are ways to prevent the “worst case, Black Mirror” scenario of the the technology being used against the user, either through a third party that takes advantage of it or the technology itself deciding to overwrite the desires of the user.

Questions about Helen Papagiannis’ “Augmented Human”…

A few questions raised by Papagiannis’ Augmented Human… (more…)

Question relate to Augmented Human and Chris Marker’s Immemory also a question for previous week

Augmented Human the book propose new ways of extending our senses, but more importantly to me–means to interact with digital content. While reading chapter 6 “Storytelling and the human imagination” of the book, I can’t help but think about Chris Marker’s work “Immemory”. As a hypertext document of sense memories made in late 90s, I wonder how storytelling conventions propose in chapter 6 of “Augmented Human” can reimagine the project using new technologies that immerse the audience in virtual environment or project digital content through touchable objects.

Also i just remember that I forget to post a question for week 7’s reading, and since it’s a little related to this week and the last couple of week’s content, I’m gonna to post it below:

the chapter “The crisis of cinema in the age of new world memory: The baroque legacy of Jean-Luc Godard” from “Digital Baroque” strikes as particularly interesting–partially due to my academic interest in Jean Luc Godard’s body of works and my curiosity as to how a French new wave filmmaker’s aesthetic would overlap with Baroque aesthetic to reshape digital media of the future.

In this chapter, the concept of “fold” is not only relate to “shortening” Time-image of digital content but also relate to “shortening” of production process of such content. After readingt his chapter, I can see how Godard’s experimental usage of time, space and image as well as the hyperselective quality of baroque art can both be used to disrupt and re-define the narrative model of “future cinema” or “new media” of the future. However, would such re-definition and disruption would bring crisis to cinema and ? or would it simply allow us to explore quality of narrative model in cinema that we thought don’t exist?