This ongoing shallow discourse is typical of VRML community in general because for the most part the they are still very busy looking at the neat-o factor. One interesting example of this came for me when, during ISEA in Chicago this past September, an audience member took me to task in an assertion I made that in VR, one does not actually put a tree in an environment, but a representation of a tree. "What's the difference?" he asked. The basic elements which are left out of the discussions surrounding VR add up to many essential points taken for granted.
In artistic activities one of the questions asked during the curating of an installation is, "Who is my audience or community, or whom do I wish to attract?" Much critical discussion can come out of that question, and with technologies like VRML that have such a short history, it offers the possibility of a higher level of understanding of its appropriate use and value. The sweeping generalizations about the aesthetics of VRML partly come out of the assumption that the audience is "the entire world". This perception must change. One thing is clear: VRML will not attract the same audience as did HTML, at least not yet. Therefore, VRML must prove its relevancy to the greater web community; otherwise, in spite the ongoing acceptance of the VRML standard and the harping of those who have a personal and financial stake in its success, it will go the way of the 8-track.

An earlier draft of this piece first appeared in Rhizome

Comment on this article

CyberStage Home