Re: Teletubbies
I would have to agree with Manovich's definition. I feel that telepresence without the ability to act is just voyagerism. I guess the real concept is that it is all a scale. The OnStar operator is not telepresent himself except for his voice being at the scene, but the system of OnStar is fully telepresent as the ambulance acts as a giant arm that can pull you out of your car. Although, I would agree that this definition may change as new technologies come about. One day, a virtual self will be able to present itself to a new location via some realistic type hologram, and then anything less than that will not be considered telepresence. What Manovich defines as telepresence by being able to act and see through a robot will not be enough since the robotic application will only be a puppet relationship and not the full sensory machine that would ideally be invented.
Teletubbies
Lev Manovich discusses the ideas of teleaction by describing the recent way in which communication has changed in the information age. The Internet and the world wide web have changed the way we interact with each other. In my short life I have seen communication change from using a telephone that was in the home or a telephone booth downtown to having a phone in my pocket that I can use talk to others, send text messages, play video games, look up the location of thousands of busniesses in Columbus and many other cities, read newspapers, check movie times and write this paper. It is a different world from when I was younger but even though much has changed much has stayed the same. Manovich explains that in this world we are "accessing new media instead of creating it" by way of teleaction.
With the Internet we "travel" to different web servers and access the information on them. We also use the web to interact when we use web camera, email, chat and instant messaging. Manovich says "web cameras allow users to observe remote locations" so the web is portal that allows us to see places that we are not physically present in. Television does this but television does not allow us to choose what we see or to interact with others at that location. Because of the unique nature of the web Manovich says that "websites with hyperlinks allow users to teleport to different remote servers" and that some "web designers try to keep users on the site" through the design of the site" but he contends that "no new object is being made" so this is a different idea of cultural representation.
Instead of creating new art objects we are "navigating conceptual space." When I saw the movie "The Lord Of The Rings" directed by Peter Jackson I was struck by the power of the story and less interested in the incredible special effects. I felt that the effects enhanced the story, but effects alone are incredibly boring. I am reminded of Peter Jackson's King Kong movie whose story took a back seat to the effects. This three hour movie cold have easily been done in one and been an incredible movie. It does not surprise me when Manovich speaks of the cinema being more interesting than real-time communication like talking on the telephone because as he says "recording reality does not contribute to aesthetic principals." However effects that do have aesthetic principals cannot stand on their own as in time we tire of them. I am reminded of the dreaded blink tag in HTML. Although it captures your attention it continues to do so over and over long after you get the message. Similarly, when I would go to a restaurant food court in DC the restaurant kiosk I frequented was more interested in giving away samples than taking my order which I found very annoying.
Manovich asks "can we expand aesthetic theories to include search and communication" I think it depends on what you mean. Search can be a scavenger hunt but there are objects that can be found and presented. However, the skill and the fun is in the search. But search observed is not very interesting at least not to me. In reality television, the enjoyment comes from the conflict between people and not simply the show itself. I believe the television show, Lost, takes advantage of this idea by scripting a kind of reality show as a fantasy.
Manovich makes a distinction between the image and interaction when he says "web cams are not true telepresence because you cannot act on the images, where as a remotely navigated device is telepresence because you are operating the thing." I disagree with this assertion as it simply takes a surveillance camera as an example to disprove this. In surveillance watching is the operation and not being in one place is vital to the operation. I also disagree that "using the web is teleportation because the pages come to you or are revealed to you through the browser.
Manovich says "telepresence is the ability to act and see at a distance" but does not a monitor act when watching a home through a security system and sends the fire department when there is a fire. I think it is hard to define these in terms that are too concrete. I realize that the article was written in 1999 which was many years ago and things that were true then are not true now but in the case of the above example it is simply a matter definition as to whether one agrees with Manovich. When he says that the "essence of telepresence is that you do not have to be present at a location to affect reality at this location" I think that my example of the security monitor fits within his definition. When we use a web controlled robot we are no more in contact with the remote space than the OnStar operator who call the ambulance to the scene of an accident but just as effective.
Boris Willis
Spain GPS game experience
I thought someone would send this earlier:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/lafuga.html
