# PLAN: The [[Aesthetic Specificity]] of [[Virtual Reality]] ## 1 [[Aesthetic Specificity]] >“I am convinced that this [VR] is not going to be an extension of cinema or 3-D cinema or video games. It is something new, different, and not experienced yet [...] normally, in the history of culture, we have new stories and narrations and then we start to develop a tool. Or we have visions of wondrous new architecture—like, let’s say, the museum in Bilbao, or the [[opera house]] in Sydney—and technology makes it possible to fulfil these dreams. So you have the content first, and then the technology follows suit. In this case, we do have a technology, but we don’t have any clear idea how to fill it with content” (Werner Herzog, in Patrick House (2016), ‘Werner Herzog Talks [[Virtual Reality]]’, The New Yorker) - Herzog: “we do not have any clear idea how to fill [[[Virtual Reality]]] with content”. - One way of interpreting what he is saying is as follows: we do not yet [[know what]] is medium specific about VR ### 1.1 [[Medium Specificity]] Carroll on Film and Theatre: >“However, even if cinema could deliver art to its audiences, was it an art form in its own right or merely theater in a can—that is, a film can? In other words, was film only a recording device, relaying whatever transpired theatrically before the camera to audiences, or did it have an original artistic contribution of its own to make?” - Examples of why film is [[not just]] theatre in a can: - Editing and montage, - camera movement, - cuts... - [[Medium specificity]] allows for aesthetic and artistic specificity - Film makers can use cuts, moving camera etc. for aesthetic and artistic effects - Some ways in which VR has been used - VR Movies (e.g. The Great C; Clouds Over Sidra) - A medium for performance (e.g. watching a dance performance) - Video games - But none of these seem unique to VR - We can ask, what is medium specific to VR? (if anything) - [[What does]] VR offer that no other [[artistic media]] allows for? (refer back to the Herzog quote) - If there is, then VR is on its way to being a respectable artistic medium –[[not just]] a gimmick ### 1.2 [[Aesthetic Specificity]] and Immersion in VR - Some people have the intuition that what makes VR unique has something to do with *Immersion* - Criticism: isn't this just performance art in a can, or architecture in a can? - Counter Argument: VR allows for Immersion in impossible worlds - Maybe there is something to this, but we will leave this possibility aside for the rest of this paper > [!NOTE] > Luca: if you think there is something interesting to say here which fits, then great. I am all ears. ## 2 Perceptual Opacity and Structural Properties ### 2.1 The Transparency/Opacity Debate - The classic formulation of Perceptual Transparency >“Look at a tree and try to turn your attention to intrinsic features of your [[visual experience]]. I predict you will find that the only features there to turn your attention to will be features of the presented tree” > (Harmon 1990) >“it seems as if we had before us a mere emptiness. When we try to introspect the sensation of blue, all we can see is the blue: the other element is as if it were diaphanous” Moore (1903) - But Moore goes on to say: >“it seems as if we had before us a mere emptiness. When we try to introspect the sensation of blue, all we can see is the blue: the other element is as if it were diaphanous. Yet it can be distinguished if we look enough, and if we know that there is something to look for. My main object in this paragraph has been to try to make the reader see it; but I fear I shall have succeeded very ill” > Moore (1903) - If this is right, then perceptual experience is, to some degree, opaque - There are various positions one might take on this debate - See (Bordini) 2023 for details. ### 2.2 Invariant Structural Features - One form of opacity, which I take to be relatively uncontroversial is what we might call structural opacity: >"by attending to the objects of the experience, we can introspectively discern certain *invariant structural features*, such as the visual field or its boundaries, which remain constant as objects and properties change. Such structural features are modality-specific and are responsible for how we experience things within that modality. Consequently, they are not properties of what we experience but of the experience itself” (Bordini 2023, our emphasis) - The Spatial Field can be thought of as a good example of an invariant structural property: - Remains constant even as the objects and properties represented change - Not experienced as a property of objects - Shapes the characteristic way things are experienced in that modality - Specific to vision - Add some details from richardson - Similar ideas in Soteriou (temporal extent) (2011; 2013) and Martin (2004) - We take this form of perceptual opacity to be relatively uncontroversial: - Doesn't require a commitment to qualia - Even Michael Tye or a Naive Realist wouldn't disagree that our vision is field like, right? - Even a Naive Realist? ### 2.3 Structural Properties can be Modified - The next step in our argument is to show that structural features of perception can be modified through technology. #### Example 1: Inverting Lenses and Prism Glasses - Inverting lenses are optical devices that flip the visual field vertically, making the world appear upside down to the viewer. Similarly, prism glasses use prisms to shift the visual field horizontally or vertically, displacing the entire scene to one side or altering its orientation. - The use of inverting lenses directly alters the structural property of spatial orientation within the visual modality. Normally, our visual system presents the world with consistent spatial cues—up is up, and down is down. Inverting lenses disrupt this by flipping the visual input, causing an immediate and profound alteration in how spatial information is structured in perception. - Prism glasses shift the spatial mapping between visual input and motor responses. By displacing the visual field to the left or right, they create a misalignment between where objects appear to be and where they actually are in space. This affects the structural property of spatial coordination within the visual modality. - These technologies do not change the specific content of perception (the objects and their properties remain the same) but alter the structural framework within which this content is experienced. The brain initially struggles with these changes, leading to perceptual and motor errors. However, over time, neural adaptation occurs, and the brain adjusts to the new structural configuration. #### Example 2: Sensory Substitution Devices - Sensory substitution devices convert information from one sensory modality into stimuli for another. A prominent example is the tactile vision substitution system developed by Paul Bach-y-Rita, which translates visual images into tactile stimuli delivered via a matrix of vibrating actuators on the skin. - These devices alter the structural properties of perception by mapping the structural features of one modality (e.g., spatial layout in vision) onto another modality (e.g., touch). Users learn to interpret tactile patterns on their skin as representing visual information, such as shapes, movement, and spatial relationships. - The tactile modality is typically not structured to convey detailed spatial information in the same way as vision. By using technology to translate visual information into tactile stimuli, the structural features of touch perception are expanded and reconfigured to include properties like depth, motion, and spatial arrangement. - Users of sensory substitution devices often report that, over time, they begin to experience the tactile input as visual perception. This indicates that the brain is capable of reorganizing the structural properties of a modality to accommodate new types of information, effectively altering the phenomenal character of the experience. #### Example 3:Cochlear Implants - Cochlear implants are electronic devices that provide a sense of sound to individuals with severe hearing loss by directly stimulating the auditory nerve, bypassing damaged hair cells in the cochlea. - Cochlear implants change the structural properties of auditory perception by altering the way sound frequencies are encoded and perceived. The implant divides sound into frequency bands and delivers electrical stimulation accordingly, which differs from the continuous and nuanced way natural hearing processes sound. - The technology fundamentally alters how auditory information is processed and experienced, affecting the phenomenal character of auditory perception at a structural level. #### Example 4: Visual Field Expanding Devices - Visual field expanding devices use optics, such as mirrors or prisms, to redirect light from areas of peripheral vision loss into the intact areas of the visual field. This technology is often used by individuals with conditions like hemianopia. - Hemianopia: Loss of half the visual field in one or both eyes (strokes are the most common cause) - Optical devices alter the structural property of the size and boundaries of the visual field. By redirecting light, they effectively expand the visual field beyond its natural limits, allowing users to perceive objects in regions that were previously blind. - This example demonstrates that the structural properties of a perceptual modality, such as the extent and limits of the visual field, can be altered through artifacts. It underscores the role of these properties in shaping the phenomenal character of perception and shows that they are modifiable constituents of experience. ## 3 Structural Properties and VR ### 3.1 VR as a Modifier of Visual Structure - Pixelation Example - Comparison with images - Other Possibilities ### 3.2 VR and other Perceptual Modalities - Audition - Refer back to the examples earlier