Is Size Everything?

In "The Poetics of Augmented Space", Lev Manovich states that "the difference between whether we can think of a particular situation as an immersion or as augmentation is simply a matter of scale – the relative size of display" (79). He is basing his distinction between VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) on the size of screen that you are watching a movie or playing video games on. Going to a movie theater, watching movies or playing video games on a big screen TV basically immerses you in VR, while these same activities being conducted on smaller devices like PDAs (personal digital assistants), cell phones, or psps and gameboys, constitute AR. If AR is something that “may add additional information to our experience” and VR “may add an altogether different experience” then I would say that scale, or the relative size of display, is not the only distinction between AR and VR. It is perhaps not even the main distinction between the two.

At first I was in agreement with Manovich's assertion - I become very immersed in the cinematic experience, possibly even to the point of something I might accept as VR - until I considered the role of content in this distinction between VR and AR. A great example of the importance of content is the film The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Arguably one of the most unique cinematic experiences, this film is anything but a virtual reality. The real interest for this film is the highly interactive twist it adds to movie going. Regardless of the size of the screen, the audience is going to sing along, throw rice and toast, cover their heads with newspapers or party hats, ring bells and the list goes on, all of which are not acceptable behaviors in a movie theater. This show is often accompanied by a live cast acting on a stage in front of the screen, though this is not always the case. The point is that the content of the film is very interactive and this overrules any screen that tries to silence the audience and engulf their complete attention. This is a big screen event that is very much in the realm of AR and anything but VR.

Another example that size is not everything would be the common displays of public self-humiliation that result from cell phone, PDA, and hand held video-game use. I am not one to get anecdotal but it is very useful in illustrating this point. I have heard stories from a good number of my friends – keep in mind that I do not own any of the required gadgetry to suffer from this embarrassment so 'friends' is not a clever coverup to save face – where they have walked into things, tripped, missed bus stops or sat through entire lectures unaware of anything being said because they were too busy texting or playing chess on their i-phones. Chess is a great example of the importance of content because it does not require any cutting edge 3-D graphics or cool effects, it is simple and yet engaging and that is all it takes. Something does not have to be huge to capture your attention entirely, it just has to be something that appeals to you greatly.

While I would agree that a larger platform is more engaging, hence the constant complaints of patrons at the Empire 7 Cinemas in downtown Ottawa who are subjected to one of the horrendously small 'screening rooms' when what they paid for and wanted was the gargantuan screen that is expected of the cinematic experience, it is content and not the size of the screen that transforms any movie or game into VR, at least in the sense that Manovich explains VR.

Virtual Love

After seeing Lawnmower Man I have a new appreciation for both the representation of people living with mental disabilities as well as the progress of science fiction films. This is not to say that the themes of science fiction or the genre itself have improved, but the advancement of visual effects and perhaps an increase in the availability of larger budgets have greatly improved science fiction films as a whole since the painful virtual reality scenes of The Lawnmower Man. Now that I have addressed these two pressing issues I had with the film I shall move on.

I found the "love scene" between Jobe and that wealthy single woman with the lemonade very interesting. This scene brings me back to that section in N. Katherine Hayles' article, The Seductions of Cyberspace, that brings up the idea of "teledildonics" which Hayles has gotten from Howard Rheingold. Teledildonics is essentially a convergence of VR (virtual reality) and eroticism. There are some striking similarities between the apparatus Rheingold describes and that which is used in The Lawnmower Man.


The VR device in Rheingold's teledildonics requires that you "climb into a suitably padded chamber and put on your headmounted display". The need for padding is overcome by the suspension in giant gyroscopes, or "orbitron" as I have found it to be known from a google search, but both scenes involve the head mounted display. Before you can do this, however, you must "slip into a lightweight ... bodysuit". Anyone who has seen The Lawnmower Man undoubtedly remembers what the bodysuits looked like in the film, but just to be indulgent here is a reminder. You may describe them as "something like a body stocking, but with all the intimate snugness of a condom". Feel free to enlarge the image and see just how intimate these "body stockings" are with these fine actors' bulges. The final aspect of Rheingold's VR sex machine is "an array of intelligent effectors", a technology that does not yet exist, that line the inside of the body suit. As you can see these come in the form of fiber-optics and they are attached to the outside of the suit rather than within. This, I am sure, is strictly for the purpose of special effect coolness so that Jobe's suit can light up while he does his evil deeds in the shadowy darkness of night.


Now I am sure that teledildonics did not play a huge role in the design of the VR suits sported by Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey but the similarities are striking. Furthermore, the lawnmower man actually uses the VR device in the film for erotic purposes. While I am confident that the devout advocates of VR would like it to be otherwise, it seems that the pornography and VR industries are destined to be best friends. This was so beautifully sollidified for me upon my casual viewing of The Big Lebowski. Never did I suspect that I would find any connection between that work of comedy genius and teledildonics but there it was. Jeff Bridges, the Dude in this context, is conversing with Jackie Treehorn, played by Ben Gazzara, about the ransom money, the plot point that has brought them to talking, as well as the crappy porn that Treehorn is producing. This is when Treehorn lays out for the Dude what will be the future of the smut industry, "interactive erotic software ... 100% electronic". Rheingold, a VR guy, sees the potential (inevitable?) as does Jackie Treehorn, the porn guy, and so both sides agree, VR and erotica shall live happily ever after. That is unless, like the dude says, people decide to continue to "jerk off manually".


Or, of course, VR could never really take of, as I would say it has not, at least not anything near how it was expected to when The Lawnmower Man was made, and thus it would never be able to fully form this beautiful symbiont with pornography.

Which is more real?