Let's see how an environment responds to my fist in your face!

Krueger’s article, “Responsive Environments” begins with his description of his own work on creating environments that respond to participant action and follows his a description of how he believes human-computer interaction should be and how it can contribute to many different fields. Krueger’s projects have followed a theme in which participants enter a room with pressure sensitive flooring, and a computer responds to the participant’s actions in different ways. The first project that Krueger was a part of was GLOWFLOW (a computer responded to participant footsteps by creating sounds and lights, but the effects were delayed, so the participant had no idea of their impact on the environment). Krueger evolved that idea with METAPLAY (an artist in one room interacted with a participant in another by drawing images that would be projected into the room that the participant was in). This expanded on GLOWFLOW by adding an element of interactivity between the participant and the environment, because (s)he could interact with the artist, influencing different creations. PHYSICSPACE was similar to GLOWFLOW, but the participants were aware of how their footprints affected different sounds and how they could influence them with their movements. MAZE used physical movement to control an avatar to navigate through a maze, and VIDEOPLACE (a work in progress) will allow video interaction between people in different rooms.

Krueger makes the argument that the response is the medium saying that it “has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways, than reality itself” (384). He claims that with the variability of video production, a person can interact with the environment more fully because the avatar can, for example, be shrunken down, fly, grow, flip/rotate, etc. He also emphasized that it is not the attractiveness of the visual/auditory response that is important, but that the response establishes a relationship between the observer and the environment, which is what Krueger calls, “the central theme” (386).

From his argument, Krueger risks criticism from those that believe that a more visually appealing environment is more important than the response itself. Krueger states that the means of output are not nearly as important, saying, “it may be desirable that the output not qualify as beautiful in any sense as that would distract from … the relationship established between the observer and the environment” (386).

Given that Krueger has quoted much funding from the University of Wisconsin over the course of 30 years, it can be assumed that he has conducted much research at the university and is probably a faculty member (379, 380, 384). The intended audience of this article are those that hold stake in the future of teleconferencing, because he makes several references to the field stating how his research advances the current standard providing “an infinitely richer interaction than Picturephone allows” (388).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout my reading of this article, I had trouble understanding what Krueger meant by “Response is the medium.” It was not until I finished and began to think of relevant examples that I came to understand how attractive computer response can be. It is a concept that is now being fully developed and helps to make current forms of new media seem archaic and dull. Applications of response can be seen in video games, personal computing and artificial intelligence.

The first example that really made me believe how much of an effect computer response has on a medium is an analytical viewing of the current video game console war. There was a drastic break off this generation, when Nintendo decided to take their console in a new direction. Last generation was all about graphical improvement, which was not Nintendo’s strong suit, so with the release of their console in 2006 (officially dubbed as the Wii), users were introduced to a new kind of console gaming. Gamers are no longer restricted to the two control stick scheme, but now use a motion sensitive controller that responds to the users’ movements. Now, playing digital tennis is no longer dependent on button mashing, but requires a flick of the wrist in order to make the onscreen avatar swing the racket. This can make gaming more interactive and makes one feel like they are actually accomplishing something when they play. Even though other systems like the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are more powerful, having games that display better graphical technology, the Nintendo Wii has by far been the better selling console. The success of the Wii is proof that Krueger is right in his assertion that response is the medium.

This idea can also be applied to personal computing, where multi-touch technology is becoming the next big thing. Though the technology is relatively old, the new applications for it are becoming immensely popular. Apple has seen great success with their iPhone and iTouch, and other companies have been bringing in the use of touch technology. More applications of this tech can be seen in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Kn2HKCWqs&feature=fvw

The response from the computer is shifting from mouseular point and click operations to physical touch and move gestures. These transparent interactions make computers more approachable and easy to use.

Finally, computer response is a very important application in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is a very popular research opportunity to make computers seem more human. If computers can respond to people humanistically, it is the ultimate form of computer transparency. This transparency comes from the way the computers respond to human action. Some example can be seen in the following videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdEoD10-Uvk&feature=related

The success and attraction of these technologies is because of the response, which shows that Krueger has made some accurate assertions.

I propose the following discussion questions:

1. This kind of technology is a little scary to me, because it is possible that with complete transparency, people could forget that they are interacting with computers. Are my fears at all justified, or is the development of AI a masterful accomplishment that should be welcomed? What kind of things could go wrong with the development of AI?

2. In what ways do these technologies improve the humanistic quality of life? In what ways do they worsen it?

3. Many scientists agree that there are technologies that never should have been created (ie atomic/hydrogen bombs). Could the development of AI have similar ramifications? Should we develop it just because we can?

Web-based Memorializing after 9/11

The primary focus of this article was to analyze specific characteristics of online memorials in order to see if there is a pattern associated with them in regards to who made them (individual vs. institution). It begins by discussing memorialization in general and its reasons for occurring. The article then discusses the Oklahoma City bombings in comparison to the WTC bombings. Next, the characteristics of the online memorial are discussed, such as their ability to be updated over time and the immediacy in which they can be posted. Finally, there is the analysis of eight specific web pages. There were 7 specific characteristics that were being analyzed on each webpage: 1) object/focus of commemoration; 2) co-production; 3) voice; 4) immediacy; 5) fixity; 6) intended audience; and 7) relational positioning of victims. In the end, it was found that there wasn’t exactly a clear pattern of results between websites created by individuals and those created by institutions.

What I found interesting from the article is that my perceived “attitude” of each of the individuals/corporations seemed to be a good indicator of how each website was characterized. For example: when I picture a computer scientist, I picture someone who is technical and to the point. Interestingly enough, the article states that the web memorial designed by a computer scientist, September 11, 2001, Victims (14), was described as straightforward and didn’t use any euphemisms. Additionally, the National Park Service is a service whose job includes running monuments, so I would assume that they would be able to do a good job in profiling a fallen monument and creating a memorial around it, and the article describes its memorial site as being “well planned and designed) (10). I am sure there is some sort of unconscious confirmation bias going on in my head that lead me to “notice” these “correlations” between my thoughts and the results, but it is interesting nonetheless. To wrap this up I have the following questions:

1) How do the results compare to what you would have imagined?

2) What other characteristics could you use to compare web based memorials, in addition to the ones used in this article?

3) The end of the article mentions the effect that time will have on each memorial site. Over time, do you think the findings of the study will stay roughly the same, or will they begin to change? (ex: Over time, will the Neil Casey site continue to have visitors/donators?)

Cyber-Spaces of Grief

Maya Socolovsky’s article about cyberspace and grief focuses on the idea of online memorials and the ways in which they are different from their real life counterparts. She starts off by discussing the September 11^th memorials and the speed at which they were created, such as the t-shirts and models that were being sold mere weeks after the attacks. Socolovsky then goes on to discuss the ways in which physical memorials seem more tangible and permanent as opposed to web-based memorials. Finally, Socolovsky discusses in further detail specific web memorials – three victims of the Columbine shootings – and the ways in which they affect people. In the process of discussing the Columbine shooting victims memorials Socolovsky also touches on the concept of religion and politics when used in conjunction with memorials.

What I would like to discuss more is something I feel the author didn’t bring any attention to, despite it being fairly relevant to the topic. While she does discuss the different ways web memorials make us think and feel I don’t feel as though she adequately discussed some of the reasons that they are becoming more and more commonplace. I feel that a huge reason they are more common is simply due to the fact that they are fast and fairly cheap. When discussing vitrualmemorials.com specifically, she says that a text base memorial is free, and there are packages running from $25 to $225 (12). Though I don’t have exact numbers on hand, I know that even a simple “real life” memorial such as a gravesite can cost much more than that – the gravestone alone can cost $225, if not much more. The time required for a web memorial to be created is also much less than a physical memorial. In a few hours or days time a decent web memorial can be created and viewed. For a physical memorial, the time investment is much larger. To go back to the simple gravesite example, a quick google search tells me that headstones can take several weeks to be created. That is quite a difference in time, and the gap increases as the size of the physical memorial increases (the Vietnam memorial took about 8 months to be completed). Though the point of a memorial is not to minimize cost or build time, those two factors certainly restrict people who might otherwise want to create a grandiose display to honor their loved ones. To conclude, I have the following questions:

1) What do you think the author meant by using the word “Other”?

2) Several times the author hints at the idea that online memorials are not as “effective” or emotional as physical memorials. What do you think of this notion?

3) Besides cost and speed, what other factors do you think have contributed to the increase in online memorials?

Video Games a waste of Time?

Video Games a Waste of Time?

Summary
Gee starts out by talking about literacy and semiotics claiming that reading and writing are not the only components of literacy, rather it is being able gather meaning from words AND images, symbols, graphs, etc. He also states that “people need to be literate in a great variety of different semiotic domains” (20). A semiotic domain that he explores throughout his book is video games, which he claims are “not necessarily a waste of time” (25). He goes on to illustrate why playing video games are not a waste of time stating that one is active learning when (1) by playing video games one learns to experience the world in new ways (2) they have the opportunity to join and collaborate with a new affinity group (3) develop the resources for future learning and problem solving (4) help one learn to think about semiotic domains as design spaces that engage and manipulate people. But then he questions whether those are good qualities to learn. He claims that if a good game that encourages active learning and critical thinking is played by someone who is ready to challenge themselves and interacts in the above 4 manners that the tactics can possibly even be brought into real-life experience such as science and math.

When Gee states that “Some readers of the first edition of this book were bothered by the word “semiotic” as a piece of jargon,” this reveals that some of the readers may not be as academic as he.

When he says that strategies and problem solving learned through playing video games can promote active and critical learning and can even possible apply to real life, he protects his claim that not all video games spur on that kind of learning. Since he backs his claim up with that I feel like he has less at stake,

My Video game Summary

I have spent countless hours on this website (http://games.asobrain.com/) playing explorers/settlers, which is a multi-player computer rendition of a board game similar to Settler’s of Catan. In the game you are supposed to settle and expand faster than the other players, you get points based on towns (1 point) and cities (2 points) you can get other points by having the longest road or largest army. You get resources (wheat, sheep, steel, wood, brick) to build roads, towns and cities depending on which pieces of land you settle. It requires a great deal of strategy, which I do not have the greatest. One that I have realized is that whoever gets to go first often ends up wining because they have the opportunity to choose the best piece of land. This reminds me of the first mover advantage that we talk about in marketing, whoever penetrates the market first usually has the best advantage… but they need a good strategy for success.

Inquiry

I thought the claim that video games encourage active and critical learning was very interesting. Many of the new educational tools are turning to video games as a means of teaching. I think video games being a way to foster active learning and critical thinking depends greatly on the game player and whether or not they are willing to challenge themselves and think critically.

1. In your life what are different “semiotic domains” that you must be literate in? Are you literate in those domains solely internally? Or also externally?
2. In your opinion, what are examples of video games that do not promote active learning or critical learning according to Gee’s standards of critical learning?
3. Do you play/have you played any video games that you feel have taught you problem solving skills that you have been able to carry into other areas of your life?

Video Games and Computer Holding Power

In her publication Sherry Turkle focuses on video games and the way they are affecting the lives of the people who play them, with her audience being the general populous, as those are the people who are and will continue to be affected by the growth of video games. She primarily follows a young boy named Jarish and, through several snips out of interviews with him, gives insight into how he feels about video games and his feelings on the future of video games. Aditionally, she showcases a few other people by focusing on their motives for playing video games. Alongside the personal interviews Turkle addresses some of the concerns surrounding video games, such as the “myth of mindless addiction” that was often applied to video games. Using four years of studying video games and those who play them, Turkle was able to go beyond just discussing the games and delved into the minds of those who played them and examined the social impact video games have had as they have “become part of the cultural landscape” (500).

One of the biggest overall arguments made by Turkle is that video games affect the mind in a way that lasts longer than just the time spent playing the game. Turkle shys away from using the word “addicted” too often, stating that “most people don’t become addicted to video games just as most people who diet don’t become anorexic” (512). She does, however, point out the ways in which games can seem to be an escape from reality or a way to gain control. For example: Jarish, the young boy who is fascinated by video games, uses video games as a way to gain control. His parents divorced and his father re-married and then divorced again. Jarish himself is small for his age and doesn’t really fit in with other kids. He doesn’t have much control in his life. When he goes into a game, however, he is in control. Jarish says that when he is angry he goes to play his favorite game “Robotron” (506). Jimmy is another young boy who has a physical disability who turns to games to give him an altered state of mind. In Jimmy’s case he strives for absolute perfection. He plays one game, Space Invaders, in a “ritualistic” way and states that achieving perfection calms him. Other examples of video games causing an altered state of mind are Roger, who plays to clear his mind in the same way that skiing clears his mind. David, a lawyer, plays games to achieve a Zen-like state, where he can “direct [himself] totally but not feel directed at all” (510).

When Turkle discusses the idea of altered states, she likens video game playing to race car driving. A race car driver cannot take his eyes off of the road for even a second or he will crash. With video games, the consequence of a loss of concentration may not be as dire as death, but it is certainly not beneficial. All it takes is one second of not paying attention and your space ship will explode, bringing you one step closer to the “end” of the game. It is this requirement of absolute concentration that entices many people to play video games. As Turkle states, “for people under pressure total concentration is a form of relaxation” (509).

Having played video games quite a bit myself, I must say that I can see where Turkle and the people above are coming from. There are definitely some games where I can tune out the rest of the world and become engrossed in the game, and it is absolutely a calming sensation. During times when I am under a lot of stress, like just before a big test, I will often play a video game for a few hours. I find that it allows me to stop worrying and become relaxed and comfortable – a state of mind that is essential for me to be able to study well and succeed. With that in mind, I pose the following questions:

1) What is your opinion on video games causing an altered state of mind? Is there more to playing a video game than just having fun for a few hours?

2) Early in the article, Jarish says that when he stops playing video games he feels “cut off.” Can video games become an addiction just like drugs, alcohol, or other forms of “escaping reality”? Have you ever experienced some sort of withdrawal after a video game is over, like Jarishs feeling of being cut off?

3) All of the video games Turkle investigated were from 1984 and earlier. What do you think the effect of new technology that allows games to feel much more realistic has been on the people who play them?

Lucasfilm's Habitat

Chip Morningstar and F. Randall Farmer take readers down the path of creating and running their world known as Habitat. The article is, in a way, a brief guide of things to focus on and things to avoid, seemingly aimed at those who might create such a world as Habitat in the future. They describe what Habitat is – a “many-player online cirtual environment” (664) – and take readers through a brief rundown of both the technical and social limitations of the game are. On the technical side, there were issues such as figuring out how to implement all of the features in such a way that their technology could handle. How will players interact with objects? How will they interact with each other? How will all of that data be transmitted back and forth between servers and players in such a way that they don’t experience crippling lag, and how can it be done to ensure that players don’t find technical loopholes to exploit and gain unfair advantages? These are just some of the many questions the creators of Habitat had to ask themselves. Socially, there were just as many issues, and it was these issues that led to the most interesting and enlightening discoveries about how people interact with each other in an online environment.

Something the creators of Habitat tried to do initially was plan out massive events that players could play through. The planning would take hundreds of hours, but the creators felt it was a worth investment because it would provide many players days of enjoyment. In reality, their many hour long event was “solved in about 8 hours by a person who had figured out the critical clue in the first 15 minutes. Many of the players hadn’t even had a chance to get into the game” (671). This led to many players feeling confused and unhappy because they did not get their own chance to participate in the action. This event led to an important discovery: you can’t try and plan everything when there are other people involved. As the creators later noted, “The more people we involved in something, the less in control we were” (671). For most people, being forced into a certain path to do something is much less fun than having a hand in developing it yourself, and this event was a great example of that. When the creators recognized this and began to implement ideas suggested by the community, the feedback was much more positive.

Another key point the creators learned the hard way was “you can’t trust anyone” (672). Though the story behind this revelation is long, in a nutshell it involved player’s “cheating” to gain an advantage over other players, an issue that hadn’t been present in most games because they were single player experiences, so cheating only affects you. When there are multiple people involved in the same game, cheating becomes more than a single person experience, and steps have to be taken to prevent it. The creators of Habitat naively expected people to not want to detract from the game play of others, and they had to learn a lesson once it eventually happened.

Personally, I find that I agree with both of those major revelations. When you are interacting with people, be it in real life or in an online format such as Habitat, the most interesting aspect of the event is the other people present and the spontaneous ideas that often spring up. By forcing people to do a certain thing, that level of spontaneity is diminished, as is the overall experience. In regards to not being able to trust people, there is no doubt that that is often the case. While most people do not want to put others at a disadvantage, there are definitely people out there who would not hesitate to do so. With these thoughts in mind, I ask you to think about the following questions:

1) What are some other key things that need to be kept in mind in regards to human social interaction when designing a world such as Habitat?

2) If you were one of the players who discovered the token trick in Habitat (page 673-674, starting in the second to last paragraph on 673), what would you have done? Why?

3) A great debate in the Habitat world was whether or not to allow guns, killing and otherwise unkind behavior to other players. What is your opinion? Should that sort of thing be allowed in a video game world or does it make it too much of an unpleasant experience?

Ideology and the Map: Toward a Postmodern Visual Design Practice

Ben and Marthalee Barton put forth the idea that ideology is present in all forms of visual representations, focusing most of their efforts on showing the ideology present in maps. As Barton puts it, their essay “focuses on the ways in which visual signification serves to sustain relations of domination. More-over…ideology performs such services with a Janus face---its privileges or legitimates certain meaning systems but at the same time dissimulates the fact of such privileging.”(Barton 50) The authors cite countless historical references to the way maps have evolved and changed over the years and what these different styles have promoted or brushed aside, content wise. A central aspect discussed in the article is “the Other”(Barton 60), those things not commonly portrayed on maps or in visuals in general, because of their “unappealing” nature, a qualitative description that is determined by the mapmaker. The Bartons hypothesize that there are two ways to create better maps, through the map being created as a collage or the metaphor of maps as palimpsest. The map as a collage basically calls for the overlay of multiple sources of information, creating an item that is, “the juxtaposition of various representational devices, theoretical principles, or representational functions, e.g. resemblance, symbolic references, similitude, abstraction, exemplification, or expression.”(Barton 73) Maps as palimpsest are explained as texts directly overlaid with more text, almost as if stacking on top of one another, while still being able to read all of the layers. Ben and Marthalee Barton are speaking to an academic audience, as exemplified with the language used in the text, as well as an expected understanding of some obscure ideas such as the palimpsest. Very little can be derived from the authors through sheer analysis of the text, however it can be deduced that they care about seeing the entirety of the world and want it portrayed accurately, regardless of the less appealing aspects. Neither Barton have laid very much at stake by making these claims about maps, except maybe to lose friends who are cartographers, but they do point out faults in map making committed by governments and colonizers. The Bartons really only stand to gain by writing this text, because perhaps the text will prompt changes in how the world is portrayed on seemingly the most basic of levels.

I find myself agreeing with most of the arguments by the Bartons because they only point out common trends in map making which are indeed true, and then attempt to explain why these trends need to be changed. I have never really thought about it but the Bartons make a good point when they point out that only the apparent good things about society are ever put on maps, with some exceptions. I believe that the most effective way to create a map would be through the palimpsest metaphor because of the vast amount of information that could be placed upon a map without creating a map so large as to decrease its usefulness. Google Earth is not a palimpsest, however it shows the world exactly as it is, color, topography, geography, down to even street level. I believe with the programs we have today, it would not be difficult to create pop-up windows filled with information about the demographic of your choice for each country on the map. This kind of program is already created and would only need to be applied to Google Earth in order to achieve the palimpsest.

Questions to consider

1. What is your opinion of the statement, “Indeed, if the very decision to map is fraught with ideological implications, as we have already noted, the same can also be said of the decision not to map.” (Barton 59)

2. Do you have an alternative to the two main options the Bartons pose as substitutes to present day maps? Yes or No. Explain why if no or what the alternative is if yes.

3. Do you thing the Barton’s criticisms of maps are well founded or simply over examinations of essentially a picture?

The Matrix

I know we don't have to blog about it, but why not, right?
The Matrix has always been one of my favorite movies, but I haven't watched it in years. The obvious themes that relate to class are the ideas of perceived reality replacing our own, and simulation as a form of control. What are your thoughts on these themes? Are they included intentionally, or just a side-effect of the science fiction story?

One thing that the movie made me think about is using digital media (the internet, video games, etc.) to enhance or replace our less interesting real lives. In the movie this was exaggerated to the point where humans were not even aware of the substitution, but are we moving more and more to this? We already depend on digital media in order to organize our data, communication, and provide entertainment, but at what point will/do we forsake real-life experiences for digital ones? Much as people "addicted" to MMORPGs will give up social contact for the sake of their online lives, when do we move from a willing dependence on digital media to a willing preference over our real lives?

Lastly, who else caught the appearance of the book "Simulacra and Simulation"? Haha.

-Sean R.

Panopticism - Foucault

“Panopticism” by Foucault is an extract describing Bentham’s Panopticon, an idea for a structure that allows for supervision of several people (be them condemned, workers, or schoolchildren) by few supervisors. The author describes the structure as a perfect form of control because of its efficiency and its ability to immobilize people by having an extensive power that bears over all individual bodies, which the author claims is “the utopia of the perfectly governed city” (4).

The author’s intended audience is the middle to lower class population, because he intends to inform people of the two different extremes of discipline saying that one discipline is of the enclosed institution, while the other (as with the panopticon) is a functional mechanism that makes the exercise of power, “lighter, more rapid, more effective, [and] a design of the subtle coercion for a society to come” (12). The author states how the spread of the latter discipline throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries might become the standard for a disciplinary society, alluding to the idea that it may become a way to control the masses.

Foucault is fascinated at the creation of the panopticon, especially concerning how it makes surveillance and control of a large group very simple. The author expresses fascination through example, first stating that the prisoner, “is the object of information, never a subject in communication” (6). Then sharing the anecdote of two children brought up in different areas of the panopticon learning different facts (i.e. one is taught that 1+1=3) and then when they meet later on in life, they have discussions that “would be worth a great deal more than the sermons or lectures on which so much money is spent” (8). The author introduces this story in order to emphasize how amazing the design of the panopticon is.

In the article, Foucault describes the ability of the panopticon to keep control of masses by making them think that they are being watched. In an attempt to inform people of possible uses of such disciplinary strategies, the author risks inspiring ideas of conspiracy by which people will attempt to control others using a similar approach.

The Panopticon was an idea created by Bentham that allowed for ease of supervision of a mass of people. The Panopticon could succeed, because it gave people the illusion of always being observed. It is the idea that nobody is around, so someone must be watching. This idea can then be broadened to a much larger scale (not necessarily with a watch tower, but with some form of technology). Cell phones, for example, have the ability to be traced and with such a large percentage of people carrying them, it would be very easy for them to become tools of tracking. With people dependent on their phones (what with internet, communication, entertainment, tools and who knows what else in them) they are not likely to be off person for an extended period of time, which allows for them to be a very useful tool for determining someone’s location. It is not long after that, that the phones begin to be used as microphones and video cameras. These devices are already on many phones, and it would not take much in order to make them transmit information to a private source. Then, people would be living within a world-wide Panopticon when they never know if/by whom they are being watched.

Whether or not Foucault had originally intended to inspire this kind of thinking, he certainly did. The way he described the Panopticon, the examples he used, the presentation of the ease of surveillance, inspired a line of thinking that leads to ideas of control; control of the masses by unbeknownst surveillance.

In order to provide information to support/discourage this idea, the following questions are presented:

1. Cell phones were given as an example of a way that people could be observed without their knowing. What other mediums could be used in order to survey large masses of people?

2. What would be the advantages/disadvantages for a certain body to know where all of its associates are at any point in time?

3. What would be the advantages/disadvantages for a group of people to know that they are being constantly watched?

America - Baudrillard

“America,” an article by Baudrillard, is one that attempts to show how cities in the United States have attempted and succeeded in developing postmodern buildings and cities. Baudrillard claims that American architects have used a ‘true’ sort of anti-architecture, opting for hard technologies and exaggerating all dimensions. He claims that the architects have found fantastic new ways to design buildings while using elements from historical vernacular styles. Baudrillard compares America to Europe claiming that American streets are alive, “filled with crowds, bustle and advertisements,” while the European street, “…only lives in sudden surges, in historic moments of revolution and barricades” (9). He describes the postmodern architecture used in the cities of New York, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas, and even describes Disneyland as a marvel in architecture where it “conceal[s] the fact that true childishness is everywhere” (12).

The author’s intended audience is those that believe that America is not a bustling place; that there are not any postmodern movements in architecture, and that Europe has cities that surge with new ideas and revolutionary buildings. He makes the claim that there are people who say that “the streets are alive in Europe, but dead in America,” to which he replies, “They are wrong” (9).

Baudrillard is a European that has been brought up in a society where America was not looked up to, but has recently visited and found it to be not only equal to, but beyond the culture that he has become accustomed to. This can be drawn from such statements as “our European skies” (9), and his fascination with America can be seen in his choice of words, describing the American streets as “intense, electrifying, turbulent, and vital” (10).

Baudrillard risks European criticism as he promotes American designs above that of Europe claiming that “space is deemed public and bears all the marks of the public arena,” while America is, “always turbulent, lively, kinetic, and cinematic” (10-11).

The author clearly has an interest in American architecture, especially in the larger, flourishing cities, where “the power of pure open space” is demonstrated (14).

Baudrillard’s excerpt on America seemed to be filled with uncertainty about the country. He appeared to praise New York for its bustling streets, crowded sidewalks, and tall buildings, but seemed to downplay every other architectural design in other cities. Baudrillard described the violence of New York as “the violence of the way of life,” but then goes on to depict Santa Barbara as a collection of “funeral homes” (10). He questions whether the Bonaventure Hotel in LA can be considered postmodern and describes how it does exactly the opposite as its intention (intention – to view the city, result – everyone is cut off from each other). He praises Salt Lake City as “a jewel,” but retorts by referring to its architects as “a people of mutants” (11). Las Vegas is “a great whore,” and Disneyland is a place that conceals the fact that “true childishness is everywhere” (11/12). Then he concludes by stating that these are not cities and makes some allusion that they are deserts. Was he just trying to be ironic? There must have been something that I missed, because I attempted to understand what point he was trying to make, but he seemed all over the place.

The one thing that could be taken away from this article was the author’s description of Disneyland. And with his take on the beloved attraction, I can agree. It shields people from the outside world. It makes them think that they can behave unlike themselves, because it is an imaginary world, when in fact they are more themselves than they are in the ‘real’ world. It is a medium of immersion that tries to be transparent so as to bring out the (I hate to be this corny) inner child of anyone who visits.

Another thought that is brought up from the article, is the idea that architecture can be a form of new media. There are revolutionary new ways to design buildings that present cities in exciting ways, and can even tell stories. Some buildings are a part of this presentation (as with the skyscrapers in New York), while others help to present a new perspective on the city (as with the Bonaventure hotel in Los Angeles).

With these points in mind, the following questions are presented:

1. In what ways is Disneyland a transparent medium?

2. In what ways is Disneyland NOT a transparent medium?

3. In what ways can postmodern architecture (as some of the buildings described by the author), be considered forms of new media, if at all?