I. Readings April 24, 1996
	A. Walter Benjamin
	B. VWML 2.0
	C. Baudrillard
	D. MI: Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critic.  Wrote ÒArt..Ó under rather unique historical circumstances.   He was traveling from France to Spain in 1940, bound for the United States, trying to escape the Fascists.
		1. We can view the Marxist frame around the essay at two levels: as an alternative social model to Fascism, and as an analysis of the uses of art.
		2. We can try to understand BenjaminÕs distinctions and, later on, see how they mightfit with Virtual Reality (VR).   Schematizing, we can first distinguish the production of art from its reception.  

Benjain introduces the notion of the aura of the original piece of art, that is threatedn by mechanical reproduction (this is 1939

In the field of reception, Benjamin identifies a mode of contemplation (the mode of the flaneur strolling about the city of post-Hausmann Paris), and the mode of distraction.   Benjamin employed the word  verstreuhen, which in bourgeois German culture had a negative connotation.  One can speak of a distracted professor who goes about without attending to his immediate surroundings.   But the verstreute Professor is engaged in an intense internal life -- he is quite attentive the subject of his thoughts.   
		3. This article links up last weekÕs seminar.   We discussed the attraction that architecture holds (held?) since the late 80Õs for designers of large-scale Òobject-orientedÕ software systems.  [ But the earlier miming of structuralist-mystical architect C. AlexanderÕs A Pattern Language has given way to a renewed interest in sociology and urban design. -xw]  
Michael pointed out that archtecture was been viewed as the first post-modern art, taking advantage of its hybrid position between art and craft. [Cf. Jameson,  or Jencks -xw]  Benjamin: ÒArchitecture has always represented the prototype of a work of art the reception of which is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction.Ó [p.239]
	E. JK: Benjamin speaks of the experience of the cathedral....On the question of time (of reception), we can turn to BergsonÕs notion of a ÒdeepÕ time, of the interval (duree) , opposed to the event.  [Schnapp mentioned a well-known discussion between Einstein and Bergson in which BergsonÕs account seemed less persuasive.  -xw]
	F. CK: Popular film-makers seem to have lost any means to using cinematic conventions to reliably place viewers in a contemplative stance (critical distance).    Devices such as long shot, freeze frame, and interminable, ultra-slow zoom, etc. all became absorbed into cinematic nature.

[It seems that most/many experimental films place viewers in this reflective position -- artists find more Òdevices.Ó   On the other hand Hollywood film-makers never had this intention in the first place.  - xw]

[Follesdal story: A fire broke out during an theater performance in Sweden.  An  actor came on stage and said, ÒThereÕs a fire!   You must all leave!Ó   But people remained seated because they thought that she was still performing.    Nothing she said could convince them to ÒdisquotateÓ her remarks. -xw]

	G. JK contrasted BergsonÕs notion of time (duration) with Proust.  [ask JK to fill in? -xw]
	H. MI:  The flaneur maintains a certain contemplative distance from the social reality.   Benjamin cites DuhamelÕs complaint that film, through the mechanism of the shock effect, and in the very nature of its performance distracts the viewer.    Duhamel: ÒI can no longer think what I want to think.  My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.Ó   [ - Bergson criticizes this cinematic metaphor for cognition in time.   Henri, it gets worse.- xw]   ThereÕs an echo here of KantÕs characterization of art as that which makes you think.
	I. ?:  ...Like McLuhanÕs difference between cool and hot media?
	J. CK:  Godard made a film in which we watch an interminable scene of a garbage man.   It goes on and on until the viewerÕs attention begins to wander/wonder.   In a film called ÒWavelengthÓ (?) thereÕs a 20-minute long shot, in ultra-slow zoom.   so low that itÕs easier to watch the zoom by glancing away then back to see the difference.
	K. Benjamin:  ÒFascism sees its salvation ingiving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themelves.Ò  [p 241]  then launches into a description of the Futurist aesthetic of war. ÒCommunism responds by politicizing art.Ó  [p.242]
	L. BH:  Is the issue here the control of the viewer?  camera?  Point of View?
	M. JK:  At MITÕs Media Lab, the ALIVE environment has a synthetic (computer animated) dog that is given behaviors to play with the video of your person.   The dog is scripted with a behavior to guide you along a narrative.   [The dog is programmed to encourage you into loosely-defined scenarios of play (fetch, follow-the-leader, etc.) - xw]
	N. CK:  Where does this contemplation occur??    Part of the ÒshockÓ of the computer is the small frame, the chunk.   You can hide things much longer with a computer than in a film.
	O. JK:  Is it possible to have aleatory  contemplation as well as  structured contemplation?
	P. A CD ROM is contemplatible, is it not?
	Q. XW: Maybe VR engineers , or more generally, designers who aim for ÒimmersiveÓ environments are not interested in contemplation, but a certain form of distraction.
	R. CK:  People do not become ÒexpertÓ atdoconstructing cinematic techniques
	S. MI: People have built up over a century, a stock of cinematic memeory -- the fantasy stories circulate now as do news of real history.   
	T. XW: Well, look at advertisements.  ItÕs seems that the writiers clearly assume a lot of shared knowledge about not only content referents to film, but also cinematic gestures (coded to build up certain moods, eg point-of-view of a crazed ax murderer careening through a house) for ironic effect.    
	U. JK:  It would be inetresting to study the artifice of absorption.  What are the relations between properties we ascribe to medium and how it is received?  For the purposes of his critique, Benjamin moves decisive qualities into the medium that may be unwarranted.  [But this road could lead to a fascinating phenomenological project.   Of course, here we are discussing Òproperties of a mediumÓ rather than of objects.  See HusserlÕs Ideas - xw]
	V. CK:  Cognitive processing in reception of artifacts hi vs low culture is different