Trust
I was thinking about creating the “flat” truth in communication situations involving mediated presence. It’s true that few people today accept the existence of a “flat” truth when technology is the facilitator. Mass media exposure and editing technologies have eroded the credibility of what we see on screens. In light of our cynicism, should mediated communication pursue the representation of “reality” as a way of creating trust? In his talk at ITP on Friday, Ken Goldberg defined medium as “that which facilitates perception of objects or between subjects… it is a lens which both transmits and distorts.” Since we generally assume that some level of distortion takes place in any mediated communication, it may be that the best way to create a sense of trust in what is presented to us lies outside of a reality-based approach. But where should un-reality come from? Should it be the job of a computer to manipulate the images of participants, to enhance distortion to capture body movement and gesture rather than words? Erving Goffman discusses how the capacity of an individual to give impressions involves both the “impressions that the gives and the expressions that he gives off.” If we focus on subtle things that a person “gives off” we may be more inclined to trust it because we feel that the individual has less control or ability to manipulate this presentation. While a computer can visual data and present it in new ways—attempting, perhaps, to capture as many perspectives as possible, I think it might be interesting if the perspectives of the human participants were used to create the same sort of amplification in interchanges.
Proposal: Me N U.
I See Me N U is an exploration of the ways that physical representation and distortion exists between two individuals who participate in a tele-converstation. The participants (who are in different rooms, cities or countries) both sit in front of a screen with a console which allows them to operate a pan tilt camera which is physically located with, and focused on, the other person. Audio functions exactly like a phone conversation, allowing Person A to have a conversation with Person B. The screen however, is like a mirror, reflecting Person A back to person A—except that their image is controlled by the camera linked to the console operated by person B. Thus, each person is seeing themselves from the “perspective” o=f the other person. Because the other person is controlling the camera blind—they can’t see what the camera is seeing—the person ma bee seeing themselves in from odd angles, or bizarre positions. However, when both people move the pan or tilt of the camera in the same direction simultaneously, the screen briefly flickers/displays the image of the other person on the participants’ screen, perhaps motivating them to readjust the camera to produce another perspective for contemplation when the screen reverts to the participant’s self- image. In forcing the people to watch themselves and only intermittently (and through concerted action) see the person with whom they are interacting, Me N U plays with our own (re)presentation and the authenticity of what we “give off” in communicating with other people.
Kacie Kinzer