In general, cultural interfaces of the 1990s try to walk an uneasy path between the richness of control provided in general-purpose HCI and the ‘immersive’ experience of traditional cultural objects such as books and movies. (90)
Our relationship to the space of new media thus calls our attention to two conflicting desires: The user simultaneously longs to absorb and to be absorbed by new media. She wants to both consume and be consumed by its virtual space. This paradox is paramount to our understanding of new media and our interaction with virtual space as an effort to bypass or transcend mediation all together.
For Manovich, the computer screen best exemplifies the struggle for the new media user to immerse oneself in an alternate space yet still endeavor to control it. The ironic function of the screen itself reiterates the tension between these two desires, as it “separates two absolutely different spaces that somehow coexist” (95). These two different spaces—the virtual and the physical—that somehow manage to coexist via the screen correspond to the two contrary demands of the user for, “an immersive environment and a set of controls, between standardization and originality” (91). The “standardization” of virtual space speaks to our desire as new media users to control our environment by way of familiar, consistent commands and structures. For instance, regardless of the type of computer or software, onscreen icons and menu bars generally perform the same function. I can see a folder icon on either a PC or Mac and know that I can and how to open it. Consistency enables us to quickly and efficiently navigate onscreen space. Yet, also true of new media is its constant quest to be original. Using folder icons as a touchstone, the aesthetic or design is constantly changing to appease users’ desire for the novel—the exciting new space for which to explore. We immerse ourselves in a virtual space to achieve authentic experience.
As new media users who coexist in two separate spaces then we undergo an internal division as well; we become both subject and object of our virtual domain as we simultaneously control and are immersed in the space. The desire to be both subject and object represents an even larger desire to transcend mediation, or in other words, interpretation—the simultaneous facilitator and inhibitor to direct communication and experience. The irony inherent in new media then is that while, as Manovich accurately points out, it serves as a “filter for all culture, a form through which all kinds of cultural and artistic production were mediated” (64), it creates an illusion of unmediated experience. We attempt to get beyond the computer screen by becoming the screen ourselves, straddling two entirely different spaces.
The CAVE enables us to better immerse ourselves in virtual space by enclosing us in a three-walled optical illusion. Glasses replace the screen as the means by which we enter an alternate three-dimensional world. In contrast to the computer, however, in the CAVE you relinquish much of your control and thus your subjectivity. Albeit the choice of perspective and where you fixate your gaze, users are subject to a world not of their making. Yet, I would argue that the desire for unmediated experience is ever present and, perhaps, even stronger in the CAVE. A virtual text world best demonstrates this desire, for the user can experience text instead of simply reading it. As letters and words surround and flow through you, you are better able to feel language without having to interpret it. Thus, through the mediation of technology, we more closely approximate a new space exempt of mediation that endeavors to eliminate the gap between sign and referent, subject and object.
