A tension between my father and Mr Badger

Go back 55 years. Eccleston square. The room filled with nine-year-old boys, 6 of whose fathers were in the cabinet not far – possibly in committee rooms or the house of commons.

At the front on a table is a pristine pile of squared paper, cut accurately and sitting immaculately in a cube, about a foot tall. The tea lady, Mrs Grice walks in with trembling hand – a green cup – 2 biscuits. Badger accepts the cup, he tall possibly about 28 years old and much, young enough to have remembered the end of the war at our age. “CENTRIFUGAL FORCE!” he shouts – swinging the teacup and saucer, inches from our faces in a balletic flourish. Mrs Grice had left the room. This is mathematics. Now, ushering another boy up from the rows of desks in the classroom (Petty A) – putting his finger on the pile of neat squared paper, he is told to make a little circle with his finger. The paper starts moving at the top, transferring some of the force to the paper below. The cube gradually transforms itself into a twisted spiral. We sit sin silence, fully engaged. “The Commonwealth Institute roof is similar… “Mr Badger explains, no, not far from our house in Kensington. I remember the roof spans all, straight, making up the beautifully curved lines of the roof. Now stand here, at the front. Halve the distance from you and the door. Move to that point. Halve it again. Move. You will never reach the door.

Badger had a nickname for me.


I would drift off and look at the leaves being burnt outside in the square – the smell of the 1963 Autumn in SW1. “COMPUTER! What is 6 squared?” I would have to stand up and shout the answer. I never forget how he avoided the chalk and the endless soporific drone all my other maths teachers put me through. Mr Routh, Mrs Behets, and finally, when I ran out a few years later during a lesson in calculus as the windowpane acid really kicked in, Mrs Jacobson.

My father – a man of many contradictions – a major in royal corps of signals during the war, heading up a section of men his job in ciphers was to encrypt messages in the 8th army. After the war, he took over his uncle’s gallery in Leicester square (which he hated)… and told me of how he could determine if the number on the tube train carriage (usually a long number, I am not sure!) if it was a prime or not from when he boarded the train at Gloucester Road to  by the time it got to Hyde Park Corner. Hugh, a disappointed man, he often beat me and forbade me from motorcycles and art schools. He failed the motorcycles, for I then rode them for the next 46 years, the art seeped in and out over the years until now, when I have given it time doing an MFA.

One afternoon my father surprised me with a little demonstration of computational art without a computer. He took a a page from that Sunday’s paper, a photo of the Queen. He drew a grid in pencil over the photo, lining up the dots to measure it out accurately.

Then, taking a fresh sheet of paper out of the Queen Anne desk next to me, he took a compass and drew the edges of the same grid, the same carefully arranged dots, with the compass, transferring the straight grid lines of the photo into a series of curved lines. Each tiny square of the grid was transposed into the curve grid, as to distort the queen’s face.

I wish he had done more of that and beat me less.

The spirit of Mr Badger lives on as I rediscover the joys of mathematics without the boredom. My father – who also told me to go to the ICA and see a wonderful exhibition, Cybernetic serendipity at age 14.


The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal

I liked watching this film. It discusses how, as humans, we feel compelled to create art – the film shows us graffiti removal teams in Portland Oregon unconconsciously creating art as part of their work to remove graffiti tags inn an industrial area of the city.

I admire the film’s clarity and how it informs us on a subject in a convincing way. it was part of a project undertaken as part of a degree course by Matt McCormick in 2001 and is narrated by Miranda July.

Privacy Concerns, Tracking, Surveillance of individuals, Public Privacy

As part of our planning for the next Assignment for Computational Arts-based Research, my theme will be Privacy Concerns, Tracking, Surveillance of individuals, Public Privacy.


What are the key questions or queries you will address?

How much are we being tracked by government agencies, companies?

How much is revealed already?

“In the wake of the Government’s proposed “Snoopers’ Charter”, ORG asks why intrusive new laws are being suggested, if they are needed at all and what the alternatives are. Some of the UK’s most prominent surveillance experts examine the history of UK surveillance law and the challenges posed by the explosion of digital datasets. Contributors include journalist Duncan Campbell, legal expert Angela Patrick from Justice, Richard Clayton of Cambridge University Computer Labs and Peter Sommer, Visiting Professor at De Montfort University.”

Open Rights Group

Snowden Global surveillance disclosures

What Google has Hidden

Blank Spots on the Map: The Dark Geography of the Pentagon’s Secret World




Trevor Paglen

Why are you motivated to undertake this project?

This is a concern of mine, for example, even yesterday (14th February) 2018), Amber Rudd announced a new means of tracking citizens in their internet activity.

Google have increased the resolution of the street mapper software. Up until recently, a house might be only a vague blob, until now.

My home address is revealed on my ‘whois’ search on my website. I have to pay the hosting company extra to hide it.

Tracking through cookies – possible eavesdropping of metadata on personal emails, e.g. correspondence appearing on Facebook.

Amber Rudd and her efforts to ‘fight’ terrorism may be circumvented:



https://www.asidatascience.com/ (recruiting now!)

What theoretical frameworks will you use in your work to guide you?

I will explore the contrast between the uninvited (yet legal) surveillance of my own ‘back yard’ vis a vis my un-noticed intrusion to neighbouring houses Wi-Fi (illegal).

If there is a problem undertaking this option, I will be investigating ‘hidden/secret’ sites in UK and abroad to see how much can be gathered using web tools such as Google maps.

I may only in the end enact the possibility of the latter to avoid problems with the law – however, I will use publicly available data online to show how international companies like Google intrude on our private lives. I will use Actor-Network theory to take us through the players in this scene, illustrating with real life examples.

What theoretical frameworks will you use in the analysis of your project?

I will investigate how much can be found out about me in the public domain online.

I will explore tools for intrusion, legal and illegal. (Kali Linux tools, Aircrack-ng, Reaver, Pixiewps, Wireshark.)

Using Actor network theory to determine who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, are they both?

How will you document your project?

Video capture, demonstration of software intrusion tools using Kali Linux on Raspberry Pi.

How close can I get with Google streetview of private and secret establishments, recording this using Camtasia.

Logging into password protected Wi-Fi in public spaces using open source Linux distro Kali Linux (covertly) via hidden battery powered headless Pi Zero. (possibly will not be available as there may be legal issues here.)

Possible logging of public data traffic and using Wireshark for forensic study.

Timeline for project milestones

Week 1, 2. Further research

Week 3. Artefact 1; covert monitoring of data

Week 4. Google Street view compilation

Budget (if any)

Raspberry Pi 3, Pi Zero (already have these)


“Face Value” Transmediale 2018


My last visit to Berlin was in 1990 in early March, a few months after the fall of the Berlin wall, Checkpoint Charlie was still in operation while I was there, East Berlin still wearing the ragged clothing of tears of Soviet rule; the flower stall, a bucket of daffodils, the greengrocer shop => a pile of huge unwashed potatoes with can of Coca-Cola placed on top.

Families wander through the park, some leaning up against hot dog stand – the whole family sharing one hot dog. Trabants broken all along the barbed wire fenced motorway leading out of Berlin to West Germany, rows of repaired identical alarm clocks with identical cardboard labels waiting for customers to collect them in the department store. Capitalism manifests again in grimy car parks with Polish families on blankets, selling their children’s toys for bread as vile West Germans swoop in to buy up the bric-a-brac from the comfort of their Mercedes and Bmws.

Today, Capitalism oozes out of every crevice, from the ‘hipster’ Kreutzberg to the immense tower blocks capturing space all over the city. It was a shock to me, to see the transformation of a city – and yet, the energy and power of the city and its people helped me forget my memories of the 80’s and threw me into a future… But why does no-one speak German?

I recall why I am in the city, I continue my innocent ventures into Computational Art spend almost all of my four days attending Transmediale 2018 – I decided from the outset that I would attend as many talks as I could endure, allowing for mental/physical fatigue. My college classmates roll in at 06:30 just as I get dressed and showered…

No, I did not ‘enjoy’ all the talks, however, overall the sessions were all extremely stimulating but I had my likes and dislikes.

First, the dislikes.

The panel discussion Nefarious Values: On Artistic Critique and ComplicityMarc Garrett, Eric Kluitenberg, Sven Lütticken, Ana Teixeira Pinto, belit sağ, Lioudmila Voropai,Moderated by Marc Garrett

Eric K was absent. Sven Lütticken gave a measured, slightly vague presentation, discussing the rising inequality and failure of capitalism. Lioudmilla Voropai was really hard to follow, her English was not flowing and presentation poor. Her main points were concerned solely on the aspect of critique; how the artist will develop his/her practice. She seemed to ramble and was not able to communicate and made any points with clarity. Ana Teixeira Pinto was not much better, more concerned with rattling off a very dense text she read out and proudly proclaimed she finished in 2 minutes 30 seconds in the allotted 5-minute time slot. The third panellist (NOT LISTED) over-ran but showed a 2-minute video concerned with the plight of Kurds and war criminals in Turkey/ censorship. She was earnest and genuine I felt but the moderator seemed to take a dislike to her and challenged her, demanding she gave some ‘answers/solutions’ to the problem. I left feeling quite annoyed at the pompous Ludmilla, the vague co-presenters and felt it a wasted hour.

‘Fuck Off Google’ was another disappointment to me, if only because it reminded me of the unfocused anarchist meetings I attended during the ‘occupy’ period over 2011. The general posits; to demonstrate against the start up space and Google’s plan to move into the (already gentrified) Kreuzberg, a distinctly bohemian/creative area of east Berlin, to  what the presenters claimed was becoming rapidly becoming gentrified. The two presenters were convincing enough but I felt I could have spent less time at the session, even though I arrived a few minutes late. It made me conclude; how far can we divorce ourselves from the racial capitalism that continues to dominate our world without completely descending into nihilism? We have a tension between the world as we have it and an idealised world we would like to have. It is important to speak up and point out imperfections, one of which is how ‘greenwashing’ – crumbs of money off the table to appear green and ‘right on/trendy/cool’  by corporates such as Google, how Google has gentrified cities like San Francisco – now Berlin is in the sights of Google. I felt the motivation of the talk was valid but the free form questioning exposed how little the speakers had to say and went on too long.

However, I really liked all the other presentations of the day, particularly the keynote speech by Jonathan Beller; Derivative Living: “Platform Communism: A Program for Derivative Living Against Regimes of Informatic Subsumption”. It is worth following up with the video of his talk:


Beller described eloquently and in a well-structured way, Toxic Media, Toxic Finance, Toxic Information and New Economic Spaces/ECSA.

His conclusion; blockchain offers technologies to frame a means of enabling small communities to bypass the toxic capitalist system, offering a small window of opportunity for those imagining a new beginning. He did not claim to describe how this all may play out as he stated the tech was still in its infancy. The questions raised at the end were excellent also, challenging him but he maintained composure and responded credibly.

Another favourite of mine, a keynote speech by Professor Lisa Nakaruma ‘Call Out, Protest, Speak Back’, I found to be the most memorable and thought-provoking. Nishant Shah gave an excellent presentation and introduced Professor Nakaruma as being inspirational to him.

Her talk revealed my own ignorance, but that was OK, because I benefited – I followed up on her talk – reading up on bell hooks, Audre Lord et al. Prof. N. points out examples of misogyny and racism ‘strengthened and consumed’ in gaming platforms, also presentations VR technology products – particularly via ‘new media’ . She offers an example; a black woman being seen using a VR product is not only shallow but also reveals the efforts by tech companies to counter balance expectations to show their true white middle-class customer base. A stroppy member of the audience pipes up 1 hour 16 minutes in the Q and A, demanding an explanation from Nakaruma, claiming she ‘knew’ VR and how it works… the audience howled in horror! Prof. N calmly agrees, she does not know how to make VR but asks us to see how these products are being sold. Well worth listening to.

Perhaps I attended too many talks, overloading my brain – however – in no particular order of merit, all good: ‘Soundtrack for Webcams – Live’,

‘Hard Feelings: A Conversation on Computation and Affect’ (with my lecturer Helen Pritchard), ‘The Space In-Between: The Value  of Interpretation and Interaction for the  Next Generation Internet’, ‘Politics of Forgetfulness’,‘Calculating Life’ (With Heather Dewey-Hagborg, excellent!), ‘Artists Re:Thinking the Blockchain ‘, ‘Reimagine the Internet: Affect, Velocity, Excess’, ‘The Weaponization of Language’ and ‘Growing a Repertoire: The Preservation of Net Art as Resistance to Digital Industrialism.’


Full programme available with recorded presentations







Machine Seeing

Three readings this week, we have:
Ways of Machine Seeing by Geoff Cox
A Future for Intersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies by Safiya Umoja Noble
How we are teaching computers to understand pictures by Fei Fei Lee

“Drawing on the two readings consider your example in relation to “ways of machine seeing”.


Inspired by Lisa Nakamura’s Keynote speech at this year’s Transmediale Berlin “Call Out, Protest, Speak Back” I will be looking further into the writings of bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins) and her influence on Intersectional thought. Nakamura presentation focuses on VR and how it is being sold by the big tech companies and how it uses black women as users of the media. She points out how this is a superficial and misleading image. This connects with the second of the readings; by Safiya Umoja Noble.

Supershapes formula

Inspired by Johan Gielis, Paul Bourke’s website deals with, among other geometry, supershapes.


see also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282433972_Examples_of_Supershapes

Extended to 3d the formula extends as:

Daniel Schiffman excellent youTube on this, here is the code for Processing sketch taken from his gitHub:


Also see Reza Ali’s Website – more supershapes.


to do:

take the code below and convert to a Point Cloud.

// Daniel Shiffman
// http://codingtra.in
// http://patreon.com/codingtrain
// Code for: https://youtu.be/akM4wMZIBWg

import peasy.*;

PeasyCam cam;

PVector[ ][ ]  globe;
int total = 75;

float offset = 0;

float m = 0;
float mchange = 0;

void setup() {
size(600, 600, P3D);
cam = new PeasyCam(this, 500);
globe = new PVector[total+1][total+1];

float a = 1;
float b = 1;

float supershape(float theta, float m, float n1, float n2, float n3) {
float t1 = abs((1/a)*cos(m * theta / 4));
t1 = pow(t1, n2);
float t2 = abs((1/b)*sin(m * theta/4));
t2 = pow(t2, n3);
float t3 = t1 + t2;
float r = pow(t3, – 1 / n1);
return r;

void draw() {

m = map(sin(mchange), -1, 1, 0, 7);
mchange += 0.02;

float r = 200;
for (int i = 0; i < total+1; i++) {
float lat = map(i, 0, total, -HALF_PI, HALF_PI);
float r2 = supershape(lat, m, 0.2, 1.7, 1.7);
//float r2 = supershape(lat, 2, 10, 10, 10);
for (int j = 0; j < total+1; j++) {
float lon = map(j, 0, total, -PI, PI);
float r1 = supershape(lon, m, 0.2, 1.7, 1.7);
//float r1 = supershape(lon, 8, 60, 100, 30);
float x = r * r1 * cos(lon) * r2 * cos(lat);
float y = r * r1 * sin(lon) * r2 * cos(lat);
float z = r * r2 * sin(lat);
globe[i][j] = new PVector(x, y, z);

offset += 5;
for (int i = 0; i < total; i++) {
float hu = map(i, 0, total, 0, 255*6);
fill((hu + offset) % 255 , 255, 255);
for (int j = 0; j < total+1; j++) {
PVector v1 = globe[i][j];
vertex(v1.x, v1.y, v1.z);
PVector v2 = globe[i+1][j];
vertex(v2.x, v2.y, v2.z);


An exercise in intimacy

Were asked to pair up and touch each others palms for 3 minutes; 90 seconds with eyes closed, 90 seconds with them open, then write our experiences, taking 10 minutes.

Reflections on bodily contact

My view of Matthew:

The first part was to stare into each others eyes for ten seconds. This felt like ten minutes, in fact, we had to make several attempts at the gazing preliminary as we would either one of us look away or laugh, distracting ourselves. I do not know my opposite number, seen him in class so it was all genuinely difficult and left me feeling surprisingly uncomfortable.

The main feeling, I experienced throughout was pain. I shut my eyes, at first uneasy at the unnatural circumstances of touching a stranger so to speak. We English are so reserved… My hands – so warm, his hands cold from just walking into the classroom. I began to lose all sense of what was normal… the effort of holding up my arms made it feel like I was holding up the other person like in a circus trick, balancing upwards. My fingers compensating and micro-adjusting so the fingertips would not ‘fall off’ the ends of his fingertips, like balancing on a the edge of a precipice, a high wire. Feeling pulses of movement and the heat transferring from my hands into his. Each finger would twitch.

Releasing our shut eyes- opening them made the task even harder. Now I had to worry about having to avert my gaze. When our eyes meet I look away, embarrassed. We are conditioned not to threaten each other with this gaze avoidance, I think. If I did this to my dog, he would look away, just the same. I glance round the room, looking at the others to see what they are doing, some relaxed, some in embarrassed discomfort, just like me…I carry on, this seems like it is taking hours, certainly not something I would have chosen to so but at last we are released, I drop my arms in absolute relief.

I wonder what I can take from this; the distortion of time, sensory input magnified with eyes closed.

This was Matthew’s viewpoint:

The contact zone moved. As our palms touched and our fingers aligned we knew this would be a long minute and a half. James’ hands felt large and warm. The pressure created between us was enough to sustain the strain of our extended limbs.

I could sense movement, twitches and some rigidity from James. Personally I was calm. A little apologetic for the coldness of my own hands. Questions started arriving. Was I sweating? Was I moving a lot? I felt like James was doing the moving, still I thought of the relationship between driver and passenger in a car. The driver anticipates.

After thirty or forty seconds my left index finger began to slip. It crept leftwards. Gradually heading for the valley. Would we soon interlock fingers? I didn’t move, curious to as to where this would go. James blinked first and corrected our alignment. The minute game of chicken was over.

When we opened our eyes James would not hold my gaze for more than a few seconds. Our separate selves had bonded for a few minutes there. I continued with the exercise and stared at James. Taking in his face, his eyes, his hair. He is several decades older than I am, I knew this change would happen to me too.


Part two

My viewpoint:

This time we did not touch – we closed our eyes  for 90 seconds then I used my phone to film in time laspse mode, observing my partner through the phone for 90 seconds.

With eyes closed, I was disconnected totally from him. The classroom disappeared, I was in meditative mode; since my practice of over 25 years of meditation, I am conditioned to draw within and I began to watch myself. Again, Gurdjieff watched over me so to speak, I was observing myself, my thoughts passing, music – memories of my days when I was in the ‘work’. Now, John Cale… drifting thoughts swirling, bringing my mind back… but still no appearance of my partner in front of me… until I realised I had a task to be in the room with my opposite number.

The 90 seconds seemed long, but I was comfortable this time, happy to spend another hour if need be.

The daylight returns and my task reappears, I hold my phone up and video Matthew in fast motion – maybe he would like to see it, it did not record any particular blow by blow representation, I wanted to shrink time if I ever came to look at it again. He looks a little uneasy, but I am thankful it was not me being observed. I saw him looking at me looking into my phone, he did not seem to like the idea, neither did I, like a sort of voyeuristic thing, I felt guilt. He was a victim, I was the prison warder forced to observe my prisoner. I was dominant in the exercise, not any better position to be in than the observed subject.

The time passed slower in the observation through the phone sequence, it was not enjoyable. We were back dealing with our intimacy despite giving each other permission to do this, I was glad the second part was over.

And Matthew’s view:

I’m searching for James with my eyes closed. We are no longer connected, only present together. The yellow and orange of my eyelids turns to a muddy green. The hairs on my fingers are bristling. They’re searching for contact. My stomach rumbles and I’m reminded of my hunger. I distract myself with a few bars of a song.

When we open our eyes this second time James has been told to take out his phone and views me through it. I stare dead-eyed into the lens. Knowing this black circle will be the locus of my attention for the next period, I settle in.

I try to move the camera with my stare. That is I’m trying to move the man. I visualise pushing the device away to the side. The phone does start to move, a hand swap indicates that this is fatigue not telekinesis.

James looks away from the camera. I know he doesn’t enjoy this, I find this fun.

How does my face look? Am I locking with his invisible eyes? In the pre-meditation I considered discreetly lifting my hood and pulling the cords tight. Not out of shame or shyness but to make James laugh upon opening his eyes.


Readings; Rose Woodcock and Nishat Awan

Digital Narratives and Witnessing: The Ethics of Engaging with Places at a Distance and Instrumental Vision by Rose Woodcock

We had two reading this week; the common theme was how technology impacts on our perception of the world. In the first, we hear of the ethics of engaging with Places at a distance, in the second reading, with objects ‘closer up’ – in our heads, as part of virtual reality.

Nishat Awan describes how we in the developed world have a distorted view of our surroundings, particularly of distant locations. He proposes that this has been brought upon to a large extent by the technologies of social media and also with the warfare technology of drones. He describes vividly his own direct experience of a locality of Gwadar, Pakistan and how it presents itself through the lens of digital media. Gwadar, his example mediates as a place, through the term power topologies [1], where notion of distance is removed. The remote sensing of places, digital maps and even connections with people over great distances, best put: “Topology in this context highlights the intensive nature of the world that such technologies create because as power reaches across space it is not so much traversing across a fixed space and time, as it is composing its own space–time.”

In addition, he points out how little critical engagement there is with the ways in which they mediate our engagement with place. He expands this, using an urgent example of localities in crisis, as humanitarian or war, or both. Haiti, for example, where humanitarian aid can be accelerated through tech without the need to get too caught up in the crisis itself, thus keeping the aid agencies out of harm’s way. One side effect of this is to create the false impression of the distant locality is in constant crisis.

He recalls as to how a crisis is communicated; Michael Buerk reporting the Ethiopian crisis for the BBC in 1982 – his report on the news gave us an immediate emotional response. This was perhaps the best and one early example of how aid is stimulated, now with digital media, it is central to the methodology of calling for help, the example used by Awan was the virtual reality film of a girl in  Za’atri refugee camp, Jordan shot in 2015; Clouds over Sidra, presented to the World Economic forum in Davos. This presents the story in a different way; “There is an authenticity and immediacy associated with such images, but at the same time they are easily exploited, misinterpreted, and hijacked by powerful actors”

Dronestream, an artwork by James Bridle (Tate) uses publicly available Google Earth to show the after effects of drone strikes. Quote: “the politics of witnessing takes another twist. When difficult stories are being told by distant others, then the testimony of presence is suddenly rendered ineffective.”

We hear another example of how technology has changed, through citizen reporting; Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, “tracking of missiles from Russia to parts of Ukraine under Russian control and of proving through this practice of tracking and location that a Russian-made missile was responsible for bringing down Malaysian Airways Flight MH17”… “what happens to the witness when the claims that are being made do not come from the testimony of individuals but are made through combining multiple narratives? Where do you locate the political subject in such an account and does it matter that witnessing can no longer be attributed to just one person? Are the multiple volunteers that contribute to Bellingcat the authors of this work or is it the various people from social media whose information has been used to piece together an account, or is it in actuality the figure of Higgins and his organization?”

These examples (and others in the paper) describe how spatial analysis with investigative journalism engage with places that are in conflict, where it is difficult to spend time in the field, however this perhaps oversimplifies the events that took place, despite their authenticity. The three emergent practices combine spatial analysis with investigative journalism to engage with places that are in conflict, where it is difficult to spend time in the field

They only tell part of the story; they lack the testimony of people on the ground, other types of seeing, as a feminist geopolitical viewpoint.

He describes at length the history of his chosen locality, Gwadar province, detailing its history and culminating in an earthquake disaster killing 800 people, largely ignored by the international media, how social media has played the greater part in healing from the disaster. However, this has not been without its down-side; ‘dirty linen’ has been aired as well.

Digital technologies have transformed how we engage with distant places, but these techniques have also come with their limitations, particularly with regard to witnessing events. However, the earthquake in Gwadar has shown how social media can ameliorate matters, where the broader lens of the international media misses it.

The second reading, Instrumental Vision by Rose Woodcock deals with another aspect of perceptual change through technology. She examines the ‘practice’ of vision and consider on what basis can vison have its own ‘materiality. She ask many questions; what comes first, pictures or the capacity to see things pictorially?

Woodcock describes the work of Gibson, a perceptual psychologist who worked on an instructional film for AAF Fighter pilots. He found that film was a far more effective means of training than any training manual- to “develop a theory of what a motion picture shot could do that nothing else could Gibson’s emphasis on how the animated display gives the observer a sense of “continuous covariation in time” and particularly, how it inserted the observer’s own view-point at the centre of the flow of images, is more like a description of a virtual reality display than of conventional cinema.”

She concludes that immersive stereoscopic VR is uniquely empowered to instantiate the lit environment, since it alone, as a system of visual representation, can array surfaces in three-dimensions; and it can illuminate itself. Virtual imaging technology is thus well fashioned as a fine tool for the creation, not of pictorial illusionistic space, but three-dimensional, corporeal “actual” space. She goes on to describe Caravaggio’s Supper at Emmaus, how the artist conveys the sense of space from 2D in oils with the use of reflective light, perspective and foreshort

“Realism” as opposed to “realness” thus marks a definitive difference between pictorial and real-world perception respectively. This difference is epistemological, rather than a matter of degree (for example, of detail or resolution), and corresponds to the way assumptions about what vision is for, find expression and manifest differentially within the enterprises of pictorial representation and the design of virtual worlds.


[1] Allen, J. 2011. Topological twists: Power’s shifting geographies. Dialogues in Human Geography 1 (3): 283–98.