Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As immersive media develops, creative technologies and the creative practices that they enable are introducing forms of multisensory experience which displace the visuality that has dominated media to date, reflecting a cultural emphasis on sight that, as Brian Winston has shown (1996) can be traced right back to the invention of perspective in the Renaissance. Immersive media experiences can be multi-modal and multi-sensory, with content reaching us not just through our eyes and ears but through forms of embodied experience including smell, touch and proprioception. These mediated forms of sensory engagement now intersect with documentary themes within Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality and Augmented Reality experiences, prompting a discourse concerned with the expanded fields and rhetorical and political affordances of immersive nonfiction (Kim, 2022; Rose, 2018). This paper will offer an initial mapping of projects that harness the opportunities represented by these multisensory registers. Through reference to case studies by The Feelies (Munduruku 2017), Anagram (Messages to a Post Human Earth 2021) and Marshmallow Laser Feast (We Live in An Ocean of Air 2018) we will explore how the entanglement with media allowed by novel sensory affordances is being deployed. Expanding on the entanglement of the immersant and the multi-modal media interface we will investigate what multisensory forms of storytelling might bring to the documentary project of illuminating, critiquing and reshaping our shared world. With media criticism dominated by visual and textual interpretation, we will turn to phenomenological film criticism as a starting point for an analysis of the forms of knowledge that emerge when documentary engages senses beyond the visual and aural modalities of the 20th century. We will draw on Laura Marks’ (2000) phenomenological conceptualisation of the body and embodied knowledge within cinematic experience. Marks calls the forms of knowledge derived from embodiment ‘tactile epistemologies’. These, she writes, ‘conceive of knowledge as something gained not on the model of vision, with its connotations of dominance, but through physical contact’. The paper will propose tactile epistemology as a rich conceptual framework through which to consider the forms of knowledge production at play within the multisensory engagements emerging within VR and MR nonfiction. With reference to content that engages environmental themes, we will explore the hypothesis that this generation of multisensory immersive experiences holds potential for an epistemological shift from a nonfiction media that relies on the ‘god-trick’ (Haraway 1988) of seeing everything from nowhere towards a paradigm based in situated knowledge. In this model, meaning emerges as the immersant explores their media surround and pays attention to the effects that their multisensory interaction produces. Knowledge isn’t gained through mastery but through openness, even vulnerability, in what Marks has called ‘a compassionate involvement with the world’ or Michael Taussig has termed a ‘yielding-knowing’. Within this framework, entanglement is not only a characteristic of the multisensory interface and its way of producing meaning, but a documentary methodology that encourages a relational perspective on the human position vis a vis the environment and the more-than-human world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».