Annotation 1:
Nguyen, Minh, Huy Tran, and Huy Le. VR Sickness. “Exploration of the 3D World on the Internet Using Commodity Virtual Reality Devices.” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 1, no. 3 (July 1, 2017): 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti1030015.
Keywords: Virtual Reality (VR), 3D, Sickness, Head-Mounted Display (HMD), Mobile
In this text, 'Virtual Reality (VR) on Smartphones' is the main topic of discussion, where the authors have examples of what existed in 2017, what platforms you can create content for them, and what the user may experience with these headsets. It lies in a heavily socio-cultural context where 'word-of-mouth' impacts the product's usage and 'bug fixing'. They have various ideas in this text; however, this annotation focuses on the "VR Sickness" chapter.
The authors review texts made in the early stages of VR game production (through the early '90s) that still reflect similar results today. This text is objective in stating facts about current information there is for the effects of VR sickness rather than personal experiences and their reviews on systems. It is a very neutral take, merely stating facts rather than opinions.
I found this interesting in how brief they were able to describe the many things they mention in this text; however, it seems to be under the pretext of having prior knowledge or understanding what they speak of as not to get lost in it.
Even in its briefness, this text is helpful in my research as I understand VR and game design and that it may help in my little research towards VR sickness/motion sickness. However, as it is not my main focus, I find that this small chapter does contain as much as I need to know to start furthering my findings with it in my project. So, as to say, it is relevant but only to a somewhat small degree but a semi-important one for me. Other parts of the full-text could perhaps come in handy if I extend any play options to mobile devices for accessibility. For now, it is set to just being PC only with the HTC Vive Pro VR kit.
Annotation 2:
vgartsite. “Expressive Evolution of Video Games.” Video Games Art (blog), November 10, 2018. https://vgartsite.wordpress.com/2018/11/10/expressive-evolution-of-video-games/.
Keywords: Art, Video Games (VG), Expressive Art, Virtual Reality, Entertainment
This text argues that video games are expressive art, up there with cinema, novels, etc. Many do not see this value as it is relatively young (40-50 years old). It lies in the historical and socio-cultural context. As games are ever-evolving and talked about within most social circles, it fills the social and cultural aspects. Because it is so young, it simply cannot stand next to other contemporary media/art in the historical sense.
While it is in the form of a blog post, this text is reliable as it references a past text of the author's; this is an extension of it. Although it is pretty biased with the author arguing for video games, it also brings up many facts about games as an expressive art that many refute. It is intriguing that while the author fights for video games to be portrayed as an expressive art, they also understand that many do not view it as such. For this, I feel the argument should be more robust, less like it could "step on toes".
As stated previously, I believe the argument could be more assertive, making more of an impact in the video games as expressive art's favor. There is a sharp point they bring up where they state, "There can be entertainment without art, but there can be no art without entertainment!" this, I feel, reinforces the idea of VG as an expressive art. Video games are entertaining, but they are also a form of art; therefore, they should be seen like it. This text relates to my research and project as it is something I am looking at but from a contemporary lens and involving art galleries. It begins by asking the question of whether the entertainment will come from the interaction or the gameplay.
Annotation 3:
Smith, Barry C. “Museums and the Embodied Mind: Sensory Engagement with Artworks and Architecture.” Architectural Design 90, no. 6 (2020): 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2636.
Keywords: Museum, Gallery, Senses, Multisensory, Engagement
In this article, the author examines the sensory effect on engagement within art galleries and museums. They talk about proprioception and interoception as senses themselves, as the author states, "the sense of where your limbs are without having to look at them or feel them." The critical contexts are historical and socio-cultural as the engagement with space can be built off of memory and sharing this memory. They argue that the multiple senses are what drive an experience.
Information I have found from this article is referenced and peer-reviewed; it deals mainly with facts about the senses and what controls them. It has an objective nature in the fact-giving but still features bias in how the author helps you think about this text, steering you in the direction they want. They use loss or disruption to provide examples of what an experience may be like, putting the reader into an imaginary situation. It is an interesting piece as it deals with something I intend to look further into with experimentation. The experience inside a gallery or museum can have a lasting impression on someone the more their senses are provoked (with evocation).
In finding this article, I have almost been taken full-circle regarding multisensory experiences or the Sensorium. The idea that senses directly influence our experiences and the memory of them is something I would like to focus on in my research and how I can generate them with a lack of the true sense. As our mood and response can be affected by the surrounding environment, how can I create this with the limited senses available while in Virtual Reality? Furthermore, is the limitation a limitation, or can I break the boundary? In encapsulating this and extending further, I will create a more evocative space for the setting and interaction to take place.
Comments