Voluntary Movement in Architectural Representation: the Exploration of Video Game Technology in Architecture
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________March 27, 2008 I, _________________________________________________________,Dionisius Mireli Dwityabaswara hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Science in: Architecture It is entitled: Voluntary Movement in Architectural Representation: The Exploration of Video Game Technology in Architecture This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________John E. Hancock _______________________________David G. Saile _______________________________Jose M. Kozan _______________________________ _______________________________ Voluntary Movement in Architectural Representation The Exploration of Video Game Technology in Architecture A Thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning 2008 by Dionisius Mireli Dwityabaswara Bachelor in Architecture, University of Gadjah Mada, 2003 Committee Chair: John E. Hancock Committee Members: David G. Saile Jose M. Kozan Abstract Architecture has just recently started to explore the emerging potential of real‐time rendering (video game) technology. This thesis argues that such technology provides for an improved sense of “being there,” compared with previous architectural three‐dimensional representation methods. Current methods typically put individuals in the role of spectators who passively examine the space in the represented architecture. The new interactive medium enables individuals to be more actively involved with the representational environment, which in turn makes for a better understanding of its spatial, experiential effects. The sort of viewer involvement specific to this research is the ability to actively and voluntarily traverse the virtual environment in a manner similar to the voluntary movement capability of real‐life presence. In order to demonstrate the potential of an architectural representation method that allows for voluntary movement through space, this thesis will investigate current philosophical and practical discourse, as well as directly experiment with the technology by building a demonstration. Recent theoretical and philosophical discussions of digital technology and real‐ time rendering raise a variety of arguments, both positive and skeptical, about how we may encounter physically non‐existent environments. Several philosophical bases for the discourse will be investigated, such as Merleau‐Ponty’s theory of the perception of space. Merleau‐Ponty tries to restore the cognitive role of the body against a philosophical tradition begun with Descartes that emphasizes the mind, arguing that in order to learn, the physical body has to be present. Learning requires “an active body coping with things.” (Dreyfus, 2001, p. 57) This account shows that a body, or a self, who is able to cope voluntarily with things is required for spatial perception, which is exactly what this technology offers as an enhancement over passive modes of representation. While real‐time rendering technology cannot entirely substitute for ii the presence of a real‐life body, this mode of representation will provide a fuller, more engaged understanding of a represented space, considerably superior to any previous three‐dimensional architectural representation. Keywords Architectural representation, real‐time rendering technology, voluntary movement, virtual reality, video game iii This page intentionally left blank iv Dedication To my Parents, Flore and Emil. v Acknowledgement Foremost, I would like to thank my advisor Professor John E. Hancock, who shared with me his amazing expertise and insight, as well as his valuable attention, guidance, and endurance. I am also indebted to my committee members Professor David G. Saile and Professor Jose M. Kozan, for their wonderful insight and support. I would like to thank James Bradford, Nnamdi Elleh, Udo Greinacher, Ellen Guerretaz, Aarati Kanekar, Adrian Parr and Patrick Snadon, amazing professors, and Kim Lawson and Pat Rogers, staff. My gratitude extends to the University of Cincinnati and especially to CERHAS (Center for Electronic Reconstruction of Historical and Archaeological Sites) for providing me with means to carry out my research. The enthusiastic friendship of Elizabeth Bartley and Ferenc Traser from CERHAS has been invaluable. I would like to thank my colleagues Ana Botez, Ren “Vita” Lanbin, Diane Leakas, Aparna Madhavan, Xiang Huang, Laura Vas‐Traser, Banu Bedel, Siddarth Puri, Mihai Ivan, Aditei Puplampu, Kenneth French, Seunghan Paek, Mitchell Sipus, Juliana Zanotto, Priyanka Koul, and Lindsay Guinther for their interest and inspirational comments. I am indebted to Granita Ika Zulaycha, Laretna T. Adishakti, Punto Wijayanto and Kusuma Rully for never‐ending support from the other side of the globe. I would like to thank Dick Thomas and Steed Hammond Paul, Inc. for providing me with time flexibility to finish this thesis, and for letting me use their technologies for my experiment. I am grateful to Sarah Stephens for timely editing. Last, and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife Florentina Popescu for her encouragement, broad knowledge, precious insights and never‐ending support throughout this process; without her, this thesis could not have been finished. vi Table of Contents Abstract _________________________________________________________ ii Keywords ______________________________________________________ iii Dedication ______________________________________________________ v Acknowledgement _______________________________________________ vi Table of Contents ________________________________________________ 1 Table of Figures _________________________________________________ 3 1 Introduction _________________________________________________ 6 2 Media Technologies Revisited ________________________________ 12 2.1 Evolution of Media ___________________________________________________________ 12 2.1.1 The Perspective and Scale Drawing _________________________________________ 12 2.1.2 Computer‐Aided Design ___________________________________________________ 14 2.1.3 Computer Graphics (Animation) or CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) _________ 14 2.1.4 Three‐Dimensional Interactive Media ________________________________________ 16 2.1.5 The Future Medium _______________________________________________________ 17 2.2 Learning from Video Games __________________________________________________ 18 2.2.1 Categorizing Video Games _________________________________________________ 20 2.2.2 Playing Video Games ______________________________________________________ 21 2.2.3 Early Forms of Video Games _______________________________________________ 24 2.2.4 The Platformer Evolution: Prince of Persia ___________________________________ 26 2.2.5 A Personal Nightmare: F.E.A.R. _____________________________________________ 36 2.2.6 The Simulation of Life: TES IV – Oblivion ____________________________________ 39 2.2.7 Living in Another World: Second Life _______________________________________ 41 2.2.8 Video Gaming Technology Implementations in Architectural Visualization _______ 46 2.3 Summary ___________________________________________________________________ 50 3 Theoretical Challenge ________________________________________ 52 3.1 Background Question ________________________________________________________ 53 3.2 Theoretical Issues Explored ___________________________________________________ 57 3.2.1 Subjectivity and Belief _____________________________________________________ 57 3.2.2 Space and Place ___________________________________________________________ 59 3.2.3 Virtual Reality Revisited ___________________________________________________ 60 3.2.4 Voluntary Movement ______________________________________________________ 63 Table of Contents ‐ 1 3.2.5 The Matrix’s Solution to Mediated Virtual Reality _____________________________ 64 3.3 Philosophical Interactive Media Critics _________________________________________ 69 3.3.1 Role of the Body (Merleau‐Ponty) ___________________________________________ 69 3.3.2 Telepresence and Distance Learning (Hubert L. Dreyfus) _______________________ 73 3.3.3 The Art Argument (Martin Heidegger) ______________________________________ 76 3.3.4 The Cinesthetic Subject (Vivian Sobchack) ____________________________________ 78 3.4 Summary ___________________________________________________________________ 81 4 The Technical Exploration ____________________________________ 83 4.1 How 3DRTR Technology Works (Technical) ____________________________________ 83 4.1.1 The Hardware ____________________________________________________________ 84 4.1.2 The Software _____________________________________________________________ 87 4.1.3 3DRTR Engine ____________________________________________________________ 89 4.1.4 The Mediator Device ______________________________________________________ 90 4.2 The Experiment ______________________________________________________________ 92 4.2.1 About Toraja _____________________________________________________________ 93 4.2.2 The Tongkonan (Toraja House) of the Torajans _________________________________ 94 4.2.3 The Spatial Arrangement __________________________________________________ 97 4.2.4 The Virtual Tondok _______________________________________________________ 100 4.3 Summary __________________________________________________________________