The Virtual Space Theory

The experience of theater is quite unique: You enter a hall filled with seats facing a curtain over a stage, and at a certain moment the lights go out, the curtain rises, and a seemingly other world is revealed – lying physically right there in front of you. What is the nature of this ‘other world’? Does the term ‘virtual’ capture it? If it does, how exactly, and if not, why not? While such questions have surely been addressed from the perspective of theater theory, this blog post rather discusses them from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory.

It might initially seem natural to describe the phenomenon of theater as ‘virtual’, but this is mainly due to the multiple inconsistent uses of this term as discussed in a previous post. And although it might still make sense metaphorically, this term does not fully capture the essence of the issue. The key to realizing this is to ask ourselves: where is what we experience in a theater?

To begin with, according to The Virtual Space Theory, visual experiences can only take place in one of three types of space: physical, mental, and virtual. Physical space is the physical world in which our bodies and their surroundings are located; mental space is our mind’s eye, where we replay visual memories and construct visual ideas; and virtual space is the space that is seen through pictorial images of any kind. The exact distinction between the three as well as this particular definition of virtual space are fully elaborated in my book “The Architecture of Virtual Space” and in the article derived from it.

From this point of view, then, in which of these three spaces does theater occur? The answer is simple and straightforward: in physical space. Since the stage is physical, the sets are physical, and the actors are physical – the phenomenon of theater occurs in physical space. To understand theater, therefore, is to understand what exactly happens in the physical world during the performance of a theater play. This is probably best accomplished by comparing the physical stage before and after the curtain rises:

For example, let’s take a theatrical performance of the ancient Greek play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. If we were to walk onto the stage and peek behind the curtain just before the performance begins, what might we find? A physical stage that is within the physical building of the particular theater we are visiting; various props and constructions made of wood or plaster, covered in paint so as to appear to be stone, arranged such that they seem like part of the ancient Greek city of Thebes; and actors wearing make-up and costumes soon after having worn jeans and talking on a cell phone just a little while earlier. And yet, once the lights go out and the curtain rises, the physical space of the stage and everything on it is totally transformed: What now lies before us is the ancient city of Thebes, it is built of stone, and the people walking in it are living and talking ancient Greeks. Furthermore, it is precisely because this is so that we even go to the theater.

What exactly is the nature of this transformation? Since it is all happening in the physical world, the term ‘virtual’ does not quite capture it. Alternatively, to say that it’s all in our mind does not account for what is providing such an experience in the first place. Rather, what is happening here is a simulation: Within the socially agreed convention of the time and space of a theatrical performance, the stage, sets, and actors function as physical simulacra (or ‘objects that perform a simulation’). Concertedly, they transform from mere stage, sets, and actors to become ancient Thebes, buildings, kings and queens. Yet there is nothing virtual about it.

This, however, does not mean that virtual space can never participate in the formation of such a theatrical experience – quite the contrary, it frequently does. To create the simulation of a (factual or fictional) physical place on a theater stage, a theatrical production is not limited only to props and physical constructions, but may also employ pictorial images:

Often made on a large scale and strategically positioned on the stage, the virtual places that are seen through such images can be made to appear to be direct extensions of the physical space of the stage. In such cases, the virtual places and virtual objects that are seen through these images function as virtual simulacra.

When such images are placed alongside the physical props that are located on the stage, virtual and physical simulacra seamlessly merge in the creation of a continuous visible world – a simulation of another time and place enacted for us in the physical space of the theater hall at the present moment.

This post continues the discussion of architectural drawings and models from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory. Vladimir Tatlin’s design for The Monument to The Third International (1919) will provide the examples in this discussion.

Architectural drawings and models are primarily a means of communication. They allow a team of planners to communicate their ideas during the process of designing a building, they allow them to communicate the proposal to the client, and they enable the builders to be directed towards its correct construction. For such purpose, planners have several means of communication available, and each of them embodies a different kind of relationship to the physically constructed building:

Model – a model is a physical simulation. Though it may differ from the building it simulates in materials, scale or level of detail, within the context of an architectural project, it is simply a physical object that stands for another physical object (whether the latter exists at that time or not). Nothing virtual here.

Drawing – Plans, elevations, and sections are a language, or what I call in my book The Architecture of Virtual Space a ‘visual text’. Among the people who have learned this language, the purpose of such visual text is to invoke a mental image of a building in the mind’s eye of each person who ‘reads’ it – even though there is no such building in the drawing itself. When such ‘mental buildings’ are successfully formed, they too can be argued to be a simulation of a physical building, and hopefully, the mental simulation of everyone involved is more or less identical. Yet it is only the mental building that is the simulation – not the drawing which invoked it. Even so, according to The Virtual Space Theory, mental is still not the same as virtual.

Perspective and isometric views – Whether drawn by hand or produced using digital tools, these are pictorial images through which we can see a visual space with a building located inside of it. They are distinct from architectural drawings, but they are another key element of architectural communication and will assist us in this discussion. According to The Virtual Space Theory, this is the only case in which the use of the term ‘virtual’ is actually appropriate. In that sense, such images show a virtual building, and we could even say that this building functions as a ‘virtual simulation’ of the physical building that it stands for. Yet here too, it is not the image itself that simulates the physical building. What performs the simulation is rather the virtual building that is seen inside of the visible space of this image.

Therefore, architectural drawings and models are not virtual. They are simply a collection of methods for creating a simulation of a physical building – or in technical terms, a simulacrum. A model is a physical simulacrum; plans, sections, and elevations are a means of invoking a mental simulacrum; and perspective and isometric views create a virtual simulacrum.

Ultimately, however, their function as simulacra is independent of the changing status of the building they were made to simulate. Whether or not such a building has ever been (or ever will be) physically built does not affect the role of its models and drawings. In other words, if a project is cancelled, its means of communication do not change their nature as a result. As long as the context of their production was to communicate a physical architecture project, they remain methods of creating physical, mental, and virtual simulacra of a physical building.

How do architectural drawings and models compare to physically-built buildings? What is the exact connection between them? Does the answer depend on whether or not the architectural project exists also as a physical building? These are common questions in the discussion of architecture, and this relationship is sometimes described using the term ‘virtual’. But is it a correct description, and if it is, in which sense of the word is it so? This post and the next address these questions from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory.

I believe that one of the reasons the term ‘virtual’ is so often used to describe the elusive relationship between buildings and architectural drawings and models is that ‘virtual’ is an elusive term to which various meanings can easily be attached – as I discussed in an earlier post. There are quite a few ways of understanding what an architectural drawing or model is, and strangely enough, most of them can be expressed using the term ‘virtual’ – albeit meaning something else entirely each time:

It is not the real building – We might consider a physically-built building to be ‘the real thing’, and thus the drawing or model as not being so. In this case, the term ‘virtual’ would fit well using its popular meaning as ‘non-real’.

It is an imaginary building – We might think of drawings and models as a representation of a building that exists only in the minds of the people who are making or viewing them. If so, we could apply the common use of ‘virtual’ as referring to something whose existence is only ‘imaginary’.

It is a computer-generated building – Since drawings and models are increasingly produced using digital technology, we might associate their contents with the tools with which they were produced. In such case, we would use ‘virtual’ as a synonym for ‘digital’.

It will/could have become a building – One of the philosophical uses of ‘virtual’ refers to the unrealized potential of something, like an acorn that holds within it the potential to become a fully grown tree. In that somewhat poetic sense, an architectural drawing or model might be considered to be a ‘virtual’ building. Even so, it is an idea which the term ‘potential’ expresses much more accurately than ‘virtual’ does.

From the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory, however, ‘virtual’ has none of the above meanings, and none of them fully captures the essence of what architectural drawings or models are: The obvious fact that they are not the same as a physically-built building is hardly their main attribute; Imagination is a mental faculty which was (hopefully) used in the process of designing the building; Digital tools may or may not have been used to produce the drawings (and sometimes also the models); And to consider them to be ‘potential buildings’ overlooks their particular role in the fulfillment of such potential.

So what exactly are architectural drawings and models? An accurate definition of them is the topic of the next post.

What might a blog called “The Virtual Space Theory” actually be about? The range of expectations raised by such a name is extremely wide: The Internet? Computer technology? Social networks? The growing culture around them? Online 3D worlds? All forms of 3D graphics? Imaginary worlds in general? The realm of human imagination? Human perception? Human consciousness? Collective consciousness?

Mix all of the above and you get a rough idea of the problematic common notion of the ‘virtual’, as well as an overview of some of the topics that are confounding contemporary civilization – all strangely expressed in one vague multi-purpose word. The aim of The Virtual Space Theory, then, is to try to bring clarity to this field and to propose a particular understanding of it.

If we observe the matter closely, we find that most of the uses of ‘virtual’ fall under a few specific categories. Furthermore, we discover that most of these categories actually have an existing word that conveys their meaning much more clearly and consistently. This will help us narrow down the possible meanings of ‘virtual’ in search of the essence of what this term might most accurately be used to refer to.

Virtual as meaning ‘digital’

Computers. Digital devices. Internet technology. Online services. In such contexts, referring to anything as being ‘virtual’ is usually just a way of saying that it is created and facilitated by digital means. As detailed in a separate post, this is not what this blog is about. Besides, the term ‘digital’ addresses such cases much more directly.

Virtual as meaning ‘metaphysical’

Non-real. Non-existent. Abstract. ‘Virtual’ has become a blanket term for referring to all kinds of phenomena and ideas that somehow seem to exist, though on some other level they actually do not. This is quite a complex matter which is discussed in a separate post, and much better covered by the term ‘metaphysical’.

Virtual as meaning ‘mental’

The human mind. The imagination. Dreams and visions. We can visualize them, we can experience them, but they are not part of the world ‘out there’. It is a topic thoroughly discussed in my book “The Architecture of Virtual Space”, and mentioned also in an article derived from it. In short, the point is that calling them ‘virtual’ is rather inaccurate – the term ‘mental’ captures their essence far more precisely.

Virtual as meaning ‘perceptual’

This is a much more elusive use of the term ‘virtual’, since it seems to combine several of its common uses into yet another distinct meaning. In that sense, it is a way of referring to things that may have an independent existence of their own, but used when we wish to express how the particular way we experience them might be different from what they actually are. This is the topic of a current research project of mine which will be published in the future, and which the term ‘perceptual’ covers with much more accuracy.

Virtual as meaning ‘what we perceive through pictorial images’

3D Worlds. Video games. Film special effects. 3D graphics creation tools. In that sense, ‘virtual’ is used to describe what we see in images of a particular kind: These are images which present pictorial content, which were produced and presented digitally, which we experience as presenting things that are outside of our immediate world, and which are often the product of their creators’ imaginations.

And yet there is something ‘virtual’ about them beyond any of the meanings of ‘virtual’ discussed above: It is not only ‘digital’, it is not quite ‘metaphysical’, it is not just ‘mental’, nor is it ‘perceptual’. Rather, it is the experience that what we see through such an image is not merely a flat pattern of light and color – but a living, existing, and visually accessible place.

The Virtual Space Theory, therefore, proposes that the key to clarifying the term ‘virtual’ is to arrive at an understanding of it as meaning ‘what we perceive through pictorial images’. And to achieve this, the inevitable path goes way beyond digital techniques, and requires a thorough exploration of the experiences given by former techniques and the traditional theories that support them.

For this reason – and despite the multiple meanings typically associated with ‘virtual’ – the central themes of this blog are pictorial images, on one hand, and the use of architecture as a means of creating an experience of place through them, on the other. The common uses of ‘virtual’ will obviously still remain – at least metaphorically – but The Virtual Space Theory complements them with a coherent, systematic, and well-defined meaning as a proposed point of reference.

The previous post presented some of the varied uses of the term ‘real’ with respect to pictorial images. In this post I would like to focus particularly on the use of this term as a way of describing the technique by which an image was produced. In that sense, the term ‘real’ is often used to denote a pictorial image which was made with the technique of photography, as opposed to one which was made with some form of ‘special effects’– or in more recent times, by using computer graphic programs. In this context, then, to say that something in a pictorial image is real would be to say that we assume that the image is a photograph, and that there indeed was a corresponding physical object in front of the camera when that photo was taken.

Such an approach towards pictorial images seemed to work fine for many years since the techniques of making them could usually be quite easily discerned. As CG technology is improving, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to truly figure out how an image was made, and the irrelevance of this notion of what’s real is becoming ever more obvious.

The approach of The Virtual Space Theory in this matter is that regardless of how a pictorial image might have been produced, what we see in it has its own independent existence as a virtual place in virtual space. In other words, it considers it to be irrelevant whether what we see in a pictorial image indicates what was in front of the camera, or whether it was achieved through some cinematic trick. Instead, The Virtual Space Theory focuses the discussion on the virtual place which has been created as a result.

The recent release of the film Avatar (James Cameron, 2009) makes this point perfectly evident. In this film Cameron created a virtual world called ‘Pandora’, complete with richly detailed landscapes, vegetation, and life-forms. When watching it there is no way you could distinguish the line between what was physically present in the studio and what was generated using computer graphics. They completely blend together in the creation of a continuous and consistent virtual world. The following video is a documentary-like presentation of that world:

The visual achievements of Avatar clearly demonstrate many of the principles of The Virtual Space Theory, as well as emphasize the irrelevance of trying to decipher how an image was made. James Cameron himself actually explains these issues very clearly in the following interview (starting at 00:37):

One of the common approaches to understanding pictorial images, especially in photography and film, is to consider them in terms of how real they are. Following the release of the film Avatar (James Cameron, 2009), this series of posts will explore this idea and the way it is being challenged by the recent achievements in image-making. The idea of what’s real has many aspects and layers to it, and has been a recurring topic in philosophical debates for millennia. These posts will obviously not get into all of them, yet it is interesting to try and observe what might be behind the contemporary everyday usage of this term with respect to pictorial images.

When we look at a pictorial image and say that what we see in it is real, there are several things that we might mean by that. For one, it could be a way of saying that we consider that what we see in it has an equivalent in the physical world. Also, it could be a way of saying that the technique used for making the image was that of photography. In some cases, it could be a way of saying that what we see in this image is consistent and believable enough to be considered as something that could have existed in the physical world, even though it might not.

For example, the cathedral in Karl Friedrich Schinkel’s painting Cathedral over a Town may indeed seem very real. Not because the painting looks like a photograph, but because its visual contents are quite convincing and believable. However, in the sense of having a physical equivalent, that cathedral is not real because there is no (and never has been) such a cathedral in the physical world – it is Schinkel’s own invention which he made specifically for the painting.

The following example, however, challenges these notions of what’s real quite a bit. It is a video which presents several famous buildings using advanced computer graphics, combined with unmistakable personal talent. Called The Third & The Seventh, it was made by Alex Roman in homage to the arts of Architecture and Cinema. This beautiful video runs 12 minutes long, and it is highly recommended to watch it in full-screen view:

In the context of our discussion, the contents of this video are visually very convincing, and in this sense they surely seem real. Additionally, the places we see in it are also real in the sense that buildings just like them indeed exist also in the physical world. And yet, in the sense of ‘real’ as meaning ‘photographed’, what we see in this video is not real at all: Even though it looks as if this video was filmed on location, everything in it is computer-generated.