Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!caen!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!hlab
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Report on Cyberspace Conference 2, Santa Cruz, CA, Apr 91
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.231146.19029@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 28 Apr 91 22:26:47 GMT
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu (Human Int. Technology Lab)
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Lines: 78
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu



>From The WELL, with permission of Kenny Meyer 
(kennym@well.sf.ca.us):

Topic   1:  VR CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRIVIA
# 83: Kenny Meyer (kennym)  Sun, Apr 28, '91  (00:01)  67 lines

I attended the Cyberspace II conference.  Two 14 hour days of 
extremely fast talk.  I never met a salesman who could hold a 
candle  to those deconstructionist historians and social 
theorists.  I was encouraged to over-hear a couple people say, "I 
almost understood parts of what they said."  That's the best 
claim I could make.

There was a good balance of presenters: liberal arts scholars, 
engineers, social scientists, and  entrepreneurs.  I understand 
that many made encore appearances from last year.  It would be 
tough to select any particular presentation as a highlight.  There 
wasn't a dog in the lot.  Here's the presentations that stick in my 
mind:

        * Ann Lasko-Harvill: Identity and Mask in Virtual Reality.
        * Stuart Moulthrop:  Paradise for Paranoids: Critical
            Hermeneutics of Cyberspace.
        * Brenda Laurel/Scott Fisher:  Art and Artistry in
            Telepresence.
        * Kathleen Biddick: Uncolonizing History in Cyberspace.
        * Chip Morningstar/Randy Farmer:  Cyberspace colonies
        * Don Byrd:  Cyberspace and Procioceptive Coherence: A
            Proposal.

I apologize for only dropping the titles.  The thought of 
summarizing all the talks is a little daunting.  Rather than the 
specifics, let me offer few general observations which might 
characterize the event.

      * The conference was run with a light touch.  The atmosphere
        was open and conducive to all kinds of discussion.
        Sometimes it felt like no one was in control.  This was
        especially true during the Friday night panel-discussion
        which became almost anarchistic when audience members
        began shouting demands of the panelists.   However, the
        fact that the talks and meals ran more or less according
        to schedule belied this feeling.   The chair, Sandy Stone,
        deserves a lot of credit for knowing when to show
        restraint.

      * The scholars tended to be pessimistic and the engineers
        optimistic.  The scholars made repeated warnings to the
        engineers and entrepreneurs that the development of VR
        technology was about to create a litany of social ills.
        As the conference wore on and the number of scholarly
        admonitions increased, the latter group seemed to grow
        more restive and defensive.

      * There was a great deal of discussion about VR/Cyberspace
        being the domain of the white middle class male; a
        predicament which was certain to lead to dire
        consequences.  Considering the "maturity" of the industry,
        I believe these concerns were grossly overstated and
        regretted the absence of an informed, articulate while
        middle class male apologist.  I was not alone; in
        discussion at the closing dinner, I heard a speaker who
        had warned us against white middle class male hegemony 
        say the that problem, while real, had been overstated.  
        I find this especially interesting in light of the related
        comments in April's ESQUIRE.  It might be a trend.

In retrospect, I think the conference generated a lot of energy.  
Not the kind that makes people go out and build things; rather, the 
pent-up kind that makes them want to talk the kind of talk that 
doesn't stop  until it has exhausted the possibilities -- talk as a 
way of  catharsis. It seems like there was a tremendous 
commotion, with  little visible effect.  It was a different kind of 
conference for me,  but maybe that's just because I have not 
attended an "academic" conference before.
--