I take your point about representation – and in terms of the developing 3D world I’m sure we’ll see more and more shifts towads abstracted and metaphorical spaces. You and I have both read and contributed to all those doscussions in SLED, SLRL, etc.

For my part, in education, there are often good reasons to keep some things realistic/representational. My work in Process Drama at this stage is about playing out fictional scenarios drawn from real-life stimulus. In such cases the approximation of recgnisable places is quite a useful thing.

I tend to think too that if we are to find uses for Second Life in training – then a realistic airport will probably serve better than one drawing on surrealism and expressionism… in the short to mid term anyway.

Yes, we’ve all questioned the representational aspects of many builds in SL – and I think thta it also says quite a lot about where people are coming from – they want the familiar. Recreational users of SL seem to be chasing the vicarious experience of having in virtual life what eludes them in real-life… and some are bridging the gap – look at the fashion and club industries in SL… not to mention the more adult oriented pastimes.

The academic debate is probably best when contextualised and can be seen as petty critique in more general forums – the responses to your comments above seem to evidence that.

Yes, you are right – but in this case I don’t think the readership cares.

I take your point about representation – and in terms of the developing 3D world I’m sure we’ll see more and more shifts towads abstracted and metaphorical spaces. You and I have both read and contributed to all those doscussions in SLED, SLRL, etc.

For my part, in education, there are often good reasons to keep some things realistic/representational. My work in Process Drama at this stage is about playing out fictional scenarios drawn from real-life stimulus. In such cases the approximation of recgnisable places is quite a useful thing.

I tend to think too that if we are to find uses for Second Life in training – then a realistic airport will probably serve better than one drawing on surrealism and expressionism… in the short to mid term anyway.

Yes, we’ve all questioned the representational aspects of many builds in SL – and I think thta it also says quite a lot about where people are coming from – they want the familiar. Recreational users of SL seem to be chasing the vicarious experience of having in virtual life what eludes them in real-life… and some are bridging the gap – look at the fashion and club industries in SL… not to mention the more adult oriented pastimes.

The academic debate is probably best when contextualised and can be seen as petty critique in more general forums – the responses to your comments above seem to evidence that.

Yes, you are right – but in this case I don’t think the readership cares.

This was not a criticism of you or your work – I didn’t refer to the quality of the build which is fine, it was more about the on-going discussion of things in SL being overtly representational of the real world.

These builds are fine for 1st time SL’ers and as 90% of SL is like this then there is obviously a demand and you are making a living, great. My point is about those who have been inworld for a significant period of time and who have the view that another conference room, another shopping mall, another suburbia house does nothing to evolve SecondLife or humanity itself. In my commercial SL work I constantly battle against these issues – but I try to help the client realise that for longevity building a replica of their showroom or board room is more about vanity and not about engaging inhabitants for any length of time or evolving the metaverse. The period where new entrants walk around amazed at ‘traditional’ clones of interiors is around 2-3 weeks I reckon? What do you think? I have long been a member of the SLED list who have done a great deal of research into the best environments for learning, collaboration and engagement and it is not a replica of a classroom.

I wont contact you directly as this was not a criticism of your work but a general one about the direction that SL has and is moving.

Best Gary

The build was not only a labor of love for a long time real-world friend of mine, it was designed with consideration to Lowell’s budget and economization of prims. It was created for a specific function and purpose; had Lowell requested something more surreal or futuristic, I would have been happy see to it that he received it, but he did not. Since an important rule of establishing good business relations is to listen to your customer and delivering what they want, I believe the build is exactly what it was meant to be.

Just because I can create the abnormal, that doesn’t mean I always should.

I fail to see why it was necessary for you to criticize my work, or what you hoped to accomplish by it, but as you are the first and only person to do so, I’ve decided not to let it bother me. My firm’s subsequent builds have repeatedly received praise and admiration, and our services have been in such demand that I have actually been able to quit my regular job and work in sl full time. I hardly think that would be possible if my abilities were as rudimentary as you imply.

However, I am not adverse to constructive criticism, nor do I live with the illusion that all I do is perfection; therefore I would like to offer you the ability to give your opinions, insights, and feedback to me directly. You can do so by e-mailing me at kat-@-slencoredesign-.-com, or sending me an IM in-world. This would be more desirable to me than to stumble across your disdain in a public forum.

Thank you,
Kat

This was not a criticism of you or your work – I didn’t refer to the quality of the build which is fine, it was more about the on-going discussion of things in SL being overtly representational of the real world.

These builds are fine for 1st time SL’ers and as 90% of SL is like this then there is obviously a demand and you are making a living, great. My point is about those who have been inworld for a significant period of time and who have the view that another conference room, another shopping mall, another suburbia house does nothing to evolve SecondLife or humanity itself. In my commercial SL work I constantly battle against these issues – but I try to help the client realise that for longevity building a replica of their showroom or board room is more about vanity and not about engaging inhabitants for any length of time or evolving the metaverse. The period where new entrants walk around amazed at ‘traditional’ clones of interiors is around 2-3 weeks I reckon? What do you think? I have long been a member of the SLED list who have done a great deal of research into the best environments for learning, collaboration and engagement and it is not a replica of a classroom.

I wont contact you directly as this was not a criticism of your work but a general one about the direction that SL has and is moving.

Best Gary

I’ll leave the first point on the build itself – I’m happy and I’ve had a lot of good feedback. I only ever wanted a basic, functional community space and I believe I have that. I also am on a very tight budget given no corporate or government subsidisation so was more than pleased with the result. The two education events held to date were both successful – feedback indicates people were able to use our building as a base for wider tours / excursions. both events involved people who’d never seen SL before.

On the second point of whether it’s politically correct I’ll take it you are alluding to the potential conflict of claiming impartiality versus making money from my in-world build. It’s a totally valid question and one that should be asked of any media outlet. Prior to posting about the facilities being avilable, I updated the FAQ with a second point under ‘Do you have any potential conflicts of interest’ section:

“As per this post, we offer our in-world facilities for hire. There is no cost for not-for-profit entities. We may cover events held at our facilities, but only when they’re Australian-based and with disclosure of any payment within the article.”

Hope that clarifies and as always would be keen to hear from others on whether they feel we’re compromising ourselves in any facet.

The build was not only a labor of love for a long time real-world friend of mine, it was designed with consideration to Lowell’s budget and economization of prims. It was created for a specific function and purpose; had Lowell requested something more surreal or futuristic, I would have been happy see to it that he received it, but he did not. Since an important rule of establishing good business relations is to listen to your customer and delivering what they want, I believe the build is exactly what it was meant to be.

Just because I can create the abnormal, that doesn’t mean I always should.

I fail to see why it was necessary for you to criticize my work, or what you hoped to accomplish by it, but as you are the first and only person to do so, I’ve decided not to let it bother me. My firm’s subsequent builds have repeatedly received praise and admiration, and our services have been in such demand that I have actually been able to quit my regular job and work in sl full time. I hardly think that would be possible if my abilities were as rudimentary as you imply.

However, I am not adverse to constructive criticism, nor do I live with the illusion that all I do is perfection; therefore I would like to offer you the ability to give your opinions, insights, and feedback to me directly. You can do so by e-mailing me at kat-@-slencoredesign-.-com, or sending me an IM in-world. This would be more desirable to me than to stumble across your disdain in a public forum.

Thank you,
Kat