Virtual Reality in the Age of

Telepresence

Ken Goldberg
Those interested in understanding electronic media are eventually
drawn to the deep chasm that divides ’Virtual reality’ from
’telepresence’. The chasm has its origins in human perception,
epistemology, and ontology: factors which have evolved over millions of
years and been subjects of inquiry for at least two millennia. However,
the shifting technological vegetation in this chasm can obscure its
underlying topology. To understand the two forms and make sense of
their differences, it is helpful to look at the relation between virtual
reality (VR) and telepresence: it bears a similarity to the relation
between painting and photography. To paraphrase Walter Benjamin,’ J

the question is not whether telepresence is VR, but rather how might
telepresence transform the nature of electronic art?
Virtual reality presents a simulacrum, a synthetic construction; in
contrast, telepresence provides access to a remote physical
environment. With telepresence, what is being experienced is distal
rather than simulacral. That said, there is no universal agreement on the
definitions of VR and telepresence. Unfortunately, they are sometimes
used interchangeably in studies of electronic immersion.’ However, my
concern is not with the physiological and psychological issues of
immersion, but with perceptions of fiction and reality.
The word ’virtual reality’ was coined by Jaron Lanier in 1979.3 Its
oxymoronic richness comes from ’virtual: being in essence or effect, not
in facet (my italics).4 Pierre L6vy’ points out that virtual in this context
should be balanced against ’actual’: ’reality: actual being or existence
of anything, in distinction from mere appearance; fact’ (my italiCS).6 For
our purposes here, we can define virtual reality as the presentation of

perceptual information that (1) ’realistically’ simulates a fictitious 3D

environment and (2) allows the user to choose a spatial viewpoint (i.e.
to move through this environment). This definition is broad enough to
include the popular Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML), the
standard for 3D rendering on the WWW.
The engineering of useful telepresence is an active area of research for
space, undersea, and medical applications.’ The source of the word
’telepresence’ was reported by Marvin Minsky: ’To convey the idea of
these remote-control tools, scientists often use the words teleoperators or
telefactors.I prefer to call them telepresences, a name suggested by my
 34

futurist friend Pat Gunkel’.8 The word itself comes from ’tele’, Greek for
distance; and ’presence: the sense of proximity in time and spoce’.9
Thus telepresence also has rich oxymoronic overtones. For the purpose
of this article, telepresence can be defined as the presentation of
perceptual information that claims to correspond to a remote physical
reality. It is important to note that it is not at all obvious how to verify
this claim: telepresence, like photography, can be doctored.’°
Two examples of electronic art provide landmarks on either side of the
VR/telepresence chasm. For convenience, I will refer to the primary
authors although both are collaborative artworks.
Char Davies’ Osmose (1995) combines high-end graphics workstations,
body-mounted sensors, and a head-mounted display to create the effect
that a viewer is bodily immersed in a synthetic environment.&dquo; Davies’
lyrical images evoke an imaginary natural environment including a
pond and forest. Trained as a painter, she makes striking use of sfumato
effects. One of the most innovative aspects of this installation is her use
of potentiometers around the chest of the ’immersant’ to detect and
respond to breathing. This pneumatic interface allows the immersant to
navigate through the environment in a manner akin to scuba diving.
Eduardo Kac’s Rara Avis (1996) places two digital cameras and robotic
pan/tilt mechanisms inside the head of a fibreglass bird.12 This
telerobotic apparatus is located in an aviary filled with live birds. The
cameras and robotic head are linked to a head-mounted display in a
museum’3 and also to the internet via the WWW, Mbone, and
CUSeeMe.’d These links provide remote access to the bird’s eye view.
Osmose is widely acknowledged as a watershed in VR as an artform.
Born in Canada, Davies’ aesthetics of graphics and audio combine to
produce an innovative and polished result that stands in contrast to the
parapatetic polygons that preceded it. Osmose has a seductive effect
on its immersants. One gets the sense of being immersed in a dream-
like floating narrative. This environment was wholly invented by Davies.
It is a deliberately fictional space, one does not confuse the Osmose
environment with a physical reality.
remote

In contrast, Rara Avis exemplifies telepresence as an artform.15 In this

work, Brazilian-born Kac raises a variety of postmodern issues. We get
a glimpse from the outsider perspective of a caged rare bird. Kac’s
choice of location is crucial. Even if a human did enter the cage, the
behaviour of the birds would be greatly affected by this trespass. Thus,
the robotic cameras permit remote viewing of a rarely seen reality.
Equally important, this view is accessible on the net, extending the
viewing range well beyond the gallery. However, on the net, the images
are 2D frames viewed on a computer monitor. On the WWW the
refresh rate is approximately 1000 times slower than television. But
again,I am not concerned here with immersion; my interest is in
epistemological issues for which immersion is not a prerequisite. Rara
 35

Avis is puretelepresence; the cameras provide

access to a live remote
environment. To his credit, Kac makes little attempt at narrative and
does not adorn his birdcage. It is obvious to alf participants that neither
the birds nor the cage are synthetic.
Contrasting C3smose with Rara Avis as artistic landmarks helps us to
navigate the conceptual space between virtual reality and telepresence.
~.7smose presents an imaginary perspective while Rara Avis presents a
’real’ yet remote perspective. This distinction is vital; a very deep chasm
lies between them. And yet we cannot reach the bottom of this chasm.
As we descend, our perceptions become blurred. Immersants in
Osmose, through a combination of suspension of disbelief and ’trompe
le corps’, 16 often report a sensation on the border of reality. And some
who experience Rara Avis may be sceptical: how can one know if the
birds seen in Rara Avis are live or taken from a prestored library of
photographs? Even if they are live, how has the robotic bird disrupted
their behaviour?

The boundaries between what is seen and what is staged are

increasingly blurry... the crucial issue may not be the camera but a
gnawing sense that the world itself, knowable only through
imprecise perceptions, is a tissue of uncertainties, ambiguities,
fictions masquerading as facts and facts as tenuous as clouds. 17

Every technology distorts what it measures. When Galileo’s telescope

provided new perspectives on remote terrain, he was greeted with
scepticism. Indeed, seventeenth-century lenses were highly inaccurate.
The telescope, adamantly rejected by the Catholic Church, illuminated
epistemological questions that set the stage for Descartes’ ’dubitus ergo
sum’. We are now in the Age of Telepresence, where communications,
computing, and robotics provide perspectives on remote territory. We
are right to doubt these new lenses.’8

In this brief articleI have argued that telepresence is a category of

electronic art distinct from virtual reality. Prying these categories apart
suggests critical issues in the chasm between. While VR admits to its
illusory nature, telepresence claims to correspond to a remote physical
reality. Thus telepresence has the capacity to introduce cult value to an
electronic community fascinated by exhibition value. Our
archaeological instincts draw us to this terrain between truth and fiction.
By raising doubts as to whether we are experiencing reality or a
carefully constructed simulacrum, telepresence has the potential to
transform the very nature of electronic art.

Acknowledgments My thanks to Char Davies, Eduardo Kac and Julia Knight who carefully
reviewed drafts of this article and provided valuable feedback. Also to
Lunenfeld, Roger Malina, Jeff Malpas, Lev Manovich,
Scott Fisher, Peter
and Michael Naimark for their insights on this topic.
 36

Notes 1 W. Benjamin, Illuminations

, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken Books,
1936/1969). Other works that have influenced the ideas presented in this
article, in addition to those directly cited, are: H. Foster, The Return of the Real
(Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1996); M. Lombard and T. Ditton, ’At the Heart
of It All: The Concept of Telepresence’, in Journal of Computer Mediated
Communications, 3, no. (September 1997) at
2
<http://207.201.161.120/jcmc/vol3/issue2/> (11September 1997); and G.
Stoker, introductory essay to ’Fleshfactor’, Ars Electronica (Austria, Linz: Ars
Electronica, 1997).
2 S. Fisher, ’Introduction to Telepresence’, Notebook from Revue Virtuelle, Gallery
Guide (Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou, 1992); J. Steuer, ’Defining Virtual
Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence’ in Communication in the Age of
, eds. F. Biocca and M.R. Levy (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Virtual Reality
Associates, 1995), pp. 33-56; F. Biocca, ’The Cyborg’s Dilemma: Progressive
Embodiment in Virtual Environments’, Journal of Computer Mediated
, 3, no. 2 (September 1997) at
Communications
<http://207.201.161.120/jcmc/vol3/issue2/> (11 September 1997).
3 J. Lanier, personal communication with the author, 6 January 1998.
4 This is the definition given in Websters 7th New Collegiate Dictionary
(Springfield, Mass: Miriam Co, 1971).
5 P. L&eacute;vy, Qu’est-ce que le Virtuel? (Paris: La Decouverte, 1995).
6 Websters Dictionary
, op. cit.
7 T. Sheridan, Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control
(Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1992).
8 M. Minsky, Omni, 2, no. 9 (June 1980).
9 Websters Dictionary, op. cit.
10 In an essay on VR and telepresence, Lev Manovich makes a related
insightful
point: ’the purpose of all representational technologies is either to deceive or to
enable action.’ He puts VR in the former category and telepresence in the latter.
My interest is in the relation between fiction and reality; but the linkage between
action and reality is an important subject for further study. L. Manovich, ’To Lie
and to Act: Potemkin’s Villages, Cinema, and Telepresence’, conference paper
given at ISEA97, held in Chicago, USA, September 1997. See also K.
Goldberg, Panel at the International Symposium of Electronic Art (ISEA97),
Chicago, USA, September 1997.
11 For further discussion of Davies’ work and ideas, see C. Davies, ’Notes on
Being in Immersive Virtual Space’, a paper delivered at ISEA95, the Sixth
International Symposium on Electronic Arts, held in Montreal, Canada,
September 1995.
12 For further discussion of Kac’s work and ideas see E. Kac, ’Ornitorrinco:
Exploring Telepresence and Remote Sensing’, Leonardo
, 24, no. 2 (1991), p.
233; Kac,
E. ’Towards Telepresence Art’, Interface
, 4, no. 2 (Nov. 1992), pp. 2-
4; Kac, ’Telepresence Art’, Teleskulptur 3, eds. R. Kriesche and P. Hoffman
E. in
(Austria: Kulturdata and Division of Cultural Affairs of the City of Graz, 1993),
pp. 48-72; E. Kac, ’Ornitorrinco and Rara Avis: Networked Telepresence Art’
(with a technical appendix by Ed Bennett), Leonardo
, 29, no. 5 (1996), pp.
389-400.
13 Rara Avis has been shown four times: at the Out of Bounds exhibition at both the
Nexus Contemporary Art Center, Atlanta, USA, 28 June-24 August 1996, and
 37

the Huntington Art Gallery, Austin, TX, January 17-March 2, 1997; at the Centro
Cultural de Belem, Lisbon, Portugal, 11April-8 May 1997; andI Bienal de Artes
Visuais do Mercosul exhibition at Casa de Cultura Quintana, Porto Alegre,
Brazil, 2 October-30 November 1997.
14 Mbone and CUSeeMe are standard teleconferencing interfaces on the WWW.
15 Many contemporary artists have used telepresence as the basis for electronic
artwork. An incomplete list includes Susan Collins, John Canny, Judith Donath,
Ken Feingold, Scott Fisher, Greg Garvey, Emily Hartzell, Perry Hobermann,
Eduardo Kac, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Steve Mann, Michael Naimark, Mark
Pauline, Eric Paulos, Michael Rodemer, Julia Scher, Nina Sobell, Stelarc,
Gerfried Stoker, Richard Wallace, and Steve Wilson.
16 This is my own phrase, meaning ’trick the body’, and is intended to be
analogous with the French term ’trompe l’oeil’.
17 V. Goldberg, ’Review of Jeff Wall Photography’, New York Times, 16 March
1997.
18 See K. Goldberg and J. Malpas, The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and
Telepistemology on the WWW (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, forthcoming) for
more on the concept of ’telepistemology’.