Sociology of XR

What if... allowing for public spaces to incorporate immersive technology helped to mitigate social anxiety within public places? This is a question that I have been asking form may years and there is research that addresses how people respond mentally to [XR] as a method of reducing stress. Though it is capable of benefitting users who may feel anxious in particular settings. What are the larger implications of allowing technology so close to our eyes and allowing it to enter our physical worlds through [MR]. This being such a new technology, i cant help but question what are the ethics of [XR] as they relate to architectural space making?

Ethics: How safe is the metaverse? Meta (formerly known as Face Book) has already had an incident where a female user reported experiencing sexual assault within minutes of entering the “Horizon World” an open platform space where users can rome and interact with one another by waving, high-fiving, talking, and playing games together thought the use of the Meta Quest (formerly known as Oculus Quest 2) HMD. Another user had started to use there hands to group the women’s avatar, while other users watched and even cheered on. This is one example of a participant being virtually violated in the metaverse. However, this isn’t new. in 2018 a 7 year lod girls avatar was playing a game on the platform when male users began to sexual assault the girls avatar. the article form Today

There are many different forms of assault , masoning, and discrimination and the metaverse is still privy to them all. As stated in the online article “The metaverse has a groping problem already by Tanya Basuarchive” “I think people should keep in mind that sexual harassment has never had to be a physical thing,” says Jesse Fox, an associate professor at Ohio State University who researches the social implications of virtual reality. “It can be verbal, and yes, it can be a virtual experience as well.” As we have seen with social media Boundries and protections should be established for the users who chose to enter the Metaverse. A digital avatar is a representation of a real person. Social and cultural behaviors don’t stop just because the platform is a digital landscape.

Social implications: Entering the space as a moral act by the user. Architects would have the responsibility to the client to design a physical environment that is safe along side the virtual space. Utilizing the codes and ethics of our physical environment will help to ensure understanding and usability of the virtual spaces we design. This includes designing for secure social and ethical responsibility to those who chose to participate for long periods of time within virtual environments. As well as designing for the development of and mental health of the users.

There are a wide range of user groups that extended architecture could reach. That means the it is extremely important that designers are cognisant of the health safety and well fair of those who we are designing the space home and digital twin. Children, to senior adults would be engage with this technology. all with varying tolerances and ability. The responsibility of the architect and UX designers would be to effectively enable people of all walks of life the opportunity to engage on a platform without causing illness, discomfort and to reduce fatigue.

Three main concerns of the architect when designing:

1. Protecting the mind of a user. 2. Protecting the body of the user 3. Protecting the environment/ community of users

Different levels of participation in the Metaverse:

• Individual/personal: On the scale of the a single person, they are responsible for there actions and for there avatar who represents themselves. • Community/local: this is on the scale of the city or town. • National: This is in regards to the country and government an individual belongs to. • Global: This is in relations to the planet(s) we all inhabit. • Universal: The larger system of networks that come together to allow us to participate in and on multiple scales.

How do we live (Immersively) together? In 2021 the 17th International Architectural Exhibition of the La Biennale di Venezia happened amongst the covid 19 pandemic. Following the year of zoom and other virtual technology, it is no surprise that architects are thinking about moving forward, and what this will look like together after the pandemic. What interest me the most from this past two years surrounding the pandemic and architecture is how we all shifted abruptly to using virtual spaces seemingly overnight. Forcing shifts in social behaviors that seemed like it would take years to affect.

That adoption (or lack of ability for adoption in a lot of cases) has forced the creation of alternative place making for connectivity, and community. Remote working, learning and even recreation was needed to mitigate the need for interactions while social distancing was happening, and lock downs were in place. Now a question has been brought forth based on those instances as well as the growing political divides, increased climate change, and the economic gap widens. A question of how do we live together, was presented to 112 participants from over 46 countries. The Exhibition is focused around five scales which include “Among Diverse Beings, As New Households, As Emerging Communities, Across Borders, As One Planet”. The five scales can be found outlined on the Biennale’s website.

Method of Reasoning: Focusing on a few exhibits along with the five scales. This essay will utilize those work to answer the question; how will we live together? Starting with “Many Houses/Many Worlds” by Jarzombek et al. Once we start to understand what all goes into making our spaces, we will then be able to better plan for shared immersive spaces moving forward both in real world and virtually; with the inclusion of others in mind (This inclusion extends beyond other humans, animals, other biomes to even the smallest of organism). The transitions from spaces into others is important so we will look at is important. Case Studies: 1. “Many Houses/Many Worlds” by Mark Jarzombek, and Vikramaditya Prakash 2. “Alive” A New Spatial Contract for Multispecies Architecture by David Benjamin (American, b.1974) of The Living (USA, est.2008) 3. “Grove: by Philip Beesley and living architecture systems Group / University of Waterloo School of Architeture

“Maybe the body is the only question an answer can’t extinguish.”-Ocean Vuong,

Including Others within spaces: Before producing the space, we envision living together in its important to consider who is included. That is where the questions “we” is addressed. “We: Is first person plural and thus inclusive of other peoples, of other species, appealing to a more empathetic understanding of architecture.”- Sarkis 2021. This second case study by David Benjamin of The Living “Alive” is an investigation into Microbial life within Architecture. As mentioned within the project video on the Benallie’s website Architects John Locke and Lorenzo Villaggi call attention to the fact that Microbes aren’t only within water, the air and the earth. They exist all around us and even within us. As they are living on surfaces within tour buildings and cities. They are important and much needed resource. The porous material for this exhibition is made from the Luffa plant which is actually a vegetable often found in homes being utalized as a sponge. Often, we speck materials as smooth as possible to reduce microbial reproduction. In some applications that may be suitable (like within healthcare). However, to promote a healthy and flourishing eco system, Architects need to create places for cohabitation for even the smallest forms of life. Alive is an investigation into using highly textured organic forms in the promotion of microorganisms to live ant flourish. As Sarkis puts it “Live: Means not simply to exist but to thrive, to flourish, to inhabit, and to express life, tapping into architecture’s inherent optimism.” This form of “probiotic Architecture” that Villaggi refers to is imagined helping stimulate humans wellbeing. When it comes to the way we produce architectural forms and immersive spaces. An importance is needing to be placed on avoiding “monoculture ideas to instead promote diversity of types of species”- Locke.

Understanding Systematic Factors of a Space: As stated by Sarkis 2021 in his description of the question “How Will We Live Together?” from the Biennale website. The title can be broken down individual definitions per word to build a better understanding of the exhibit. “How: Speaks to practical approaches and concrete solutions, highlighting the primacy of problem-solving in architectural thinking.” How we build and what resources we consume to build with are so wide and varied from product to product and project to project. It’s nearly impossible to know what all goes into the making of a house as described in their Biennale video by Jarzomberk and Prakash 2021. This work deconstructed (in theory) a small modernist 1000 sf house in Seattle to determine its global and universal sources. Sources, Ingredients, Labor, and Atoms made up the four intersections that added up to the final building.

1. Sources: To look at where on our planet the items originated from. 2. Ingredients: what were those sources or elements that were combined to make the products. 3. Labor: Who was producing, maintaining or sourcing the products as well as assembling them. 4. Atoms: Where are the original sources from in context of the universe. That small House was compared to as being a black hole of information on its construction once it has been finished. Its final details overshadow the origins of what make up the Structure. Other sources also hinder the information from being know. Such as, government or corporate regulations. Lack of recorded or information is another reason for un-known sourced information. Still this infinite about of unknown are what make up a particular small house located in Seattle. Therefore, as described by Sarkis 2021 “Will: Signals looking toward the future but also seeking vision and determination, drawing from the power of the architectural imaginary.

Immersed together:“Together: Implies collectives, commons, universal values, highlighting architecture as a collective form and a form of collective expression.” -Sarkis What does it mean to be together? Do you have to be physically present to be together? Or can you be together apart? How does architecture come together? Where does together happen? “?: Indicates an open question, not a rhetorical one, looking for (many) answers, celebrating the plurality of values in and through architecture.”- Sarkis. Within this last case study of the 2021 Venice Biennale, Mackenzi Van Dam addresses the work of Living Architecture Systems Group est al Discus the factors that contribute to the work “Grove” and how it represents together. Immersive, sculptural, and explorative forms fill a space where gathering can happen without the limitation of walls. Grove is extended and open without borders to incapacitate the flow of interconnected ness. Tribes are less likely to form when we are able to come together. The space is given shape by the expansive white cloud that filters light like a tree canopy. Hanging from the thin, laser cut fronds also are holds liquid contained in vessels reflecting light. A virtual animation is projected onto the ground which is meant to demonstrate the growth and decay and connecting the digital to the physical space. Lastly an audible experience anchors the space and immerses the users fully into the environment as they progress through the threshold. This installation sits somewhere between atmosphere and architecture, digital and physical, media and form. It’s a sculpture. Its an immersive environment. It is a place where people can come together which is what architecture offers us. However, as the world shifts, the field of architecture will need to adapt as well. As virtual spaces become a more regular every day occurrence, for work, school and recreation. It is the obligation of the architect to ensure that there are spaces that bring about togetherness.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, extended architecture through its use of multimedia sources as well as a sense of physical place is important to create an immersive experience. However, if we are to move beyond that towards living together. We need start with the understanding of what materials we are using to create these spaces, where they are coming from, who is tending to them, and how they can be utilized for the mutual benefit of others who are not seen or heard from. To live (immersed) together goes beyond a physical cohabitation. It’s routed into a social, economic, and divers entanglements that is universal difficult to navigate. Moving forward we need to recognize this and develop in collaboration for one another.