4 ms·
These are the words from the artist himself: > At this point, it is just a piece of office art, a thought-provoking reminder of unexplored avenues in game desi
by trgn 4y ago
These are the words from the artist himself:
> At this point, it is just a piece of office art, a thought-provoking reminder of unexplored avenues in game design. It is also, as far as I know, the first non-fiction example of a VR device that can actually kill the user. It won’t be the last.
It's not satire. He's creating shock art.
The fact that he took a suicide helmet beyond a literary invention and into the real world is unsettling. It's an inability to distinguish what is wholesome from what is depraved. At the root is the artist's failure of imagination; an inability to imagine how completely revolting such a thing of fiction would be if it were real. The man spend likely hundreds of hours of thinking on it, ruminating on it, like suckling on a candy, and then, rather than being turned away, giving it shape, willing it into the world with the same zeal. That is why people find this skeevy.
It is fascinating, and I'm not sure if in isolation it may mean all that much. But people will respond very different to the morbid obsessions of an eccentric crackpot like say HR Giger than that of a tech suit with a history of monetizing VR and AI-weaponry.
You become what you behold. This man is becoming machine, willingly.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Brian_K_White 4y ago"The fact that he took a suicide helmet beyond a literary invention and into the real world is unsettling. It's an inability to distinguish what is wholesome from what is depraved. At the root is the artist's failure of imagination; an inability to imagine how completely revolting such a thing of fiction would be if it were real. The man spend likely hundreds of hours of thinking on it, ruminating on it, like suckling on a candy, and then, rather than being turned away, giving it shape, willing it into the world with the same zeal. That is why people find this skeevy." I don't think you or anyone else gets to claim to know that. I find this comment, and people who can't examine and consider a thing in abstract, can't seperate their unthinking emotion from their reason, more alarming and skeevy than the original article. If you think I don't have the right to say you are only revolted because you lack the capacity to understand a form of rumination and are an unthinking emotional reactor, you would be correct, I don't have the right to claim to know that, and you would be a hypocrite.