MX: Reading Response III: The Screen

Considering the history an ubiquitous presence of the screen in contemporary society is helpful in establishing a lens through which we can view this project. The society of the screen is a bizarre phenomena: that somehow our physical reality isn't enough, that we constantly need a representation of this alternate reality in order to be content. This sentiment is palpable in daily life, considering the amount of time we spend in front of rectangular lenses into other worlds. As I was reading the passage I had this weird moment of thinking, I'm looking at a screen as I read this thing about screens, and how omnipresent they are in our culture. Messed up!
In contrast to cinema, the computer screen offers the functionality of visual multi-tasking. I have 7 tabs open in this browser, and 4 windows open in the background. This eclecticism is a distinct advantage of the computer screen, and could perhaps be capitalized on in our interface design. How can different screens be used to establish hierarchy, or separate information?
Furthermore, the idea that since this screen doesn't even exist (since its constantly in a state of flux) carries its own set of implications. Should we be concerned in mirroring reality, when the medium we're designing for doesn't exist? It makes a lot more sense to envision a virtual reality that is free from the limitations of earth-reality.
The idea of interacting with this non-reality through the limitations of our input devices (keyboard, mouse) is another interesting implication of this reading. Ian is devising a system that takes advantage of the camera and sound input options. While I consider this idea revolutionary and understand that it makes sense for his work (since he wants to go into interactive design) the supposed traditionalism of my idea is based more in a desire to have my website be invisible. I think the interaction model I want to design for my user is one that calls as little attention to itself as possible. How can I make the screen invisible? In the same way that the cinema uses a pitch-black room to encourage immersion, I hope that my site exists as a neutral transmitter of my work, being as subtle and invisible as possible, like a very spartan and modest frame. If the frame is too ornate it makes me question the artwork. Unless of course you're a frame designer and an artist, in which case both of your talents should be showcased.
I hope though that my desire for invisibility isn't misconstrued as being uninterested in interaction and technology. To an extent, I'm disenchanted with flash, with web-design. I've been grappling with this for some time, because obviously it is the future of graphic design. As physical designed objects begin to phase out and exist solely on the internet, will this jeopardize my ability to embrace my own time period? When industrialization happened, those who embraced were the ones who were remembered -- because they were pioneers, bravely exploring a new technology that lends its own advantages. Designers like William Morriss opposed these changes, but ended failing in his ambitions from not succumbing to the inevitability of industrial society. I don't want to end up like Morriss! At the same time, pursuing something that makes me want to pull my hair out is not in my interest at all. Dilemmas.
In any case, my site design is not invisible because I hate web-design. This stems from my philosophy about presenting work in general. While the presentation of it should be elegant and expressive of your distinct formal sensibility, I think that glorifying the vehicle too much is concerning, maybe it's like wrapping a piece of shit in gold wrapping paper. It's compensation, and when the function of the thing is to show your work, its kind of like the function is being informed by something totally different than it's purpose. Form and function should be married! Duh. Which, I dno... I don't intend to criticize this project, but I think if the website was about presenting something else, or had a different function, the implications for interaction design could have been more exciting. Because a portfolio site's function is to show the work, being innovative about the way this happens is very limiting. I'm not interested in creating hypothetical things, I want my work to have real-world implications. I want to be able to use this site for my portfolio site, not throw this aside as an exercise and redesign it when I create my real site. Hmm. Things to think about.