1. Pinche : p304/5 “One of the most disconcerting features of virtual reality is that it seems to be synonymous with a high degree of arbitrariness. in other words, nothing can not guarantee the designer that his project is the best possible choice.” A couple thoughts on this. I’m not a particular fan of the current vogue for “VR-everything” in tech circles, and I have lingering doubts about the validity of 3d animation being anything special or unique. In large part this is for this ‘arbitrariness’, but there’s a different way of looking at this too. If these virtual spaces are nothing more than a ‘stop’ in an ‘endless geometric transformation’ aka animation, then is it not a new way to look at the image? We can look at these moments as captures from a larger flow that are not necessarily an end, but rather a new point of departure.
2. p 310 : “Computer generated architecture is about the unstable reality of infinite connections.” A lot of this article reminds me of Deleuze’s arguments from Cinema I and Cinema II, probably because Ive been reading those this last week as well. However, a simplifies reading of his idea of time could be beneficial here. The present manifests itself as reality. The past and future are always realigning themselves in relationship to the present as virtual. When we generate a ‘virtual’ model in a machine, we’re actually making that space real on one level. This can become something else in the future, or we can change the perspective on the past (both virtual images) based on this real present. So it might be helpful to think instead of the ability of the real (the computer generated architecture) as a destabilizing force on the past and future.
3. Baudrillard, p. 372
   

   “For example: it would be interesting to see whether the repressive apparatus would not react more violently to a simulated hold-up than to a real one? For a real hold-up only upsets the order of things, the right of property, whereas a simulated hold-up interferes with the very principle of reality. Transgression and violence are less serious, for they only contest the distribution of the real. Simulation is infinitely more dangerous since it always suggests, over and above its object, that law and order themselves might really be nothing more than a simulation.”

   If this act of transgression is no different from the real, how do we conceptualize a truly transgressive act that can reposition our understanding of reality? In a ‘post-truth’ era, where there is not fact that can’t be challenged on feeling, how can we re-establish a foundation of factual realism?

As an aside, this video about the uncanny valley seemed to be appropriate to the topics at hand.