Lev Manovich argues that navigable space is a fundamental form of new media. Summarizing his argument, explain how it relates (or does not relate) to Fredric Jameson’s conception of cognitive mapping, or Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulation.
Fredric Jameson believes the most important characteristics of postmodernist space are the political and social implications, while Lev Manovich is much more concerned with its aesthetic ramifications. Thus Manovich doesn’t discuss the “suppression of distance” or the differences between local and greater spaces—Jameson uses the idea of space as a metaphor to discuss other things, while Manovich is interested in space itself.
However, Jameson’s idea of cognitive mapping as the individual’s place within the totality of the world meshes easily with Manovich, who points out that many navigable spaces take the form of a first-person navigation experience. Once again, however, Jameson’s concept of space is a metaphor, so as a literal placement of a person in space, navigable space does not mesh with Jameson’s ideas.
Manovich's central thesis is that navigable space is common to all forms of new media, both in literal navigation and the "navigation" of data, even though it isn't necessarily the most efficient means for the latter. It is "a key foundation for new media aesthetics," he writes—used in games (Doom and Myst) as well as work (operating systems, data analyses). However, Manovich seems to see navigable space as a medium as a series of unfulfilled opportunities.
For example, he writes that navigable space has much to offer in the way of storytelling opportunities by challenging the narration/description binary—instead, there are narrative actions and exploration, but exploration is part of the narrative, and the narrative is composed of navigation, not characterization or psychological narrative. Manovich is concerned with space not just an interface but a cultural form of its own.
However, while computers have changed in their power (for example, computer games' graphics have improved), navigable space as a concept has not really evolved. Manovich suggests that looking at other art forms may provide solutions to that problem—for example, how do painters (who also deal with a rectangular frame) address space? Jameson is likewise very concerned with historical context. Manovich also notes that most examples of computer navigable space only imitate real space, while the medium allows for new conceptions of space—for example, refusing to follow the typical space/object binary.
Navigable space is at the heart of the Internet as well—and, like the Internet, has its origins in the military by way of flight simulators. The term "cyberspace" comes from steering, and browser names like Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer (and Safari) play on the navigation theme.
Manovich points out that navigable space is also capable of "flattening" hierarchy; for example, by combining narration and exploration it defeats the hierarchy of narration. As well, navigable space is usually isotropic, so it doesn't even favor one direction over another! The humans who navigate computer space come in two types, Manovich argues: the flaneur or dandy (the chatroom or Second Life user, perhaps) and the explorer (the Doom or Myst player). This may suggest a class distinction, and Jameson says class no longer exists. On the other hand, it's very likely that many Internet dandies are also explorers and vice versa, and it's not clear which would be the higher class.
Lastly, computer space is and will continue to be, Manovich argues, more often haptic or aggregate, where objects are viewed as separate from and unrelated to the space they inhabit, than optic, in which the space exists before the object. He explains this with the example of polygonal modeling, where the space is a "vacuum." He argues that computer space is not used as a medium, where space and objects would be closely linked. Jameson explores a similar idea in his description of “monadic relativism,” in which he writes that each individual is in a closed world and a “representation of the social totality” would depict “sealed subjective worlds and their peculiar interactions”—like the discrete objects in computer space.
Even if Manovich is more concerned with the (as yet unfulfilled) promises of space as art form, and Jameson with its political implications, their ideas do overlap on occasion. It remains to be seen whether navigable space will come into its own as a medium.
