The fourth wall is a theatrical term which refers to an imaginary wall at the front of the stage, through [...]]]> In theatre, when an actor performs, he receives immediate feedback from the audience. His presence feeds the audience, who then react back. In theatre, presence usually refers to the relationship between the actor and the audience.

The fourth wall is a theatrical term which refers to an imaginary wall at the front of the stage, through which the audience sees the actors. The term has been adopted by other media forms such as cinema, television, comics and video games and more generally refer to the boundary between the fiction and its audience. The fourth wall is part of the suspension of disbelief. The audience is usually passive, accepting the presence of the fourth wall without giving it any direct thought, enjoying fiction as if they were observing real events. The presence of a fourth wall is one of the best established conventions of fiction and as such has led artists to draw direct attention to it for dramatic effect.

“Breaking the fourth wall” generally refers to when a character is showing his or her awareness to the audience. Most often, the fourth wall is broken when a character directly addresses the audience through dialogue or by interacting with objects outside the context of the act. Various artists have used this effect to make a point. In his plays, Bertolt Brecht is known for deliberately breaking the fourth wall to encourage his audience to think more critically about what they were watching. Breaking the fourth wall is quite common in video games. This is usually done as a form of comic relief or even when the game goes into tutorial mode.

I often get annoyed with socializing through the computer, and how it makes it oh so easy to “stay in touch with everybody and anybody” but doesn’t REALLY make me feel connected. Even though it is comforting to see the little green dots on my IM or Gtalk lists, I long for tools that will help preserve some of my more meaningful connections with people and to places. This is precisely where I see potential similarities between the effects of breaking the theatrical fourth wall and breaking the computer’s fourth wall -> taking interaction outside of the screen. Finding innovative ways to interact with the computer. Breaking the convention of the keyboard, mouse and screen in order to generate a stronger connection between users and digital content.

I love the effectiveness and hate the superficiality. I like the ease and yet dislike the tools. We have gotten so easily used to minimizing our conversations to a chat window – generic SMS messages – receiving e-cards instead of real post. When things come too easy, we tend [...]]]> I love it and I hate it.

I love the effectiveness and hate the superficiality. I like the ease and yet dislike the tools. We have gotten so easily used to minimizing our conversations to a chat window – generic SMS messages – receiving e-cards instead of real post. When things come too easy, we tend to forget their value. Suddenly, easy come easy go does not seem so far from the truth…

By leading an online life we attain a global sense of connectivity to distant people and to remote locations. Ubiquitous technology helps us interact easily with each other, and also with ourselves. Yet the existing methods of digitally representing a person or a place are still a far cry from the corporeal experience.

digital is really good for an efficient, superficial connection, yet it is usually poor when engaging in a more authentic, deep conversation.

A conversation becomes more meaningful when conditions allow for reciprocal relationships to take place. The more synchronous a conversation is, the more attention it requires and the more intense it feels. When performing, an actor receives immediate feedback from the audience – it is essential when leading towards a directed theatrical moment. An actor’s presence is crucial on stage; it feeds from and to the audience presented to. On the other hand, when writing a blog entry, we have no immediate response. We present out our thoughts to an invisible audience. Place them on a busy stage, to be seen by anyone who is interested. Yet we long for reciprocation of some sort. It feels great to get feed back in the form of a comment, trackback or even email.

For me, the efficient is extremely useful, especially when on a specific quest – a question that needs answering or just a short burst of information exchange. It saves time and money. It is clear for both sides that its’ nature is that of a brief conversation. That is precisely why SMS is so useful – it generates an asynchronous conversation, but provides no immediate need for reciprocation – usually, you can take your time to reply.

I notice that I am not as enthusiastic about these services as I once were. Distance has always played a big part in my life – both from home and from loved ones. Tools like skype help me keep in touch with family. I feel it is important to be able to interact on a daily basis with my family or set of online friends, but over a period of time, it gets frustrating. I want to have a more diverse set of tools, and I want them to come outside the screen, and into objects around me.

I wonder what would happen if a facebook poke was more than just some text on a page, and if a kiss sent over IM was not merely an animation. How can we capture intimacy over a distance without ruining its essence? There exists a region of balance, which I find fascinating. A place where the interaction is not heavy, yet not too brief. Where it takes some thought and effort to reply. I believe that by extracting the experience away from a screen and into tangible objects, it is possible to feel an enhanced sense of connectivity and presence for a remote person or place.