nslation
1974 by the Regents of the
University of California... Film
Quarterly 1974
Cinema Apparatus
in AR
Let me take several examples to outline some territory in augmented or mixed reality within
the art gallery. David Rokeby is an artist whose interactive work made an early entrance to
the art gallery. His famous 1988 piece, Very Nervous System used motion tracking to create
an invisible interface to computer sound creation. His subsequent gallery work has been
mainly visual, relying on live camera, and frequently incorporating this live-camera image
into the gallery space. His 2002 installation, Seen, installed at the Canadian Pavilion of the
Venice Biennale, used what could be termed a screen-as-window arrangement. The intended
construction was four live-feed video cameras whose footage would be altered in real time with
temporal, spatial, and chroma fi lters, and then projected into four augmented-image screens.
In actual fact, he was not able to arrange the hookup for the live cameras, and used instead 30
minutes of pre-recorded footage. But so important to Rokeby—and, in fact, to the apparatus
defi nition of AR—is the live nature of this work that he still describes the apparatus as livecamera
based in his description on his website, and only notes in parenthesis that this was not,
in fact, true. These ‘live camera feeds’ are then presented in four augmented screens, each
deconstructing the temporal image in different ways: the middle two screens display only the
elements of the image that are in motion or static, and the other two screens provide algorythmic
changes of the image, based on combining multiple frames in time, tracing the paths of motion
that have taken place in the image. A second work by Rokeby, the 2002 Cheap Imitation, is
confi gured as a ‘magic mirror’—a technological constellation that is fairly common within AR in
the gallery as well as performance. The monitoring camera is pointed out at the viewer from the
screen, and instead of projecting the analogous mediated image of the viewer, the screen presents
an augmented image... in this case the viewer/ fi gure of the art work is presented, through motion
tracking, as distorted segments of Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase... or, more
acurately, the subject’s observed motion triggers the revealing of segments of the Duchamp
Seen, David Rokeby, 2002
Cheap Imitation (screen view), David Rokeby, 2002.
Be Careful, Fragile, Clara Boj and Diego Diaz, 2006
Level Head, Julian Oliver, 2008
image directly in front of their motion, so that if they move their hand, directly in front of this
movement that part of the image is revealed.... if they move their whole body, a larger section of
the image is revealed, corresponding to their body.
In a totally different aesthetic attitude, there is a screen-as-mirror piece by Clara Boj and Diego
Diaz, Be Careful, Fragile which was created for the 2006 ARCO exhibition in Madrid, Spain.
This magic mirror does not provide an affected mediated image, as Cheap Imitation does, instead
it uses a more functional aesthetic of AR and motion tracking, overlaying a 3 dimensional virtual
object, in this case a vase, on top of the mediated image using a fi ducial marker tracking system.
The gallery visitor is presented with an empty pedestal, identical to many of the pedestals at
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。