英语论文网

the
exhibition holding real artwork, behind which is a screen that shows the gallery space, as if in
a mirror, except the pedestal holds a virtual-looking vase, it’s contours and color synthetically
regular. When the view passes their hand over the top of the pedestal, crossing the visual path
between the live camera and a black-and-white printed marker on top of the pedestal, the screen
shows the animated image of the vase falling to the fl oor and breaking. Then, in the screen, the
viewer sees the two artists arrive and place another identical vase on top of the pedestal. Boj and
Diaz, in their description, say the work “questions its own presence, as digital artwork, in the art
market... showing that there are no “unique digital artworks.” Unlike much of Rokeby’s work,
Be Careful, Fragile could be described as sheerly conceptual, lacking any effort for an aesthetic
sublimity, but within the context of conceptual art, it succeeds, successfully representing a
concept within a gallery art frame. A fi nal AR piece I want to note, is Julian Oliver’s Level Head
(which he, in fact, terms a “spatial memory game,” but at the same time lists the art galleries and
festivals it has been exhibited within). Like Be Careful, Fragile, Level Head uses fi ducial marker
systems—tracking embedded in an object—but here the object is also the site of what will be
replaced with the virtual, so it becomes a type of magic object within the mirroring screen.
Unlike Be Careful, Fragile, the object embedded with the AR markers is the art object itself.
The cube is meant to be handled and shown to the camera, which gives back an image, or partial
image, of the user, along with an augmented image of the cube, where each side is replaced
with relative, relating animations: a digitally drawn human character that walks labrynthine
paths through a confusing, Escher-like cubic world. Like Rokeby’s Seen, it’s interesting to
note the language of his description, where he states the only interface is the marker cube...
because the projection as mediated reality is so common, it is suppressed in the description of the
apparatus—not considered as part of the interface.
If we take these three orientations of cameras and screens in the art gallery, what can we say
about the elements of the apparatus? How do they differ from those of cinema in the structuring
of circuits between objective reality, camera, projector, and spectator, and those things that come
in between, and can we fi nd within this process of creating a mixed reality what is suppressed
in the circuit, and what is presented as the representation or art. If we take the basic AR circuit,
and combine the apparatus diagrams of Baudry with the diagrams of Azuma, we might have
components like those drawn here, containing objective reality, subject/ spectator, camera/
capture, mediated reality, computation/ tracking, process / scene generator, render/ video
compositor, and screen. I have also included in brackets within these chains aknowledgement
of the input that comes from outside the electrical apparatus; such things as the framing of
participation, framing of reception, and the produced content added as augmentation. We can
make some generalizations about what is suppressed and what used to express within these
different types of AR artworks.
All areas of AR seek to suppress the computation/tracking and