英语论文网

for their own representation in the mirroring display. The difference between
the imagined refl ection/mediation of a live mirroring camera, and the observed augmentation
displaying fragments of Duchamp—the lack and excess that occurs between ‘expected’ and
found—is the space of expression. In the case of the Window displays, such as Rokeby’s Seen,
the mediated is presented as real (thus Rokeby’s mendacious insistence that the pre-recorded
footage was live)... the mediated piazza San Marco is to be perceived as the real object being
effected, and, as in fi lm, to be taken as objective reality—though the suppression is even greater
than in fi lm, because it is to be taken as a circuit from objective reality... the live broadcast...
the analogue of the thing itself. So again, the area of expression is the difference between the
image of the piazza that the viewer imagines the camera to be seeing, and the augmented images
playing with duration on the screens. But here there is no checking, as in the mirror, instead
perhaps a backwards analysis... by searching the augmented image of the piazza and drawing on
their own experience and knowledge, the viewer imagines what the non-augmented image might
be, and thereby locates at least the area and nature of the augmentation. Similarly we can see
different goals in the computational processing of the different AR art works. Rokeby’s fi lter
based augmented projections I would call ‘Affected Reality’. The mediated is not suppressed,
instead everything is rendered to this fi nal product. It is like what Brenda Laurel has described
as a stage, where all the behind the scenes capture, mediation,and computation, are rendered to
a single digital representation, with no other artifact [Laurel 2001, p110]. In this type of work,
the computational nature of the processing is frequently extremely suppressed. Rokeby is an
exemplar in this respect. In a lecture for Info Art, he describes his aesthetic goals in computation:
“the computer as a medium is strongly biased and so my impulse while using the computer
was to work solidly against these biases. Because the computer is purely logical, the language
of interaction should strive to be intuitive. Because the computer removes you from your
body, the body should be strongly engaged. Because the computer’s activity takes place on the
microscopic scale of silicon wafers, the encounter with the computer should take place in humanscaled
physical space. And because the computer is objective and disinterested, the experience
should be intimate.” But, at the same time that the nature of computation is suppressed, the fact
of augmentation—the fact of the mediation being manipulated and affected—is emphasized as
exactly the site of representation and expression. The discontinuity between real mediation and
illusionistic augmentation is not suppressed—as in cinema when the CG dinosaurs are made
to combine realistically—but played upon. We as receivers are looking within the art work for
what is affected in the image and what remains in order to interpret the representation. With the
the two examples of object-based AR in the gallery—Be Careful, Fragile and Level Head—the
role of the mediated is different. The mediated is to a larger extent suppressed. Instead the
mediated image is to be taken as a valid reality, and it is within the mediation that the borders
betw