英语论文网

art containing cameras and screens, where, though reconfi gured, there remains
an orientation between viewer, maker, camera, objective reality, capture, screen, and viewing
space. I’ll use the term ‘Augmented Reality’, but we could call it ‘Mixed Reality’, or some
other indexical subsection of new media; there is a good bit of slippage and overlay in these
terms. Looking to Wikipedia to locate emerging defi nitions we fi nd under Augmented Reality
that the critical components of this medium are the juxtaposition of the virtual or computational
and the real, an ‘invisible’ interface based on a somehow immersive environment not an iconic
or semantic interface, and, it notes, especially referring to machine vision and tracking (there
are our technological apparatus indicators). Ronald Azuma, in his early survey of AR (1997),
describes its goal in contradistinction to VR, as a seamless integration of virtual and real, but
I think this is too narrow, and too closely related to the absolute cinema dreams of VR. AR
from its earliest iterations in the Boeing projects to provide wiring diagrams for technicians
crammed into the belly of airplanes, sought instead multiple confi gurations of the virtual and
real, frequently, as in the case of the diagrams, desiring to in fact retain the distinction between
each. What is elemental, though, is the process resulting in the juxtaposition—some sort of
representation (even if it is ‘see through’) of objective reality, combined through computation
with an actively corresponding computational creation... and, as Wikipedia notes, especially in
the visual sense. Azuma’s diagrams of what AR is, in fact, reminds me of Jean-Luis Baudry’s
apparatus diagrams of cinema. Jean-Louis Baudry’s 1970 essay Ideological Effects of the
Basic Cinematographic Apparatus, seeks in technological analysis a new understanding of how
expression and reception function in cinema, what is repressed and what emphasized, and what
are the limits of subversion. He draws this diagram, which I’ve redrawn here. Note that the
infl uence of the director or artist can be inferred in a number of the processes, both through
direct intention and through technology... editing, scenario/scripting, and so on... but instead
of making specifi c distinctions, Baudry takes as the basis of analysis the components of the
apparatus, both appareil and dispositif... technical and social structures. Baudry notes, with
Azuma, more lovingly, draws this:
the dotted line, the inherent ideology in the suppression of some of the components... where the
perception of the audience is of objective reality represented within the screen, and the goal of
the artist is to suppress perception of the intervening processes.
My project here is to reconcile these two drawings... to try to begin to understand this changing
apparatus of AR in the way Baudry has applied to cinema, and attempt to draw some of the same
conclusions about what is suppressed, ideological, expressive, limited, emphasized, and unseen