[-empyre-] Augmented reality as public art, mobile location based monuments and virtual memorials

[xDxD.vs.xDxD]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:07 PM, John Craig Freeman <
John_Craig_Freeman at emerson.edu> wrote:

>
> With respect xDxD, This is a bit like arguing that artists should write
> there own web browsers rather than use Mosaic in 1991, or perhaps I am
> misunderstanding. Of course artists should be using commercial augmented
> reality browsers. Their wide spread use is establishing standards and
> protocols which will provide an infrastructure for the AR of the future.
>
>
oh, yes, i agree and, reading back what i wrote before, i realize that i
sounded more "totalitarian" than i had wished in the first place about this
issue.

yes: there are infinite directions for research and experimentation, and we
don't have to address all of them at once.

So it is perfectly acceptable (and positive!) to use these software products
when the ideas of freedoms and - speaking of standards and protocols - of
open, free practices and technologies for expression and information are not
the focus of our actions.

but when they are we should probably take more care in choosing the tools we
use, or how we use them: this is obviously not about technique, or even
about technology, but about language and meaning.

because the example of Mosaic and other browsers is not exactly fitting
(although i understand what you mean by making it, and i can appreciate it),
as internet protocols have a totally different genesis than these
"standards" which could emerge by the current "app" ecosystem, which is
currently really corporate-centric, closed and opaque. Even in using terms
such as "open, free to use" (the Layar browser) which, as we know from all
the social networks and from the story of everything 2.0, is not exactly
nice towards people.

but, in the end, i do agree that even commercial tools such as Layar can be
considered for use in artistic practice, but i just don't like the ways in
which some of these tools quickly become "the standard tools" to do this and
that simply because they are easy and accessible, forgetting many of the
meanings that a term such as "augmented reality" could have and damping down
the richness of vocabulary of a practice and its implications.


> The more interesting and salient question -and this is where I think I am
> agreeing with you- is, do artists continue to make objects, even virtual
> ones, as was the norm in the twentieth century, or do they develop practices
> which are sustainable across technological development, which can be
> iterated and migrated as new technologies emerge.
>

and, as said before, i completely agree on this, and i also truly value
actions like "Imaging Place".
and I also feel very close to you in this kind of evolution with our fake
institution project, which fluidly moved through various practices and
techniques: from physical squatting, to public space invasion, to street
arts, stickers, websites, mobile applications, things that could be regarded
as theater and performance, and now to augmented reality, location based
media and qrcodes. The thing is: it is not about technology, although
technology is a tool, and an environment, and an enabler, and a space. It's
about desire and objectives and practices and languages and imaginaries.


and, as i was suggesting in my last email, i really do value spaces like
this, as my critiques are not meant to demolish anything, but, rather, to
foster collaboration.

and i am truly happy that so many initiatives are popping up using AR in the
art world: it's getting quite a crowded place and i am so happy about it!

i counted about 4 groups who will be doing AR actions at the biennale in
Venice alone, and i think it is an incredibly positive thing!

and, going even beyond that, i think that this thing could and should be
used in achieving wonderful effects: forgetting for a seconds sentences like
"the first group using AR" or the crowdsourcing processes in which an
"operator" of some kind (even an artist group) gathers other ones under
their umbrella in performing something. And coordinating, collaborating and
focusing more on methodologies that promote more truly public, accessible
and free practices than crowdsourced ones.

after all we are all trying to build alternative, multiple, fluid,
autonomous, free, new, stratified public spaces, aren't we? :)

a performative education program as a work of art? not exactly, but, yes

thanks! ciao!
xDxD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20110420/3b06112a/attachment.html>