[-empyre-] real vs. unreal

[christina mcphe]

Tamiko,

http://mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/newtown-creek.html  is this a  
project of 2011 (happening now?)

how did it work for people... I mean, what were the dynamics of  
reception and use --  a story about this would be very interesting....

You write, : Newtown Creek is a massively contaminated Superfund site  
running through the Greenpoint, Williamsburg and Bushwick  
neighborhoods of Brooklyn, New York. For the augmented reality (AR)  
artwork "Newtown Creek (oil spill)" I have created a 3D object from  
the outline of the creek, textured it with an irridescent oil spill  
and geolocated it at Meeker Avenue and Gardner Avenue in Greenpoint,  
Brooklyn, one of the few places with street access to Newtown Creek.


christina

On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:46 AM, Tamiko Thiel wrote:

> From: Mathias Fuchs <mathias.fuchs at creativegames.org.uk>
> >
> > I would suggest to call something an augmentation of reality only
> > if it is a consciously introduced element of our environment that
> > we believe to be unreal.
>
>
> Hi Mathias!
>
> Nice to hear from you :-) A few questions for you:
>
> What then are the augments that I create for the Bushwick AR  
> Intervention last year, which feature photographs of real people who  
> I believe do or did exist?
> http://mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/bushwick.html
>
> Or the "Newtown Creek (oil spill)" object, that is derived from a  
> creek that I believe really does exist?
> http://mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/newtown-creek.html
>
> If I understand your definition correctly, either these are not real  
> or I should not call them "augmented reality."
>
> All our AR objects are signs, which may signify things we believe to  
> be real and other people believe to be unreal, or vice versa. If I  
> do not believe in Jesus and make a virtual object that refers to  
> Jesus this would be in your definition AR. If however someone else  
> does believe in Jesus and makes a virtual object that refers to  
> Jesus this would NOT be AR, in your definition.
>
> By the way, I would define a hologram on a bill as being "real," and  
> certainly not something imaginary and made up. Can you explain why  
> you say it is unreal? It is not a 3D object in a physical sense of  
> having mass and measureable extent, but we perceive it as a ghostly  
> 3D form - and this perception of a 3D form where none exists  
> physically is the real physical phenomena and nature of a hologram.
>
> Is a painting real but a projection not real? Isn't visual phenomena  
> real - and therefore any AR object also real? Are perhaps these not  
> the correct terms to be using when talking about AR and VR, even  
> though both terms use the word "reality" and therefore bring us into  
> discussions about what is real and what is not?
>
> take care, Tamiko
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre