Augmented Space: A Transformative Art Medium for Autistics - Essay Sample

Introduction

There is a significant contribution added to augmented space in the field of art. Hence, the representation of space in art creates a central focal point for autistics. Artists in augmented space are primarily concerned with arranging, organizing, and formulating their creations. Based on that reason, space forms the ultimate goal of the artist. According to the Manovich on the “The Poetics of Augmented Space” article, physical-based virtual interventions provide new knowledge for artistic concepts. The development of this artistic conception arose through integrating an augmented reality technology for digital media forms. The article considers the possibilities of transcending the real physical space confines as axes of a new kind of artistic work through reconceptualizing particular urban centers such as entertainment joints and shopping spaces (Manovich, 2006). The reconceptualization of the mentioned spaces is through the use of virtual contents, such as signs and electronic screens on building walls (Manovich, 2006). This article critiques the dramatic changes that have occurred in augmented space, mainly urban areas, created by changes in culture and ideas through virtual communication in the current world.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Article Summary

In this article, the author argues that historically physical spaces were consistently covered with text, images, and ornaments. At the same time, the phenomenal has momentously evolved to vibrant multimedia information over the years. The essay discusses how the general dynamics between information and spatial form, which has been in use over a long period, works differently in today's media culture (Manovich, 2006). The author captured augmented space as a perspective of aesthetic and cultural practices instead of technology (Manovich, 2006). By doing so, the author outlined that practices such as build environment cinemas and vernacular architecture in conjunction with media and 20th-century art, which can well be understood as augmentation. Consequently, the article indicates that the augmented space concept is cultural and historical rather than a technological sphere.

Manovich further argues that the augmented space bridge between digital and physical space creates new forms of spatial experience and interaction (Manovich, 2006). As a result, the transformations of cultural and social changes convert a space into a place. The author scrutinizes various ideas for augmented space reconceptualization and gives examples of how augmented space has been essentially adopted in the museum environment for a long time. Eventually, the article draws the assumption that suggests directions for exhibitions, practicing designers, and experts on the contextualization of the augmented virtual reality technology within the augmented space design evolutionary process.

Article Critiques

In this context, the article demonstrates how the author strongly perceived the transformation of the augmented space as cultural and artistic applications of the virtual interventions to enhance the augmented space. It shows that augmentation of space is more of an idea and art challenging the cultural architecture (Manovich, 2006). Although the article provides more opportunities for artist's experience, such as architects, it fails to reflect that artistry will have to consider that physical-based virtual interventions can overlay the built spaces unless the artisans reconsider their practices (Jiayi, 2017). Therefore, the assumption that overlaying the physical spaces is ultimately a conceptual problem since disregarding the technology capability has failed to justify why artists and architects were unsuccessful in working on the problem long ago.

From a different perspective, the article should have shown that the contextual data and layering of dynamics over the augmented space are circumstances of an overall aesthetic paradigm. It is on how to combine different aspects of autistics and technologies in a particular space. Certainly, electronically augmented space is irreplaceable because it can customize any information to suit the end-users (Manovich, 2006). Besides, the electronically augmented space is conveyed via an interactive multimedia interface such as electronic screens and signs, and it can also adjust dynamically with time (Catherine & Greg, 2013). Thus, it is imperative to view the ample augmented space as an effort of both conceptual and technological matters. A substantive theory that opposes Manovich’s idea is Robert Veturi’s on the use of electronic images (Manovich, 2006). Veturi’s approach shows that the use of the electronic display in architecture projects is not just a preferred option but a focal design in this era of information. He further argues that building environments should embrace electronic imagery as opposed to the traditional industrial age (Sally & Michael, 2011).

The article explains the augmented reality (AR) in the immersion of virtual reality (VR). Based on the article's opinion, the two systems work virtually differently. The VR adds information to virtual space while the AR deals with actual immediate space users (Jiayi, 2017). However, the two techniques provide a platform for immersive appealing atmospheres within the physical spaces (Jiayi, 2017). As the article suggested, in terms of augmentation or immersion of these technologies, the results purely depend on the user’s perspective or experience (Joshua, 2007). According to Milgram and Colquhoun, they term the virtual and real environments as two ends virtually-reality (RV) continuum and not just a simple substitution for each other. An example supporting that argument is the evolution of mobile gadgets whereby they possess multiple capacities such as telecommunication and computing in the current paradigm (Manovich, 2006). Therefore, RV augmenting on human experience came hand in hand with augmentation of the entire living space.

In this article, the Manovich displays that artists and architects possessing relevant expertise of discerning ways of which augmented space can be artistically and culturally; however, there is an alternative approach to link modern culture with the augmented space paradigm. Manovich has a retrospective rationale for the use of artistic space. He begins by the framed image attached to space walls, merely the use of a 2-D surface (Manovich, 2006). Then the art galleries of painting incorporated on all four walls and developed an idea of a 3-D surface. Eventually, the white cube was developed from just a 2-D surface collection into a cube. Hence, it entails steps back and forwards that aligned with both the political and cultural rhythm of the century (Sally & Michael, 2011). This advancement becomes the highest level of creativity to occur in our times. If we follow the Manovich logic, he is swift to critique this development as a narrow vision since it does not take into account the totality use of the space (Manovich, 2006). He continually pushes against the 2-D surface production, describing how a 2-D object's aesthetic features were underdeveloped and therefore needed to undergo further experimentation. I agree with him that unlike 3-D objects, the black box was safe, consistent, and commercial.

Fundamentally, individuals understand the social world as either duality or singular. Manovich makes an essential observation that individuals can be swift to polish their skills. On the other hand, the author strongly demonstrated that augmentation mostly occurs in space, and it is not uniform (Ernst & Sophie, 2016). Therefore, individuals have different augmentation experiences in different situations. In contrast, Manovich failed to demonstrate how individuals with varying skills of augmentation can add new information to their already existing experience altogether (Manovich, 2006).

Consequently, the author concentrated more on augmented space other than augmented reality. For instance, Manovich terms “overlaying the physical space with the dynamic data” as augmented space and not the later. Just like Foucault, Manovich views space as attached to power. As a result, he sees as augmentation is likewise inseparable from power (Manovich, 2006). According to him, changing augmented space grid means going in and out of the control and surveillance zones.

From the article, it is clear that Manovich views augmented reality as an external information source. I find that context perspective inherently inconsistent. According to him, he views individuals as divinities and not cyborgs. For instance, Manovich incorrectly stated that “it is just a space people enter and thus we have not augmented reality.” It is important to note that when we go off the grid, our social platform does not necessarily disappear; it is patiently waiting for our return (Manovich, 2006). Besides, the way people interact globally is formed by the existence of entire digital communication platforms regardless of whether or not we are off the grid at that particular time (Ernst & Sophie, 2016). Pierre Bordieu articulates that he has developed behaviors, habits, and belief patterns similar to augmented reality (Manovich, 2006). Therefore, his cyborg subjectivity, regardless of his environment inconsistent; it remains intact all through.

In terms of electronic displays, Manovich viewed it as an iconographic representation and a more traditionalist approach to utilizing information surfaces. Based on this scenario, Manovich claimed that architecture design should be largely guided by commercial culture. He uses an example of a medieval cathedral narrative of “not only covering the surface but also it is entire spatial building (Manovich, 2006).” On the other side, the Lars Spuybroek put more emphasis on interiors by eliminating traditional framing gadgets. As a result, Spuybroek developed a space that was coherent with the display (Manovich, 2006). The later development created an intangible understanding between the two. The Manovich went ahead and reduced the Spuybroek development to “abstract color fields and sound.” Manovich strongly argued that the importance of watching electronic media is more than a device screen paradigm. Indeed, Manovich urged artists and architects to reflect the space for data flow, which is tangible and puts more effort into research and development (Manovich, 2006).

Conclusion

This Manovich article discusses how people experience spatial forms through the use of vibrant and dynamic multimedia information. Urban spaces such as entertainment and shopping areas are examples where one can access different information wirelessly. The article author described, such as augmented space. Considering the merits and demerits of Manovich's argument, there is sufficient evidence that the author is biased on augmentation. He conceptualized it as a cultural and an idea as well as aesthetic practices instead of technological advancement (Manovich, 2006). However, throughout the articles, other methods in vernacular and professional architecture, cinema, build environment, media, and 20th-century art are well captured in terms of augmentation.