Augmented Reality Art pp 139-147

Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC) | Cite as

Digital Borders and the Virtual Gallery



Augmented reality art, as a new media subset, distinguishes itself through its peculiar mechanics of exhibition and performative re-contextualization. It allows the artist to translocate the borders and constraints of the experience from physical to virtual, expressing the piece onto spaces independent of physical or locative constraint, yet still tethered to the real world. This practice of anchoring virtual assets to the physical world allows artists to make use of virtual properties such as mutability and replication, while engaging with issues of embodiment, performance, and presence. The art installation occurs not in the gallery, but on the hard drive of mobile devices. In this way AR artworks align themselves more perhaps with movements like, where one must look to the loading screen as the gateway to the gallery, a space which – while mutable and infinitely configurable – is still proscriptive. AR may allow the artist to set many more of the work’s boundaries than in more traditional media, but even that freedom is still subject to the affordances of the software composing the work. Yet the ability to customize those boundaries, to draw one’s own curatorial borders and parameters, is in itself a freedom drawing from augmented reality’s strengths, inviting a model of the world as not one in which art happens, but one which is conditionally defined and experienced as an integrative work of art.


  1. Aarseth EJ. Cybertext: perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  2. Bourriaud N. Relational aesthetics. Dijon: Leses Du Réel; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Dourish P. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Freeman JC. Frontera de los Muertos. (2013). Accessed 10 Dec 2013.
  5. Garbe J. Translocated boundaries + interview, statement, artwork. Leonardo Electron Alm. 2013;19(1):20–43.Google Scholar
  6. Greenspan B. The new place of reading: locative media and the future of narrative. Digit Humanit Q. 2011;5(3):5.Google Scholar
  7. Morrison A. Designing performativity for mixed reality installations. FORMakademisk. 2010;3(1):123–44.Google Scholar
  8. Reeves S. Designing the spectator experience. In: Proceedings of 2005 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York; 2005. pp. 741–50.Google Scholar
  9. Scherrer C, Pilet J, Fua P, Lepetit V. The haunted book. Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality, Cambridge; 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Toews P. Augmented mountain- pyrite. (2013). Accessed 10 Dec 2013.
  11. Veenhof S, Skwarek M. Augmented reality art exhibition MoMA NYC (guerrilla intervention). (2010). Accessed 10 Dec 2013.
  12. Wardrip-Fruin N, Mateas M. Defining operational logics. Proceedings of DiGRA- Breaking new ground: innovation in games, play, practice and theory, London; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Games and Playable MediaUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations