Augmented Reality Art pp 149-159

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

Immersive Art in Augmented Reality

Chapter

Abstract

Google Glass brought a new level of excitement to Augmented Reality for the mainstream. It did not however bring the type of features that most AR enthusiasts have been looking forward to for decades. AR has traditionally been defined by the capability to integrate real-time 3D computer graphics into a person’s field of view in such a manner as to be convincing that they are as real as the physical objects surrounding them. Interestingly though, current AR technology has taken a turn away from this attempt at a sensorial suspension of disbelief in favor of a new social form of immersion. In this new model, space is collapsed not between the real and the virtual – but instead between people in distance and time. What was once a phone call is now a real-time mobile media stream of video, audio, text, hyperlinks, hashtags and sensor data. We can also quite simply capture our surroundings and post them as photographs, tweets, video and audio to cloud based social media platforms whereby these are viewed by our social networks and then threaded, parsed and responded to as well as archived into spatial and temporal timelines. In context of this new mobile form of augmented reality that is based on social interactivity, artists are now beginning to explore the cultural potential this new medium can offer. This chapter will explore several components of this new artistic medium and some markers from art history and gaming culture that help to explain the history of how we have arrived at this new social AR medium. Specifically we will look at socially immersive artworks and collaborative locative media as outcomes of this new medium based on social immersion rather than sensorial immersion.

References

  1. Cárdenas M, Head C, Margolis T, Greco K. Becoming dragon: a mixed reality durational performance in Second Life. Proc SPIE. 2009;7238:723807-723807-13.Google Scholar
  2. David Datuna for Glass. http://datuna.com/. Accessed 8 May 2014.
  3. Höllerer TH, Feiner SK. Mobile augmented reality. In: Telegeoinformatics: location-based computing and services. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd; 2004. pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
  4. Margolis T, Cornish T, Berry R, DeFanti TA. Immersive realities: articulating the shift from VR to mobile AR through artistic practice. In: Proceedings of SPIE, The engineering reality of virtual reality, 82890F. SPIE Digital Library, San Francisco, California; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. Monnington L. tl;dr: we made a purdy tree!; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Ovrvision. http://ovrvision.com/. Accessed 8 May 2014.
  7. Qualcomm Vuforia. https://www.vuforia.com (2010). Accessed 29 Jan 2014.
  8. RNK Field Art. https://plus.google.com/communities/105136616454643645459 (2013). Accessed 29 Jan 2014.
  9. Stadler M. Field art Greifswald – operation woodpecker; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Steptoe W. AR-Rift. http://willsteptoe.com/post/66968953089/ar-rift-part-1 (2013). Accessed 29 Jan 2014.
  11. Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun. 1992;42:73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Story D, Enfield D. StormEye 2009. http://slstormeye.blogspot.com/ (29 January 2014).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Institute of Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2)University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations