From: Mathias Fuchs <mathias.fu...@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@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
