It was interesting to read about what Manovich defined to be augmented spaces, including surveillance, cell phone media, and urban shopping spaces, because these are not usually the first things that pop into my mind when I think of augmented spaces or augmented reality. This is probably also because I have been accustomed to seeing these aspects for the majority of my life that it becomes blended with “physical reality.”

The first thing that did pop into my mind when I thought of augmented reality and spaces was the incredibly fascinating work that Microsoft is doing with the HoloLens (an augmented reality device). If you haven’t heard of it, here are a few short videos that show some of its potential. I would highly recommend checking them out:

Microsoft HoloLens - Transform your world with holograms

Hololens Holoportation: Virtual 3D Teleportation in Real-time

This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of augmentation, but in my opinion one of the most exciting and promising. The examples Manovich mentioned are much more subtle in comparison. Also, the videos highlight more functional aspects of the technology rather than the cultural and aesthetic purposes, which Manovich chooses to focus on.

Specifically, Manovich writes, “In a high-tech society, cultural institutions usually follow the technology industry… Can this situation be reversed? Can cultural institutions play an active, even a leading, role, acting as laboratories where alternative futures are tested?” I think it is possible, to an extent. There is definitely a huge amount of potential in expanding the current applications of augmented spaces for more cultural and aesthetic purposes. But ultimately, the reason that tech is leading is that creating extremely new augmented spaces/reality is technically challenging. Advancing this frontier, in ways that technology like the HoloLens is doing, requires several years worth of significant technical knowledge and research.