I thought it was really interesting that Manovich wanted to redefine augmentation in terms of societies and cultures and history, instead of technology. This is because the first thought that comes to mind when I hear “augmentation” is something like Pokemon Go, where a “virtual reality” is overlaid onto actual reality using a phone app. In retrospect, this makes sense because before the technological age, things like paintings and statues were used to, for lack of a better word, “augment” different spaces. However, I found it confusing that instead of illustrating how augmentation doesn’t depend on technology, as he claimed in his introduction, Manovich goes on to explain how augmented reality followed the natural progression from 2D art to 3D art spaces which rathere than’creating an object that a viewer would look at…placed the viewer inside the object.” I think it would have been interesting for Manovich to instead explore the role of 3D art spaces alone in augmented reality throughout the course of history. After reading Manovich’s piece, which ended up focusing on the role of technology in virtual reality, it was really interesting to go through the interactive art gallery in the Cleveland Museum of Art and see the benefits of using interactive screens to enhance the user experience. I didn’t get a chance to go to “The Enemy” exhibit and the MIT Museum. But to offer some insight, I used to go to the Museum of Science almost weekly when I was younger, and it was really interesting to see the progression of their exhibits as they moved from classic exhibits to more interactive exhibits that used some aspects of augmented reality, but not completely. But to be honest, I never really enjoyed the newer exhibits as they felt fake to me and in between a truly immersive experience and just sticking a tablet in a exhibit.