I didn’t attend the exhibition, so I won’t be commenting on it here.

Lev Manovich’s text touched on a number of topics related to augmented space. I enjoyed the article, and though it was well structured it ocassionally seemed disconnected.

IT was interesting thinking about the topics he bring up in relation to the research paradigms presented early on. Context-aware computing in particular seems to dominate his thinking about augmented space and how it represents another complimentary dimension to life. I personally think that the distinction between customizable data, like cellphones, and public displays has gotten blurred with time. However, Venturi’s concept of architecture as iconography and the example of Catholic cathedrals made me wonder about how I look at public places like Times Square and how the architecture (without the screen) changes my impression of the space.

I am also curious about the relationship between this technological layer and the economy, which Manovich only hints at here and there in the article. The economics of all this is an important consideration. External factors must align to realize the promise of essentially everything that Manovich talks about, from galleries to brandscaping. As he mentions, the wonder of the internet fell victim to economic reality in the 1990s, and exhibits like The Enemy are paid-for.

The second reading focuses more on the response of consumer to Manovich’s augmented reality as it appears in Gallery One. Exhibits like the MicroTile Collection Wall attempt to transmit data with the goal of drawing in and retaining consumers. With the wall, the creators attempted to simultaneously condense and input information to provide another layer of understanding in a 2-D plane (or 3-D path). When we think about how to appeal to museum vistors who average at 6 minutes per exhibit, we want to keep up with the times while maintaining traditional architectural integrity- i.e. creating an iconographic and structurally logical exhibit.