The two readings and the exhibition The Enemy present three different types and levels of technological integration. While Manovich defines “augmented space” as any “physical space overlaid with dynamically changing information, multimedia in form and localized for each user”, Gallery One fosters engagement and interaction with visitors directly through digital devices and tools, and also allowing visitors to create their own content. As for The Enemy, the entire experience is based on and relied on technology.

However, in some ways the exhibition doesn’t feel like an augmented space, as the VR is simulating a real exhibition space, the only exception being text, or an image, on a wall changing. There’s also the part near the end of the tour, where you walk to a mirror, and see yourself as one of the subjects/interviewees featured in the exhibition. Although, I am not completely sure what the purpose and intended effects were, and don’t think it really delivered, as it wasn’t made clear what the implications were, and perhaps also because it’s simulated, therefore lacking in impact.

When considering Manovich’s piece as a general theoretical framework and research/field overview, it provides many interesting and varied examples, including some that are not heavily reliant on technology, but this also makes it problematic to some extent in my view. The definition given, quoted above, seems very broad and rather vague; too many spaces and environments seem to fit the description, especially as they get more and more wireless, digital, and mobile-friendly in recent years, and inevitably in the future. It is somewhat understandable as the piece was published in 2006, before the launch and rise of smart-phones; we effectively live in a rather different world today.

On the other hand, Gallery One, to me, is a great example of utilizing technologies to add to the experience, that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. It really combines physical material, or spaces, and digital content, such as matching visitors’ pose or facial expressions with those found in artworks, providing additional information, through text, audio and video, upon scanning an item, and storing and creating tours for visitors. The app, which enhances visitors’ experience in the museum, also allows off-site engagement, extending the effects of the augmented space by delivering the information and experience outside of the actual space.

While The Enemy, and perhaps other uses of VR, almost doesn’t feel like an augmented space, as described, it does also enable users/visitors to have experiences otherwise impossible. Using various technologies, filming, scanning, modeling… etc., the exhibition recreates, or simulates, face-to-face interactions that become rather powerful deliveries of information and narratives, which had been, and still is mostly, confined to a single space, at a specific time.

I find both Gallery One and The Enemy to be very interesting projects/installments: Gallery One being a pioneering example in its field that is still being further developed, and The Enemy which will travel to other cities and hopefully inspire other VR exhibitions and developments. (Is it also a first?) I find this technology and approach valuable in that the environment visitors/users experience is created in the VR, in this case a pleasant sunlit gallery space, and that the exhibition can take place in any space, of certain dimensions or larger, and is also easier to transport and perhaps recreate. The article/report on Gallery One also describes the project development process, which is a great example for other cultural institutions, (mentioned in Manovich’s writing) and really intrigued me, having taken a course on project management last year at LSE.