As Manovich discusses in his article, there are many ways in which a space can be augmented with information, with various degrees of personalization. The “simplest”, and most common way of augmenting space, is in a way what humans have always done; adding extra information to architectural surfaces through paintings, inscriptions or, more recently, screens displaying dynamic imagery. What characterizes this form of augmentation of space, is that everyone will have the same experience of, save for personal associations or varying connotations, and agree upon, what the space looks like. The next, and increasingly common way of augmenting space, is agumentation that is customized for each user. This is however no small category, and comprises everything from public devices with input mechanisms, to personal AR technologies.

In the Boston Public Library, Space is augmented in three main ways. The first is through books, that while arguably less accessible, or at least less in your face, than large, electronic displays, is definitely information distributed in space. It was also very expected of a library.

The second is through electronic information boards, where one could explore the library’s colletions and delve into the items’ metadata in addition to digital representations of the items themselves. None of the electronic information displays we found, did, however, work properly, which rendered us unable to assess the value and usefulness of a working system.

The third was through personal computers for people to use for web browsing and document writing. This was the most personalized augmentation in the library, as the computers seemed intended for single users, as opposed to the information boards, that could equally well have been used by small groups of people (had they worked).

There were also some more outdated pieces of hardware, like several microfilm magnifiers and scanners, though these were more hidden away and not in use by anyone.

All in all, the library was not particularly successful in augmenting the experience with advanced technology, instead serving as a space for people to use personal computers, an activity so generic I would say it doesn’t really augment a space as much as it makes the space irrelevant, and occationally reading or researching books.

However, whether this lack of augmentation is actually a negative thing is a discussion completely skipped in Manovich’s article. He doesn’t discuss the implications as much as he is simply fascinated with the possibilities, which I feel provides a somewhat shallow analysis of the situation. Especially with the recent focus on both privacy/surveillance and online, isolated groups/echo chambers, I am personally concerned about the extent to which spaces should be further augmented, at least as we move in the ever more personalized direction. While I definitely agree that augmented spaces are cool, and could have the possibility of streamlining our lives for minimum cognitive load (or of course maximum if you so choose, but who will realistically choose that?), I do not think ultimately risking a shared reality is worth it, almost no matter the benefits.

Exactly how this will be solved is of course a different matter, but being blinded by shiny, new technology is definitely not the right way. We need an open, enlightened debate about this, before we’re at a stage where “big brother” knows everything and curates specific realities to each and every one of us.