Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
7.4
Ergodic Performance
Espen Aarseth coined the term “ergodic literature” to refer to written works that
require significant effort by the reader to decode in order to experience (Aarseth
1997
). As touched on earlier, AR is arguably an especially ergodic artform -
requiring real work from the viewers (usually in the form of technical proficiency)
that can mean some succeed and others fail in grasping its embodied rules and thus
exploring the piece to full expressivity. This challenge set before viewers gives rise
to another layer of consideration when thinking about the performativity of AR
pieces.
In non-interactive artworks there is generally one level of engagement the
audience participates in. The differing layers and contexts of analysis each person
brings to a piece of artwork may differentiate them when they are placed in dialogue,
but for the most part the experience is a uniform level of engagement, even if there
are different times and styles of attention and engagement on that level. The varying
valences of content can go privately unresolved, while the only thing made public
within the exhibition space is the piece of artwork itself.
For viewers of participative interactive artwork, however, interaction can change
the perception of the piece for other viewers. Those who come forward to impact the
work through interaction become part of the display, and their ability to tease out the
performative, perlocutionary subtleties of the work can open them to critique from
other viewers, giving rise to performance anxiety. This segments viewers into groups
based on their willingness to interact, their willingness to perform the piece (Reeves
2005
). Thus, there's an undeniably relational aesthetic element to these projects,
especially since the mediation through a technological framing device demands - as
a base requirement - perceptual performance from its audience. Holding the device
just so, downloading this app, scanning that QR code, knowing to perform a specific
sequence of actions, even outside a gallery setting, creates a Bourriaudian “state of
encounter” (Bourriaud
2009
). While at an installation there's a sense of being part
of a group, but even in one's home or outside a physical gallery, when accessing AR
there's an element of being privy to secret knowledge, a hidden virtual world, that
creates a sense of being “in the know”. There's a feeling of membership in a distinct
group of people, accented by the very fact that AR viewers literally see the world
differently than those unaware of the virtual content anchored around them.
The technical demands for artwork utilizing augmented reality are fairly high,
requiring either sophisticated software making use of machine vision algorithms, or
software and hardware which can make available to the creator the GPS position
and heading of the viewing device. These technical hurdles were overcome for the
most part first by companies seeking to monetize AR as a new media platform. As
such, artists seeking to work in the medium frequently find themselves first needing
to choose a software platform, which comes with its own set of constraints. It is
here perhaps that most obviously one can see the restrictions and affordances which
control the exhibition of AR work. Outside of licensing fees, the differences in the
platforms become the differences in the artworks, much in perhaps the same way
