In addition to his discussion of the political role of spectacle, I found most interesting Crary’s reference to Debord’s view of spectacle “as the annihilation of historical knowledge” (106). With each spectacle, a new opportunity arises not only for those “in the business of selling novelty” but also for the viewers to forget their own past. Debord’s description presents spectacle as a sinister event. Whether concentrated or diffuse, spectacle maintains its original purpose “as a weapon of combat” (99).
There is a connection between this later view of spectacle and Baudrillard’s reference to the Renaissance (98). As “newly empowered classes” sought their own “imitations, copies, and counterfeits” in order to secure their (perceived) happiness, they used them as a kind of spectacle to forget their previously lower class (and perceived unhappiness). How does Benjamin’s theory of aura play out here? Does a spectacle have to be new in order to cause the kind of forgetfullness Debord references? Can a repeated object, having lost its aura, be a spectacle? Is there spectacle in the act of repetition?
Manovich’s article succeeds in using technology as a third dimension by referencing its variability (18). The constantly dynamic nature of computer technology that creates the augmented spaces is what makes it new (a spectacle?). I also appreciated his comparison of surveillance, a technology that turns people into data, and cellspace technologies, which bring data to the people (3).
In Manovich’s definition of augmented space, he describes the dynamic data as being “overlayed” on top of the physical architecture (6). Although he goes on to explain that the dynamic media and information help to create a third dimension that make these augmented spaces completely new, I wonder if it’s problematic using overlay as his point of departure. What kinds of spaces do not have data overlaid, but rather are built alongside it? Are all spaces physical first, with data, if available, on top? Manovich is concerned with new media as an architectural problem, but I wonder about purely media-based spaces. In the end, I guess, all space is architectural first and anything else second. Maybe. Manovich’s descriptions of dataspace “as a continuous field that completely extends over, and fills in, all of physical space” comes close.
I found Manovich’s descriptions of specific architectural places interesting, though possibly cut short. He charts how, in the 1990s, galleries were “turned into what was, for almost a century, its ideological enemy–a movie theatre” (14). My personal experience, however, is very different in video galleries today. Perhaps it is because those dark, curtained-off rooms have become ubiquitous by now, but I find no familiarity of a movie theater in them. That is, those video installations have returned to a gallery’s previous status of “high art.”
Finally, the description of the Prada store sums up much of Manovich’s different definitions. In addition to the overlay of dynamic data, there is a combination of spaces as a retail shop and as a place of reverence. In addition to the screen in the basement Manovich describes, I believe there are also special mirrors in the dressing rooms of that flagship store. When accessed, you can essentially record yourself inside the dressing room, and then immediately play the footage back, allowing the shopper to see herself from all angles. The “user” sees a reflection of herself in the normal mirror, but then also repeats herself, copies herself, and is still wowed by the spectacle of herself.
