Is Size Everything?

In "The Poetics of Augmented Space", Lev Manovich states that "the difference between whether we can think of a particular situation as an immersion or as augmentation is simply a matter of scale – the relative size of display" (79). He is basing his distinction between VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) on the size of screen that you are watching a movie or playing video games on. Going to a movie theater, watching movies or playing video games on a big screen TV basically immerses you in VR, while these same activities being conducted on smaller devices like PDAs (personal digital assistants), cell phones, or psps and gameboys, constitute AR. If AR is something that “may add additional information to our experience” and VR “may add an altogether different experience” then I would say that scale, or the relative size of display, is not the only distinction between AR and VR. It is perhaps not even the main distinction between the two.

At first I was in agreement with Manovich's assertion - I become very immersed in the cinematic experience, possibly even to the point of something I might accept as VR - until I considered the role of content in this distinction between VR and AR. A great example of the importance of content is the film The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Arguably one of the most unique cinematic experiences, this film is anything but a virtual reality. The real interest for this film is the highly interactive twist it adds to movie going. Regardless of the size of the screen, the audience is going to sing along, throw rice and toast, cover their heads with newspapers or party hats, ring bells and the list goes on, all of which are not acceptable behaviors in a movie theater. This show is often accompanied by a live cast acting on a stage in front of the screen, though this is not always the case. The point is that the content of the film is very interactive and this overrules any screen that tries to silence the audience and engulf their complete attention. This is a big screen event that is very much in the realm of AR and anything but VR.

Another example that size is not everything would be the common displays of public self-humiliation that result from cell phone, PDA, and hand held video-game use. I am not one to get anecdotal but it is very useful in illustrating this point. I have heard stories from a good number of my friends – keep in mind that I do not own any of the required gadgetry to suffer from this embarrassment so 'friends' is not a clever coverup to save face – where they have walked into things, tripped, missed bus stops or sat through entire lectures unaware of anything being said because they were too busy texting or playing chess on their i-phones. Chess is a great example of the importance of content because it does not require any cutting edge 3-D graphics or cool effects, it is simple and yet engaging and that is all it takes. Something does not have to be huge to capture your attention entirely, it just has to be something that appeals to you greatly.

While I would agree that a larger platform is more engaging, hence the constant complaints of patrons at the Empire 7 Cinemas in downtown Ottawa who are subjected to one of the horrendously small 'screening rooms' when what they paid for and wanted was the gargantuan screen that is expected of the cinematic experience, it is content and not the size of the screen that transforms any movie or game into VR, at least in the sense that Manovich explains VR.