You know, this one. Three responses you might be interested in, by…
Expressing discontent at the ocular focus of Visual AR is like giving Painting a hard time because it denies the rich plethora of experiential possibilities afforded by audio, and that all paintings should ship with a small orchestra. All the while painting’s have been ‘augmenting reality’ for centuries, changing the way people see the world, even their own faith..
there was something missing that i think would add even more weight to your argument and i wanted to throw it out there for future conversation. i think it’s problematic, for the construction of your thesis, to counter the “it’s all in the eyes” perspective with its polar opposite “it’s all in the brain” because most visual research of the past few decades shows that it’s actually a little of both.
I think the key takeaway point is in Slavin’s suggestion that “reality is augmented when it feels different, not looks different” – which basically echoes Marcel Duchamp’s (almost) century-old contempt for the ‘retinal bias’ of the art market. If AR development (thus far) is lacking imagination, perhaps the problem is that we’re very much tethering the medium to our antiquated VR pipe dreams and the web browser metaphor.