MOBILITIES

2020, VOL. 15, NO. 6, 776–791

https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2020.1816439

Micro-mobilities in curated spaces: agency, autonomy and

dwelling in visitor experiences of augmented reality in arts and
heritage
a b
Caroline Scarles , Helen Treharne , Matthew Caseyc and Husna Zainal Abidina
a
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey; bDepartment of Computer
Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey; cPervasive Intelligence, Fleet, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Mobile technologies are transforming the ways in which we experience Received 21 January 2020
arts and heritage sites, and galleries and museums are facing increased Accepted 29 July 2020
pressure to provide stimulating, alternative technology-based solutions KEYWORDS
for enriching visitor experiences. Focusing on the opportunities afforded Micro-mobilities; art;
by augmented reality (AR), this paper critiques the role this technology technology; augmented
plays in providing visitors the opportunity to experience art and exhibi­ reality; agency; dwelling
tions through a series of dynamic, small-scale micro-mobilities. We pro­
pose that AR creates curated spaces of mobility in galleries and museums
and in doing so, visitors become empowered through spaces of agency,
autonomy and dwelling as they negotiate these spaces and encounter art
through technology-mediated forms of wayfinding, interpretation and
personal curation. Through negotiated agencies of human and non-
human, visitors become emancipated, active agents in a process of co-
production. Such positioning is further critiqued as the paper investigates
the opportunities afforded by augmented reality to create alternative
spaces of connection and interpretation through conceptualisations of
dwelling and we suggest technology holds the potential to facilitate an
enriched, deeper and more personal connection to that experienced in art
gallery and exhibition spaces.

Introduction
Since the emergence of the new mobilities paradigm, there has been significant research in this field
by researchers working in, practising and theorising about art and gallery spaces and the role of
mobile media in the relationships between artist, audience and place. As highlighted by both the
Arts Council (2013) and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS 2016), the proliferation
of the development and adoption of technology and digital solutions is increasingly central to the
arts and heritage sector. As the recent Culture is Digital paper highlights:
‘technology offers unprecedented opportunities for the UK cultural sector. On a daily basis we witness
technology’s role in engaging new audiences, nationally and internationally through digital platforms and
distribution channels; in driving business models; creating art, cultural content and experiences; and increasing
access to our world-class archives and collections’ (DCMS, 2018:5).

As Bishop (2012: 1) contends ‘most art today deploys new technology at one, if not most, stages of its
production, dissemination and consumption’ (: 1), yet as she argues, there remains troubling oscilla­
tion between intimacy and distance that characterise our new technological regime and therefore

CONTACT Caroline Scarles c.scarles@surrey.ac.uk

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.
0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 MOBILITIES 777

calls us to ‘confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital’
(ibid: 1). In addressing this concern, many authors such as De Souza de Silva (2006), Sheller (2012),
Southern (2015); Southern (2018)), and Sheller and Iverson (2015), explore the role of mobile
technology as creating hybrid socio-technological spaces of art. With a focus on digital art, such as
locative art and augmented reality art works (Barry and Keane 2017), such research is exemplified by
Southern (2015) as she explores the multiple, entangled and assembled nature of mobile media and
art through the lens of locative art. The complexities of the fusion of technology, art, presences and
mobilities (Sheller and Iverson 2015) arise as audiences are actively positioned as proactive agents
with art as it comes into being through multiple, situated and partial socio-technological assem­
blages created through movement, relationality, social connections, networks and databases in post-
gallery settings (Southern 2015; Southern, Rose, and Keeffe 2017).
The pervasive nature of mobile technology therefore becomes ubiquitous in our experiences of
and with art; opening opportunity for innovative and creative interplays between artists and
audiences. What emerges are a series of hybrid spaces (De Souza de Silva 2006); the creation of
social interfaces that not only reshape relationships but blur the boundaries as: ‘hybrid spaces
abrogates the distinction between the physical and the digital through the mix of social practices that
occur simultaneously in digital and in physical spaces’ (ibid: 256). The omnipresence of visual digital
culture renegotiates understanding and experiences of intimacies (Wamberg 2013); mobilising
proximity, engagement and participation in art through the creation of mixed realities. Through
such mobile mediality (Sheller 2012), art emerges at the intersection of place-making, movement
and political aesthetics; relational and inherently connected to mobility and practice.
Such alternative experiences of movement, performance and embodied experiences of art have,
to date, been explored primarily through the critique of applied and practice-based techniques as
interactive artwork (see also Barry and Keane 2017). Technology, such as augmented reality (AR),
creates a series of unique mixed reality situations in post-gallery settings in critical interventionalist
sites that mobilises a politicising and re-assembling of place through embodied, mixed reality
experiences (Witzgall 2016; Wright 2015). This paper therefore aims to extend our understandings
of AR and mobile technology in art by critiquing socio-technological, intersubjective relationships
between visitors and AR technology within the intimate spaces of the gallery. It furthers under­
standing of the role of AR as facilitating connection to existing exhibits rather than participating in
the creation of AR artworks. It critiques experiences with art as emerging through a series of curated,
small-scale micro-mobilities as the socio-technological relationalities between visitors and exhibits
unfold within the confines of the physical gallery space.
In doing so, it also recognises and responds to existing research in the field of tourism, heritage
and mobilities. The ubiquitous nature of technology within everyday life and associated mobile
mediality extends to our experience as tourists and visitors, as the interplays of agencies of the
human and non-human and associated corporeal experiences are central to the production and
consumption of experiences (Hannam, Butler, and Paris 2014; Molz 2012). Nevertheless, attention to
date has focused on the influence of new technology on the wider tourism experience with limited
attention to the application of such technologies to the visitor experience in art galleries and
exhibition spaces. Where research has taken place, it has focused primarily on: the development of
AR applications and associated operational challenges (Younes et al. 2017), critiques of AR installa­
tions (Liestøl, 2014; Vlahakis et al. 2002), smartphones as platforms for AR and associated function­
ality (Yocheva, Buhalis, and Gatzidis 2012), stakeholder and management perspectives of adopting
AR (Cranmer et al. 2016; Scarles et al. 2019; Tom Dieck and Jung 2015; Jung et al. 2016), and the
design and evaluation of AR systems in museums (Fenu and Pittarello 2018).
Research recognises that AR holds the potential to enrich visitor experiences (Chung, Han, and
Joun 2015; He, Wu, and Li 2018; Jung et al. 2016; Tom Dieck and Jung 2015; Jung et al. 2016); opening
opportunities to connect with art and artefacts in previously incomprehensible ways (Brogni et al.
1999). It can stimulate visitor interest (Chang et al. 2014) as curators bring life to exhibits by providing
digital access to archived documents, thus enriching otherwise silent worlds through oral histories,
778 C. SCARLES ET AL.

music, or soundscapes. AR becomes a tool for learning and exploration (Leue, Jung, and Tom Dieck
2014; Liestøl, 2014; Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck 2018). Digital overlays are immediately
accessible through mobile technologies such as smartphones, tablets, or wearable glasses
(Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck 2018); bringing real-world objects into a virtual environment or
vice versa (He, Wu, and Li 2018). As such, technology becomes akin to a surrogate parent; construct­
ing and transforming opportunities for engaging with and connecting to that which is encountered
(Urry & Larsen, 2011).
This paper therefore responds to calls from Bishop (2012) to confront what it means to think, see
and filter affect through the digital and builds on work by authors such as Sheller (2012), Sheller and
Iverson (2015) and Southern (2015), and those from tourism scholars such as Han, Jung, and Gibson
(2014) and Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck (2018) who recognise the limited nature of research on
AR and visitor experience. It advances understandings of the small-scale, micro-mobilities within
these spaces as visitors encounter art through socio-technologically mediated forms of way-finding,
interpretation and personal curation. To do this, we first draw upon Cresswell (2010a, 2010b) and
Hannam, Butler, and Paris (2014), amongst others, who recognise that sites, such as galleries, become
moorings: ‘distinct . . . .social spaces that orchestrate new forms of social and cultural life’ (ibid: 173).
We propose visitors become entwined in an assemblage of agents, agency and immanent relation­
ships as they dwell in gallery and exhibition spaces using AR. In doing so, socio-technological
relationships hold the potential to confront institutional norms (De Botton and Armstrong 2013;
Graham and Cook 2010; Sheller and Iverson 2015) as the appropriate adoption of AR facilitates
deeper and more personal connection with exhibits. Second, we adopt Ranciere’s conceptualisations
of aesthetics and the emancipated spectator to suggest AR positions visitors as active, autonomous
agents. Building on work in remediated, hybrid experiences of art (Bolter and Grusin 2000; Sheller
2012; Sheller and Iverson 2015; Southern 2015), we suggest visitors become co-producers as they (re)
interpret art through a series of dynamic, active engagements mobilised through autonomy, sensual
and emotional investment with art. Finally, we introduce Thrift (2004, 2008) to critique the agency of
technology in visitor engagements as experiences emerge through a fusion of interplays of human
and non-human and the emergence of associated relational agencies and materialities encountered
in gallery spaces. Thus, in exploring the micro-mobilities of the visitor experience performed within
galleries, art becomes consumed through bodily co-presences and proximities (Hannam, Sheller, and
Urry 2006) and the socio-technological relationalities performed within these spaces (Sheller 2012,
2016; Sheller and Iverson, 2015; Southern 2015).

Micro-mobilities & dwelling in art through AR

As concept, technology and practice, AR has received significant attention since its foundations in
work by Milgrim and Kishino (1994) on the reality-virtuality continuum. While our intention is not to
reiterate the functionalities of AR, it is important to reflect on the qualities that characterise its being.
AR provides additional layers of knowledge that combines real and virtual content in real-time,
interactive environments (Azuma, 1997; Vlahakis et al. 2002); facilitating user interaction by enhan­
cing perception of, and interaction with, the real-world environment (Kassahun et al. 2018). In AR ‘the
index is empowered away from passivity to proactivity’ (Wamberg 2013: 465) and, as such, facilitates
‘distributed subjectivity’ (ibid: 477) by inviting different interactions and new connections (Sheller
2016; Southern, Rose, and Keeffe 2017).
In mobilising subjectivities, AR creates space for personalised way-finding through new entangle­
ments of physical and virtual presences in hybrid space (De Souza de Silva 2006). We therefore
propose active encounters with art as mediated through AR emerge through a series of immanent,
temporal and spatial engagements that invite visitors to interact differently with art; provoking new
connections created ‘in the moment’ within the gallery. Through such entanglements, visitors create
their own fluid constellations as they move through gallery spaces, as: ‘at any one time . . . there are
 MOBILITIES 779

pervading constellations of mobility – particular patterns of movements, representations of movement,

and ways of practising movements that make sense together’ (Cresswell 2010a: 18).
Exhibits and supporting AR content become moorings (Sheller and Urry 2006; Hannam, Sheller,
and Urry 2006; Cresswell 2010a); influencing visitor movements as they create their own pace and
rhythms in place as a fusion of moments of stillness and contemplation as they bypass installations
or engage with AR content as they move between exhibits. AR engagements become a fusion of
rhizomatic attachments, mobilities and immobilities as visitors’ wayfinding emerges through
a configuration of multiple moorings that enable and configure their mobilities through exhibition
spaces (Hannam, Sheller, and Urry 2006; Sheller and Urry 2006). Within such a melange of agents
and agency, the heterogenous nature of micro-mobilities arises as visitors make sense of art as
a fusion of their own personal subjectivities and those offered through the mediated content of
AR, generating often very different practices. For example, a family visiting an art gallery may have
very different experiences to that of a lone visitor, an art historian, or a quick visit during a lunch
break.
This process of sense-making and way-finding brings us to critique the ways visitors dwell within
art and understand more fully how visitors are able to become present in galleries, but how this is
inseparably bound with ‘the manner in which we relate to ourselves and to others’ (Derrida 2001:
16–17). Drawing upon Levinas’ (1969) conceptualisation of dwelling as constitutive forgetting and
the multiple, situated and partial nature of socio-technological assemblages (Sheller 2016; Southern
2015), dwelling becomes bound within the immanence of subjectivity. As such, dwelling centres ‘the
practitioner, right from the start, in the context of an active engagement with the constituents of his or
her surroundings’ (Ingold 2002: 5). It becomes a process of discovery and rediscovery (Harrison 2007)
as visitors move through exhibition spaces, their experiences becoming a fusion of bodily move­
ments and material flows that mobilise a series of potential imminences (Ingold 2011).
Velocity therefore becomes central to understanding the micro-mobilities of curated spaces.
Whether rushing through a gallery at speed or pausing in front of an exhibit, velocities reflect the
immediacy of visitors’ encounters. (Im)mobility creates moments of stillness (Molz 2012), facilitating
an increase in visitors’ dwell-time often desired by curators and gallery managers. As Cresswell (2012)
suggests, moments of stillness, as contemplation, captivation, or ‘stuckness’ bring new rhythms of
connection between visitors and art. It affords spaces of emotional and virtual connectedness (Molz
2012) as we are drawn into exhibits; pausing a little longer, reading accompanying text, or simply
looking, seeing or feeling to make sense of what we encounter. Yet, such stillness can also manifest
as disengagement as we wait for those with us to move through the exhibition space.
As such, dwelling enables visitors to build a world that is visible to them; mobilising a sense of
ownership through connection and the emergence of new possibilities through investment of self
with other (Prince 2018; Rose 2012; Sheller 2016; Sheller and Iverson 2015; Southern 2015). In the
context of art, this facilitates an openness to possibilities and alternative positionalities of self and
technology that facilitates and enables access to this enriched engagement as visitors engage in
a rich, intimate process of things becoming more familiar.

Micro-mobilities as interplays of agency in socio-technological encounters with art

and heritage
In understanding visitor engagements with AR as creating a series of micro-mobilities, it is important
to reflect on relational agencies between the human and non-human agents in engaging with art. As
Thrift (2008) recognises, environments are becoming extended and more active through a series of
‘understated’ technologies: (154); opening ever-evolving socio-technological relationships as we
make sense of our surroundings and our relational subjectivities within these. The agency of
technology enables us to become attuned in different ways; making and remaking our environments
to ask different questions and provide new kinds of instructions (Kesselring and Vogl 2016; Sheller
and Iverson 2015; Southern 2015; Southern, Rose, and Keeffe 2017).
780 C. SCARLES ET AL.

Technology is therefore not the end-in-itself (Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck 2018), rather to
follow Thrift (2004), the technicity of technology lies in that it can only exist within a network of
references and relays; continually open to the emergence of new capacities that emerge in relation
to agencies and materialities of that being encountered. Technology therefore brings agency to
relationships as it: ‘helps constitute the interpreted reality of the world and the situated subjectivity of
human beings by shaping people’s perception, interpretation, and forms of engagement with reality’
(Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck 2018: 599). Therefore, not only do objects make thought do-able,
they make thought possible and facilitate relational interactions between and amongst bodies and
space (Thrift 2004, 2008). As such, socio-technological micro-mobilities of engagements with art arise
as visitors simultaneously negotiate bodily relationships with technology and the mixed reality
worlds that emerge through such encounters.
Understanding the visitor experience as a series of socio-technological micro-mobilities therefore
calls into question how we understand the relationship between visitors, artists, curators, art and
artefacts and the role of AR as a tool in the immediacy of experiences (Bolter and Grusin 2000). In
renegotiating the mediated relationship between agencies, the potential of AR ‘lies in its ability to
generate new ways of perceiving for the spectator or to disclose what was previously unperceived –
unseen. Unheard, unfelt’ (Ross 2009: 2). Connections transcend the relationship of the artefact and
audience as object and recipient, mediating intersubjectivities and agency through layers of multi­
media content. Visitors become active agents as multiple relational agencies arise between the
human and non-human agents that come together to provide the infrastructure of experience
(Bolter and Grusin 2000; Ihde, 1990, 2013; Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck 2018). Collaborations
between curators, artists and technologies provide opportunities for storytelling as a fusion of
curated, augmented content (Ohler, 2008) that create ‘compelling user experiences’ (Fenu and
Pittarello 2018: 22). Through immediacy and remediation (Bolter and Grusin 2000), AR therefore
creates spaces of immanence, playfulness and imagination; encouraging visitors to discover and
explore to facilitate and construct an understanding of that which they encounter (see also Lemon,
2011; Kassahun et al. 2018). Visitors therefore establish an immediate relationship with art; crossing
boundaries and engaging in extended episodes of digital interaction with exhibits.
The opportunity for personal curation through micro-mobilities arises as technology, such as AR,
facilitates opportunity for increasingly personalised experiences as visitors tailor experiences, explor­
ing and discovering personal points of interest (Neuhofer et al., 2015; Scarles et al. 2019; Southern
2015). In repositioning the visitor as co-producer of experience, technology facilitates active choices
and decision-making in navigation, interaction and discovery (Beleke et al., 2018) whilst navigating
gallery spaces to avoid interruption or congestion (Molz 2012). AR solutions therefore retain a role of
brokering the visitor experience as they assist visitors with ‘their physical, cognitive, social and
affective experiences’ (Tussyadiah, Jung, and Tom Dieck 2018: 599). In creating ‘real-time personalised
scaffolds’ (Chang et al. (2014) that open new connections and conversations (Sheller 2012, 2016;
Southern 2015), visitors realise relative autonomy; determining their level of engagement as the
agencies of visitor, cultural site, artefacts and technology conflate throughout the visitor journey.

Micro-mobilities and the art of the sensible in AR

Building on the relational agencies of human and non-human, attention turns to the means through
which personalising and positioning of self in art through aesthetics realised. We draw upon
Ranciere’s (2009) conceptualisation of aesthetics and the emancipated spectator to propose that
through micro-mobilities and the immediacy of encounter through which they are realised, visitors
become active bodies in a community of enacting where viewing becomes an action that confirms
and transforms the distribution of positions and possibilities. As Ranciere suggests, as spectators we
observe, select, compare and interpret. We link what we see to our subjective experiences in
different places and contexts; participating by refashioning in our own way (ibid). As such, ‘being
 MOBILITIES 781

a spectator is not some passive condition that we should transform into activity . . . every spectator is
already an actor in her story’ (ibid: 17).
Within a ‘system of regime’ of norms and habits that define perceptions of the collective world, art
is influenced by different regimes of perceptions through ‘fictions’ (Witzgall 2016). We propose that it
is through the emergence of new, personalised embodied connections with art as mediated by
technology that such ‘fictions’ arise through the micro-mobilities of curated spaces. In the imme­
diacy of the moment, visitors choose what additional content to listen to and for how long, where to
walk to, or when to stop (sitting or standing to reflect or rest). AR therefore facilitates negotiation in
choreographed storytelling, as visitors see what the artist and curator wish them to see, but through
emancipation and associated aesthetics, produce a form of consciousness, an intensity of feeling, an
energy for action according to their own subjective positioning in the moment. Aesthetics move
beyond the visual to become the distribution of the sensible (Ranciere 2009: 13) as alternative ways
of being and connection with art emerges through a regime of visibility produced through the
micro-mobilities performed in the immediacy of experience.
In facilitating space for sensible encounters, the aesthetics of AR ‘opens up opportunities for a form
of visibility . . . a recomposition of the relationship between doing, making, being, seeing and saying’
(ibid: 45). It facilitates a sensation of being present, as visitors feel the space through haptic interfaces
(Brogni et al., 1999). Such positioning does not refer to the ability of immersive technology such as
virtual reality (VR) or AR to create social presence in alternative digital environments (Sylaiou et al.,
2010; Jung et al. 2016). Rather, it is to explore the ways in which AR enables visitors to engage with
gallery spaces in ways that place our bodies at the centre of our socio-technological relationships to
others, objects and the world. This elevates the sensible and challenges us to comprehend and make
sense of the world and our relationship to it (Lefebvre 2004). The aesthetics of exhibits as mediated
through AR become the process of connection and engagement; a state of suspension (Ranciere
2004: 21), where exhibits are experienced for themselves by visitors in a way that is simultaneously
mediated by curated augmented content and made sensible through bodily actions and subjective
connections.
As such, the aesthetic regime of art exists through heterogeneous temporalities and autonomy in
visitor experiences. Sensibilities arise through impregnation and imagination as exhibits and asso­
ciated AR navigations act as stimuli to self and make it possible for the visitor to make sense of what
they are experiencing (Tillon, Marchal, and Houlier 2011). Exhibits therefore offer ‘ways of sensing’
and ‘they must be approached through the senses, rather than as “texts” to be read or merely visual
“signs” to be decoded’ (Classen and Howes 2006: 200). As Damala and Stonjanovic (2012) suggest: ‘AR
seems to steadily gain its place as a technology providing alternative, rich and directly related to the
human senses’ (:71). In this way, art can move away from being about ‘something’ to being about
‘someone’ as visitors move to increasingly cognitive and affective encounters with art through
embodied journeys. Visitor experiences become a blend of physical and digitised sensory encounters
in hybrid spaces (De Souza de Silva 2006; Fenu and Pittarello 2018; Geroimenko 2012). They emerge
through thought-in-action as cognitive reflective processes mix with the formation of embodied
affective dispositions. As Ross (2009) suggests, AR opens opportunity to facilitate an active, bodily
engagement between the object of art and the visitor as they become destined to locate themselves
within and alongside the exhibits encountered.

Please augment the art: experiencing galleries with AR

Findings have been taken from a wider study that included the evaluation of visitor experiences with
Let’s Explore and Smartify, two AR app solutions for art galleries, each offering multimedia layers of
content through on-demand image recognition (see Figures 1 & 2). For the findings shared in this
paper, content was developed in partnership with two art galleries using selected installations. Both
galleries were located in the south east of the UK and, whilst are not part of the national collection,
have international reputations in the field. Findings are taken from 52 interviews, of up to 40 mins,
782 C. SCARLES ET AL.

Figure 1. Let’s explore AR for arts and heritage (Authors’ own image).

Figure 2. Smartify in use (Authors’ own image).

conducted during live trials within two art galleries. 22 and 30 interviews were conducted at each
gallery respectively. While this research did not analyse findings by gender, it should be noted that
there were 16 male and 30 female participants. Likewise, while age was not a central focus,
participants reflected a wide age range from approximately mid-twenties to late seventies, with
most participants aged over approximately 50. All participants were visitors to the galleries who were
approached on arrival.
Whilst not adopting explicit mobile methods such as mobile interviewing (Brown and Durrheim
2009), or video ethnography (Voilmy, Smoreda, and Ziemlicki 2008), the methodological framing of
this research recognises the opportunities afforded by mobile methods as embracing the embodied
experiences and performance realities of participants (Spinney 2015). Indeed, rather than prioritising
a need to ‘go along with’ participants, attention focused on the need to ensure sensitive use of
 MOBILITIES 783

technology to understand practice and performance and the associated need to ‘mobilise method to
apprehend traces of movement in any quest to provide convincing and relevant interpretations’
(ibid: 242). As such, priority was for participants to have the opportunity to engage with the AR
solutions in accordance with their own movements within the gallery. Our focus was not on ‘over-
animating’ or producing a set of pre-determined movements, but rather to be sensitive to the range
of personalised engagements that arise through practices and representations of mobility (Spinney
2015: 242).
To achieve this, all visitors were provided the opportunity to access the AR solution on either
a tablet (Let’s Explore) or via their own smartphone (Smartify). Visitors were able to access additional
layers of multimedia content (including: photographs, videos, audio, and additional written text)
triggered by holding the mobile device up in front of the pieces of art or installations and utilising
the app in camera view to trigger content. Each were given a briefing on how to use the apps and
then were left to explore the gallery at their own pace. Researchers did not walk with participants but
were available to support should there be any problems or questions. No predetermined preferred
pathway of engaging with exhibits was provided to ensure visitors retained full autonomy in their
experience. Rather, participants were given the space, and importantly, time, to move through the
gallery as they desired; augmenting content at whatever frequency and depth they personally felt
appropriate to their own journey. Such an approach was adopted to understand the intuitive
preferences of participants and to provide them the space to make sense of, and engage with, the
technology that suited their preferred performances and enactments within the gallery.
Once participants had completed their visit, each was interviewed with elicitation through the
presence of the tablet and AR solution as a point of reference and discussion. Interviews addressed
a range of issues from existing experience of technology at arts and heritage sites, use of technology
in everyday lives, the experience of using the app, the challenges and opportunities the technology
afforded in their experience of the gallery, the likelihood of future user of such technology, and views
as to how the technology could be better developed and/or implemented. Interviews were recorded
and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis (Silverman 2020; Boyatzis
1998; Joffe and Yardley 2004; Nowell et al. 2017). As Silverman (2020) recognises, this approach
‘grounds interpretation in the particularities of the situation . . . and in the participants’ perspectives’ :
(229), presenting data as ‘accounts of social practices, substantiated by illustrative quotations’ : (229.
The rigour of this approach is underpinned through the development of a code matrix and devel­
opment of supporting themes that provide the foundation for the findings presented.

Autonomy and personalising encounters: visitors as active agents of mirco-mobilities

through AR
First, our attention turns to the possibilities afforded by AR in visitor autonomy and co-producing
personal connections with art. Drawing on Listǿl (2014), we explore the opportunities technology
affords for mobilising alternative movements through gallery spaces. As visitors move through
galleries, agencies of self and other combine through emergent aesthetics of space and the creation
of new connections with art as visitors are positioned as active, emancipated agents within their
encounters (Ranciere 2009; Sheller 2012, 2016; Southern 2015). For many, engagement with AR was
something new and provided a format that facilitated a playfulness with art; encouraging a less
formal, more personalised connection as they committed themselves and became more actively
engaged with exhibits that appealed directly to them: ‘it was really interesting and I definitely enjoyed
it’ . . . ’it’s important to use this as a tool for learning and . . . for enhancing the experiences, but part of
enhancing that experience is also . . . having fun, the flicking about’ (Brenda). Such thoughts were
echoed by Gillian who commented: ‘it’s fun . . . it’s amazing that it just scans the picture and you can
just (access more information)’ and George who shared that ‘that was quite fun. I played with (it) for
quite a while’.
784 C. SCARLES ET AL.

In mobilising an alternative, playful approach to navigating visitors’ encounters, there was over­
whelming support for the break from linear designs of audio-tours as AR enabled visitors to
choreograph their own movements and produce their own personal connections, sensibilities and
visual regimes of art (Ranciere 2009; Sheller 2012; Witzgall 2016). As Beleke et al. (2018) suggest, such
autonomy is realised through visitors’ active choices as they engage in a process of discovery and
interaction. Lily expressed this as: ‘I could just pick the ones l liked and go and look at them. I could use
it on all of them, or just pick the ones I was interested in . . . that idea of . . . dip in and out was good rather
than I’ve got to go around’. Likewise, Kate commented: ‘people find different things interesting, so
I think if you were able to switch on or switch off to things that are particularly interesting, it’s always
going . . . enhance your experience’. Visitors no longer felt confined by the ‘pre-set’ limitations of a tour:
‘with an audio tour, it is all sort of pre-set, isn’t it? Whereas . . . (with) that . . . you are walking around, and
it focuses in on where you are’ (Marion).
Participants determined their level of engagement depending not only on personal preference,
but wider environmental factors such as actively avoiding crowded areas whilst maintaining
engagement through supporting multi-media content. As Brian commented: ‘if the place you’re
going to is busy and you might not see all of it, it’s nice to know a bit about it so you don’t have to stay
there, in the middle of a crowd, waiting to read something’. Therefore, visitors can avoid spaces of
congestion (Molz 2012) while continuing to engage with exhibits as they control not only their
physical location, but also the depth to which they engage with the associated content. As Eve
commented: ‘it’s about timing and ability to control the (content)’ . . . .’you . . . feel, ‘I’m independent . . .
you’re not directed to go in any particular sequence because you’re not being told to go to the next item’.
As indicated by Sheller (2016) and Southern (2015), the flexibility and choice afforded by AR became
particularly important when reflecting on the relatively restrictive nature of more traditional audio
guides as visitors responded to the immediacy of their encounters, creating spaces of more intimate
exploration according to their subjectivity in relation to the human and non-human agencies:

‘In loads of exhibitions I have been to, people all go in at the same time and they start it their recordings at the same
time and they are all at the painting at the same time and it’s terrible . . . whereas . . . you could navigate the space
yourself . . . which is why . . . this works very differently . . . you can explore the spaces as you want to explore it rather
than being led round like cattle’ (Georgia).

As such, journeys through art become embedded within an immanence of being (Ranciere 2004) as
visitors engage in a process of negotiating new connections and engagements of agencies (Sheller
2016; Southern 2015). Through a series of fluid, dynamic engagements, visitors tailor their journeys
according to personal motivations, needs, as well as factors such as the time they have available for
their visit.
As active agents, visitors highlight personal points of interest in encounters with expert knowl­
edge and guidance brokered by mediated mobilities of technology (Sheller 2016; Tussyadiah, Jung,
and Tom Dieck 2018) as they negotiate additional layers of information provided. As Nicola com­
mented: ‘you can either come in and just read a couple of labels, look at a few objects, walk out, (or) you
can come in, spend some time reading, looking. This . . . is a third layer, where you’re . . . saying ‘this is
really interesting, and . . . there is even more that I can find out”. AR provides “hooks” through multi-
media content as visitors choose their level of engagement as they locate themselves sensibly and
bodily with exhibits (Ross 2009). The agencies of visitors, cultural site, artefacts and technology
conflate, providing an ensemble of entry points into art (Sheller and Iverson 2015; Sheller 2016;
Southern 2015). Visitors’ engagements are supported as they choose to learn: ‘how to approach this
painting as a non-informed art person. What should I be looking at? What does a curator think is
important that I should take away from it?’ (Lily); find out more about the significance of exhibits: ‘I did
like the way the audio described (name of painting), because to me that would have just been a blob of
paint here . . . that has . . . gone in my head because I have heard what you said’ (Kay); or the wider
societal context of a piece: ‘it makes you understand about what was going on at the time . . . it’s giving
you a bit more of the story behind it and makes it more interesting’ (Kay).
 MOBILITIES 785

Such opportunities can facilitate the creation of deeper sense of place through feelings of
identity, attachment, belonging and affiliation through more personalised way-finding (Fenu and
Pittarello 2018; Kassahun et al. 2018; Sheller and Iverson 2015; Sheller 2016; Southern 2015). It
challenges institutionalised norms as visitors often ‘leave highly respected museums and exhibitions
feeling underwhelmed, or even bewildered . . . it is natural to blame oneself, to assume that the problem
must come down to a failure of knowledge, capacity of feeling’ (De Botton and Armstrong 2013:4). AR
therefore holds the potential to extend engagement beyond existing visitors to facilitate accessible
spaces of art to those who may not normally visit galleries for a range of reasons such as, perceived
intimidation of art institution discourses and etiquettes. It can create multiple access points for
engagement with art: ‘what you’re doing here is something which is for pedestrian type, who would be
interested in art, like me. But, also, you need something for connoisseurs, you need something for
children . . . it needs to be able to bridge those areas’ (Phil).
As indicated by many participants, the most significant of these was felt to be for families and
children. As Marion commented ‘sometimes they (children) look a bit distracted, but I think if they have
got that, they might focus more’. Opportunity therefore exists to facilitate greater autonomy across
age-groups as children, whether family or school, could become more empowered within gallery
spaces as they explore and uncover the stories behind art relatively independently. Institutionalised
norms could be further challenged as AR content can be curated to create multiple accessibility
points within one platform as visitors (new and repeat) to find appropriate ways of negotiating and
locating themselves in galleries (Ranciere 2004; Ross 2009; Sheller and Iverson 2015). Indeed, the
potential exists for AR solutions to increase accessibility to ensure art is open for everyone so that
‘(the gallery) won’t seem so intimidating to people who don’t know . . . .and are coming to find out more’.
Rather, ‘you are providing options, so that a really wide range of interest groups can engage . . . to
whatever level best suits them’ (Catherine).
Opportunity also opens to further extend the regimes of visibility and create new connections
with art as space opens to elevate otherwise hidden voices in sense-making of art as appropriate to
different audiences. This can range from enhancing content and tours through the inclusion of audio
and narrative recorded and scripted by art specialists, academic experts and curators, but impor­
tantly can extend to embrace alternative voices of art that reflect the ways in which non-specialist
stakeholders engage with, and share their passion for, the gallery. For example, findings suggest
volunteers could share their interpretations of favourite works, or artists from social inclusion
projects and wider community art projects could share the inspiration and motivation behind
their work. Extending this further, opportunity also exists to curate tours that share the legacy of
the built structures of the gallery and the underpinning heritage, or through contributions from local
community members to share the ways in which the gallery and the work exhibited within it has
shaped the identity of the surrounding community and landscape. While there are inevitably
organisational requirements such as branding and tone that underpin such an approach, the
flexibility of AR solutions opens significant potential for embracing the wider ways in which art
shapes and influences a wide spectrum of society, ‘so it’s not something that has been made for
people, but with people for people’ (John).

Micro-mobilities, embodiment and dwell-time: slowing down and stillness in

socio-technological encounters with art
While the ubiquitous nature of mobile technology inherently intensifies the speed at which we
communicate, share and make sense of the world through technological exchanges (Bolter and
Grusin 2000), of interest here are the ways in which AR facilitates a deceleration of visitor progression
through gallery spaces. This does not deny the potential for ‘speeding up’ experiences, but reflects
the overwhelming response from visitors that accessing deeper layers of information facilitates
deeper connections to exhibits, slowing down visits and mobilising greater entanglements with
art as they move through spaces in different ways; drawn in by the immediacy and immanence of
786 C. SCARLES ET AL.

opportunities as they unfold (Cresswell 2012; De Souza de Silva 2006; Molz 2012; Ranciere 2004;
Sheller and Iverson 2015; Sheller and Urry 2006. Southern 2015). Drawing upon Cresswell (2010a),
Sheller and Iverson (2015), Southern (2015) and Witzgall (2016), we suggest AR provides the
opportunity for visitors to engage in way-finding through the creation of their own constellations,
driven by an increasingly multisensual encounter with art as exhibits become ‘touch’, or ‘friction’
points; ‘moorings’ that capture visitors’ attention before the multi-media content encourages them
to dwell longer.
The increased autonomy expressed by visitors opens potential spaces of stillness and drift in
visitors’ experiences, as opportunities open for contemplation, captivation or reflection (Cresswell
2012; Hannam, Sheller, and Urry 2006; Molz 2012) as visitors notice more and connect more deeply
with exhibits. As Brenda shared AR offers ‘a nice pace . . . the fact that I know it is designed to go with
you rather than you rushing to the next room . . . I think it felt like it paused and you had a refreshing kind
of “right, now we are here” and it was quite . . . calm . . . it made you a bit more like “I am in this space”
literally’ . . . ’I didn’t feel pressured at all, ‘oh I must rush and look at the one its talked to me about”. Many
participants commented on the importance of the interactive nature of the curated content in
slowing their engagements as this fuelled contemplation and curiosity: “I think it slowed me down . . .
I think sometimes you think “oh yes” and you go on, but because you were standing there doing this and
it showed you pictures of something else you think, “oh ok” and I read more than I would have done . . .
(you) stop and read a bit more” (Amy). Harriet and Janet also shared this reflection as: “it made it more
interesting . . . it can make you slow down which is good” . . . ’it did slow me down a couple of times
because it was talking about paintings in more detail and so I wanted to see what it was talking about’
(Janet).
Visitors therefore determine their own pace as the velocity of visits reflects the position of the
visitor directly within gallery spaces as active agents engaged with the constituents of their
surroundings (Ingold 2002; Witzgall 2016). The relationship between the agencies of visitors, tech­
nology and exhibits emerges through practices of orientation and sense-making. Dwelling in art
through AR becomes a process of discovery and rediscovery as visitors move amongst and through
exhibition spaces. As Lily shared: ‘I could listen for as long as I wanted and, as you go down (into deeper
layers of information), you get the details. So, a bit like a newspaper article where they give you the
headlines and a couple of sentences and then, ‘yes, I’ve got into this, I can go onto the next one’, or ‘oh
no, this is really interesting, I’ll find out more’. The choice of whether to dwell or move on is shared by
Sarah who commented: ‘there were one or two I wasn’t particularly interested in, so I just moved on and
held it up to the next one. I didn’t bother pausing . . . I like the fact you can just do that’ (Sarah).
Such variability in velocity is further compounded by the agency of technology (Bolter and Grusin
2000; Sheller 2012, 2016; Thrift 2008) as facilitating spaces of relative isolation, or social engagement.
Whether walking around alone, or in groups, visitors can choose to create stillness in engagements
as they access content only they can see or hear; creating isolated, personalised worlds of reflection
and engagement. As Lily shared: ‘I’ve come on my own, so that was fine. I could put the earphones on
and be isolated’. Such engagements serve to remove external sounds and interferences, acting as
a mechanism for focusing concentration and facilitating a deeper immersion with exhibits.
Nevertheless, while many participants welcomed such opportunity, for some like Brenda, isolation
is less welcome: ‘I think it can remove you from the current world or it can isolate you too much
sometimes’. Such response reflects the importance of social exchange for many visitors when
engaging with exhibits as they share reactions to exhibits, or further details on what is being viewed
with others in their group. Indeed, despite favouring such isolation in dwelling when visiting on her
own, Lily also commented: ‘if I’d come with my husband, I’d probably be wanting to say “do you like
that one?”, then the earphones . . . it makes it much more of an isolating experience’.
In this context, dwelling together becomes an important aspect of visitors’ experiences. Yet,
reflecting on the importance of flexibility and choice afforded by the AR solution, all visitors
recognised that it is the opportunity creating new, personalised connections through multiple
ways of dwelling within a visit that facilitates a wider range of social engagements. Therefore,
 MOBILITIES 787

whether providing autonomy for children to simultaneously experience the gallery through child-
friendly content (George, Phil, Kay, Jane, Angela), greater depth through specialist art history tours
(Jen), or simply having the choice of whether to engage with the technology or not, it is the central
premise of flexibility to ensure the appropriate use of technology that is paramount. Through
personalisation, choice and flexibility of use, the use of technology in engaging with art is deter­
mined by visitors themselves as they determine the most appropriate use depending on who they
visit with, when and what they are looking to realise from their visit. As such, a spectrum of
technological engagements emerges from those who ‘plug in’ and immerse themselves fully
through a multisensorial technologically mediated experience, to those who choose not to engage
with technology at all, and a mélange of techno-interpretative combinations in-between.
Through the additional layers of information AR provides, the importance of ‘voice’ and the
haptic performances with technology comes to the fore as visitors realise opportunity to dwell not
only through reading, but also listening and touch (Classen and Howes 2006; Ross 2009). As
Marion commented: ‘it brings it alive . . . it’s almost like you are there kind of thing because the music
is playing and you can sort of imagine him there alive, playing it’. Through a range of multimedia
content, engagement with exhibits became ‘more interesting, obviously than an audio guide
because it does so much more. It gives you much more variety. You’ve got videos, photographs,
audio, so it’s a different concept’ (Nicola). Recognising that it ‘wasn’t all about words’ (Rebecca),
many visitors felt that the richness of content provided can ‘bring everything back to life again’
(Gemma). Such variety in content serves to hold visitors’ attention, providing a range of opportu­
nities for embodied connection according to visitors’ preferences as some are more visually aware,
whilst others respond more directly to auditory stimuli. Nevertheless, it is the move beyond the
primacy of reading labels or interpretation boards, combined with visitor autonomy, that holds
such potential for personal engagement. As Sarah, like many others, commented: ‘I don’t have
a very long attention span, so I’d rather listen to something rather than read . . . because normally I just
read half of it and walk off’.
Building on the importance of sensorial engagements in hybrid spaces (De Souza de Silva 2006;
Fenu and Pittarello 2018; Geroimenko 2012; Kečkeš & Tomičič, 2013; Ross 2009), many visitors
expressed ‘excitement’ (Amy), ‘liveliness’ (Gemma), or their visits becoming more ‘atmospheric’
(Janet). Reflecting the opportunity for embodied, haptic encounters with exhibits, the importance
of content delivered through audio provides space for greater focus and connection (William, Lily &
Clare); acting as a facilitator and providing space for prolonged looking and listening. AR offers
a multisensorial connection as: ‘I think what you hear is going to be so much more important than what
you see, because you want to be focusing on the work of art rather than looking at the (device)’ (Phil).
Brenda captures this sense of deeper, sensorial engagement as: ‘this is going to sound ridiculous, it
made you feel happier and it almost gave a . . . relaxation vibe . . . I have been to millions of art galleries
and you are just going around . . . or I have got to listen to this. (This) was something quite different. You
listen to it quite differently . . . .it really absorbed you’.
For many visitors, it was the opportunity to change pace throughout their visit that created depth
and familiarity with exhibits in ways that are more meaningful and significant to them: ‘I like the fact
you can do it at your own pace and mix it up . . . and do it at my own pace and be wherever I want to be’
(Clare). Others felt the ‘freedom to change things . . . stop things and go back’ (Craig) provided greater
focus on ‘what you want, what you’re interested in’ (Lynsey). Indeed, reflecting Ranciere (2004), the
immediacy and immanence of choice as visitors' attention is halted, re-directed or captivated by
something unexpected, highlights the nature of such unfolding as: ‘we could just go where we
wanted . . . it’s not a linear thing, it’s where you are, picking up where you are . . . you don’t’ . . . feel
you have got to move to the next bit and if you suddenly see a picture that you like, you can move
towards that’ (Janet). As such, AR provides a means through which not only art becomes visible, but
also facilitates a sense of connection and the emergence of new possibilities as visitors invest time
and attention to that which they see, sense and feel (Prince 2018; Rose 2012; Sheller and Iverson
2015; Southern 2015).
788 C. SCARLES ET AL.

Conclusions
The pervasive nature of mobile technology infuses our engagements with art as they open possibilities
for new connections through mediated mobilities (Sheller 2016; Southern 2015). This paper has built
upon research by authors such as Barry and Keane (2017), Graham and Cook (2010), Sheller (2016),
Sheller and Iverson (2015) and Southern (2015), Southern (2018)) who critique the socio-technological
interplays between audience, art and artists in post-gallery settings. We further the understanding of
the role of socio-technologically mediated encounters with art within the intimacy of gallery spaces as
facilitating connection to existing exhibits rather than participating in the creation of AR artworks.
Drawing upon existing research in digital art and work by Cresswell (2010a, 2010b, 2012), Sheller and
Urry 2006), Hannam, Sheller, and Urry (2006) and Molz (2012), we critiqued experiences with art as
emerging through a series of curated, small-scale micro-mobilities as socio-technological relationalities
between visitors and exhibits unfold within the confines of the physical gallery space.
Exhibits and supporting AR content become moorings in the visitor experience, opening
a multiplicity of personalised encounters through engagement with technology that facilitates
new ways of connecting with art in gallery spaces. A multiplicity of micro-mobilities emerge as
visitors move alongside and amongst each other, devising their own constellations and configuring
their own situatedness in exhibition spaces. Such processes of sense-making and way-finding arise as
a sense of orientation; an immanence and fluid way of being and sense making as visitors discover
and make sense of what they experience (Harrison 2007).
Adopting Ranciere’s conceptualisations of aesthetics and the emancipated spectator within hybrid
spaces (De Souza de Silva 2006; Sheller and Iverson 2015; Southern 2015), we position visitors as active
agents as they (re)interpret art and exhibitions through a series of dynamic, active engagements.
Through the relational agencies of self and other, human and non-human, visitors become active
bodies in a community of enacting as they experience art through a fusion of choreographed story­
telling underpinned by artist intention and curatorial design, coupled with emancipation as they
produce a form of consciousness in accordance with their own relational, subjective engagements
with exhibits. As AR provides the space for visitors to connect and feel the art (Brogni et al. 1999;
Ranciere 2009; Ross 2009), visitors create their own personalised journeys through galleries. AR opens
new regimes of visibility; alternative ways of being and connecting with art as emerging through the
micro-mobilities performed in the moment. Sensible encounters emerge through impregnation and
imagination (Tillon, Marchal, and Houlier 2011) as visitors make sense of what they are experiencing.
Indeed, it is through the entanglements of body and technology that exhibits are brought to life and art
moves away from being about ‘something’ to being about ‘someone’ as visitors move to increasingly
cognitive and affective encounters with art as a blend of physical and digitised sensory engagement
(Fenu and Pittarello 2018; Geroimenko 2012; Kečkeš & Tomičič, 2013).
Finally, we recognise the inherent fluidity and dynamic nature of technology-mediated engage­
ment with art and the importance of relational agency of human and non-human within these
emerging spaces of micro-mobilities of visitor engagements with art. Drawing upon Thrift (2008), the
agency of technology in visitor engagements is continually open to the emergence of new capacities
that emerge in relation to agencies and materialities of that encountered in galleries. Moving beyond
institutional norms and linear wayfinding supported by technology such as audio-guides, the agency
of AR as technology and content requires us to become attuned in different ways; making and
remaking our environments to ask different questions and provide new kinds of instructions. The
fusion of technology with the agencies of curators, visitors, the artefacts on display and the gallery
spaces themselves facilitate the creation of thought and action through a series of immanent
connections between visitor and technology previously unattainable.
As active agents, visitors’ movements and associated velocities become a fusion of prolonged
moments of stillness and contemplation and fleeting encounters as they choose to bypass exhibits
or dwell only briefly. Such micro-mobilities reflect the complexities of visitors’ intentions, desires and
compromises. Emergent velocities reflect the position of the visitor directly within the gallery as
 MOBILITIES 789

active agents engaged with the constituents of their surroundings (Ingold 2002). Stillness becomes
punctuated with fleeting, remote engagements as visitors choose how and where to dwell; becom­
ing drawn to exhibits that capture their attention, or moving quickly past crowded exhibits, their
experiences becoming influenced by the agencies of other visitors, or the friends/family they are
visiting with. Through micro-mobilities, visitors create a world that is visible to them; mobilising
a sense of ownership and the emergence of new possibilities through investment of self with other.
AR provides opportunity for a rich, intimate process of things becoming familiar as technology and
visitor come together to negotiate new and alternative ways of being with art through a series of
small-scale, micro-mobilities bound in immanence as visitors encounter art through socio-
technologically mediated forms of way-finding, interpretation and personal curation.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the funders of this research, including EPSRC, Research+ AHRC/
NESTA, ICure and the University of Surrey SME Innovation Voucher scheme.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Caroline Scarles http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8279-3689
Helen Treharne http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1835-4803

References
Arts Council England. 2013. Great Art and Culture for Everyone: 10-year Strategic Framework, 2010–2020. 2nd ed. London,
United Kingdom: Arts Council England Publications. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-
file/Great%20art%20and%20culture%20for%20everyone.pdf
Azuma, R. 1997. “A Survey of Augmented Reality.” Presence: Virtual and Augmented Reality 6 (4): 355–385. doi:10.1162/
pres.1997.6.4.355.
Barry, K., and J. Keane. 2017. “Moving within Mobilities: Expanding Spatial Experiences through the Artwork PAN &
ZOOM.” Applied Mobilities 2 (1): 67–84. doi:10.1080/23800127.2016.1272971.
Beleke, M. K., R. Pierdicca, E. Frontoni, E. S. Malinverni, and J. Gain. 2018. “A Survey of Augmented, Virtual and Mixed
Reality for Cultural Heritage.” Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage 11 (2): 1–36.
Bishop, C. 2012. “Digital Divide: Contemporary Art and New Media.” Artforum 51 (1): 434-442. September.
Bolter, J. D., and R. Grusin, eds. 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. California: Sage.
Brogni, A., C. A. Avizzano, C. Evangelista, and M. Bergamasco. 1999. “Technological Approach for Cultural Heritage:
Augmented Reality.” Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interaction, Pisa,
Italy, September: 206–212.
Brown, L., and K. Durrheim. 2009. “Different Kinds of Knowing: Generating Qualitative Data through Mobile
Interviewing.” Qualitative Inquiry 15 (5): 911–930. doi:10.1177/1077800409333440.
Chang, K., C. Chang, H. Hou, Y. Sung, H. Chao, and C. Lee. 2014. “Development and Behavioural Patter Analysis of
a Mobile Guide System with Augmented Reality for Painting Appreciation Instruction in an Art Museum.” Computers
& Education 71: 185–197. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.022.
Chung, N., H. Han, and Y. Joun. 2015. “Tourists’ Intention to Visit a Destination: The Role of Augmented Reality (AR)
Application for a Heritage Site.” Computers in Human Behaviour 50: 588–599. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.068.
Classen, C., and D. Howes. 2006. “The Museum as Sensescape: Western Sensibilities and Indigenous Artifacts.” In Sensible
Objects: Colonialism, Museums and Material Culture, edited by E. Edwards, C. Gosden, and R. Philips, 199–222. Berg:
Oxford.
Cranmer, E., T. Jung, M. C. Tom Dieck, and A. Miller. 2016. “Implementing Augmented Reality to Increase Tourist
Attraction Sustainability.” Perspectives on Business Realities of AR and VR, Ireland, April.
Cresswell, T. 2010a. “Towards a Politics of Mobility.” Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 28: 17–31. doi:10.1068/
d11407.
790 C. SCARLES ET AL.

Cresswell, T. 2010b. “Mobilities I: Catching Up.” Progress in Human Geography 35 (4): 550–558. doi:10.1177/
0309132510383348.
Cresswell, T. 2012. “Mobilities II: Still.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (5): 645–653. doi:10.1177/0309132511423349.
Damala, A., and N. Stonjanovic. 2012. “Tailoring the Adaptive Augmented Reality (A2R) Museum Visit: Identifying
Cultural Heritage Professionals’ Motivations and Needs.” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on
Mixed and Augmented Reality 2012, Georgia, November. 71–80.
DCMS. 2016. The Culture White Paper. Department of Culture, Media and Sport. CM9218. London, UK. https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510798/DCMS_The_Culture_
White_Paper__3_.pdf
DCMS. 2018. Culture is Digital. Policy Paper, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. UK Government. https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687519/TT_v4.pdf
De Botton, A., and J. Armstrong. 2013. Art as Therapy. New York: Phaidon Press.
De Souza de Silva, A. 2006. “Mobile Technologies as Interfaces of Hybrid Spaces.” Space and Culture 9 (3): 261–278.
doi:10.1177/1206331206289022.
Derrida, J. 2001. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge.
Fenu, C., and F. Pittarello. 2018. “Svevo Tour: The Design and the Experimentation of an Augmented Reality Application
for Engaging Visitors of a Literary Museum.” International Journal of Human-computer Studies 114: 20–35.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.009.
Geroimenko, V. 2012. “Augmented Reality Technology and Art: The Analysis and Visualization of Evolving Conceptual
Models.” 16th International Conference on Information Visualisation 2012: 445–453.
Graham, B., and S. Cook. 2010. Rethinking Curating: Art after New Media. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Han, D. I., T. Jung, and A. Gibson. 2014. “Dublin AR: Implementing Augmented Reality in Tourism.” In Information and
Communications Technology in Tourism, edited by Z. Xiang, and I. Tussyadiah, 511–523. Dublin: Ireland.
Hannam, K., G. Butler, and C. M. Paris. 2014. “Developments and Key Issues in Tourism Mobilities.” Annals of Tourism
Research 44: 171–185. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.09.010.
Hannam, K., M. Sheller, and J. Urry. 2006. “Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.” Mobilities 1 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/
17450100500489189.
Harrison, P. 2007. “The Space between Us: Opening Remarks on the Concept of Dwelling.” Environment and Planning D:
Society & Space 25: 625–647. doi:10.1068/d365t.
He, z., L. Wu, and X. Li. 2018. When Art Meets Tech: The Role of Augmented Reality in Enhancing Museum Experiences
and Purchase Intentions. Tourism Management 68: 127–139.
Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indianna University Press.
Ihde, D. 2013. The Philosophy of Technology. New York: Paragon House.
Ingold, T. 2002. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.
Joffe, H., and L. Yardley. 2004. “Content and Thematic Analysis.” In Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology,
edited by D. F. Marks and L. Yardley, 56–68. London: Sage.
Jung, T., C. M. Tom Dieck, H. Lee, and N. Chung. 2016. “Effects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality on Visitor
Experiences in Museums.” In A. Inversini, and R. Schegg (eds). Information and Communication Technologies in
Tourism, Conference proceedings book, 621–635.
Kassahun, M., R. Pierdicca, E. Frontoni, E. S. Malinverni, and J. Gain. 2018. “A Survey of Augmented, Virtual and Mixed
Reality for Cultural Heritage.” ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 11 (2): 1–36.
Kesselring, and G. Vogl. 2016. “The New Mobilities Regime.” In New Mobilities Regimes in Art and Social Science, edited by
S. Witzgall, G. Vogl, and S. Kesselring, 8–17. London: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. 2004. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. London: Continuum.
Lemon, N. 2011. “Arts and Technology.” In Tapping into Classroom Practice of the Arts: From Inside Out, Post Pressed, Mt
Gravatt, Qld, edited by C. Klepper, and S. Garvis, 97–132.
Leue, M. C., T. Jung, and D. Tom Dieck. 2014. “A Theoretical Model of Augmented Reality Acceptance.” eReview of
Tourism Research 5: 1-6. (ISSN: 1941–5842).
Levinas, E. 1969. Totality and Infinity: Essays on Exteriority. Translated by A Lingis. Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press.
Liestøl, G. 2014. “Along the Appian Way: Storytelling and Memory Across Time and Space in Mobile Augmented Reality,
Digital Heritage.” Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation and Protection, 248–257.
Milgrim, P., and F. Kishino. 1994. “A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays.” In IEICE Transactions on Information
Systems, vol. 77, no. 12, 1321-1329.
Molz, G. 2012. Travel Connections: Tourism, Technology and Togetherness in a Mobile World. London: Routledge.
Neuhofer, B, D. Buhalis. and A. Ladkin. 2015. “Technology as a Catalyst of Change: Enablers and Barriers of the Tourist
Experience and Their Consequences.” In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015, edited by I.
Tusyadiah, and A. Inversini, 789–802. Lugano, Switzerland: Springer.
Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness
Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16: 1–13. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847.
 MOBILITIES 791

Ohler, J. 2008. Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy, Learning and Creativity. Thousand
Oakes: Corwin Press.
Prince, S. 2018. “Dwelling and Tourism: Embracing the Non-representational in the Tourist Landscape.” Landscape
Research. doi:org/101080/01426397.2018.1518520.
Ranciere, J. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics. London: Continuum.
Ranciere, J. 2009. The Emancipated Spectator. London: Verso.
Rose, M. 2012. “Dwelling as Marking and Claiming.” Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 30: 757–771.
doi:10.1068/d6809.
Ross, C. 2009. “Augmented Reality Art: A Matter of (Non)destination.” UC Irvine: Digital Arts and Culture, 1-6.
Scarles, C., H. Zainal-Abidin, E. Bailey, and H. Treharne. 2019. Digital Futures: Augmented Reality in Arts and Heritage.
Guildford, UK: University of Surrey.
Sheller, M. 2012. “Mobile Mediality.” Flow: A Critical Forum on Media and Culture. Available online at: https://www.
flowjournal.org/2012/11/mobile-mediality/
Sheller, M. 2016. “Mobile Mediality: Location, Dislocation, Augmentation.” In New Mobilities Regimes in Art and Social
Science, edited by S. Witzgall, G. Vogl, and S. Kesselring, 309–326. London: Routledge.
Sheller, M., and H. Iverson. 2015. “L.A. Re.Play: Mobile Network Culture in Placemaking.” Leonardo Electronic Almanac 21
(1): 14–27.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. “The New Mobilities Paradigm.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 38 (2):
207–226. doi:10.1068/a37268.
Silverman, D. 2020. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Southern, J. 2015. “Locative Awareness: A Mobilities Approach to Locative Art.” Leonardo Electronic Almanac 21 (1):
178–195.
Southern, J., E. Rose, and L. O. Keeffe. 2017. “Art as a Strategy for Living with Utopias in Ruins.” In J. Southern, E. Rose,
L. O’Keeffe, and M. Buscher (eds). 13 Art Works, 12 Experiments in Mobile Utopias, Mobile Utopia Conference,
Lancaster, November 1–9.
Southern, J. 2018. “Reflective Assemblages: Real and Imagined Mobilities in Locative Media Art.” In New Mobilities
Regimes in Art and Social Science, edited by S. Witzgall, G. Vogl, and S. Kesselring, 15–25. London: Routledge.
Spinney, J. 2015. “Close Encounters? Mobile Methods, (Post)phenomenology and Affect.” Cultural Geographies 22 (2):
231–246. doi:10.1177/1474474014558988.
Sylaiou, S., K. Mania, A. Karoulis, and M. White. 2010. “Exploring the Relationship Between Presence and Enjoyment in a
Virtual Museum.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68 (5): 243–253.
Thrift, N. 2004. “From Born to Made: Technology, Biology and Space.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
30 (4): 463–477. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00184.x.
Thrift, N. 2008. Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London: Routledge.
Tillon, A. B., I. Marchal, and P. Houlier. 2011. “Mobile Augmented Reality in the Museum: Can a Lace-like Technology Take
You Closer to Works of Art?” IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Basel, Switzerland,
October, 41–47.
Tom Dieck, M. C., and T. Jung. 2015. “A Theoretical Model of Mobile Augmented Reality Acceptance in Urban Heritage
Tourism.” Current Issues in Tourism 18: 1–21.
Tussyadiah, I., T. H. Jung, and M. C. Tom Dieck. 2018. “Embodiment of Wearable Augmented Reality Technology in
Tourism Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research 57 (5): 597–611. doi:10.1177/0047287517709090.
Urry, J. and J. Larsen. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: Sage.
Vlahakis, V., J. Karigiannis, M. Tsotros, D. Stricker, T. Gleue, M. Gounaris, P. Daehne, and L. Almeida. 2002.
“ARCHEOGUIDE.” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications magazine, September/October 52–60.
Voilmy, D., Z. Smoreda, and C. Ziemlicki. 2008. “Geolocation and Video Ethnography: Capturing Mobile Internet Used by
a Computer.” Mobilities 3 (2): 201–222. doi:10.1080/17450100802095304.
Wamberg, J. 2013. “Toward a (Re) Constructed Endosemiotics? Art, Magic and Augmented Reality.” In Throughout: Art
and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing, edited by U. Ekman, 465–478. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Witzgall, S. 2016. “Mobility and the Image-Based Research of Art.” In New Mobilities Regimes in Art and Social Science,
edited by S. Witzgall, G. Vogl, and S. Kesselring, 1–7. London: Routledge.
Wright, R. 2015. “Mobile Augmented Reality and the Politics of Re-assembly.” In Proceedings of the 21st International
Symposium on Electronic Art, Vancouver. http://isea2015.org/publications/proceedings-of-the-21st-international-
symposium-on-electronic-art/
Yocheva, Z., D. Buhalis, and C. Gatzidis. 2012. “Overview of Smartphone Augmented Reality Applications for Tourism.”
e-Review of Tourism Research 10 (2): 63–66.
Younes, G., R. Kahil, M. Jallad, D. Asmar, I. Elhajj, G. Turkiyyah, and H. Al-Harithy. 2017. “Virtual and Augmented Reality for
Rich Interaction with Cultural Heritage Sites: A Case Study from the Roman Theater at Byblos.” Digital Applications in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 5: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.daach.2017.03.002.
Copyright of Mobilities is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.