When considering the question of spaces as representational practice, I think about the interaction of the installation with its surrounding milieu and the narratives that are constructed. In this case, the two pieces are of note in that the frameworks of engagement constructed by each work are inversions of one other. "Mitologies" contracts the boundaries of a larger virtual world into a single room, and "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" expands them outward to encompass the larger community. TGTBaTU turns the museum inside out, Mitologies turns it outside in.

What happens to the museum as representational space when it expands its borders, or implodes them? Are the new spaces created by the shift still part of the museum, and if so, how is the institutional space reconfigured? Adorno wrote of the decontextualization of the objet d'art by its placement in the museum. The removal of the arf(ifact) from its cultural context from which it was created, inscribes it within part of a narrative of excess, It becomes priceless, and neutralized in its (dis)placement. However, these two works recontextualize the cultural boundaries of the institution in that the museum is placed within the confines of each piece, creating yet another representational inversion. How then, does each work establish legitimate themselves within the their given environment?

Each of the installations inscribes itself respectively within the WAC and the Univ. of Illinois, grounding them within the institutional discourse. Interesting effects come from how the location of each site in the cultural milieu sets up its own discourse of legitimacy. The museum's walls tuen inside out as TGTBaTU sends its tendril of interaction into the community, which then reinforces its function as an extension of the Walker Art Center's mission. Mitologies, on the other hand, grounds itself in threads of academic historical referent and the technocapitalistic resources necessary to create a work on the CAVE platform. The museum is imploded here, as the whole of the virtual world is compressed into the space of the CAVE reminiscent of the famous site in Lascaux. Both, to paraphrase Carl DiSalvo, do so to invoke a sense of wonder through exploration.

The two sites are similar in that is the implication of each as a for wonder as the exploration of creative potential. Perhaps in the case of Mitologies, I speak more of the CAVE environment itself as a device of techological wonder for creating spaces that we would be unable to explore in physical terms. Conversely, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly exists as a place that expresses the possibilities for 'wonder' through a more tangible creative potential. Regardless of whether the space is expanded into the community, or if the world is compressed into a single room, this dialectic presupposes that the audience must enter the room to partake in the experience. We can explore the creative potential in either space, but we must locate ourselves there in order to do it. The question is, "If a virtual tree falls in the virtual forest, will you hear it outside the CAVE?"

We are in an era in which we are reconsidering the boundaries of the institutional form. The emergence of technological forms of art cause us to 'wonder' about the role of cultural institutions such as the museum in the light of the Internet and devices such as the CAVE. Mitologies, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly present two possibilities for the reconfiguration of the museum as cultural milieu. How does these shifts affect the possible mission of institutions such as the art museum and its interaction with the audience? What are the economic, epistemological, and cultural effects of these shifts?