Succinctly put, remediation is media used anew in other media. Not mainly the content, but (part of) the form is reused in a new media form. In our case, the physical museum (which is in itself a remediation of other media) is remediated in the virtual museum. Additionally, Bolter & Grusin (1999) introduce two very useful concepts for our comparison of the virtual and physical museum/memorial: immediacy and hypermediacy. The first can be defined as a process in which the medium is ‘erased’ from the experience as much as possible, in order to achieve a more ‘real’ experience. The latter refers to an explicit use of mediation; the medium is expressly present in the users experience. Differently put, immediacy is looking through a medium, while hypermediacy is looking at a medium.
Whether our comparison of the virtual and physical Tsitsernakaberd space concerns immediacy or hypermediacy is a matter of how one looks at it for a number of reasons. First, there is the difference between the windowed and the full-screen option of the virtual museum, which is shown in the images below.
While the left-hand picture has a clearly present interface, the right-hand image fills the screen and can be said to have a higher degree of immersion. More importantly, however, whether we’re looking at (a desire for) immediacy or hypermediacy depends on what is remediated. If we think of the virtual museum as a way to remediate the memorial complex, and the complex alone, then one can say that the virtual museum is designed with immediacy in mind. However, if we consider that the physical museum itself is also a remediation of other media (after all, ‘the medium is the message’, see McLuhan, 2001), then looking at the physical museum through its virtual museum has important hypermediate elements. Obviously, immediacy and hypermediacy are not mutually exclusive, and their constituent elements reinforce each other.