Tag Archives: icomos

Abstract for talk at ICOMOS imagined pasts…imagined futures

Conference, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage, visualisation, , ,

Talk, 2 November 2013, Old Parliament House, Canberra, ICOMOS 2013 conference

TITLE: Can the past be shared in Virtual Reality?
There is an interesting divide between historians and the public that must be debated, how to best use virtual heritage, and digital media in general, to learn and share historical knowledge and interpretation. Heritage and history do not have to be a series of slides; space-time-intention can now be depicted and reconfigured. Teaching history and heritage through digitally simulated ‘learning by doing’ is an incredibly understudied research area and is of vital importance to a richer understanding of heritage as lived. However, the actual spatial implications of siting learning tasks in a virtual environment are still largely un-researched. Evaluation of virtual environments has been relatively context-free, designed for user freedom and forward looking creativity. It is still much more difficult to create a virtual place that brings the past alive without destroying it.

There has been an explosion in virtual heritage conferences this century. In the last year alone, there have been calls for digital cultural heritage or virtual heritage by Graphite, VSMM, New Heritage Forum, VRST, VAST, DIME, Archäologie & Computer, and DACH, just to name a few. An outside observer may believe that such academic interest, coupled with recent advances in virtual reality (VR), specifically in virtual environment technology and evaluation, would prepare one for designing a successful virtual heritage environment. Game designers may also be led to believe that games using historical characters, events or settings, may be readily adaptable to virtual heritage. This paper will advance key contextual issues that question both assumptions.

Beacham, R., Denard, H., & Niccolucci, F. (2006). London charter for the computer-based visualization of cultural heritage. Retrieved from http://www.londoncharter.org/introduction.html Fredrik, D. (2012). Rhetoric, Embodiment, Play: Game Design as Critical Practice in the Art History of Pompeii. Meaningful Play 2012 conference paper. Retrieved fromhttp://meaningfulplay.msu.edu/proceedings2012/mp2012_submission_178.pdf

What is needed with Interpretative Heritage Technology?

virtual heritage, , , ,

I sent the below as a “provocative” opening post for the ICIP ICOMOS (ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites) forum.

There are many promises and pitfalls in the use of technology for heritage, and I have also often let myself be taken in by the lure of the new in the transformation of the old, but sometimes new media is only ephemeral. The below list is off the top of my head, but suffice to say, standards and agreements on what works best, and where and how and why, are still missing from the academic and more general heritage circle. I suspect what is also required is:

  • Surveys on what works well for community shareholders.
  • Conference panels leading to working papers or even charter amendments, on aims and guidelines for best practice in the use of technology.
  • Incentives for technologists and humanists to work together rather than in parallel
  • Case studies critically and impartially examined.
  • These case studies and accompanying documentation to be freely available via shared or distributed but linked web portals or databases. this includes the active saving and maintenance of important virtual heritage models and media to be saved.
  • Ratings and recommendations for specific technology.
  • A common place to debate and test and publish case studies and new technology.
  • Technology that allows us to combine 3D models, with archaeological interpretations,annotations, and audience/shareholder feedback.
  • A list of relevant references, resources, evaluation methods, solution providers, gaps between promise and practice.
  • The ability to connect papers or talks directly to focal parts of the heritage media.
  • A summary of open and shared technology formats and indications on their longevity and ability to share data (media) across different applications without data loss.

Responses from Neil Silberman included the question:WHO IS A LEGITIMATE STAKEHOLDER?

That is a good question and I will have to think on that a little longer before attempting a reply.