Category Archives: Conference

#CFP CIPA 2023

cfp, Conference, digital heritage, heritage, virtual heritage

“Over the years, the CIPA Symposium has been an important international crossroad for a wide community of researchers, professionals, and site managers interested in documenting, understanding, and preserving cultural heritage. CIPA was jointly founded in 1968 by ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites) and ISPRS (International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) to facilitate the transfer of technology from the measurement sciences into the heritage documentation and recording disciplines. Since then, the biennial symposia have enabled an ever-growing community to meet, debate, network, and get up-to-date. After the very sad and long period that forced us to stay separated, we will meet again in person during CIPA2023 in Florence, from 25-30 June 2023.”

https://www.cipa2023florence.org/programme/call-for-papers

Authors of selected papers will have the opportunity to present their work during the Symposium as long or short presentations.

Proceedings will collect all the papers that have passed a peer-review process in the ISPRS Archives and Annals.

Selected contributors will be invited to submit an extended version of their papers to Special Issues of Journals linked to the Conference (e.g. Applied Geomatics, Ananke, Sensors, Virtual Archaeology Review – list to be updated).

Special sessions will be reserved to GEORES and ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0. Have a look to the past edition (2021)!

Paper submission deadlines

The deadlines* for this Call for Papers are as follows:

[EXTENDED] 8th January 2023: Deadline for uploading extended abstract (for papers proposed for ISPRS Archives)

31st January 2023: Review notification for extended abstract (for papers proposed for ISPRS Archives)

10th February 2023: Deadline for uploading full paper (proposed for ISPRS Annals)

10th April 2023: Review notification for full papers (proposed for ISPRS Annals)

10th April 2023: Deadline for uploading full papers (to be published in ISPRS Archives)

10th May 2023: Deadline for uploading camera ready full papers (to be published in ISPRS Annals)

Speaking tonight in China

Conference
  • tonight I’m e-speaking at “World Heritage and Urban-Rural Sustainable Development” with Tsinghua Heritage Institute
  • Tongji Vice Dean
  • VIZARA Technologies
  • Graduate School of Cultural Technology, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

https://whc.unesco.org/en/events/1734/

TIME 18:40-20:15 GMT+8. So 8 hours earlier in UK-GMT.

CONNECT Live via WeChat or Bilibili etc: http://guojiang.org/zhibo/2022-11-15-16/

Live translation into Chinese and English.

CFPs

cfp, Conference

*START*DUECONFTHEMELOCATION
16/02/2220/10/22AMPSRepresenting Pasts – Visioning FuturesVirtual
16/12/2215/10/22EmergeForum on the Future of AI Driven Humanity & International Conference Digital Society NowKiev Ukraine
19/12/2210/10/22CITEdCloud and Immersive Technologies in EducationKiev Ukraine
16/01/2316/10/22DM2023The Art Museum in the Digital Age – 2023Online, Germany
15/03/2315/10/22ICVARS2023Virtual and Augmented Reality SimulationsSydney Australia
3/04/23?CAA023CAA 50 Years of SynergyAmsterdam Netherlands
11/04/234/10/22FDGFoundations of Digital Games (workshops 21/10) New BeginningsLisbon Portugal
23/04/2319/01/23CHI2023CHI2023 late breaking workHamburg Germany
7/06/2318/11/22Mmedia23ACM Multimedia SystemsVancouver BC, Canada 
19/06/2315/01/2023DiGRA2023DiGRA: Limits and Margins of Video GamesSeville Spain
28/06/2325/11/22HeritagesPrague – Heritages Past and Present – Built and SocialPrague Czechia
4/07/2310/02/23herdsa2023Higher Education Research and Development Society of AustralasiaBrisbane Australia
11/07/2325/10/22DH2023Digital Humanities: Collaboration as OpportunityGraz Austria
28/08/23?interact 2023Design for Equity and JusticeYork UK
31/08/2330/09/22ICOMOS GA Sydney Australia
20/09/2315/01/23eCAADeDigital Design ReconsideredGraz Austria
8/04/24?CAA2024 Auckland New Zealand
??Web3D3D for a Connected WorldOnline
??MW2023Museums on the WebWashington DC
  CHIPLAY2023  
START*DUE*CONFERENCETHEMELOCATION
31/08/2330/09/22ICOMOS GA Sydney Australia
11/04/234/10/22FDGFoundations of Digital Games (workshops 21/10)Lisbon Portugal
19/12/2210/10/22CITEdCloud and Immersive Technologies in EducationKiev Ukraine
16/12/2215/10/22EmergeForum on the Future of AI Driven Humanity & International Conference Digital Society NowKiev Ukraine
15/03/2315/10/22ICVARS2023Virtual and Augmented Reality SimulationsSydney Australia
16/01/2316/10/22DM2023The Art Museum in the Digital Age – 2023Online, Germany
16/02/2220/10/22AMPSRepresenting Pasts – Visioning FuturesVirtual
11/07/2325/10/22DH2023Digital Humanities: Collaboration as OpportunityGraz Austria
7/06/2318/11/22Mmedia23ACM Multimedia SystemsVancouver BC, Canada 
28/06/2325/11/22HeritagesPrague – Heritages Past and Present – Built and SocialPrague Czechia
20/09/2315/01/23eCAADeDigital Design ReconsideredGraz Austria
23/04/2319/01/23CHI2023CHI2023 late breaking workHamburg Germany
4/07/2310/02/23herdsa2023Higher Education Research and Development Society of AustralasiaBrisbane Australia
18/03/234/09/23CAADRIA2023Human-centricAhmedabad India

Is there money in games?

Conference, ,

I was asked this on Friday

  • 2021: $300 billion USD worldwide [accenture] with 2.7 billion gamers
  • 2022: Microsoft most valuable “game” company 1.99 trillion, Tencent 400 billion, Sony 100 billion, Unity 13.29 billion, Ubisoft (Assassin’s Creed) 5.39 billion, Epic (Unreal) raises 2 billion [companiesmarketcap]
  • “Australia is home to a growing games industry. In 2021, the sector contributed $226.5million in revenue, an increase of 22 per cent on 2020, and 83 per cent of revenue is from overseas markets.” [DFAT]
  • 2014: Microsoft bought Minecraft for approx. 2.5 billion [slashgear]
  • 2021: Unity bought Weta Digital [NZ] for 1.65 billion [awn]
  • 2021: Facebook spent 10 billion on the Metaverse [yahoo]
  • 2022: Microsoft buys Activision for 68.7 billion USD [afr]

Virtual Heritage: How Could It Be Ethical?

Academic, book chapter, Conference, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage,

Abstract

Draft of latest book chapter (before revisions) by the editors. Now onto the next book chapter!

Ranging from modified adaption of commercial games (game mods) to multi-million-dollar 3D visualizations and web-based projects, virtual heritage projects have showcased cutting-edge technology and provided insight into understanding past cultures. Virtual heritage has the potential to safeguard unique cultural treasures from the ravages of war and neglect, with interaction techniques to communicate knowledge across time and linguistic divides.

Despite these advantages, at its core, Virtual Heritage (virtual reality and related immersive and interactive digital technology applied to cultural heritage) implies something not real, but an illusion simulated or artificially projected. It typically relies on highly specialized capture, rending and hosting technology created by highly trained individuals, running on high-powered equipment manufactured at great environmental cost. And the original material it simulates can be sacred, stolen, or contested. There are consequences and ethical implications for this illusory but expensive medium of cultural heritage (and, typically, “cultural heritage” means other peoples’ cultures), whether complicitly generated or not. While the research field of virtual heritage is several decades old, its specific ethical issues have not been extensively addressed (Hepworth and Church, 2018, de Broglie, 2018, Frischer, 2019), and specific challenges are not often covered by, say, digital archaeological ethics discussion (Dennis, 2021, Dennis, 2020).

To provide an overview of these ethical issues, four issues will be discussed in this chapter. Who determines the content, cultural ownership and overall decision-making; how both the depiction of personal or sacred assets and traces of people no longer with us, obsessions with photorealism rather than the complex topic of authenticity, and the dangerous allure of gamification; what needs to be preserved and related environmental issues; where and when the audience should be involved, motivated, and their feedback fed back into current and future projects.

Keywords: Cultural heritage, virtual heritage, virtual reality, serious games.

The slippery-sloped artistry of Transmedia

Conference, ,

An author for a volume I have been recently editing asked us to agree on a definition of transmedia used by the author of another chapter. I can understand the concern, it is used in a variety of ways that may differ across fields.

But when you compare definitions across the two or so decades gaps and disjunctures appear. Consider this example:

Transmedia is commonly defined as a narrative or project that combines multiple media forms. A transmedia project may combine many different types of prints or prose text, graphics and animation, or work across multiple platforms, such as different types of social media platforms, interactive websites or advertising outlets.

What Does Transmedia Mean?

Then I went back to this 2007 post defining transmedia by Henry Jenkins, thinking, oh, this is more elastic, powerful, but also amorphous, than recent definitions. Henry Jenkins, in a 2007 post recounted how he described it in class notes, gives ten criteria, but are these ten all necessary and sufficient?(https://techopedia.com/definition/30425/transmedia…)..

Did Jenkins deliberately conflate authorial intention and success in creating transmedia with how effectively and creatively it is/was taken up by an engaged, contributing audience?

Take (the American tv series) LOST (his example). My understanding is the script changed and the series extended because they did not fully plan for its success or continuation (at least as a tv series). Be that as it may…

  1. Did LOST really, creatively, deliberately leverage a message or narrative across media or did audience extend it of their own accord? In other words, does transmedia allow for both an auteur-centric definition (it is directed by an individual or singular team) or must transmedia be extended by an audience (more than normal media)?
  2. Must the reception of transmedia be all carefully planned and the narrative orchestrated across various media, with content for each media form specifically designed to leverage its strengths?
  3. If a franchise is developed for one medium then new media are deployed, must there be a pre-mediated plan?
  4. Must the narrative require the audience to experience each of the separate media forms?
  5. Given transmedia franchises can be shared between companies, individuals, and even between and over generations of writers, artists, and designers, does transmedia have to have a central home or most authentic/authoritative origin?

I like these notes on transmedia, I just think they could be strengthened and separated, or the term should be broken up in relation to whether it is open and interactive, premeditated and authorial, or multiversal (designed to have overlapping but not always harmonious multiverse narrative “worlds”).

PhD scholarship at UniSA on games in Australian museums

Conference

“A Framework for Developing Educational Games in and with Australian Museums“

The University of South Australia in Adelaide has graciously offered us (myself, and Drs Susannah Emery and Julie Nichols) a UniSA scholarship, (Enterprise Research Scholarship ERS), alongside a fee-waiver, to examine the above research area, with the help of 3 museum partners. I am sorry, I think it has to be an Australian or NZ citizen or permanent resident, but I will confirm it.

Summary:

… work on developing an overview of the challenges and successes of developing educational games in and with Australian museums … examine how 3D online models could be more effectively used with museum-based learning activities and the student could review the educational limitations, successes and failures of past 3D digitalisation exercises in terms of how effectively they can be incorporated with museum learning objectives as well as possibly outline a future framework linking 3D heritage model repositories and museum education strategies.

More details to come.

theory of change – a better way for museums to think about impact

Conference

Paul Bowers posted this “Theory of Change” for museums, I greatly like it, I do wonder if museum people agree with it or are even doing it already.

Museums today describe their impact in overreaching isolationist terms. This exhibition will create science literacy. This gallery will create artistic excellence…

The basic logic is really simple; working backwards to define the conditions in which the goal you seek will simply ‘be’

Define your end goal — what is the eventual outcome you’re trying to achieve?

Write down the pre-requisites for this occurring

Write down the pre-requisites for these occurring

Continue until your organisation / project appears.

https://paulrbowers.medium.com/theory-of-change-a-better-way-for-museums-to-think-about-impact-becf04dac12a

CAA 2022, Oxford

Academic, archaeology, augmented reality, Conference, Digital Humanities, heritage, Virtual Reality

This year the Computing Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference is running in person in Oxford, UK and virtually. CAA2022 will be held 8-11 August 2022.

If you are interested, CAA2022’s first session is calling for papers on cultural presence. Elaine contacted me about this for the last CAA (that was postponed) and it sounds very interesting so, hopefully, some of you can make it. You can also submit individual papers to CAA2022.

S01: iN Deep: Cultural Presence in Immersive Educational Experiences (Other)

Elaine A Sullivan, University of California Santa Cruz

Sara Perry, Museum of London Archaeology

Paola Derudas, Lund University

Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (XR) technologies are increasingly incorporated into university classrooms and public education in the GLAM sector (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums). The potential to use these technologies to engage students and the public with archaeological knowledge (such as site reconstructions, artefacts, or re-imagining the activities of past peoples) is exciting, but these forms of representation, including the use of individual headsets, tablets, and personal mobile phones, come with particular challenges. In his book Critical Gaming (2015), Eric Champion argued that virtual realities should express ‘cultural presence,’ the meaning and significance of a time, place, or object to people of the past.

Hyper-reality, photogrammetry, and ever-increasing levels of ‘accuracy’ in 3D models do not inherently convey aspects of cultural significance and meaning, and many VR/AR/XR experiences fall dramatically short of the goal of expressing the importance of past places and things to
their original communities. Emphasis on technological and (especially) hardware innovation often deflects attention from critically engaging with questions of meaning-making.


This panel asks those creating or intensely using Archaeology VR/AR/XR to focus NOT on software, hardware, or the latest technical innovations, but on how we as archaeologists can better design, create, or curate experiences that inspire and educate students and the public on the cultural importance of archaeological spaces, objects or themes.

What are successful techniques to aid a visitor to better understand the original context of an object now placed in a (often far off) museum or gallery? How can university instructors incorporate the (problematically individual) headset or mobile experiences into pedagogy to provide meaningful and active student learning? How can complex data be usefully layered or curated so that multiple types of museum visitors or classes could find it informative and emotionally resonant? How can we turn these increasingly popular technologies into serious spaces of cultural learning and curiosity, moving beyond the initial ‘wow’ factor

Format
Instead of traditional 20 minute talks, we request that participants present 8-10 minutes in depth on one VR/AR/XR experience they have designed and/or utilized in a university or GLAM setting (not a general review of multiple types of work). We ask participants to present and explain aspects of design and interaction and their intent in that experience; or, if the content was not designed by the presenter, how content was incorporated, curated, or enhanced for the classroom or GLAM experience.

Specifically, we ask presenters to think thoughtfully and critically about how we might collectively learn to use these technologies in more informed ways, including: What types of interactions with students or the public have shown promise, and how might we build on those successes? What practices have not worked, and how might we learn from our failures? What particular aspects of archaeological and cultural heritage knowledge are best emphasized in the VR/AR/XR experience? What is key to re-using content created by others, including content created by non-archaeologists?

The session will be divided into four sections:

  • 1st group of presentations, ~five presenters (10 minutes per presentation)
  • a ~30 minute ‘hands-on’ period** where participants and the audience will be able to engage/interact directly with the presented content from both presentation groups
  • 2nd group of presentations, ~five presenters (10 minutes per presentation)
  • concluded by a ~30-minute Q&A session for the full group of presenters and audience

We hope this format will allow the audience to engage directly with the content before opening up the session for questions and comments. The goal is to turn this session into a workshop that helps all present work more critically with VR/AR/XR content and improve how we communicate scholarly information at the university and GLAM setting.

**We therefore ask participants to commit to bringing their discussed content uploaded or downloadable in some format that can be shared directly with others: including (but not limited to) VR headsets, Google cardboard, AR apps pre-installed on tablets or smart phones, etc.

References
Champion, E. (2015). Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

my work lately

Conference

My work lately, here is what I sent to IVE for their news as a new member:

Erik Champion was invited onto the advisory board of MOD museum (https://mod.org.au/).

Invited research mentor/consultant to UNSW and UTS researchers as a consultant to Outside Opinion.

Reviewed for various EU and Israel research funding organizations.

  1. Invited to talk at the National Museums of World Culture, run by the Swedish government, on games and museums, 19 April 2022. https://www.varldskulturmuseerna.se/en/about-us/
  2. Invited keynote, ERC Advanced project “An-iconology. Theory, History, and Practices of Environmental Images” (AN-ICON), University of Milan, Palazzo Feltrinelli, Lake Garda, Italy, April 20-23 (or virtual). Update: no longer attending (or presenting) as travel looks difficult still (University ban on international travel may lift soon, but not in time). Oh well.
  3. Invited to Cambridge for edited book chapter workshop on Digital Heritage Ethics, in July 2022.
  4. Invited to speak at NTNU Trondheim, Norway as part of successful Erasmus grant led by Aleka Angeletaki (NTNU Trondheim).
  5. Erik Champion published the academic monograph Rethinking Virtual Places, in  Nov 2021,by  Indiana University Press, in their Spatial Humanities series. https://iupress.org/9780253058355/rethinking-virtual-places/ “An essential contribution to a very current topic” wrote Marc Aurel Schnabel, Dean of the Wellington Faculty of Architecture and Design Innovation, Chair Professor Architectural Technology, Victoria University of Wellington.

Cultural Presence Session proposed for CAA2022 Oxford

Academic, Announcements, archaeology, Conference, Digital Humanities, Symposium, ,

Associate Professor Elaine Sullivan will propose a session on cultural presence (based on my writing in Critical Gaming) but also on wider issues of virtual heritage, for CAA2022, Oxford, 8-11 August (physically and virtually). It was approved for CAA2020 Oxford but the conference was postponed due to COVID, and she will need to reapply. However, if you are interested please contact her via her University of California-Santa Cruz Faculty page.

Details of her session S26 (specific details may be changed for 2022) are at https://2020.caaconference.org/sessions/ (N.B. I updated my definition of Cultural Presence in the journal article Culturally Significant Presence in Single-player Computer Games (JOCCH 2020).

Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (XR) technologies are increasingly incorporated into university classrooms and public education in the GLAM sector (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums). The potential to use these technologies to engage students and the public with archaeological knowledge (such as site reconstructions, artefacts, or re-imagining the activities of past peoples) is exciting, but
these forms of representation, including the use of individual headsets, tablets, and personal mobile phones, come with particular challenges.

In his book Critical Gaming (2015), (free PDF) Erik Champion argued that virtual realities should express ‘cultural presence,’ the meaning and significance of a time, place, or object to people of the past.

Hyper-reality, photogrammetry, and ever-increasing levels of ‘accuracy’ in 3D models do not inherently convey aspects of cultural significance and meaning, and many VR/AR/XR experiences fall dramatically short of the goal of expressing the importance of past places and things to their original communities.

Emphasis on technological and (especially) hardware innovation often deflects attention from critically engaging with questions of meaning-making. This panel asks those creating or intensely using Archaeology VR/AR/XR to focus NOT on software, hardware, or the latest technical innovations, but on how we as archaeologists
can better design, create, or curate experiences that inspire and educate students and the public on the cultural importance of archaeological spaces, objects or themes.

What are successful techniques to aid a visitor to better understand the original context of an object now placed in a (often far off) museum or gallery? How can university instructors incorporate the (problematically individual) headset or mobile experiences into pedagogy to provide meaningful and active student learning? How can complex data be usefully layered or curated so that multiple types of museum visitors or classes could find it informative and emotionally resonant? How can we turn these increasingly popular technologies into serious spaces of cultural learning and curiosity, moving beyond the initial ‘wow’ factor?


Format
Instead of traditional 20 minute talks, we request that participants present 8-10 minutes in depth on one VR/AR/XR experience they have designed and/or utilized in a university or GLAM setting (not a general review of multiple types of work).

We ask participants to present and explain aspects of design and interaction and their intent in that experience; or, if the content was not designed by the presenter, how content was
incorporated, curated, or enhanced for the classroom or GLAM experience. Specifically, we ask presenters to think thoughtfully and critically about how we might collectively learn to use these technologies in more informed ways, including: What types of interactions with
students or the public have shown promise, and how might we build on those successes?

What practices have not worked, and how might we learn from our failures? What particular aspects of archaeological and cultural heritage knowledge are best emphasized in the VR/AR/XR experience? What is key to re-using content created by others, including content created by non-archaeologists?

CAA2022 potential session

Academic, archaeology, Conference, Digital Humanities, heritage, infrastructure, Presentation, workshop

Despite COVID, lack of travel resources etc, (especially to the UK from Australia), I’ve been thinking about proposing a panel/session at CAA2022 about “what is lost in the digits”-which elements, features, beliefs or interpretations are left behind or overlooked when scanning / digitally simulating…and what we can or should do about it (with a nod to @EthanWatrall). A short twitter discussion (with many points by Anton Scoetzee) followed.

So, if I think it is feasible, I will apply to CAA2022 before 17 January and post the proposal here. I can see it morphing into an open access, dialogue-friendly edited book.

https://2022.caaconference.org/call-for-sessions/

Living Heritage

Conference

I was invited to present a keynote on Friday 5 November at the civilized NSW time of 9.15 AM (but WA time of 6.15AM!) to the Living Heritage conference, Macquarie University, Sydney. Yes it will be delivered virtually.

I’m more than happy to refer to  living digital heritage projects, both success & failure (especially illuminating failures)…

Keynote ISMAR MR-Cultural Heritage Workshop

Conference

I have been invited to keynote at the 1st IEEE International Workshop on “Mixed Reality Implications on Cultural Heritage Experience (MrICHE)” at the ISMAR2021 conference.

The talk will be delivered online (via organizer/host: Future Computing Research Lab, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy), October 4, 9.40-10.35am (Central Standard Time).

Working title: “Extending Museum Realities: Play, Presence, and Problems.”

Any great examples of challenges, successes and failures, please feel free to update me.

Keynote and CFP: Living Digital Heritage

Academic, Announcements, archaeology, Conference, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage

Call for papers!

Living Digital Heritage Conference: “Integrating the Past into the Present and Future”

Friday 5 – Sunday 7 November 2021, Sydney/Virtual

Hosted by the Centre for Ancient Cultural Heritage and Environment (CACHE), Macquarie University

If interested please send your abstracts (panel or paper) to https://event.mq.edu.au/living-digital-heritage by 1 October.

I am happy and honoured to say that I have been invited to keynote, thank you to the organizers and for their tenacity in running this conference.

#cfp Small is Beautiful, Melbourne

Conference, , , ,

SYMPOSIUM: SMALL DATA IS BEAUTIFUL: ANALYTICS, ART AND NARRATIVE

Taking inspiration from the ‘small is beautiful’ mantra of the
1970s which provoked counter-cultural economic and scientific expertise in the name of planetary survival, this symposium invites scholars working on computational methods in the arts, humanities and social sciences to discuss their research with ‘small data’.

Big data is often characterised by the volume, speed and aggregation made possible by automated and intensive computational systems, and over the last decade, data scraping methods and ‘large N’ studies have become dominant trends in socio-cultural digital research. Conversely, small data may be characterised by their limited volume or greater diversity of anomalous patterns, case studies, and research collected manually to answer specific questions.

This concept of “small is beautiful” has a distinctive history and place in the humanities and creative arts, producing specific (if not unique) works and critical commentary in archives tied to the authorial or artistic signature. From a social science perspective, small data may be associated with some forms of qualitative methods, marginalia, ephemera, data that ‘glows’ or narrative analysis of ‘small stories’.

Moreover digital platforms with readily accessible technologies are recomposing scale in unprecedented ways. Such approaches giverise to new possibilities for mass circulation of intimate gestures and the affordances of transnational and first person voices that may not identify with colonising structures or professional institutions of art, culture and political organisation.

Hosted by the Australian Cultural Data Engine, the Narrative Network and the Victorian College for the Arts, this interdisciplinary symposium seeks to nurture and advance our understanding of small data that involves human-scale analyses, thinking about aesthetics, and exploring how narratives emerge from data patterns and their anomalies.

Key questions guiding the event are: how do interactions with small data shape and inspire transformations of knowledge in the twenty-first century? Who collects, owns and curates small data? And when and where does small data hold power? What kind of actions, or play, are possible with small data? Which stories can be told with small data?

Proposals are invited for a two-day symposium with panels, presentations and demonstrations at the Digital Studio, University of Melbourne and online.

Topics may include:
• Collecting as little as possible: how small is small?
• Data domestics
• Fragmented or aberrant data
• Data as ritual, data as performance
• Bio-data, body data
• ‘Smart’ data
• Disruptions from data instances
• Small data art and aesthetics
• Small data industries
• Small data and subjectivity
• Miniaturisation of digital means
• Histories of small data curation
• Small data ethics
November 12-13, 2021 at the Digital Studio, Arts West building, University of Melbourne, Australia

FORMAT: The symposium will include a mix of in-person and online formats. Keynote presentations and some panels will be scheduled online for the morning sessions (AEST) with other sessions face to face in Melbourne in the afternoon of November 12 and 13 (COVID restrictions permitting).
We hope to facilitate a sense of shared understanding and conversation over the two days, and for this reason preference will be given to those who are able to attend both days of the event.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION: please send a 250 word-abstract and bio marked “Small Data” to: digital-studio@unimelb.edu.au before September 30, 2021.

The conference fee is $50 full and $25 students and which will cover catered lunches and afternoon tea. There are a small number of bursaries for interested participants without the financial means to attend (conditions apply).

Registration details will be circulated at a later date.

Book Chapter (free)

Conference

I forgot to say that I wrote a short chapter for Virtual Heritage: A Guide.

Champion, E. (2021). Preserving Authenticity in Virtual Heritage. In E. Champion (Ed.), Virtual Heritage: A Guide (pp. 129-137). London, UK: Ubiquity Press. https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/chapters/e/10.5334/bck.l/

This chapter examines why we wish to preserve heritage objects and practices via virtual heritage, and why the issue of authenticity is so important here but so seldom addressed. If we could give criteria to select and to create useful and even authentic-oriented virtual heritage projects, what would they be? Or are there methods and solutions out there waiting to be discovered?