Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and Democratisation

Abstract

Abstract:In this paper I will pose a challenge to digital heritage visualisation that takes as its starting point the weirdness of the digital world in comparison to everyday experience. Related to this is the apparent inability for digital objects to benefit from or acquire aura from their originals. I contend that, unless mitigated, these properties will cause a continuing lack of engagement with digital heritage visualisation beyond the professional and academic circles in which they are created. Contrary to expectations, I will argue digital objects can indeed manifest an auratic quality and that this is in fact fundamental to how they are received by various audiences. I contend that both aura and the intimate relationship between digital representation, aesthetics and the creative imagination need to be understood and embraced in practice. Finally, I will suggest some ways of addressing the challenge by looking at modes of co-production, physical replication and aesthetic quality. The ChallengeOver the last two decades, digital visualisation methodologies have become firmly embedded in the canon of archaeological practice. Archaeologists and heritage managers have drawn on a range of recording technologies to generate highly accurate datasets of historic objects, monuments and landscapes. They have also increasingly drawn on the rich functionality of 3D modelling packages to create visualisations and reconstructions of the past. 3D datasets, and the visualisations generated from them, are used in site recording, site management, structural analysis, archaeological interpretation and hypothesis testing, and increasingly, as a dissemination mode for broader audiences. In this paper I will focus on the challenge we face in using heritage visualisation to help us think anew about the past itself, rather than strictly in relation to their function as digital documents of real world heritage objects, structures and landscapes.In the digital domain long-standing issues of data integration, discovery and long-term preservation have now begun to be tackled in a meaningful way. Engagement with multiple audiences through digital visualisation is possible and, if good practice is followed, the visualisations are discoverable, referenceable (e.g. via DOI), contextualised and permanently available. This should herald a Golden Age in heritage visualisations. However, there is a danger that the quest for new technological approaches, precision, accuracy and apparent realism becomes an end in itself, following a path that Huggett has referred to as technological fetishism [1]. In this paper, I will argue that there remain significant challenges that need to be addressed if we are to capitalise on this potential Golden Age.

3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD project

“…The work of Benjamin has been particularly influential in debates about digital authenticity (Bolter et al 2006;Cameron 2007;Garstki 2016;Jeffrey 2015;Rabinowitz 2015). Writing in the early twentieth century in response to new technological developments such as photography and cinema, Benjamin argued that mechanical reproduction undermines the uniqueness of the original art object, which in turn leads to the decay of aura, along with the sense of awe and reverence associated with it.…”

“…Likewise in debates surrounding digital media, the idea that virtual representations signal the end of authenticity has been challenged (e.g. Cameron 2007;Gillings 2005;Jeffrey 2015), or at least reconfigured as 'the experience of aura is alternately called into question and reaffirmed' (Bolter et al 2006: 22).…”

Whither Digital Archaeological Knowledge? The Challenge of Unstable Futures

“…A series of invited speakers outlined their challenges in short presentations with associated discussion, foregrounding areas such as Open Data, knowledge extraction, digital curation, digital visualisation, textual GIS, the social web, formalisation of knowledge, and additive manufacturing. A number of these were subsequently developed for publication in Open Archaeology (Dallas 2015;Huggett 2015b;Jeffrey 2015;Kintigh 2015;Murrieta-Flores & Gregory 2015;Perry & Beale 2015;Reilly 2015;Watterson 2015). Emboldened, the task was resumed at the Siena CAA conference in 2015 at a round table session entitled 'Challenging Digital Archaeologythe discussion continues' (Reilly, Lock & Huggett 2015).…”

(Re)presenting heritage: Laser scanning and 3D visualisations for cultural resilience and community engagement

“…It can also be noted that much of the research concerning laser scanning has been deeply technical in nature, and has focussed on technical solutions (including semi-automated translation of laser scanned data to building information models, or BIM). Other recently reported research [37] has explored the generation of 3D digital archaeological models through non-expert participation demonstrating that the technological basis for such work is now established to a point that it can be reliably incorporated in future work as a core method as opposed to as an exploratory enterprise in itself.…”